Black blades?

[Sunrider]

Yes good show. That is what you would need. It doesn't sound like this is whats being attempted but hard to be sure. Good work.

[TimeRender]

Possibly. THIS is the sort of idea that merits experimentation in my opinion, because it cannot easily be refuted with simple thought experiments. At least not by me.

[Tyhm]

I like the idea of Lenticular, but I wonder if it'd be effectively the same thing as 2 layers of Diffraction grating aligned so that at the middle it blocks and at the edges light shines through?

Wouldn't we be able to get the same effect from the staggered opaque (or mirrored) stripes though? I mean let's say we get a 3/4" polyc tube, and we stripe it with 1/8" strips of mylar tape, perfectly straight somehow, each stripe perfectly 1/16" apart; then we do the same thing on the inside, but so that the inner stripes cover the outer gaps, and vice versa; then we slide the assembly into a standard thin-wall 1" blade tube, would we then have a blade such that the light can be seen only at angles but not straight-on?

Or using some carefully constructed paint...brush? Spreader? Dripper? I'm not sure what would be the best way to lay down perfectly straight lines...laser etcher? Does anyone have one that can do the INside of a tube in straight lines? It'd be more labor intensive but a lot cheaper...

[Goltar Bias]

I like the idea of Lenticular, but I wonder if it'd be effectively the same thing as 2 layers of Diffraction grating aligned so that at the middle it blocks and at the edges light shines through?



Or using some carefully constructed paint...brush? Spreader? Dripper? I'm not sure what would be the best way to lay down perfectly straight lines...laser etcher? Does anyone have one that can do the INside of a tube in straight lines? It'd be more labor intensive but a lot cheaper...

It wouldn't work with out the lenticular lense setup because the lense acts as a focusing guide for the veiwer. if you took the lense off of lenticular moveing image of 3d image it looses the effect the lense gives it. This is because the lense only allows you to see on or the other strip from a particular angle. So if it works properly for the blade being a cylender the no matter what angle you view the blade from 360 degrees around you see a black core and a illuminated glow. With out the lense you would see stripes.

[Tyhm]

It wouldn't work with out the lenticular lense setup because the lense acts as a focusing guide for the veiwer. if you took the lense off of lenticular moveing image of 3d image it looses the effect the lense gives it. This is because the lense only allows you to see on or the other strip from a particular angle. So if it works properly for the blade being a cylender the no matter what angle you view the blade from 360 degrees around you see a black core and a illuminated glow. With out the lense you would see stripes.

Yeahyeah, I don't mean "Hey let's take a lenticular image and remove the lens" like in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvvcR...layer_embedded or "Let's use a zoetrope", I mean more like "Let's take 2 zoetropes, one big, one small, each with exactly 12 apertures, and align them so that one opening runs into the other's wall and vice versa, so that the only way light can escape the middle is at extreme angles." See figure A below

And just to further annoy TimeRender by reading his words exactly as written: If a solid core is the problem, then (Once again assuming it's possible to barely illuminate a blade sufficiently that you need to see the light from the front and back edge)...;-D

(Seriously though, I still don't understand why the center would be brighter than the edges if we buy into the Illuminated Skin theory of saber lighting...)

PS - I don't really mean to be such a troll, but you guys DID demand I Read Before Posting on an off-topic flameathon. Nothing gets my hackles up like someone blindly insisting the truth can be found somewhere in page 2 of a 5 page rant on why there are no black LEDs...

[TimeRender]

And just to further annoy TimeRender by reading his words exactly as written: If a solid core is the problem, then (Once again assuming it's possible to barely illuminate a blade sufficiently that you need to see the light from the front and back edge)...;-D

Ok, first of all you are acting like a troll now. Secondly, you never finished the sentence that I just quoted, so I have no idea what point you were trying to make. Third, the answer IS back a few pages, and it has nothing to do with there not being black LEDs. I also posted the answer on the OTHER black blade threads with pretty little pictures that even YOU should be able to understand. You should go read it and quit making a fool out of yourself.

Edit: You must be the bottle feeding type, so I'll tell you that the answer was posted all the way back on page 4 post 37. Everything before and after that would be useful reading for you as well, but that specifically is the post I have been telling you to read all along. If you want the answer with pictures, go to the "black blade development" thread and read post 53 on page 6. So don't pull that BS "Nothing gets my hackles up like someone blindly insisting the truth can be found somewhere in page 2 of a 5 page rant on why there are no black LEDs... " when you OBVIOUSLY never read the thread. I'm calling you out!

