Page 2 of 2
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:17 pm
by Kane Starkiller
Please. That is no hole, merely a brighter region of the explosion which will naturally look darker and like a hole after you invert the colors.
In any case, your insistence on using explosion artefacts which last for one or two frames as evidence for a weapon mechasnism is telling me that you have no intention of debating this rationally.
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:30 pm
by Jedi Master Spock
Kane, it is a hole not because it is brighter, or darker, but because it is easily seen though, does not expand, and doesn't seem to contain anything expect stationary lingering glow. The inversion was to help you see it.
To ignore this artifact - which is not a common feature of explosions, and does not behave in a fashion that can be explained as a thermal effect reasonably - is to say that the visual effects are in error. I do not have a problem with this claim in general terms, but it is a claim that I wish to see solid reasons provided for whenever it is used.
Just as Captain Terrel's suicide in TWOK raises questions about material disappearance, so does the wingless Rebel cruiser, and for the same reasons - the body simply vanishes, leaving behind a bright glow.