Masters of the Air Mini Series(Apple TV)

[tattywelshie]

7 minutes ago, =DW=_Drewm3i-VR said:

Just watched the first episode. The CGI is laughable. Who knew, except certain members of the forum, that 109s and 190s dove in on bombers at the speed of light shooting lasers (and then quickly looped around for pass after pass at the same speed). They would literally be better of using DCS or IL-2 game play for this stuff.

Yeah the speed thing is interesting, I think they depicted a little too fast, but then, I guess if we say the B17s are cruising at maybe 160mph, and the 190/109s are hitting 400 mph, that's a speed different of 240mph, which is pretty darn fast if they are skimming past you. Imagine standing on the side of a road, and a car went past at 240mph, its quick. We went to the Belgian GP last year and stood on one of the straights with F1 cars going past at 200+mph and it was bloody quick. For me, its more the one of two hits and the fighters turning into fireballs that is more unrealistic. 

[Lusekofte]

Again , CGI is in my opinion good enough. It did not ruin the film. I found battle scenes in episode 2 a bit intense but again. Making a good movie like this is one of the hardest things you can do. Up to fourth episode I think they balanced it very well. Far beyond my expectations. One have to give them slack for the flying scenes. 

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, =DW=_Drewm3i-VR said:

Just watched the first episode. The CGI is laughable. Who knew, except certain members of the forum, that 109s and 190s dove in on bombers at the speed of light shooting lasers (and then quickly looped around for pass after pass at the same speed). They would literally be better of using DCS or IL-2 game play for this stuff.

 

You do realize tracers look like lasers, right?

[DBFlyguy]

That tower flyby in Episode 4....YIKES.  That has to be some of the worst CGI I've seen in a very..very... long time, I actually laughed out loud.... To add insult to injury, they literally had real B-17 buzz the set during filming, they could've just used that footage and added visual effects to it to make it look like a B-17F

 

 

On the opposite end of the scale, the mass take off line up with the crew chief working on a mag as they are taxing, that entire sequence looked great! Which was a mix of CGI and the two full scale models they made for the show. 

 

One of the reviewers I follow made a somewhat related video on how expensive movies and shows are today and I think he hit right on head with the use of bad visual effects among his other points.

 

 

For better or worse, CGI is going to be one of the negatives when people bring up this show for the foreseeable future.

Edited February 12, 2024 by DBFlyguy

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

You do realize tracers look like lasers, right?

Kinda. They're a lot more unstable, smaller, and more intermittent than what was shown in Masters of the Air.

[Aapje]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

You do realize tracers look like lasers, right?

They do not look like that, because the bullets go way slower than light. So you have streaks that are relatively short compared to lasers. Lasers are also a beam that reflects off particles in the air, which tends to cause a weak beam with specs in it, as dust particles are not evenly spread out in the air. And each reflection weakens the beam and widens it, so the beam gets weaker and wider as it travels. The brighter the visible beam, the more light gets reflected away, so the quicker the beam becomes weaker and wider.

 

A tracer burns until the flare is gone, which seems to always result in brighter light than a laser and does not result in widening, as it is effectively a near-point light source traveling through the sky.

 

Perhaps you are thinking of CGI lasers that you've seen in movies like Star Wars, which are more similar to tracers, but I would argue that these are modeled after tracers in the first place, not after realistic lasers.

[GasTeddy]

I've been shooting tracers, IRL, and IMHO, they do not look like lasers. I have also laser, I call it Cat Remote Controller.

[EAF19_Marsh]

I find it a bit mixed and oddly unengaging but I will hold off on major conclusions until the end.

 

Re: the Belgium point, I assumed that they were French-speaking Belgians but in retrospect Flemmish would probably have been a better choice.

 

The CGI / aerial action is quite variable. It is not helped by it being highly condescend (for time reasons) so it does seem somewhat Hollywood-ed but that may be inevitable with this kind of thing.

 

I also felt the tracer was too straight and spectacular, not matching either actual footage, live-fire demos I have attended or infantry weapons I have fired (in an amateur way, not serving).

 

Damage does seem a little catastrophic but they have tried to emphasize the cumulative nature (which as observed because of the time factor of 1 hour is difficult). I did not count German fighter losses, but they seemed high (again, time / condensing of action I feel plays a part). Also most seemed to catch fire from ‘wing tanks’ which I am pretty sure is wrong.

