Cloaking Device Hides Objects From Sound

[Gray_Wolf]

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/562736-cloaking-device-hides-objects-from-sound/?sidebar=todaysheadline

?

[polymod]

"Gray_Wolf" wrote in message
...


http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/562736-cloaking-device-hides-objects-from-sound/?sidebar=todaysheadline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Captain Kirk vs the Klingons!

Poly

[William Sommerwerck]

> Captain Kirk vs the Klingons!

There is no sound in space.

And the original cloaking device was Romulan.

[polymod]

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>> Captain Kirk vs the Klingons!
>
> There is no sound in space.
>
> And the original cloaking device was Romulan.

BTW: The original Star Trek series is a proof in my mind that lack of
production quality will not get in the way of success if the material is
good enough.

That was one of the cheesiest productions ever--but Roddenberry had
something to say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yup. It's on Me-TV every Saturday night at 9. Roddenberry was WAY ahead of
his time.

Poly

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>> Captain Kirk vs the Klingons!
>
> There is no sound in space.
>
> And the original cloaking device was Romulan.

Is it Comic Book Store Guy on the Simpsons, or the comic book loser on
Big Bang? Which one is Willie more like? I'd vote for the loser on the
Simpsons.

[Sean Conolly]

"Jeff Henig" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>>> Captain Kirk vs the Klingons!
>>
>> There is no sound in space.
>>
>> And the original cloaking device was Romulan.
>
> BTW: The original Star Trek series is a proof in my mind that lack of
> production quality will not get in the way of success if the material is
> good enough.
>
> That was one of the cheesiest productions ever--but Roddenberry had
> something to say.

I don't know how much TV you were watching back in 1967, but believe me Star
Trek had excellent production standards compared to the other big sci-fi hit
at that time: Lost in Space. Part of the reason I loved show was because it
was above every other sci-fi tv show and movie I had ever seen.

Sean

[Gray_Wolf]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 03:21:05 +0000 (UTC), Jeff Henig
> wrote:

>Gray_Wolf > wrote:
>> http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/562736-cloaking-device-hides-objects-from-sound/?sidebar=todaysheadline
>>
>> ?
>
>That's fascinating. Wild stuff!

I'm wondering if this might have some listening environment
application. ie The perfect listening/recording room.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Jeff Henig" wrote in message
...

> BTW: The original Star Trek series is a proof in my mind that
> lack of production quality will not get in the way of success
> if the material is good enough.

Some of it, anyway.


> That was one of the cheesiest productions ever -- but Roddenberry
> had something to say.

The cheesiness was due to lack of the money needed to visualize a plausible
future. We should be grateful that "Star Trek" was produced by Desilu (at
Paramount, I assume) and not Universal. Universal TV shows used to have an
instantly identifiable "cheap" look about them.

[Frank Stearns]

"Sean Conolly" > writes:

>"Jeff Henig" > wrote in message
...
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>>>> Captain Kirk vs the Klingons!
>>>
>>> There is no sound in space.
>>>
>>> And the original cloaking device was Romulan.
>>
>> BTW: The original Star Trek series is a proof in my mind that lack of
>> production quality will not get in the way of success if the material is
>> good enough.
>>
>> That was one of the cheesiest productions ever--but Roddenberry had
>> something to say.

>I don't know how much TV you were watching back in 1967, but believe me Star
>Trek had excellent production standards compared to the other big sci-fi hit
>at that time: Lost in Space. Part of the reason I loved show was because it
>was above every other sci-fi tv show and movie I had ever seen.

+1.

If I remember the story correctly, NBC wanted Roddenberry to do the Irwin Allen
schlock thing and include way more guys in rubber monster suits and dumb down the
stories. Gene refused. NBC cancelled the show, but viewer outrage brought it back
for another year.

Love has gone into the restoration of the original Star Trek series. Some FX has
been redone, title theme re-recorded, etc. They apparently went back to the original
35mm and did massive cleanups. Most episodes look pretty good on HDTV -- if you keep
in mind the "theatrical" leanings (and budget limits) of the production. (By any
measure this newer iteration looks 1000x better than the old 16mm syndication prints
that used to get sent around.)

You don't expect ILM FX when going to see a stage play, it's the same willing
suspension of disbelief here, bouyed by some very good ideas and very good story
telling in general.