[Tyhm]

Oh lighten up, it was a joke. There were 2 figures attached to that post; the second was for you. An inverted core, shaped like a + sign. Get it? The light wouldn't be interrupted by the solid core, it would flow around it like a knife; and in theory the light at point 1 would be as dark as the light at point 3, and point 2 would be twice as bright. (I'm afraid you'll have to scroll up to see the illustration, as the forum will not let me repost illustrations - it assumes everyone saw it the first time I suppose).

But this assumes the depth of the blade at the point of viewing determines brightness; perhaps it's angle, or the amount of PC the photons have to pass through, that explains why it's brighter in the middle and dimmer at the edges. Oh well, it was intended as a joke anyway; thought a fellow Pastafarian would get that.

Ok, first of all you are acting like a troll now. Secondly, you never finished the sentence that I just quoted, so I have no idea what point you were trying to make. Third, the answer IS back a few pages, and it has nothing to do with there not being black LEDs. I also posted the answer on the OTHER black blade threads with pretty little pictures that even YOU should be able to understand. You should go read it and quit making a fool out of yourself.

Edit: You must be the bottle feeding type, so I'll tell you that the answer was posted all the way back on page 4 post 37. Everything before and after that would be useful reading for you as well, but that specifically is the post I have been telling you to read all along. If you want the answer with pictures, go to the "black blade development" thread and read post 53 on page 6. So don't pull that BS "Nothing gets my hackles up like someone blindly insisting the truth can be found somewhere in page 2 of a 5 page rant on why there are no black LEDs... " when you OBVIOUSLY never read the thread. I'm calling you out!

Firedrops, I saw your idea, but I already explained a few posts prior why it won't work. You have to ask yourself this; if the light is shining up all 360 degrees of the blade, why can I only see the light at the edges? The answer is that you can't. If the outer blade is illuminated, you won't see the black core, you will only see the light. Before you go accusing people of not reading your post, you might want to be sure you have read and understand everyone else's.

But perhaps I was unclear, so I will explain it again. Go get your nearest lightsaber and hold your hand up behind it with the blade turned off. You will be able to see a blurry hand because the blade is translucent. Now turn on the lightsaber. Can you still see your blurry hand? No, because even though the blade is still translucent, it appears to be opaque. If you could successfully illuminate the outer blade with a black opaque blade in the center, what you would see would be no different. The black blade would be completely obscured by the light. You will only see the black core when the light is dim or completely off, and this is not the effect that anyone is looking for. If you need more proof, go find the nearest lightbulb and tell me what color the filament is when it's turned on. (Please don't actually do that anyone. I will not be held responsible for your blindness.)

And all of that is supposing you find a way to brightly and evenly light the outer tube when the center is completely obstructed by the black core, which is impossible. The light from the LED doesn't travel up the sides of the PC blade. It travels through the CENTER of the blade across an angle of either 5 or 10 degrees, depending on the optics used, until the light hits the outer tube and is diffused.

Now I want to make it clear that the reason this will not work actually has nothing to do with the fact that black is the absence of light, or with the behavior of photons, or the wavelengths of different colors of light. All the people who said those things are making this much more complicated than it needs to be and are missing the far more fundamental flaws in this plan. I think anyone here on the forums ought to be able to understand the very SIMPLE reasons I mentioned above as to why this won't work, but I swear to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that if this conversation goes on much longer I will come back with diagrams! DIAGRAMS! You have been warned.

Yes, I did read that, I thought it was one of the few well-made points in the 11 page cluster of

Black blades only work in the movies using CGI or in video games. Sure it can be done that way but why? I suppose it could be a CGI black tendril-like miasma or something but again, why?

I'm not sure the filament bit was a good point - the core (or imaginary core) of a lightsaber is not the light source, whereas the filament is. Though the wires that hold up the filament would be roughly serving as the core, so I guess that works. Still - are we talking clear bulbs or frosted? Clear bulbs you can, theoretically, see the wires holding up the lighting element (filament) for certain wattages; frosted bulbs you can't see through even when they're shut off. Then there's the Flickering Flame special effect bulbs - very low wattage, very low light, and you can see the Black Core of the "Tongue of Flame" shape even when they're on, though granted only from the proper sides.
_______________

As for your other point:

Matt, oh you disappoint me. What I took objection to, and I have explained this many many many times, is the dark core. Under a normal LED setup, a black core will prevent light from escaping the blade holder. Period. There are still 100 other reasons why this won't work, but that is the fundamental problem. That proves that even YOU haven't read what I have been saying all along. I feel that the only way I can get people to understand this BASIC problem is to draw a diagram. I will return...