 

The multiple crews, switching between aircraft plus oxygen masks did not help my engagement with the characters, the opposite of BoB where almost everyone was recognisable or Memphis Belle with fewer and better-known actors.

 

So, mixed bag. Most of all I am surprised I so not feel more gripped. I would recommend the book and to keep at it: the first part seems to be factually-loose Americana but it definitely picks up and treads carefully on many more difficult subjects. Facts and analysis with which I disagree, but worth a punt. For a more detailed / ficussed work, Martin Middlebrook’s Schweinfurt-Regensburg Raid is brilliant.

[Majpalmer]

I found a link to a German gun camera attack from head on. I do not know if it's real time or slowed. 

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

12 hours ago, =DW=_Drewm3i-VR said:

Just watched the first episode. The CGI is laughable. Who knew, except certain members of the forum, that 109s and 190s dove in on bombers at the speed of light shooting lasers (and then quickly looped around for pass after pass at the same speed). They would literally be better of using DCS or IL-2 game play for this stuff.

 

Yeah, the CGI is not realistic, that seems to be the overall consensus.

 

I will say in its defense: it's hard to get aerial photography right. It's both a matter of camera perspective and of focal length. Any shot that doesn't look like it came straight from a photo / film made by an actual human being back in WW2 is going to look cheap and fake. And even then, some real photographs borderline look like they came from a game:

 

 

 

There's also the reality that aerial combat is boring to the extreme. I don't need to explain this to you, gentlemen. To portray it accurately, there should be absolutely nothing happening 99.9% of the time, complete and utter boredom, then sudden total chaos, extreme violence aaaand it's over.

 

I would have surely loved an approach closer to the one Das Boot (1981) takes of the Battle of the Atlantic, rather than one that resembles Greyhound (2020), but then you lose almost all mass media appeal. And let's be honest, this show was not made for us. If you want quality content that takes a deep dive into virtually any aspect of the (air) war, look no further than YouTube.

 

This is the reality of consuming content in 2024: we are spoiled rotten, and content creators can now make a living catering to small niches. This very sim is a testament of that. This approach to media was unthinkable back in 2001, and true mass appeal was not really required as there were were simply far fewer options, hence studios could take bigger risks. It's this early 2000s media landscape that gave us TV shows like Band of Brothers and games like IL-2 FB/AEP/1946, and that is never coming back.

 

So for me, Masters of the Air (2024) gets an 8/10 by virtue of simply existing.

 

 

But hey, 10 years from now you're going to prompt ChatGPT 27 the actual Masters of the Air book and it will spit you out a 12 hour movie that will both not look anywhere near as good as Masters of the Air (2024), yet will follow the story much closer and you'll end up enjoying it more. I guarantee it.

 

Edited February 13, 2024 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[Majpalmer]

And then there's the time period. 1943? 1944? 1945? I met a guy who flew 35 missions in B-24s with the 15th AF on a European veterans' tour. I was the historian. I asked him over a beer one night what it was like when the Luftwaffe fighters came in on the bombers. He told me he didn't know because he never saw a German fighter during his 35. Plenty of FLAK, but while there were fighters around, they never got near him. He flew his 35 in late 1944 and early 1945. 

[tattywelshie]

6 hours ago, Majpalmer said:

And then there's the time period. 1943? 1944? 1945? I met a guy who flew 35 missions in B-24s with the 15th AF on a European veterans' tour. I was the historian. I asked him over a beer one night what it was like when the Luftwaffe fighters came in on the bombers. He told me he didn't know because he never saw a German fighter during his 35. Plenty of FLAK, but while there were fighters around, they never got near him. He flew his 35 in late 1944 and early 1945. 

I echo that, the village I grew up in in Wales, the guy who ran the newsagents flew P47s during the 44-45, and he said in the all the sorties he took place in, he never saw any sign of the Luftwaffe at all! Not sure how many sorties he flew, but I think quite a high number. 43 I imagine would be a different story re Luftwaffe numbers, but as you say, a lot of pilots never even saw a German aircraft.