Star Trek has something of a timeless quality to it; the Irwin Allen shows are at
best quaint cartoons to chuckle at. Too often, the Allen shows are finger nails
screeching down a blackboard. Allen seemed to be good at pilots and one or two
episodes to establish a following (both very early Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea
and Lost in Space seasons had some very find writing; rare, though). Otherwise,
Allen's stuff was fodder for 3rd and 4th graders (and then 1st graders, it seems).
We got a kick out of it then, but it's cringe-making today.

Allen was perhaps the Ed Wood of television.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Trevor]

"Jeff Henig" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>>> Captain Kirk vs the Klingons!
>>
>> There is no sound in space.
>>
>> And the original cloaking device was Romulan.
>
> BTW: The original Star Trek series is a proof in my mind that lack of
> production quality will not get in the way of success if the material is
> good enough.

"Success" is relative, the original series was soon cancelled because of
poor ratings.


> That was one of the cheesiest productions ever--but Roddenberry had
> something to say.


And the inverse where a meaningful story coupled with high production
quality is no guarantee of commercial success. As a kid I was amazed at the
number of adults who just did not get 2001, A Space Odyssey. Maybe not a
flop, but certainly not the success it deserved IMO.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
acquisition...
> Star Trek has something of a timeless quality to it; the Irwin Allen shows
> are at
> best quaint cartoons to chuckle at. Too often, the Allen shows are finger
> nails
> screeching down a blackboard. Allen seemed to be good at pilots and one or
> two
> episodes to establish a following (both very early Voyage to the Bottom of
> the Sea
> and Lost in Space seasons had some very find writing; rare, though).
> Otherwise,
> Allen's stuff was fodder for 3rd and 4th graders (and then 1st graders, it
> seems).
> We got a kick out of it then, but it's cringe-making today.

No, cringe making even then IMO. His movies even more so.

> Allen was perhaps the Ed Wood of television.

Yep, my first thought when I saw Gravity was "I though Irwin Allen was
dead?" :-)
But that was for the story, and how many times the lead character must
narrowly escape death in 90 minutes, the production values were better than
anything Allen ever did of course.

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...

> And the inverse where a meaningful story coupled with high production
> quality is no guarantee of commercial success. As a kid I was amazed
> at the number of adults who just did not get 2001, A Space Odyssey.
> Maybe not a flop, but certainly not the success it deserved IMO.

Produced for $10M and released in 1968, it has since taken in about $190M
worldwide. Not bad.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Trevor wrote:
> "Jeff Henig" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>>>> Captain Kirk vs the Klingons!
>>>
>>> There is no sound in space.
>>>
>>> And the original cloaking device was Romulan.
>>
>> BTW: The original Star Trek series is a proof in my mind that lack of
>> production quality will not get in the way of success if the material is
>> good enough.
>
> "Success" is relative, the original series was soon cancelled because of
> poor ratings.
>
>
>> That was one of the cheesiest productions ever--but Roddenberry had
>> something to say.
>
>
> And the inverse where a meaningful story coupled with high production
> quality is no guarantee of commercial success. As a kid I was amazed at the
> number of adults who just did not get 2001, A Space Odyssey. Maybe not a
> flop, but certainly not the success it deserved IMO.
>
> Trevor.
>
>

It was a groundbreaking film. A lot of things werre done for the first
time in that movie.

--

[John Williamson]

On 19/03/2014 02:26, Les Cargill wrote:
> Trevor wrote:
>> "Jeff Henig" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>>>>> Captain Kirk vs the Klingons!
>>>>
>>>> There is no sound in space.
>>>>
>>>> And the original cloaking device was Romulan.
>>>
>>> BTW: The original Star Trek series is a proof in my mind that lack of
>>> production quality will not get in the way of success if the material is
>>> good enough.
>>
>> "Success" is relative, the original series was soon cancelled because of
>> poor ratings.
>>
>>
>>> That was one of the cheesiest productions ever--but Roddenberry had
>>> something to say.
>>
>>
>> And the inverse where a meaningful story coupled with high production
>> quality is no guarantee of commercial success. As a kid I was amazed
>> at the
>> number of adults who just did not get 2001, A Space Odyssey. Maybe not a
>> flop, but certainly not the success it deserved IMO.
>>
>> Trevor.
>>
>>
>
> It was a groundbreaking film. A lot of things werre done for the first
> time in that movie.
>
One thing that killed it in the UK market was the total lack of dialogue
in the first half hour or more. People like to listen to people talking,
and that was missing.

