6 ms·

One thing this shot is sync the sound and visuals. In reality because of the slower speed of sound (around 340m/s) the noise of the rocket wouldn't be heard unt

by slyall 3y ago

One thing this shot is sync the sound and visuals. In reality because of the slower speed of sound (around 340m/s) the noise of the rocket wouldn't be heard until the rocket was significantly above the tower. You also hear various other pieces in the sound that indicate it wasn't recorded on site. This is one of the things I really notice in movies. Whenever something explodes in a fight sequence (eg Marvel movies[1]) the sound matches the explosion exactly. I find it annoying although I suspect the average movie-goer would be put off if the sound was realistically delayed. [1] https://youtu.be/4vHxHgYaOes?si=BnzjncUQLHz_6DZy&t=58 https://youtu.be/4vHxHgYaOes?si=BnzjncUQLHz_6DZy&t=58

xref 3y ago
that specific clip would probably work even better if the blast sound was somewhat delayed like the pressure wave…
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Yeah, I actually misremembered that scene as being the opposite of what GP described, as the pressure wave was the thing that made the biggest impression on me back those years ago - it's the other thing that's very rarely modeled when things in movie explode.
- scns 3y ago
  > if the blast sound was somewhat delayed like the pressure wave Aren't they the same thing?
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    Not sure about rocket launches but in energetic explosions the shock wave moves faster than sound for a certain distance, until the shock slows down and the sound catches up.
  - pixelesque 3y ago
    Depends.... for (large) explosions, there's initial blast pressure waves which travel faster than the speed of sound.
    - NikkiA 3y ago
      They don't per se, the precursor wave travels through the ground at the speed of sound in whatever medium (usually rock in nevada tests), which is about 5x the speed of sound in air.
nvartolomei 3y ago
Except Oppenheimer movie, who got it right. Seek to 4m46s https://youtu.be/kqYenzBwlkU?si=y87R0XvuWL8_7t6Q&t=286 https://youtu.be/kqYenzBwlkU?si=y87R0XvuWL8_7t6Q&t=286 If my memory is right, the actual scene, and delay, is longer than it is in this clip.
- velcrovan 3y ago
  Reminds me that explosions in space in Interstellar were silent (as they should be). I hope this kind of thing catches on. If a movie shows a distant explosion and its sound is heard at the moment of the explosion, you don’t really think about it. But when they treat the sound accurately, it really grabs your attention.
  - 0_____0 3y ago
    I loved the detail in Interstellar where the audio from EVAs is muffled, like you're hearing what the occupant of the suit would be. The Expanse also does this to some degree.
    - CrimsonCape 3y ago
      Pretty sure that awful Sandra Bullock movie Gravity was quiet as well. Except that they made the awful choice to have Sandra Bullock screaming, moaning, and making all sorts of groans which came across as stupid and melodramatic. If she had been calmly radioing "Houston, vehicle breakup. Houston, pressurization loss. Houston, emergency EVA" it would have been better.
      - 0_____0 3y ago
        So, you'll notice that humans had that sort of flattened affect you're looking for in Kubrick's 2001, but he placed it in contrast to HAL, which for most of the film is the only character who communicates with an emotive affect. You need some emotion, some performance. Kubrick got that and managed to achieve this in 2001 by combining the emotional austerity of spaceflight with an artificial intelligence who, in an inversion of expectation, is the emotive one. Then he exploited this for the climax, the loss of HAL's personality, being. Lacking a HAL like element, especially in a film that has one actress, you can't make the humans dull, you need some emotional experience to attach to. In the context of Gravity, that means dramatic calls and the sounds of her human presence. People don't go to the cinema to listen to an ATC feed.
Aardwolf 3y ago
> I find it annoying although I suspect the average movie-goer would be put off if the sound was realistically delayed. At least one might be familiar with the effect when seeing videos of controlled demolitions. Or just fireworks.
- recursive 3y ago
  Lightning is the most common place I've seen it. Although I guess not everywhere has lightning.
jzb 3y ago
Years ago I got to watch the last night launch of the Space Shuttle from a parking lot in a hotel some miles away. It was like watching a high-speed sunrise, and the sound followed several seconds later after the Shuttle had already gone into the clouds. It was really something the way the sound rumbled in after we'd already seen the launch.
emmelaich 3y ago
One of more egregious examples is the alleged declassified Tsar Bomba video to which I commented similarly. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24249084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24249084 Seems the video has been taken down....