[Lusekofte]

7 hours ago, Majpalmer said:

And then there's the time period. 1943? 1944? 1945? I met a guy who flew 35 missions in B-24s with the 15th AF on a European veterans' tour. I was the historian. I asked him over a beer one night what it was like when the Luftwaffe fighters came in on the bombers. He told me he didn't know because he never saw a German fighter during his 35. Plenty of FLAK, but while there were fighters around, they never got near him. He flew his 35 in late 1944 and early 1945. 

Schweinfurt–Regensburg Tok place in August 1943 and they did encounter Luftwaffe fighters

[cardboard_killer]

The LW was ground down in 1940-43 by Hurricanes, P-40s, Yaks, and other non-spectacular a/c. That's really why I'd rather have a North African module than almost any other.

[Aapje]

22 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

This is the reality of consuming content in 2024: we are spoiled rotten, and content creators can now make a living catering to small niches. This very sim is a testament of that. This approach to media was unthinkable back in 2001, and true mass appeal was not really required as there were were simply far fewer options, hence studios could take bigger risks. It's this early 2000s media landscape that gave us TV shows like Band of Brothers and games like IL-2 FB/AEP/1946, and that is never coming back.

I think that the increasing standards and the higher costs due to that, have resulted in it being hard for smaller companies to take risks, because you can no longer make a flight sim with two people in a garage.

 

On the other hand, the big companies in gaming and in Hollywood can very easily gamble on a risky venture as long as the average profit is enough. The issue specifically with Hollywood is that their costs are so absurdly high that all of their movies have to be either hits or super hits.

 

As the critical drinker has correctly pointed out, at least part of this seems due to weird beliefs like that having exactly one specific lead actors is worth 10's of millions. And [current year politics] also seems to result in lots of content that is not designed to appeal to audiences, but to the political beliefs of the makers. So I would think that big gains can be made if they seriously focus on cost-cutting and making what people actually want to see.

 

But a lot of the costs, especially in gaming are also just because of the high standards. Perhaps AI will remedy that and allow for at least AA games to be made with lesser budgets. For example, MSFS already makes most of their maps automatically, with only limited portions being hand-made.

Edited February 13, 2024 by Aapje

[DBFlyguy]

Pretty funny and spot on look at Episode 1.... even features a nice cameo from IL2 1946 ?

 

 

[LukeFF]

18 hours ago, Aapje said:

Perhaps you are thinking of CGI lasers that you've seen in movies like Star Wars, which are more similar to tracers, but I would argue that these are modeled after tracers in the first place, not after realistic lasers.

 

I was in the military for six years, so I am well aware of what tracers look like. ? And, personally, I think people are being way too hard on their critique of things like the visual effects. Are you all slowing this down to 0.25 speed to catch every little detail? Just sit back, watch the action, and be glad someone out there is still interested in producing shows like this. 

 

Bit of a tangent: aviation nerds can be their own worst enemies when watching films like this, and instead want to pick apart even the smallest of details that in their opinion aren't good enough. On the other end of the spectrum is someone like my wife - who is interested in the 1940s and had a grandfather in the Royal Navy during the war, but she is hardly what you'd call a military or aviation history nerd. She's watched every episode of MoTA so far and has loved every bit of it and thinks the storylines and scenes are all very believable. So, try to take a deep breath and just enjoy something that's probably not going to come around again for a long time. ?

[EAF19_Marsh]

On 2/12/2024 at 3:23 PM, Majpalmer said:

I found a link to a German gun camera attack from head on. I do not know if it's real time or slowed.

As they were used as training tools and - IMHO - the low rate of closure, that looks a little slowed.

 

@LukeFF, I am surprised to hear you say that. Everything that I have seen live (including Tornado GR.4s) was impressive but far from ‘laser’. The RADEN 30mm on the Warrior looked like a joke to the point where most people would likely call it ‘poor CGI’. Though that was a very low RoF weapon. But in general, what I saw looked more like this:

 

 

Compression of a 7 hour battle into 30 minutes is likely part of the unbalanced feel that this has. It probably needs a degree of grudging acceptance.

 

I also think a CGI issue is also the love of the directors to spin the camera viewpoint around the protagonist as well as antagonist (Sci-Fi loves this). Since this never happens to humans with our relatively stationary perspective, I wonder whether this gives such scenes an extremely artificial feel.

