SilverWolf
Veteran
Where did the actual Flame come from ?
Pyrotechnic accident caught on DVX!!!
- Thread starter scharky
- Start date
I think the biggest give aways were the lack of interaction between the explosion and the environment. A bit too much motion blur as well, perhaps. Here's a list of things I saw which may be useful:
1) The explosion doesn't light up the room fast enough or strong enough. You would probably have a half second or so where the room whites out and the explosion would light up the room before and after the discharge.
2) I think you need to take into account the gas expansion. Most damage caused by an explosion is due to the very quick expansion of gas. This would be magnified multiple times if set off inside a building. It would probably even blow out any flame generated at the initial explosion (though secondary fires following the shockwave may occur). Definitely add in some distortion waves sized relative to the explosion. It takes very little pressure to result in huge devestation and very little explosion to creat the pressure! This chart may be useful:
GLASS SHATTERING : 0-5 PSI
KNOCKDOWN: 1.PSI
WOOD PARTITION COLLAPSE : 1-2 PSI
CINDERBLOCK WALL COLLAPSE: 2-3 PSI
BRICK WALL COLLAPSE : 7-8 PSI
LUNG DAMAGE : 15 PSI
THRESHOLD FOR FATALITIES: 35 PSI
3) The stage doesn't deflect, redirt or otherwise affect the explosion like it would in real life. You'd also get wood shards in the mix as well.
Anyway just some thoughts off the top of my head. It looks like a great start!
1) The explosion doesn't light up the room fast enough or strong enough. You would probably have a half second or so where the room whites out and the explosion would light up the room before and after the discharge.
2) I think you need to take into account the gas expansion. Most damage caused by an explosion is due to the very quick expansion of gas. This would be magnified multiple times if set off inside a building. It would probably even blow out any flame generated at the initial explosion (though secondary fires following the shockwave may occur). Definitely add in some distortion waves sized relative to the explosion. It takes very little pressure to result in huge devestation and very little explosion to creat the pressure! This chart may be useful:
GLASS SHATTERING : 0-5 PSI
KNOCKDOWN: 1.PSI
WOOD PARTITION COLLAPSE : 1-2 PSI
CINDERBLOCK WALL COLLAPSE: 2-3 PSI
BRICK WALL COLLAPSE : 7-8 PSI
LUNG DAMAGE : 15 PSI
THRESHOLD FOR FATALITIES: 35 PSI
3) The stage doesn't deflect, redirt or otherwise affect the explosion like it would in real life. You'd also get wood shards in the mix as well.
Anyway just some thoughts off the top of my head. It looks like a great start!
ilpoldo
Member
Nice, really. What it gave it away for me was the last bit of explosion: there is that huge flame and the curtain does not catch fire, or even burns the sides... Should show at least some red/white translucency and no strong blue light cast.
Kinda remembers a lot "old" movies when explosions were shot per se and comped over the scene.
Mine is too soft but should give the idea, no more time to tweak it:
I toyed a bit with a couple of screenshot, of course with the original material you should be able to do somthing decent.
Or try to mask the flame as it was the curtain catching fire (check if it looks ok) and in the end you can get away making it feel like the camera shuts down, instead of having every lightsource turn dark (lights and fire).
Nobody would pay atttention to the leg of the real actor, at first sight in that situation.
Or simply cut away the ending flame... Go for a more flameless explosion if you can.
I think it works good in the whole!
Leandro Pedroni
Kinda remembers a lot "old" movies when explosions were shot per se and comped over the scene.
Mine is too soft but should give the idea, no more time to tweak it:
I toyed a bit with a couple of screenshot, of course with the original material you should be able to do somthing decent.
Or try to mask the flame as it was the curtain catching fire (check if it looks ok) and in the end you can get away making it feel like the camera shuts down, instead of having every lightsource turn dark (lights and fire).
Nobody would pay atttention to the leg of the real actor, at first sight in that situation.
Or simply cut away the ending flame... Go for a more flameless explosion if you can.
I think it works good in the whole!
Leandro Pedroni
cheezweezl
Veteran
scharky said:
maybe if i wasn't paying attention i wouldn't have noticed. but i was specifically watching for it. the explosion was way too long to be real. a real pyro blast this size would have been more of a quick flash. maybe shorten it up and get rid of the lightening bolt effect towards the end.
scharky
Veteran
Thanks everybody for the feedback. It really does help. I figure that if I can convince a few people with this test setup that wasn't shot in order to have an explosion, when the time comes to do the actual setup it will be much better. I appreciate all the info, it seems there are a lot of pyro maniacs on this forum 
. The idea behind this shot is also not meant to be "real" as in look what happend on real TV, but dramatic, ie, look at the cool explosion hollywood style. It is impossible for me to be subjective about my own work, therefore I appreciate all the positive and negative feedback, it has put a good perspective on things.