by slyall 3y ago

xref 3y ago

that specific clip would probably work even better if the blast sound was somewhat delayed like the pressure wave…

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Yeah, I actually misremembered that scene as being the opposite of what GP described, as the pressure wave was the thing that made the biggest impression on me back those years ago - it's the other thing that's very rarely modeled when things in movie explode.
scns 3y ago
> if the blast sound was somewhat delayed like the pressure wave Aren't they the same thing?
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Not sure about rocket launches but in energetic explosions the shock wave moves faster than sound for a certain distance, until the shock slows down and the sound catches up.
- pixelesque 3y ago
  Depends.... for (large) explosions, there's initial blast pressure waves which travel faster than the speed of sound.
  - NikkiA 3y ago
    They don't per se, the precursor wave travels through the ground at the speed of sound in whatever medium (usually rock in nevada tests), which is about 5x the speed of sound in air.

nvartolomei 3y ago

Except Oppenheimer movie, who got it right. Seek to 4m46s https://youtu.be/kqYenzBwlkU?si=y87R0XvuWL8_7t6Q&t=286 https://youtu.be/kqYenzBwlkU?si=y87R0XvuWL8_7t6Q&t=286 If my memory is right, the actual scene, and delay, is longer than it is in this clip.

velcrovan 3y ago
Reminds me that explosions in space in Interstellar were silent (as they should be). I hope this kind of thing catches on. If a movie shows a distant explosion and its sound is heard at the moment of the explosion, you don’t really think about it. But when they treat the sound accurately, it really grabs your attention.
- 0_____0 3y ago
  I loved the detail in Interstellar where the audio from EVAs is muffled, like you're hearing what the occupant of the suit would be. The Expanse also does this to some degree.
  - CrimsonCape 3y ago
    Pretty sure that awful Sandra Bullock movie Gravity was quiet as well. Except that they made the awful choice to have Sandra Bullock screaming, moaning, and making all sorts of groans which came across as stupid and melodramatic. If she had been calmly radioing "Houston, vehicle breakup. Houston, pressurization loss. Houston, emergency EVA" it would have been better.
    - 0_____0 3y ago
      So, you'll notice that humans had that sort of flattened affect you're looking for in Kubrick's 2001, but he placed it in contrast to HAL, which for most of the film is the only character who communicates with an emotive affect. You need some emotion, some performance. Kubrick got that and managed to achieve this in 2001 by combining the emotional austerity of spaceflight with an artificial intelligence who, in an inversion of expectation, is the emotive one. Then he exploited this for the climax, the loss of HAL's personality, being. Lacking a HAL like element, especially in a film that has one actress, you can't make the humans dull, you need some emotional experience to attach to. In the context of Gravity, that means dramatic calls and the sounds of her human presence. People don't go to the cinema to listen to an ATC feed.

Aardwolf 3y ago

> I find it annoying although I suspect the average movie-goer would be put off if the sound was realistically delayed. At least one might be familiar with the effect when seeing videos of controlled demolitions. Or just fireworks.

recursive 3y ago
Lightning is the most common place I've seen it. Although I guess not everywhere has lightning.

jzb 3y ago

Years ago I got to watch the last night launch of the Space Shuttle from a parking lot in a hotel some miles away. It was like watching a high-speed sunrise, and the sound followed several seconds later after the Shuttle had already gone into the clouds. It was really something the way the sound rumbled in after we'd already seen the launch.

emmelaich 3y ago

One of more egregious examples is the alleged declassified Tsar Bomba video to which I commented similarly. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24249084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24249084 Seems the video has been taken down....