On 2/13/2024 at 2:22 AM, Lusekofte said:

Schweinfurt–Regensburg Tok place in August 1943 and they did encounter Luftwaffe fighters

Summer ‘43 to mid-Spring ‘44 is the period of strong fighter activity because of numbers, tactics, geography etc. Summer ‘44 onwards some squadrons or even groups may have seen only a little activity on a few raids. And vice versa.

[tattywelshie]

On 2/13/2024 at 9:08 AM, LukeFF said:

I was in the military for six years, so I am well aware of what tracers look like. ? And, personally, I think people are being way too hard on their critique of things like the visual effects. Are you all slowing this down to 0.25 speed to catch every little detail? Just sit back, watch the action, and be glad someone out there is still interested in producing shows like this. 

 

Bit of a tangent: aviation nerds can be their own worst enemies when watching films like this, and instead want to pick apart even the smallest of details that in their opinion aren't good enough. On the other end of the spectrum is someone like my wife - who is interested in the 1940s and had a grandfather in the Royal Navy during the war, but she is hardly what you'd call a military or aviation history nerd. She's watched every episode of MoTA so far and has loved every bit of it and thinks the storylines and scenes are all very believable. So, try to take a deep breath and just enjoy something that's probably not going to come around again for a long time. ?

Totally agree, I’ve stopped myself from analysing every frame, and am just enjoying it for what it is. The trouble is, no one really knows first hand what it ‘should’ look like as a gunner in a B17, or what actual tracer from a 109 looks like at 20k feet, as no one alive today actually knows what it looks like for real do they?
 

Looking at gun cam film from back then is no basis for what stuff actually looks like or acts like in real life. The cgi is ropey in places, but if anyone out there can name an aviation film where either the cgi or models before cgi, are 100% correct all of the time then I’m all ears ?

[Majpalmer]

"The cgi is ropey in places, but if anyone out there can name an aviation film where either the cgi or models before cgi, are 100% correct all of the time then I’m all ears"

 

Nope!

[DBFlyguy]

On 2/13/2024 at 10:21 AM, tattywelshie said:

Looking at gun cam film from back then is no basis for what stuff actually looks like or acts like in real life.

 

Would you elaborate on this statement?

 

How is video footage of an actual event no basis on the actual event/real life? Video evidence is 1000x more reliable than... "I heard it from a guy who heard from another guy" or the recollections of 95+ year old veteran who was under severe stress at the time of the event over 70 years ago.  Yes, the footage is usually in black & white, not High Def and some footage is obviously is slowed down but it's still the best we've got for how combat actually looked back then.

 

 

Concerning the depiction of tracers in the show, they look fine, probably the most well done CGI effects in the show.

 

 

[354thFG_Leifr]

Generally the CGI is agreeable, if maybe slightly disappointing for what has been spent on the show.

I think the low-altitude/ground shots are probably the most offensive; there was a tower fly-by in the last episode that I thought was incredibly jarring. That said, I am thoroughly enjoying the series and, like @LukeFF, my partner is also enjoying watching it. She has already asked where we can find Band of Brothers to watch, as I've generally said that is the benchmark for war-dramas. I'd say the series is doing just enough right to be excellent.

[tattywelshie]

24 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

 

Would you elaborate on this statement?

 

How is video footage of an actual event no basis on the actual event/real life? Video evidence is 1000x more reliable than... "I heard it from a guy who heard from another guy" or the recollections of 95+ year old veteran who was under severe stress at the time of the event over 70 years ago.  Yes, the footage is usually in black & white, not High Def and some footage is obviously is slowed down but it's still the best we've got for how combat actually looked back then.

 

 

Concerning the depiction of tracers in the show, they look fine, probably the most well done CGI effects in the show.

 

 

Well, for one, you don’t know what speed the film is shot at, as in, the frame rate, you see when the tracer wobbles, does this happen in real life? I’ve never seen a 20mm canon fired in real life so who knows. Then you’ve got the movement of the camera itself, either down to the movement of the aircraft or the camera itself shaking both as a result of atmospheric effects, or as a result of the aircraft shaking when firing the weapon in question. I totally agree that it’s the best we’ve got, but I’m really not sure we can use it and say that’s how it actually looked? If that makes sense?