It was the first movie I went to see, and I enjoyed it greatly.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> On 19/03/2014 02:26, Les Cargill wrote:
>> Trevor wrote:
>>> "Jeff Henig" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
>>>>>> Captain Kirk vs the Klingons!
>>>>> There is no sound in space.
>>>>> And the original cloaking device was Romulan.
>>>> BTW: The original Star Trek series is a proof in my mind that lack of
>>>> production quality will not get in the way of success if the material
>>>> is
>>>> good enough.
>>> "Success" is relative, the original series was soon cancelled because of
>>> poor ratings.
>>>> That was one of the cheesiest productions ever--but Roddenberry had
>>>> something to say.
>>> And the inverse where a meaningful story coupled with high production
>>> quality is no guarantee of commercial success. As a kid I was amazed
>>> at the
>>> number of adults who just did not get 2001, A Space Odyssey. Maybe not a
>>> flop, but certainly not the success it deserved IMO.
>> It was a groundbreaking film. A lot of things werre done for the first
>> time in that movie.
>
> One thing that killed it in the UK market was the total lack of dialogue
> in the first half hour or more. People like to listen to people talking,
> and that was missing.

Well talking apes would have changed the whole story, done later of course
with "Planet of the Apes" :-)

I loved seeing it originally in proper Cinerama, just so impressive in so
many ways.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>Well talking apes would have changed the whole story, done later of course
>with "Planet of the Apes" :-)
>
>I loved seeing it originally in proper Cinerama, just so impressive in so
>many ways.

Which? 2001 was in Super Panavision 70, Planet of the Apes was just in
ordinary 1:2.35 Panavision.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
In article >, Trevor > wrote:

>> I loved seeing it originally in proper Cinerama, just so impressive
>> in so many ways.

> Which? "2001" was in Super Panavision 70, "Planet of the Apes" was
> just in ordinary 1:2.35 Panavision.

Super Panavision 70 * was at first called Cinerama. (I think.) "Proper"
Cinerama uses three cameras and projectors.

* There's some confusion here. Super Panavision 70 is a "flat" process, Ultra
Panavision 70 is anamorphic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Panavision_70

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
> In article >, Trevor >
> wrote:
>
> >> I loved seeing it originally in proper Cinerama, just so impressive
> >> in so many ways.
>
> > Which? "2001" was in Super Panavision 70, "Planet of the Apes" was
> > just in ordinary 1:2.35 Panavision.
>
> Super Panavision 70 * was at first called Cinerama. (I think.) "Proper"
> Cinerama uses three cameras and projectors.
>
> * There's some confusion here. Super Panavision 70 is a "flat" process,
> Ultra Panavision 70 is anamorphic.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Panavision_70

Cinerama was a 3-camera, 3-projector process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinerama

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[William Sommerwerck]

"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message ...

> Cinerama was a 3-camera, 3-projector process.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinerama

Correct. But the /name/ was applied (for a short time) to at least one 70mm
system.

Similar confusion occurred with Technicolor. For many years, Technicolor made
imbibition prints for movies photographed on tripack film. The ads often read
"Color by Technicolor", which is pretty close to a lie.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message ...
>
>> Cinerama was a 3-camera, 3-projector process.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinerama
>
>Correct. But the /name/ was applied (for a short time) to at least one 70mm
>system.
>
>Similar confusion occurred with Technicolor. For many years, Technicolor made
>imbibition prints for movies photographed on tripack film. The ads often read
>"Color by Technicolor", which is pretty close to a lie.

It's when Technicolor labs makes prints on Eastman stock and calls it
"Color by Technicolor" that I start to worry.

Although, years ago I suggested to the owner of Reckshaws, a very bad
Chinese-American restaurant in Atlanta, that his food was not very Chinese.
He was incensed, and said "I am Chinese! I made this food! So this is
Chinese food!"
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 07:43:58 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article >):

> Similar confusion occurred with Technicolor. For many years, Technicolor made

> imbibition prints for movies photographed on tripack film. The ads often read

> "Color by Technicolor", which is pretty close to a lie.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

Just to continue the downward spiral of this conversation off the original
topic, I worked for Technicolor for 20 years, and by contract, all our
clients were required to put "Color by Technicolor" on the end of their TV
shows and movies. The Technicolor imbibition process had nothing to do with
that statement; Technicolor was just a film lab and digital post house.

