epicurusaquinas
40825
1111
30
James Burke records during his 1978 science educational television docu-series "Connections".
This shot is often called the "Greatest Shot Ever Recorded" in television. Keep in mind this shot was done without any special effects, computer-enhanced video editing or other technical "tricks". It's all Burke's script, speaking rhythm and timing to the launch.
As fellow Imgurian @skipweasel comments "As a series, it's still worth watching." https://archive.org/details/ConnectionsByJamesBurke
"For your consideration..." - Rod Sterling
Cheers!!
jetact12
Maybe the best I ever watched. Tells you how a guy tripping over his dog in the 16th century leads to the invention of the paper clip...or the like.
Jennnanigans
My high school history teacher showed us Connections. It made so much of the stuff we were learning comprehensible instead of just lists of facts.
MissDeeMeanor
His "Day The Universe Changed" series is even better.
LAMovieDesign
It's two shots. But, I get it. Still really awesome.
IThinkIGotMySwaggerBack
I will never not upvote this
NotWhatYouExpect
The not sped up versions makes this moment so much more satisfying https://youtu.be/2WoDQBhJCVQ
hardytardigrade
Crazy how he knew right when the rocket was going to launch, but not where it was going
GadenKerensky
This video still fails to capture the full scale of that fucking rocket.
the1truemorty
I loved this show.
teslaisawesome
I remember watching this in 8th grade science class and still think about this series to this day… 25 years later. The guy was genius
min8tve
Watch the series almost yearly. The first episode is still relevant today.
SimonHK
1978, I was 9 years old, I remember my Dad, glass of white wine in hand, feet up on the coffee table, watching this series. I remember thinking, mmm there is actually a big wide complicated world out there, I'd better pay attention. And I ended up working for the BBC for 13 years.
PowerPedant
As a history of technology, Connections is a good series. But I've always found the vaunted "connections" themselves to be very contrived.
Bou77
The connections idea was shown better in the series "Industrial Revelations", but Connections will always hold a special place in my heart.
cosonfused
the first part is sped up for whatever asinine reason
zoltarpanaflex
Remains one of my favorite series, completely enjoyable - as is the rest of his work. First class.
Jbelkin
Hindenburg 0.2 beta …
Zega000
CGBKK
Wry very hard to time …5,4,3,2,1 liftoff
shotty814
I used to love this series. I still do, but I used to too.
Nalianna
Thanks, Mitch
cardinal29
I loved this show. Watched it as a kid.
daychilde
Sorry for the convenience
vashito
Snap Crackle Pop, and Mitch
morninglightmountain
I vote for Moscow
spittinfacts
Almost as if rocket launches have a countdown that he could use for the shot.
MisterLemons
IIRC: That particular rocket was launching Voyager II
Causeitsmadeofmeat
THIS is what TLC used to show. Now it's nothing but tawdry crap that feeds on the lowliest of human weaknesses.
Blastergv9
~12-13 second bit before ignition
Housemaster
I think Apollo 8's Earthrise ranks far higher on "most important shot ever filmed". Not that it's a contest, but what makes this one the best?
ToasterDent
They mean it's a great motion picture cinematography (technically well-done due to one try only), not an important one that changed how the world views itself like the Apollo 8 shot.
Housemaster
Even cinematically, it's a 10-20 second timed prompt. Live broadcasters hit those every commercial break during a wide variety of events. It's a cool shot, but not even close to "best" imo.
ToasterDent
Yeah but the impact of missing a commercial break outro is minor. Back in the 70's rocket launches were rarer.
Housemaster
Footage of launches are more abundant than footage of earthrises. Same with any historical speech, wildlife migrations, assassinations, solar eclipses, musical performances, etc, etc... and we have film of those things as well. Again, it's a cool shot... but it doesn't rank when you consider the entire history of captured film.
skipweasel
As a series, it's still worth watching. https://archive.org/details/ConnectionsByJamesBurke
HappyOutsideDeadInside
.
epicurusaquinas
Thanks skipweasel. Internet Archive is the best!
epicurusaquinas
I added your comment to the post. Hope you don't mind. Thanks again.
skipweasel
No problem.
Wrinkle666
Brilliant thankyou I remember a heated discussion between my late father and grandfather and then both clapped and looked at each other mouths wide open . 👍
Paintedmithra
100% in agreement.
Zeterai
Also recommend the original Cosmos by Carl Sagan. It's a similar kind of program, and also holds up extremely well for explaining basic scientific principles. The remake with Neil isn't terrible, but just ain't the same.
CabooseDM
I still watch them on youtube from time to time. 3 great series and interesting.
epicurusaquinas
A lot less cluttered on internet archive. Just saying. You do you.
duktayp
But, hydrogen and oxygen = water H2O. I'm guessing the mixture ratio is different to make boom
ScootyPuffSr
The "ideal" ratio for hydrogen/oxygen is 4.13 to 1 by weight. The Space Shuttle main engines were more like 6 to 1. The rocket lifting off in the video is not actually burning hydrogen, it's burning hydrazine & nitrogen tetroxide, I forget which is liquid cancer & which is explosive pneumonia, but the upper stage does, at about 5 to 1.