Edit: I'm back. My CAD software hasn't been reinstalled since I reformatted last, so it's just a simple paint sketch.

The left represents a regular single LED lightsaber blade in cross-section. I know the scale isn't quite right, so please don't nitpick. The right represents an LED blade with an opaque black core. Now, light travels in straight lines from the point of origin, in this case the LED and optic. However, it doesn't travel parallel to the length of the blade. Instead it fans out. This is important. If the light traveled parallel to the blade, it would never cross paths with the diffuser and you would never see it. If you want to illustrate this point for yourself, go grab a laser pointer and shine it down the center of a blade. Your blade won't light up. That's because the light isn't coming in contact with the diffuser. So in the picture on the left, you can see how the light fills the entire inside of the blade as it fans out from the optic. On the left, an opaque blade insert has been added. The light still fans out in straight lines from the optic, but it cannot CHANGE DIRECTION after it passes the opaque obstruction. What that means, and the picture illustrates this, is that the light will NEVER leave the blade holder. Period. Internal reflection doesn't become a factor at all because there is no light for the interior to reflect. Now, a SMALL amount of that light will be scattered by the diffuser back into the blade and up towards the blade's tip. However, all you will see is a thin halo of light around the emitter. Have you seen Chaos's blade plugs? It would look kinda like that, only with a big ugly unlit blade attached. Now, there is a way around this... sortof... and I will post another picture as soon as I have drawn it.

Edit Edit: Ok. Now, someone suggested that an optic be made that can get around the problem of the opaque core blocking the light. I said that such an optic WAS possible, but that it would never be made because it would have no practical application. Here is a simple sketch of what would be required.

Now, you'll notice that the optic in this diagram is the same diameter as the blade. This would be necessary. That means that a blade holder would have to be modified, or you would have to wait for one of the new ones that Tim is working on now. Additionally, the optic would work best if it was designed to project a doughnut shaped beam rather than one that is solid and brightest at it's center. This would reduce wasted luminous intensity. Next, and this isn't represented in my sketch, the optic would need to have a very low angle and it would need to direct the light in such a way that it is brightest at the inner edge of the doughnut. However, if ALL of this could be done, you would still come across the second problem which is that when a transparent object becomes illuminated, it loses it's apparent transparency. If you dimmed the light enough, this internal reflection idea might work. However, what you would have is merely a dim blade with a brighter aura, and the difference between the two would not be very noticeable. If you increased the brightness the illusion would be destroyed entirely because you would restore the opacity. Your blade would also have to sacrifice it's diffuser film, because that would blend the light so much that the difference between the dim core and slightly less dim aura would no longer be visible.

Let's just wrap this up. An opaque core WILL NEVER be the solution to this problem. Period.

I will refer you to my earlier acknowledgement and rebuttal:

you would of course have to do something clever with reflectors to route the light Around the core instead of losing it In the core, but that's left as an exercise for the reader...perhaps simply using reflector-optics and an imperfect mirror at the base of the core to send the rays back into the dish until they come out somewhere more useful.
And even then it wouldn't be true Black And White; the black core would be Admittedly just "Dark". Like, "edge of the lighsaber" dark. Which is still progress.

So now that's 3 times I've acknowledged that the shop standard 5 degree optics wouldn't work; so now for the 3rd time I'll ask without any real hope of anything but a n00b-flame response, what about different optics? Doing Something Clever With Reflectors, or Side-Optics, or both? Surely it is heresy to speak of other distributors, but such things do exist, and R&D is the spirit of the hobby, so see the attachment, which does not link to the rival site; such optics do exist. With a side-optic "Donut shaped" lens and hypothetical custom-made reflectors, and probably a wider than standard saber tube, would it be possible to make a toroid shaped light source? With a 6wire buckpuck and linear potentiometer, would it be able to light the edges just enough so that one can still "See their hand on the other side"? Would it be able to light it enough so that you can't see clean through but can still see the core? Would it only work for very short lightsabers even then?

But that's the Solidcore/Reflector theory. I'll grant the Solidcore-no reflector theory won't work; I don't believe anyone's actually advocating that anymore, but if it gives you any pleasure to debunk it, feel free.


Now, as for the accusation of trolling:

Ok, first of all you are acting like a troll now...
quit making a fool out of yourself...
You must be the bottle feeding type..
So don't pull that BS...
when you OBVIOUSLY never read the thread...
I'm calling you out!

very SIMPLE reasons...
You have been warned.

Matt, oh you disappoint me.

Good thing only n00bs can be trolls.

PS - if you wanna get me banned for trolling, feel free; I'm just trying to pick at a fun little challenge (the black blade, not you), if you need a newbie-free environment in which to work you're welcome to it.