. The idea behind this shot is also not meant to be "real" as in look what happend on real TV, but dramatic, ie, look at the cool explosion hollywood style. It is impossible for me to be subjective about my own work, therefore I appreciate all the positive and negative feedback, it has put a good perspective on things.
Matt Sconce
Veteran
A site for some good Explosions and such is www.detonationfilms.com
Iskandar
Active member
Yes I agree with others. The blast last too long. And the man on the rite is blown away in a too dancing-opera style, with short steps backward. I m not current with detonations but the way that man goes backward is not natural. I think the 1st reaction of a man facing an explosion is to protect his face and become of a shape of a ball to protect himself.
ANYWAY I m sure you can convince your audience even with this setting, if the explosion take place in the middle of a longer movie!
ANYWAY I m sure you can convince your audience even with this setting, if the explosion take place in the middle of a longer movie!
HorseFilms
Look ma no hands
I think you did one hell of a job with that, scharky. Good work!:thumbsup:
marlenedegrood
Flicks By Chics
Nice job....guess I'm the only one you had fooled......but then....I'm so gulible, I believe anything, that also makes my movie watching really fun.
Marlene
Marlene
good job scharky!
I thought the beginning of the explosion looked convincing.
(the end of it was the only give-away)
When you make your bomb scene,
if you cut to a different angle a second after the blast starts,
or maybe a violent camera shake so we only see the start of
the explosion, it would be intense.
I think you left the guy's shoes in place intentionally, right?!
thanks for that link msconce... that site's going to be useful!!!!:thumbsup:
I thought the beginning of the explosion looked convincing.
(the end of it was the only give-away)
When you make your bomb scene,
if you cut to a different angle a second after the blast starts,
or maybe a violent camera shake so we only see the start of
the explosion, it would be intense.
I think you left the guy's shoes in place intentionally, right?!
thanks for that link msconce... that site's going to be useful!!!!:thumbsup:
myfriendimage
Carbonite Member
the thing that makes it fake is that the explosion eminantes from the actors head.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Looks like some Particle Illusion action.
Shawn Murphy
Well-known member
Great slight of hand! Even after seeing the posts that questioned the authenticity my mind told me it had to be real because of the guy getting blown off stage, so even though there were a lot of details that could be picked out later (sure, I did see the legs after reading that post), but I would say that the average bear would have been sufficiently "blown away"!
It's like showing your music to other musicians, they're the insane ones that say things like, "hey, was that recorded at 24bits 44khz or 16 bits?" I've never met a non-musician who could tell the difference in a million years! ;-)
It's like showing your music to other musicians, they're the insane ones that say things like, "hey, was that recorded at 24bits 44khz or 16 bits?" I've never met a non-musician who could tell the difference in a million years! ;-)
Matt Grunau
Adobe Demigod
One good way to simulate the light interactions from the explosion would be to recreate parts of the stage in 3D. You would not have to model a great amount of detail, just a general shape of the floor, walls, and such. Since you already have actors from Poser, you could use those for the people. Then it is a small matter of timing a point light intesity (you could even texutre it with the explosion animation) with the right falloff against the dark textured background shapes and you have accurate highlights and shadows.
Off course, what you have now is more than enough to get your point across, but if you were goin for uber realism, it would be easier than you think.
I have never been able to achieve that clean a result in such low light. If you dont mind, would you share your cam type (DVX 100/a/b) and settings? Did you darken that in Vegas? I would eat a kitten for that look. :evil:
Very true.
EDIT: Particle Illusion can be great when used for displacement maps and animated textures for 3D objects. I think it is has the easiest learning curve of any particle based system I have tried and the concepts you learn from it translate into just about any other app. It's limited, true, but for the price, versatility (creating your own particle shapes), power of it, and the knowledge you gain, I think it's one hell of an app. I plan on getting 3 soon.
Off course, what you have now is more than enough to get your point across, but if you were goin for uber realism, it would be easier than you think.
I have never been able to achieve that clean a result in such low light. If you dont mind, would you share your cam type (DVX 100/a/b) and settings? Did you darken that in Vegas? I would eat a kitten for that look. :evil:
Shawn Murphy said:
Very true.
EDIT: Particle Illusion can be great when used for displacement maps and animated textures for 3D objects. I think it is has the easiest learning curve of any particle based system I have tried and the concepts you learn from it translate into just about any other app. It's limited, true, but for the price, versatility (creating your own particle shapes), power of it, and the knowledge you gain, I think it's one hell of an app. I plan on getting 3 soon.
insanityfw
Ban Me Please!
That's a great start for sure. If you set up the right elements in your final shoot and tweak, tweak, tweak the final product the average audience member will be non-the-wiser.
Great job.
Great job.