 

In CLoD, they depict tracer in a different way again, with spiral smoke trails, is that how they were? Again, they could have been? What we need to do, is ask someone to arm up a 109 and take it for a spin ???

[Irishratticus72]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

I was in the military for six years, so I am well aware of what tracers look like. ? And, personally, I think people are being way too hard on their critique of things like the visual effects. Are you all slowing this down to 0.25 speed to catch every little detail? Just sit back, watch the action, and be glad someone out there is still interested in producing shows like this. 

 

Bit of a tangent: aviation nerds can be their own worst enemies when watching films like this, and instead want to pick apart even the smallest of details that in their opinion aren't good enough. On the other end of the spectrum is someone like my wife - who is interested in the 1940s and had a grandfather in the Royal Navy during the war, but she is hardly what you'd call a military or aviation history nerd. She's watched every episode of MoTA so far and has loved every bit of it and thinks the storylines and scenes are all very believable. So, try to take a deep breath and just enjoy something that's probably not going to come around again for a long time. ?

My Missus came to see Elvis, stayed to see Forts.

 

[Lusekofte]

I probably going to watch this annually at least every second year. I am not too concerned or bothered with what’s mentioned above. It is damn cool airplanes involved and damned brave men to be honored and remembered. 
I really think the series honor those men. What we seen did happen

[Aapje]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

I was in the military for six years, so I am well aware of what tracers look like. ?

That would be a more convincing argument before we had YouTube and we couldn't see for ourselves. People can just look up video's with tracer fire and video's with lasers. Below someone posted a WW2 video as well and that matches up quite well to contemporary video's. These all show what I said, tracers leaving relatively short and very bright streaks, something I've never seen from a laser..

[Aapje]

3 hours ago, tattywelshie said:

or what actual tracer from a 109 looks like at 20k feet, as no one alive today actually knows what it looks like for real do they?

I'd expect the burn to be pretty much the same at different altitudes, as a tracer has its own oxidizer.

 

I went on a bit of a google and it seems that while the Americans standardized on red (strontium salt oxidizer), the Germans were all over the place with their tracer mixtures and colors. So you might find yellow, orange, white, and green or red, at least for regular ammo. This is probably one of the best sources, from bullet-obsessed people: https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/colour-of-german-7-9x57-tracer/7229

 

I think that the length of the streak and the speed at which it is moving would be entirely determined by the bullet characteristics, like speed.

Edited February 13, 2024 by Aapje

[Gambit21]

On 2/9/2024 at 2:58 PM, Lusekofte said:

 People have to remember these kind of things is not documentary it is a art form with all liberties taken
 

 

No offense AT ALL, you're a kind, intelligent, likeable fellow. That said, I hate this "It's not a documentary" rationalization. It's just dumb. (not that you are dumb mind you) but it's how I feel about this comment every time I hear it.  I've heard it applied to Top Gun Maverick etc as well, and I don't buy it.

They could have just place in a few Tie Fighters in there as well and claimed "IT'S NOT A DOCUMENTARY!!" That's an extreme, but illustrated the point nonetheless.

 

Most if not all of the "artistic" liberties taken, (and I'll lump in all "Oh come on!!" bogus, fake, unrealistic moments into this category), are completely unnecessary. In all cases, a more realistic depiction would have satisfied everyone in the audience just as well if not better. That includes the lay person who doesn't know an airplane from their elbow, and people like us to have learned, studied, read about this stuff all our lives. Everybody wins. 

 

The sequence in Unbroken is proof that it can be done correctly, and proof that when done correctly, it works best.

"Not a documentary" does not have to mean completely bogus.

 

[Majpalmer]

So far, the bottom line is I'm enjoying it. I'm happy to see them doing the series, and hope for that reason that it does well. 

 

Unbroken was well down! 

 

Twelve O'Clock High is still one of my favorites. The personal papers of the guy who wrote the novel, whose name escapes me, were in the archives at the University where I worked. If I remember correctly, one of their first missions, flown by Tibbets, was into France at low level-- a few thousand feet. That surprised me because of all the pre-campaign focus on high altitude precision. They feared they were going to take a beating. So they tried low level, hoping that might work. It didn't. 

[JG1_Vonrd]

Regarding how tracers appear...

