Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 3]
Discussion
cologne2792 said:
We know that the sounds of Firearms in the movies and television come from a sound studio rather than literal gunpowder.
So I've always wondered; How do they physically create the sound effects that we associate with different types of weapons ? Thinking Clint Eastwood Magnum.44 here ?
By firing the weapons in the sound studio, and creating a whole catalogue of sound effects that you can then import to the soundtrack of your movie/tv show.So I've always wondered; How do they physically create the sound effects that we associate with different types of weapons ? Thinking Clint Eastwood Magnum.44 here ?
There are thousands, if not millions, of such recordings and stock sounds etc.
Halmyre said:
I always thought they used blanks, and only overdubbed if the gun was close to the victim's body. Even then I assume they'd have samples of various gun shots.
In the latter case, I have read of one director going to the bother of making sure the appropriate sound was used for each weapon, rather than a generic "bang!".
ISTR that Michael Mann's Heat, has what is regarded as the most authentic reproduction of the real sounds of gunfire.In the latter case, I have read of one director going to the bother of making sure the appropriate sound was used for each weapon, rather than a generic "bang!".
SpeckledJim said:
Halmyre said:
I always thought they used blanks, and only overdubbed if the gun was close to the victim's body. Even then I assume they'd have samples of various gun shots.
In the latter case, I have read of one director going to the bother of making sure the appropriate sound was used for each weapon, rather than a generic "bang!".
ISTR that Michael Mann's Heat, has what is regarded as the most authentic reproduction of the real sounds of gunfire.In the latter case, I have read of one director going to the bother of making sure the appropriate sound was used for each weapon, rather than a generic "bang!".
P-Jay said:
SpeckledJim said:
Halmyre said:
I always thought they used blanks, and only overdubbed if the gun was close to the victim's body. Even then I assume they'd have samples of various gun shots.
In the latter case, I have read of one director going to the bother of making sure the appropriate sound was used for each weapon, rather than a generic "bang!".
ISTR that Michael Mann's Heat, has what is regarded as the most authentic reproduction of the real sounds of gunfire.In the latter case, I have read of one director going to the bother of making sure the appropriate sound was used for each weapon, rather than a generic "bang!".
An unrealism you get with blanks though is you only get the "Thump" of the gun firing. With live rounds you get the "crack" of the supersonic bullet passing you before the "thump" of it being fired. The combination of the two helps locate the firing point more easily than when blanks are being used. I've not been shot at enough to know if this makes a big difference to the realism of movies though.
RizzoTheRat said:
An unrealism you get with blanks though is you only get the "Thump" of the gun firing. With live rounds you get the "crack" of the supersonic bullet passing you before the "thump" of it being fired. The combination of the two helps locate the firing point more easily than when blanks are being used. I've not been shot at enough to know if this makes a big difference to the realism of movies though.
The "Wilhelm Scream", ubiquitous indeed! It's interesting just how much is added over the top of a soundtrack in post processing, in fact nearly all of the sounds which aren't dialogue are dubbed in later.Shakermaker said:
There was a good article last week on, I think BBC News, about how a couple of audio experts are now using the sounds of recordings made of gunshots to determine where a shot came from/who shot first etc etc, all based on echoes and sound signatures that were picked up by cameras and microphones located at various points around an event.
Interestingly the "Boomerang" system has been out in the military field for quite a few years - it uses multiple microphones to isolate gunshots and provide a vector based on the sounds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_(counterme...Krikkit said:
Shakermaker said:
There was a good article last week on, I think BBC News, about how a couple of audio experts are now using the sounds of recordings made of gunshots to determine where a shot came from/who shot first etc etc, all based on echoes and sound signatures that were picked up by cameras and microphones located at various points around an event.
Interestingly the "Boomerang" system has been out in the military field for quite a few years - it uses multiple microphones to isolate gunshots and provide a vector based on the sounds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_(counterme...Ayahuasca said:
RATATTAK said:
Ayahuasca said:
I have! I have!
Why do some colours 'go' together, say in clothes, and others 'clash'?
I don't know but I bet Fibonacci comes into itWhy do some colours 'go' together, say in clothes, and others 'clash'?
Evoluzione said:
Why do people in pictures of Victorian times always look miserable?
Camera technology (or lack of).Cameras back then had manual shutters (Literally someone removing a lens cap), then it took sometimes minutes to expose properly on the photo paper.
This meant staying still for minutes at a time and it was (is) hard to hold a smile for that long. So, they just didn't smile and let their faces relax.
Evoluzione said:
Why do people in pictures of Victorian times always look miserable?
Camera film was very insensitive to light back then - so you needed a lot of light and a long exposure time. Not a problem for landscape photos, but quite difficult for live subjects. Any motion at all would result in blur.I can't remember exactly - but I believe a typical exposure would last over a minute in the 1800s. That's why many of the subjects are sitting or at least standing in a sturdy/upright position to minimise movement. And it's hard to hold a perfect smile for that long - so a blank stare was required.
Krikkit said:
RizzoTheRat said:
An unrealism you get with blanks though is you only get the "Thump" of the gun firing. With live rounds you get the "crack" of the supersonic bullet passing you before the "thump" of it being fired. The combination of the two helps locate the firing point more easily than when blanks are being used. I've not been shot at enough to know if this makes a big difference to the realism of movies though.
The "Wilhelm Scream", ubiquitous indeed! It's interesting just how much is added over the top of a soundtrack in post processing, in fact nearly all of the sounds which aren't dialogue are dubbed in later.Shakermaker said:
There was a good article last week on, I think BBC News, about how a couple of audio experts are now using the sounds of recordings made of gunshots to determine where a shot came from/who shot first etc etc, all based on echoes and sound signatures that were picked up by cameras and microphones located at various points around an event.
Interestingly the "Boomerang" system has been out in the military field for quite a few years - it uses multiple microphones to isolate gunshots and provide a vector based on the sounds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_(counterme...The Don of Croy said:
Is there any vision-based advantage to having a smaller bridge of your nose?
Would, say, Thandie Newton have an advantage over Gerard Depardieu in that there is less obstruction in the middle?
Strange thing to wonder about, I know. Not Thandie, but noses.
You need one eye to identify objects but two to more accurately judge their distance. Even with a bulbous conk, the distance from your face where you can see an object past your nose with both eyes is probably less than your minimum focal length. Would, say, Thandie Newton have an advantage over Gerard Depardieu in that there is less obstruction in the middle?
Strange thing to wonder about, I know. Not Thandie, but noses.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff