tracers

[Mormegil]

All the devs need to do is make them mimic the tank rounds in the game. Those rounds do not have any tail on them and look very similar to the 5.56mm tracer rounds I have personally fired.

One point to remember, tracer technology has also changed over the last 60 years.

I wouldn't be surprised if WWII era tracers weren't as "compact" as today's tracers are.

I really have no opinion on the accuracy of these tracers, as I've never seen WWII era tracers fired. My earlier point was that you can't use film as a basis for tracer size/length.

 

[Jack]

Yeah, and like I keep repeating, your earlier point actually supports American Psycho, so I don't see why this is even still being debated.


And no, tracer technology has not changed that much at all in 60 years. Many of the tracer compounds are exactly the same (phosphate based), and what do you mean they weren't as "compact?"




You actually have seen WWII tracers without knowing it. Much of the ammo in Korea and Vietnam was WWII surplus, and the Russians had huge stocks of WWII era ammo which was made all throughout the East Bloc using the same manufacturing techniques from the 1940s all the way into the 1970's.





PS: Addressing your previous post, of course exposure time could also make a tracer look shorter...but this would have to be taken to ridiculous levels. I mean theoretically you can photograph a single bullet in mid flight and view it in full detail (like that famous pic of the bullet impacting the apple)....but does that mean you will see anything like that with your eye? Of course not.


The bottom line is that at 24 fps standard film speed, standard exposure settings, you will see a fairly exact copy of the tracer that would be viewed by your naked eye in real time, and if anythign it will appear a bit longer than in real life. Of course setting the exposure ridiculously slow or ridiculously fast will alter the image majorly...but that was clearly not the case in the films posted by people here.



And yoru point about the baseball appearing different as a matter of being "arbtrary" interpretatin is a bit of a stretch I think. People have different perceptions, that's true, but seriously there is not going to be any appreciable difference in how someone interprets a streak of something from one person to another, we would be talking like in millimeters, not whole inches or feet.

 

[Nixon]

I like the effort brought by the devs on the part of bouncing tracers...that being said, they lose too much speed when they ricochet, alot of bullets merely deflect and continue with only slightly reduced speed.

Plus, they look like tracers being fired in pitch dark, this is not very realistic imo.

Most ideal would be:
daytime - very short and hard to track if you are not the gunner.
dusk/dawn - bright and longer, visible for all.
night - along the lines of the present implementation.

 

[falconik]

Ye good point Nixion I like the sound of that.

 

[Mormegil]

You actually have seen WWII tracers without knowing it. Much of the ammo in Korea and Vietnam was WWII surplus, and the Russians had huge stocks of WWII era ammo which was made all throughout the East Bloc using the same manufacturing techniques from the 1940s all the way into the 1970's.

I meant I've never seen a WWII tracer round fired in person with my own eyes. I wasn't in Viet-Nam, or Korea, and I've never seen any tracer fired in real life. So I really don't know what it looks like in real life. So in other words, I don't know squat about what a tracer really looks like. I do know squat about photography, so that's the point of the rest of the post.

The bottom line is that at 24 fps standard film speed, standard exposure settings, you will see a fairly exact copy of the tracer that would be viewed by your naked eye in real time, and if anythign it will appear a bit longer than in real life. Of course setting the exposure ridiculously slow or ridiculously fast will alter the image majorly...but that was clearly not the case in the films posted by people here.

I'm not that familar with motion picture cameras, but I've gathered that the shutter speed (exposure time) can be set from about 1/50 sec to 1/1000. 24 frames per second do not equal 1/24 sec exposure, that's just the theoretical maximum exposure time (1/50 sec in reality). So an round traveling at 350 m/s would do 7 meters in 1/50 sec or 0.35 meters in 1/1000. That's quite a bit of variability. With video cameras, it the range is substantially larger.

But you say at "standard exposure." The problem is, "standard exposure" doesn't have a standard shutter speed. During WWII, there were no automatic exposure cameras, everything was manual. I shoot primarily manual exposure, and with ISO 100 film, on a sunny day within 6 hours of noon, a "standard exposure" would be f/16 at 1/100 sec. I could also get a "standard exposure" using f/2.0 at 1/6400 sec*.

It's up to the photographer, do I want a crisp image of something moving, or a blurry image (deciding factor for shutter speed). Do I want a narrow or wide depth of field (deciding factor for aperture). If I change the aperture, I need to compensate with the shutter speed.

Since it's up to the photographer/cameraman, each shot will be different, depending on what the photographer wants to capture - a general news report where long tracers look best (long shutter speed), or is it a performance / intelligence evaluation requiring crisp images with a short shutter speed. Does the cameraman want the focus on one area, requiring a large aperture (small f/number) for a shallow depth of field, neccesitating a fast shutter speed, or a wide depth of field to get the breath of the entire scene, requiring a small aperture, and long shutter speed. What time of day is the image being taken? That has a huge affect on your exposure.

Then there's the fact that bullets may be flying at the cameraman, so good luck on getting all the exposure settings right.

And yoru point about the baseball appearing different as a matter of being "arbtrary" interpretatin is a bit of a stretch I think. People have different perceptions, that's true, but seriously there is not going to be any appreciable difference in how someone interprets a streak of something from one person to another, we would be talking like in millimeters, not whole inches or feet.

I disagree. Especially with things in motion. Before learning a bit of fencing, movie sword fights looked like an unintelligable blur of metal. After, it looks like a slow, clumsy, innacurate, obviously choreographed event.

Before when I'd watch a Bruce movie, he seemed really fast. After studying JKD under Dan Inosanto, I can see how incredibly slow Sijo Bruce was moving for the camera. So with just one person, perception can change from a blur to discreet moments in sequence.

Bottom line is, filmed tracers will most likely look different from what one would see by eye, but you cannot say for certain that it will be longer or shorter, as there are too many variables.

*And that's just the variability with ISO 100 film. If I put in 200, 400, or 800, it all changes again.

 

[falconik]

Wow, how long did it take you to type all that! hehe

 

[Mormegil]

Wow, how long did it take you to type all that! hehe

Heh, about 25 minutes total. About 10 minutes before leaving this morning for work (waiting on my girlfriend), and just finished it up now.

 

[Theodrake]

I remember the first time I drove back to work after lunch. I had been playing a very fast hand eye coordination fps. As I drove down the highway, I kept thinking everything is moving so slow . I had actually increased my perception and was able to react much faster and take in more information and process it.

 

[falconik]

Haha . So if you are going for your drivin test, play lost of fps games!! haha.