My memory is that Tech IB prints required YCM masters and could not be done
from a single Tripack negative (Process 4):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor#Process_4:_Development_and_introduct
ion

What is interesting is that even within Technicolor, the lab guys would not
tell we digital people exactly how high-speed Technicolor prints had been
done, back in the day. That was all protected by trade secret and never
patented, and the three or four books on the process have never quite
revealed the details.

--MFW

[William Sommerwerck]

"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
.com...
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 07:43:58 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article >):

> Similar confusion occurred with Technicolor. For many years, Technicolor
> made
> imbibition prints for movies photographed on tripack film. The ads often
> read
> "Color by Technicolor", which is pretty close to a lie.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

> Just to continue the downward spiral of this conversation off the original
> topic, I worked for Technicolor for 20 years, and by contract, all our
> clients were required to put "Color by Technicolor" on the end of their TV
> shows and movies. The Technicolor imbibition process had nothing to do
> with that statement; Technicolor was just a film lab and digital post house.

But it is true that Technicolor made imbibition prints from integral tripack
sources. I remember seeing "The Chalk Garden" 50 years ago and noting
green/magenta misregistration in the print, a decade after the last
three-strip Technicolor film had been made. I didn't know enough about color
photography to understand why it was there.

These IB prints are much more stable than negatives (especially those on Kodak
film during the 70s).


> My memory is that Tech IB prints required YCM masters and could
> not be done from a single Tripack negative (Process 4):

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor#Process_4:_Development_and_introductio n

Of course. By their very nature, IB prints require at least three separations.

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 03:53:45 -0700, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article >):

> But it is true that Technicolor made imbibition prints from integral tripack
> sources. I remember seeing "The Chalk Garden" 50 years ago and noting
> green/magenta misregistration in the print, a decade after the last
> three-strip Technicolor film had been made.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

I suspect there was an intermediate step involved. Note that it's possible
to create a new print from YCM separation negatives that is not a Technicolor
IB print.

YCM seps are still used in the restoration business.

--MFW

[Scott Dorsey]

Marc Wielage > wrote:
>
>What is interesting is that even within Technicolor, the lab guys would not
>tell we digital people exactly how high-speed Technicolor prints had been
>done, back in the day. That was all protected by trade secret and never
>patented, and the three or four books on the process have never quite
>revealed the details.

So how much of it did they tell the Chinese folks?

I saw a couple films that had been printed on the Technicolor line after
it had been shipped to China, including Ju Dou (which I highly recommend
as a great movie), and they were all a little uneven and a little dirty
but still pretty good for a first try.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>But it is true that Technicolor made imbibition prints from integral tripack
>sources. I remember seeing "The Chalk Garden" 50 years ago and noting
>green/magenta misregistration in the print, a decade after the last
>three-strip Technicolor film had been made. I didn't know enough about color
>photography to understand why it was there.

They did make such prints and they looked GREAT.

>These IB prints are much more stable than negatives (especially those on Kodak
>film during the 70s).

Yes, and color gamut is very different than Eastman prints as well because
the dyes are different colors (and more deep ones).

>> My memory is that Tech IB prints required YCM masters and could
>> not be done from a single Tripack negative (Process 4):
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor#Process_4:_Development_and_introductio n
>
>Of course. By their very nature, IB prints require at least three separations.

You take your Eastman negative, you pull B&W sep interpositives off of it,
you make B&W internegs off of that, you make your matrixes off the interneg
seps.

Then, 40 years later we show Crack In The World at Arisia and the colors are
staggeringly rich and saturated with deep greens that Kodak stock never has
had and people stand up and applaud when the title card at the end comes up
and the footlights are slowly raised.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Trevor >
> wrote:
>>Well talking apes would have changed the whole story, done later of course
>>with "Planet of the Apes" :-)
>>
>>I loved seeing it originally in proper Cinerama, just so impressive in so
>>many ways.
>
> Which? 2001 was in Super Panavision 70,

2001 was one of the first single camera anamorphic Cinerama films. How the
West was Won was one of the last 3 camera Cinerama films I also saw at the
same theatre with it's huge curved screen. Very impressive it was, and the
standard aspect ratio 70mm prints at a flat screen cinema were no match IMO.
Sort of like today where films shot for iMax are not as impressive on
standard screens.

Trevor.