[TimeRender]

Ok, let me first apologize for the degeneration of the tone on this thread. The oldtimers here know by now that although I am usually polite, when I have to repeat myself several times I tend to get frustrated, especially when I am met with rudeness and laziness. I am not SOLELY responsible, but I am sorry. (Edit: Not solely responsible for the situation, ABSOLUTELY responsible for my actions.)

I took another look at your diagram. If you had explained it in your post I wouldn't have posted my response. It was not labeled and I had no way to know that you intended for the core to be shaped like a T-bar. That's actually a very clever way to solve the problem. It doesn't solve it entirely, but it comes fairly close. Next time, don't just post a picture, post some explanation of what it represents.

The second post that you quoted just now isn't actually the post I was referring to, but you saw the second one from the other thread so it's all good. You seem to get the point. I disagree with you about the filament analogy because for all intents and purposes the diffuser IS essentially behaving as though it were a light source, but that's a minor point of contention and it's really neither here nor there. You're slightly over analyzing the comparison, but I can tell you understand the basic point.

In the next quote, in which I posted three diagrams, if you read it more closely you will see that I VERY MUCH DID acknowledge the need for a specialized optic, although your T-bar idea reduces the need for such a specialized part. However, and I don't want to beat you over the head with this, but it seems that you are refuting your own point by showing that I did indeed acknowledge the need for a specialized optic. Also, the side emitting optics don't do what you seem to think they do. They bend the light perpendicular to the LED. They DON'T create a doughnut shaped beam, but I can see how the picture may have misled you. However, even if such an optic DOES exist, it doesn't solve the next problem, which you yourself mentioned.

Assuming that you can direct the light up the blade without needing to shine it through the center of the blade (again, your T-bar core helps VERY much with this) you would still need to keep the light dim enough that you still see the core. Now I will admit, as I THINK I have before (don't quote me, I can't remember for certain if I have) that this will produce a blade with a core that is darker than the aura around it. However, that ALONE does not satisfactorily produce the desired effect. The core could be made dim, but not black, and the aura can never be made as bright as what we have seen in the game and on the TV show. Although I cannot say for certain without testing just how bright it would be, I strongly suspect that it would scarcely be any brighter than a dollar store toy saber, and that simply isn't up to the standards of this forum or the replica prop community at large.

Now I maintain that my harsh words before were in response to your attitude, and I still believe that you hadn't actually read those posts until I specifically told you to, but that's no excuse for my response to you, so for that I apologize. What I said to Matt I don't feel was trolling. I have a great deal of respect for Matt and I had rather expected that he would have already read the posts that I was referring to. I meant no insult to him. He is one of this forum's most genuinely nice members. And as for the "warning" that I posted, I was making a threat to show pictures. Really? THAT is troll behavior? That my friend was a joke, plain and simple.

Finally, I am quite flattered that you think I have the clout around here to get you banned for being a troll. I am not a council member. I don't tell them what to do. I don't recall ever having expressed to a council member a desire to have anyone banned, with the exception of a spambot who was on here posting "adult" images. Contrary to your opinions of this forum, I am quite accepting of noobs when they show an effort to learn things on their own, when they ask legitimate questions, and when they are respectful of the other members of the forum. I frequently post answers to questions in an effort to help newer members. It is not my desire to see this become a noob-free zone. Every single member here was at one time new to this hobby, even myself, even the oldtimers, and even Tim. What I don't tolerate is laziness, bottle feeding, bad attitudes, and those who refuse to try to understand the help that is offered to them. I'm sometimes guilty of one of those things myself, and I have certainly made mistakes, which is why I feel that everyone should be given the chance to make amends, but those who make a habit of being a nuisance may not find these forums as welcoming as those who do not.

[Lord Maul]

People, keep this civil or posts will be removed and threads will be locked. No more direct flaming of other members will be tolerated. Remember, this is just a fun hobby for us all. No need to get angry over the topic.

First and only warning

[Jay-gon Jinn]

I think I posted this at FX a while ago, but not here, so I'll do it again:



See where this was going? A solid rod for inside the clear and white blades.....

Installed the solid rod in the clear blade and turned on the saber:

Hmm....not impressed....

Installed the rod in the trans-white blade and turned on the saber:

Yeah.....that doesn't look like a black-core blade to me.....

so using something solid is probably not going to work...and you have to remember, that you're trying to re-create what is essentially a 2-dimensional effect in a 3-dimensional world. If you were able to get the side walls of the blade tube to light up, it would obscure the core anyway, regardless of what color it is.