Filmmaker uses aquarium and ink to create "supernova"

Nov 14, 2016 7:07 PM

hockeyham

Views

281470

Likes

3047

Dislikes

41

Oooooh! Aaaaah!

Instead of sticking his camera’s lens in the eyepiece of a powerful telescope peering into the heavens, filmmaker Thomas Vanz captured this stunning footage of a giant star going all supernova by actually pointing his camera at a glass aquarium filled with colorful inks and water.

His low-tech approach to simulating one of the universe’s most spectacular occurrences skips the computer graphics and is better for it. Even the sounds Vanz used in his short film, Novae, all come from pre-recorded sources.

Article: http://sploid.gizmodo.com/stunning-supernova-footage-isnt-what-it-seems-1788952975
Awesome movie: https://vimeo.com/189562895 (3 min, 10 sec)

Making of (Pt 1): https://vimeo.com/185305778 (1:51)
Making of (Pt II): https://vimeo.com/189317755 (2:43)

Filmmakers are lying. I'm shocked

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I hope the fish are ok.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

That must be at least a couple thousand if its printer ink

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Thats pretty neat.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

What program is that, that they use???? I make videos and that program seems awesome! v

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

When an Aquarium uses a Supernova to create a Filmmaker, then I'll be impressed.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 49 Dislikes 0

It's not a bowl

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

OH WAH AH AH AH GET DOWN WITH THE SICKNESS

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Watch The Fountain by Darren Aronofsky. This kind of technique was used a lot to great effect.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

The Tree of Life.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yessssss.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Wherever that is, it looks cool

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This technique reminds me of the specially lighted algae used in the opening credits of "Superman" from 1978.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

...wut?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Aquarium, ink and considerable skill at digital compositing.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I mean, if you want to get technical, the image would be distorted through gravitational lensing.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Imagine if the artist had used Champagne instead of water, that would be one hell of a champagne supernova.

9 years ago | Likes 23 Dislikes 0

SOME DAY YOU WILL FIND ME

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

In the sky.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Dad pls

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I object to the word "simulating". He's creating a visual effect (quite well, btw). I'm also not convinced there's no digital compositing.

9 years ago | Likes 80 Dislikes 0

Look at the Vimeo 'making of' links. Lots of cgi post processing. Well done, nonetheless.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I'm convinced that there has been significant post processing.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Making of indeed is full of digital composition, color grading, etc. So basically it's cleverly created base material for composition CGI

9 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 0

This. He didn't just point his camera and got that sweet video. Instead of using CGI, he used ink blots as base to compose a video. 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

He cleverly composed footage of ink blots, added flares, and did a lot of touch up to get the final result. See https://vimeo.com/185305778

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This just shows that practical effects beats up CGI any day.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

My quest continues! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

except this is all cgi, and the drops of ink were nothing more than animated texture files

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Blackhole at the end doesnt make sense. The surrounding gas should appear to be frozen in time.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I think it's meant to mimic the one from Interstellar. Which was mathematically as accurate as could be. So, I'd give it a pass.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not to mention that gas doesn't look like this, most every picture we see is falsely colored to enhance the nebulae structures

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I mean, if you want to be technical, the image would be distorted through gravitational lensing.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That effect is caused by obstructions with gravity. This is a first person view with no gravitational obstructions.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The black hole is the gravitational obstruction. Also, anything is a first-person view for astronomy

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You can't just find a supernova by looking through a telescope. Stars don't explode all wily nily.

9 years ago | Likes 235 Dislikes 0

You can, if you point it towards a very far away aquarium

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ha! Willy...

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Depends on point of reference. (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

If you have a computer driven telescope that takes thousands of pictures of different galaxies, you absolutely can...and we have

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

(3/2) The trick is knowing where to look :P

9 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 4

We are limited to our observable universe and our stone age technology though.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(1½)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Not unless you override stargate protocols and connect to another gate where the wormhole passes through the sun. Thanks Carter.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Or the Q are have a civil war.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The pedant in me has to remind you that she blew up the sun with a gate connected to a black hole. Your example caused a shift to infrared.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Exactly! So much bullshit under your comment. Supernovas explode once per 100 years per galaxy. Explosion lasts ~2 weeks (not 100000 years)

9 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 1

and it wouldn't look like that. Close supernova would look like a star size of moon and brighter. In fact ~3000 years ago, one did.

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

There's a star not too far from us that's supposed to go supernova any time in the next couple centuries. It will shine almost as 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

As the moon!

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Almost as as the moon

9 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

Haha almost as bright, oops...

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

(2/2) As the universe is infinite, there's an infinite amount of stars, an infinite amount of which are exploding.

9 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 15

Holy crap who have you been listening to?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But we can only see what is within the Hubble Sphere, not infinitely.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Our instruments can only see a very tiny fraction of stars, and given the event horizon, its far from infinity

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Universe being infinite does not equal infinite ammount of stars.

9 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 2

In fact you, if you generalise hard enough there's no stars whatsoever. Finite matter/infinite space equivalent to zero density=emoty.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Um.. yes it does. Lets say the average distance between each star is x. Infinity / x is still infinity.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 8

And if I mount a pocket flashlight to my skateboard, I'll be moving with speed of light in 2 weeks, right?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

With infinte matter sure, but exactly this is the limiting factor... Space may be infinite, matter certainly not.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

9 years ago (deleted Dec 1, 2016 6:33 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

Hmm... Point. Are there any papers on it? I kind of assumed that since the universe is, matter is as well, which is retrospect does sound...

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Really? So, a finite amount of mass is just expanding infinitely? Cool!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1