MarkiusFox
Hydrazine is liquid cancer.
MoschopsUK
No, that's exactly it. Water is what's created in that very exothermic chemical reaction.
SithElephant
Not quite exactly the right ratio. The engines run fuel rich to reduce temperature and other things. It would be quite explosive dealt with wrong though.
epicurusaquinas
Before burning they remain in their gaseous states and they are mixing but not chemically combining. Then you ignite them and the H burns + the O burns. During the burning (should say 'explosion' because as my HS chemistry teacher used to say "it's energetic"), they do combine. The explosion produces heat, light, H2O and some other compounds as well as the thing we really want - force. The explosive thrust "launches" the ship because the equal opposite reaction moves the ship. :-)
duktayp
K, now i get it!
orbitn
I want to taste the rocket water. Will they let me?
MarkiusFox
You taste it everyday in some small fraction. It's not like they contain it and whisk it away before it can be absorbed by the rest of the atmosphere.
orbitn
I want it direct from the tap! Or nozzle, so to speak.
huhsaywhatnow
I mean there's a big cut. It's not all one thing
DannyDevitoBurritoBandito
Thank you. Much easier to time a shot when your script is only 1 sentence long. They even changed cameras and lenses. Went from steadicam on a wide lens to a tripod camera with an extreme long lens. It's actually not a very difficult shot to time to be honest
ToasterDent
Bit of pressure though - if he flubbed his last lines there's no do-over
epicurusaquinas
James Burke said much the same thing in an interview. It was more bold than hard. He says 2 seconds to walk in frame, 10 seconds dialogue, 1 second to point and change focal length (not cameras), then launch happens. He gives the credit to NASA because they keep to a very tight schedule. The point of the post is he did it .. not that's it's like impossible or something. He did it. Not many others did similar things. It's worth appreciating his "only" sentence and timing. That's all.
DannyDevitoBurritoBandito
It's a great shot. I'm not saying it isn't. But I'm not sure I would consider it "The Greatest Shot Ever Recorded". I've been in the industry for almost two decades, and all I'm saying is: if you take an expert camera op and a strong host with a simple, short, 1-sentence script, then it's a fairly easy shot to pull off. Yes, there's a bit of pressure to do it right, but when you're experienced, the pressure is minimal. And there's a good chance that they came up with the idea in the field
DannyDevitoBurritoBandito
Which means, if they fucked it up, they would've just did an alternate version without the rocket going off. Not as dramatic, sure, but the point is that there's a good chance no one would even know the difference.
DannyDevitoBurritoBandito
Either way, I fully agree with you that it is a very cool and dramatic shot. Probably even more so for how long ago they did it.
springelmogizmo
how it was done:
Imalwaysready
It really does at first. He looks like he's standing in front of a green screen looking at the outline of his body.
epicurusaquinas
Awesome interview. Thanks
ToasterDent
That's just revisionist history to make it sound better. In reality, the cameraman had the launch remote for the world's largest model rocket. He clicked the button when he had the shot lined up. That button sent 12v of power down the wires to the rocket, which caused the ignitor to heat up and catch fire, setting the rocket's propellant off.
epicurusaquinas
Thank you. Once you say it, it's obvious. Fakers! Dammit. Every hero in my life. *Sob* every single one!! Freaking posers!!!
QuantumBits
Love how he lights up and says "look what we did!"
whosbestmom
What did BBC say? Can't quite make it out--"Yeah looks like bat? projection . . ."
elescapo
“Back projection”. Standing in front of a movie screen that is being projected onto with pre-recorded footage. It’s a standard trick in the days before digital compositing.
whodrankmymilkshake
"back projection", like how they used to fake moving scenery before the age of blue screens. Imagine a 1940s movie with someone driving a car down the road on a rainy night, and you want to film the driver from the front, up close. You mount a camera on the hood of a fake car, where the car is in the studio on springs, and behind the fake car (and the actors) is a projection screen showing b-roll of a road at night, in the rain. Back projection.
FarkasMacTavish
back projecton; common forms of this are green and blue screen
razark
Bat projection: A large number of highly trained bats are released to fly to specific locations on the screen, creating an image. While timing is obviously a huge part of creating the effect, much more effort goes into training each bat to fly to the correct location. It is a highly underrated production technique in film-making; while it sounds simple at first, most people underestimate the number of bats needed to create each frame, and that each bat is only used to produce a single frame.
confracto
Isn't that why Vampire films were so popular back in the day?
FaithAlone
Someone say they saw a peojection of a bat?
whosbestmom
Oooh, thanks--so difficult to train those pesky bats . . . must cost a bundle, too; so not used much . . .
razark
You really need to hire a professional to take care of such things. Try putting out some sort of signal and see if you can summon the batman.