Stereoscopic 3D Images

This project was pretty awesome. I never knew of the simple measures needed to create a 3D image in Photoshop. 

Recreating Cameras and Lights in Maya

Orignal

My Render

Building a Scene in Maya

Last term paper

To whom it my concern, I achieved the required grades needed to opt out of the last term paper (89 and 85). So I will not be writing this one. Thank you for this chance.

Special effects in Animation and Live-Action Outline

Introduction – Movies have been notorious for going big, and in sometimes ridiculous when it comes to special effects. One of those effects that can often times be portrayed wrong is magic, but how the hell can someone make magic feel right in the first place when there is no real world example of such effects?

• Introduce two movies that have done magic effects correctly. (Fire, wind, water, even plasma like effects.) Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.

Body one - What makes magic feel real in movies and how did Lord of the rings approach it.

• Did the movie succeed, or fail in that aspect.
• When it comes to physical manifestations of effects did they match real world physics.
• Example – The effect used to portray the realm between the dead and the living, and light emitted from Gandalf's staff.

Body two – How did the Harry Potter series approach magic, how was it different than the Lord of the Rings?

• Did the series create a believable world? What flaws where there if any in the execution of the effects?
• Again did the manifestations match real world physics.
• Example – Specifically from the last few films. The fight between Voldemort and Dumbledor, and the Last struggle between Harry and Voldermort.

Body three – Other examples of magical effects in movies before and after these films where released.

• What did Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter take from previous films, what where they influenced by?
• What films took inspiration from These 2 film series?

Conclusion - Thought wrap up.

Stop motion Character animation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcpwSdJYFOg&feature=youtu.be

For this animation, the idea was to have fun with the project. For me there are few things as fun as cooking, so I wanted to come up with a little pancake magic a la Disney's Sorcerer apprentice. With less chaos, and more syrup.  It was very challenging to get the shots, but with the help of Uriel Martinez and Kai Nguyen I think it looks amazing.

Science fact or cinematic fiction Paper #2

Cameron Seibly

Phys 123

Prof. Garcia

Science fiction or Cinematic fact

Ever since the late 50's, with the dawn of the Space Age, audiences across America and the world have been enamored with space. So, it would follow that movies made with space as the back drop have mostly always done well. Considering the time when many classics came out, between the 70s and late 80s, most people knew very little of what space actually was, and most knew even less about the laws of physics while in a zero gravity environment. So, in turn, many movies where spiced with a good dose of Hollywood fakery to enhance what would in actuality be a very bland environment.

Three movies that have gathered large followings come to mind. The first is Aliens, a horror action thriller that is a squeal to Alien. The mood is tense and their motto was correct, in space no one can hear you scream, except when your on a planet surrounded by hundreds of the Aliens. The you mostly hear machine gun fire. The second is a movie that fell rather flat with the majority of those who saw it, but I find it charming, and that is Mission to Mars. This movies follows the exploits of a crew sent to Mars on a daring mission to save a missing group of explores and unravel an ancient secret that is as old as we are. Lastly is the widely acclaimed Gravity, a space thriller so intense and realistic that I am sure I lost at least a decade of my life from stress while watching it. Gravity, unlike many, uses real space physics to enhance the terrifying scenario of being adrift in the vast emptiness of space.

The first Alien movie did stick to reality fairly well and so too did its sequel. The final menace in the second movie was dealt with in almost the exact same way as the first, however the physics of the ending of Aliens is dubious at best. Our hero Ripely battles an enormous Alien queen while in a loading dock mech suit before throwing it into an open air lock hatch. Ripley is dragged in as well when the Queen grabs the mech's leg as she falls. Despite the tumble Ripley manages to open the second airlock door hoping to throw the Queen into space. Right as the doors open though the Queen manages to grab Ripley leg, but the vacuum of space eventually pulls the Queen off Ripley. It is a tense end to a tense movie, but it simply couldn’t happen. I am no physicists, but I do have a small understanding of pressurized environments, and I know that on Earth we live under a constant 14 psi. So it would stand to reason that the ship, like an airplane, is pressurized to that amount. When Ripely opened the door to space the rush of air that flowed past her would not have been enough to rip her from her grip, but the weight of the Alien queen added to that would have been more than enough to rip Ripley's leg, or arm from her sockets or at least rip her from her grip. The queen alone must have weighed 500 lbs or more, and could withstand several blows to the head from the large mechanical suit.

Mission to Mars, a film with less focus on killer aliens, is a recent film being shot in 2000 that followed more closely to what would happen in reality, but one moment in the film can be called into question. About midway through the film as the rescue team enters Martian orbit their vessel is struck by a micro meteor shower that eventually leads to the explosion of on of the fuel cells that sends the crew fleeing into space. The explosion of the fuel cell was a spectacular fireball that left much of the debris in and around the station, but would that really have been the case?

When it comes to explosions in space what really takes place? It has been show that fire from an explosion can be seen in a vacuum, however it has no fuel after the initial flash, so all one would see is instant bright flash of light then nothing. The debris shown in the film should fly past the camera faster than the eye can see given that in space there is no resistance. Smaller debris would not linger around the station as it would have been blow too far away from the gravity attracting mass of the space craft.

Hollywood is notorious for depicting explosions wrong on Earth, and so it follows that FX's in space suffer the same short comings. However, one film shot recently in 2013 had its research done and was made into a masterpiece. That movie is the best seller Gravity, a film about a crew of astronauts whose space shuttle is destroyed by a cloud of space junk traveling faster than bullets sending two survivors into the cold dark of space to try and rendezvous with a different station in Earth's orbit. As they travel the films atmospheres is cranked up with the claustrophobic fleeing you receive by hearing what it is like inside the space suit. That is the strongest part of the film by far, because there is no loud audible sound in space. There is nothing for the sound waves to travel on, because air is not concentrated enough in the vastness of space.. In most space flicks we hear the whizzing of space ships, the zing of laser fire, and even the percussion of massive Hollywood fireballs. None of that is possible though, but since sound can literally make or break a movie things will most likely not change anytime soon. Gravity stand out as a great of example of what reality sounds like and using that as an advantage.

Our fascination with space will not end, and neither will our obsession with space and futuristic adventures. Though, as time progresses the general publics understanding of space will increase. This is helped by the amazing shows on the Science Channel, the Mythbusters, and the numerous other TV shows that explore the wonders of space. From Aliens to Mission to Mars, and then to Gravity we see how that increasing understanding has lead to more believable science in movies. Overall audiences wont opt out of seeing movies because of less than believable physics, but good space movies will be made better with an increasing audience appreciation.