• ALL of the gun camera images are from the 1st person view. That is the view that will have the best chance of seeing individual tracer rounds as discreet "dots" or "slashes".
• Viewed from the side, the phenomena of "persistence of vision" comes into play... 
  • Persistence of vision is the optical illusion that occurs when the visual perception of an object does not cease for some time after the rays of light proceeding from it have ceased to enter the eye
  • This gives the viewer the impression that a discreet object becomes a blurred streak due to it's motion. This is commonly seen in any graphic illustration of an object in motion.
• All gun camera (and any camera images for that matter) are made up of 24 individual images (as a general rule for motion pictures of the time) for each second of view. Depending on the film speed and shutter speed, tracers can vary from long streaks of light to discreet dots.

In conclusion, what is represented in a video image, CGI or not, doesn't accurately show what the human eye perceives. What IS important in an artistic video / film portrayal is to simulate the illusion of being there. I think they have succeeded in that. I'll never know exactly how it was but my ass clinches involuntarily while watching these scenes.

Edited February 14, 2024 by JG1_Vonrd

[Art-J]

10 hours ago, tattywelshie said:

In CLoD, they depict tracer in a different way again, with spiral smoke trails, is that how they were? Again, they could have been? What we need to do, is ask someone to arm up a 109 and take it for a spin 

Just for the record, early-war Buckingham and PmK rounds used white phosphorus expelled through tiny hole drilled on the side of a bullet for tracer effect. Hence the spiralling smoke. Well seen on period photos and guncams, not to mention NOS rounds that can still be purchased and fired today, although probably not often as they are rare collectible items I presume.

 

Both sides dropped the side-hole design eventually, switching to hole at the back and mixtures chosen to produce more light than smoke.

[Aapje]

@JG1_Vonrd

 

That's a good point. It may indeed look different in reality than on video, especially since video lacks the same dynamic range as reality.

 

Although the question is whether the audience wants to see realism or whether they want to see what the camera would see. Hollywood regularly add lens flares intentionally, which are camera artifacts and thus not what you would see if you were actually present, but apparently they think that the audience prefers them.

Edited February 14, 2024 by Aapje

[GasTeddy]

Knowledge increases the pain; I get also irritated, when 1963 VW Beetle is driving in a movie which is supposed to be from mid 50s...   

[Lusekofte]

10 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

It's not a documentary

I do not defend the term. Because in many cases not much investigation is needed to avoid a fail. But it is what they say about all these kind of films. Not my words. It is the most used phrase in a historical movie made in Hollywood.
Point is, we have no choice we are the audience. We have no saying. 
Personally I like European preferably English movies. lately Norway have produced some pretty good ww 2 movies. They tend to be more to the point and do not put in emotions and feelings every fifth minute. 
I stay with my statement earlier, this series do honor the men they portray. I cannot relate to most of the characters except one that got killed. And I miss that. But still I must say this series is much better than expected. 
If people let laser tracers and some peculiar manoeuvres ruin the film for them. I personally can’t help them. It do not for me

Edited February 14, 2024 by Lusekofte

[GrinderX9]

 

There is something strange with the filming, not just the CGI. Look at this, it looks like a the worst fake picture ever. But I am pretty sure from the rest of the scene that it is not. Anyway. I am watching this on my 4K 150 inch home theater with 7.1 sound. And I cant wait for every episode. I am so happy for a show like this

[LukeFF]

On 2/13/2024 at 9:49 AM, EAF19_Marsh said:

@LukeFF, I am surprised to hear you say that. Everything that I have seen live (including Tornado GR.4s) was impressive but far from ‘laser’. The RADEN 30mm on the Warrior looked like a joke to the point where most people would likely call it ‘poor CGI’.

 

Well, the thing is, this series is trying to show the perspective of all this combat from the point of the B-17 crewmen, so to them all that incoming fire probably looked like lasers. And again, I have to wonder: with the action taking place at such a fast pace, what are people doing, slowing all this footage down and rewinding it over and over again? If so, my goodness, just hit Play and enjoy the action. ?

 

On 2/13/2024 at 10:21 AM, tattywelshie said:

Totally agree, I’ve stopped myself from analysing every frame, and am just enjoying it for what it is. The trouble is, no one really knows first hand what it ‘should’ look like as a gunner in a B17, or what actual tracer from a 109 looks like at 20k feet, as no one alive today actually knows what it looks like for real do they?
 

Looking at gun cam film from back then is no basis for what stuff actually looks like or acts like in real life. The cgi is ropey in places, but if anyone out there can name an aviation film where either the cgi or models before cgi, are 100% correct all of the time then I’m all ears ?

 

Yes, I think Devotion also did a good job with the air combat scenes - a combination of live-action shots and CGI. Is it perfect? By no means, but overall it's pretty high on the "this looks believable" spectrum. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Well, the thing is, this series is trying to show the perspective of all this combat from the point of the B-17 crewmen, so to them all that incoming fire probably looked like lasers. And again, I have to wonder: with the action taking place at such a fast pace, what are people doing, slowing all this footage down and rewinding it over and over again? If so, my goodness, just hit Play and enjoy the action. ?

Good point, I agree with that as with the problem of time vs. action compression necessary for a 1 hour show.

 

As a side note, there are some good and bad YouTube “History expert reviews movie battles” videos and the better of these also stress the balance of conveying the sense of battle with realism, which often leads to hyperbolic sequences.

16 hours ago, JG1_Vonrd said:

Regarding how tracers appear...

Thanks for the very interesting post. The perspective issue is difficult, but you can find a lot of footage from varying angles. The ‘persistence’ point is well made and I presume quite individually specific as to how objects are perceived.

 

However, I still don’t think they got it right and I think others did a better job (BoB, Memphis Belle). The tank rounds in Fury, for example, are closer to what I have seen.

[ZachariasX]

On 2/12/2024 at 6:18 PM, LukeFF said:

You do realize tracers look like lasers, right?

[Majpalmer]

I've had 40mm tracer rounds zip by my head back in 1988 in the Gulf when I was there as a civilian historian (CIVCLANT) documenting our special operations. I wish I could tell you I braved rounds from the dastardly Iranians. Unfortunately, they were US rounds, and it was a friendly fire mishap during a live-fire exercise involving LANTFLEET Patrol Boats, LAMPS, and the Batmen in their SpecOps helos, in which no one, thankfully, was hit (most of all me).

 

I was standing port of the nacelle, a bit behind so that I could see, holding onto the mast with my left hand. It was pitch black and I was looking to starboard waiting for the rocket show from the helos. Shortly thereafter, a 40mm round from a trailing Mk III Patrol boat zipped by in front of my face, between me and the nacelle, and behind me (not that I saw them). I remember knowing immediately what they were--Tracers! I can tell you they were bright as hell, but I could not say what color they were. Maybe white. Maybe yellow. On pitch-black nights tracers are bright! I remember smelling the damned things and hearing them swoosh by. In my mind, I even felt heat. Or maybe my face was flushing at the thought that I might have my head blown off in the middle of the Gulf documenting what had been from the start a FUBAR exercise! Who can say.

 

But be assured the thought LASER never entered my mind. Maybe that's because they came at me at a right angle. Perhaps from the perspective of the gunner who fired them at us they looked like lasers. We didn't have a 40mm mount on our boat so I can't say. Half of our mounts had jammed; so much for wartime readiness! But from my perspective it was definitely a super-bright slug navigating the narrow gap between the nacelle and my head. 

 

I guess the point is that things appear differently from different perspectives. During the bomber raids, you had the German pilot, the various crewmen in the bomber, and if there was someone filming, the camera. 

[ZachariasX]

I find it amusing that when we talk about „lasers“ we mean anything but laser light, but simply a rather naive plot device that doesn‘t require ammo clips that otherwhise was always supposed to imitate a firearm. In this sense, tracers ALWAYS resemble „lasers“ because „lasers“ were made up to look like tracers.

 

Some more effort in depicting a laser was made here:

 

 

I wouldn‘t expect Mr. Bond to die (right away), but both him Goldfinger be instantly and permanently blinded when using a laser with that power output. Also, if you want to cut something big, using a wavelenght short enough to be within the visible spectrum is not really helpful.

 

 

There is a good reason you use CO2 lasers to cut things. You dont see those at all, yet it is as intelligent not using an eye protection as not wearing one when when welding.