REDs shoot the bang

[Michael Brennan]

Ive been working with Sam and the guys at Decode in London for the last few days using RED at 90 and 120fps to capture actual explosions (not pyro) of a liquid 'tang" bomb detonating within a jet fuselage.

At 75 ft from (in front of ) the blasts the REDs took some impressive shock waves head on without missing a beat.

The frame rates were a perfect step between real time and the +500fps digtial slo mo cameras we were using.

The major difference was that the REDs could be reset in a few minutes!



Mike Brennan

 

[Noah Kadner]

And.... you know you can't talk about slow motion explosions and leave without posting some clips right? :devil:

Noah

 

[M.Halsell]

Noah, you so funny! Thanks for the Barry Green audio DVD, pretty neat.

 

[jchalfant]

yah I agree with Noahk... omg that must have been cool...

-J

 

[Michael Brennan]

Clients were BBC, NBC, ITN news and their international affiliates.

The shots will be on air in the next week after the jury delivers its verdict on a group accused of planning to blowup 7 aircraft using liquid 'tang" bombs.

RED shots were looking striaght down the fusalage and side shots including closeups.
BBC have acess to the RED footage, NBC and ITV do not


I'd be imprisoned myself if the pics leaked



Mike Brennan

 

[jbeale]

Explosions make for fascinating footage, yes... given that this was apparently a real test, I'm just wondering if, in today's climate, this is the sort of thing that should not be broadcast ?

I'm thinking some groups who might be planning such an attack don't have the resources to do a test on the real thing. Is it wise for the BBC to do the test for them, and show everyone the results?

 

[Noah Kadner]

Explosions make for fascinating footage, yes... given that this was apparently a real test, I'm just wondering if, in today's climate, this is the sort of thing that should not be broadcast ?

I'm thinking some groups who might be planning such an attack don't have the resources to do a test on the real thing. Is it wise for the BBC to do the test for them, and show everyone the results?

You're kidding right? There's this little thing called the Internet which will show you how to make pretty much any kind of bomb or weapon in history. The question is what can you do with that knowledge?

Noah

 

[Justin Anderson]

You're kidding right? There's this little thing called the Internet which will show you how to make pretty much any kind of bomb or weapon in history. The question is what can you do with that knowledge?

Noah

What is this Internet you speak of? Is it flammable?

 

[jbeale]

To be more specific, I'm not aware of experimental tests of the effects of binary liquid explosives on real, commercial aircraft fuselages which is generally available for download. Real aircraft often being kind of expensive and not found in every backyard. But you may be right- I haven't looked for it.

 

[ericyoung]

You're kidding right? There's this little thing called the Internet which will show you how to make pretty much any kind of bomb or weapon in history. The question is what can you do with that knowledge?

Noah

I'm with jbeale on this.

It's one thing if you're a terrorist/ extortionist/ extremist intent on causing explosions to cause real carnage. You'll get the knowledge and means one way or another.

But when a national broadcaster wants to push that knowledge into people's homes, no doubt with lots of exciting trailers featuring sexy "real life explosions footage folks", then it borders on irresponsible. What about the mischievious juveniles out there that might have been content with playing with matches or maybe a few fireworks? But with this prompt might be tempted to try something more exciting and potentially more tragic?

I think it's a poor argument to say that the knowledge is already out there so it's OK to compound that problem by pushing it into people's laps.

In the past, programme makers may have stuck with simple graphics, or verbal descriptions. In today's ratings battles it seems we have to be shown everything in slow motion detail and hang the consequences.

And don't get me started on the lamentable use of feature film thriller music, camera and editing techniques and faux drama to "sex up" purportedly serious documentaries. There's a balance to be struck of course, but to me it feels seriously over the line at the moment (at least in the UK). inch:

EDIT: I have nothing against big cool explosions in fiction!

 

[R. Gonzales]

If you are interested in what a tang bomb can do:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356491,00.html

 

[Dylan Reeve]

It's not like the people who might use these devices aren't aware of what they can do. Video of a test isn't going to change anything.

 

[Michael Brennan]

I'm with jbeale on this.

It's one thing if you're a terrorist/ extortionist/ extremist intent on causing explosions to cause real carnage. You'll get the knowledge and means one way or another.

But when a national broadcaster wants to push that knowledge into people's homes, no doubt with lots of exciting trailers featuring sexy "real life explosions footage folks", then it borders on irresponsible. What about the mischievous juveniles out there that might have been content with playing with matches or maybe a few fireworks? But with this prompt might be tempted to try something more exciting and potentially more tragic?

I think it's a poor argument to say that the knowledge is already out there so it's OK to compound that problem by pushing it into people's laps.

In the past, programme makers may have stuck with simple graphics, or verbal descriptions. In today's ratings battles it seems we have to be shown everything in slow motion detail and hang the consequences.

And don't get me started on the lamentable use of feature film thriller music, camera and editing techniques and faux drama to "sex up" purportedly serious documentaries. There's a balance to be struck of course, but to me it feels seriously over the line at the moment (at least in the UK). inch:

EDIT: I have nothing against big cool explosions in fiction!

It will be shown internationally on most networks.

Yes it is very descriptive to lay people to the damage a device can do, that is the editorial push behind the demonstration.
Terrorists already tried it out on air-planes and other vehicles.


Showing airline travellers just why they can't travel with more than 100ml of liquid is a public service.
I for one was led to believe that it wasn't a threat due to the complicated mixing process.

IRA used diesel and fertiliser (very common on farms in Australia to blow up tree stumps).
I dont recall any cases of kids being injured after numerous docs on British TV showed the effects of this particular mix. Nor in the states with the Oklahoma bomb, there is a risk of a kid getting ideas but the good of the wider public far outweights the risk.


Off topic, but aren't kids too thrilled playing with violent computer games to bother with anything as school like as chemistry?




This hydrogen peroxide stuff was used professionally in the twenties. Terrorists were already aware of how to do it, there is seven of them in court who have already admitted they plan to use it as a publicity stunt.

The public should be aware of the perils they face in the world.
A 500ml soft drink bottle with a wire coming out the top is a real threat.
A threat that is diminished by the public screening of demonstrations.

Not without risk of kids copying it , but not irresponsible.

The "cool explosions" in movies you refer are not without causing social problems in kids, kids can't tell the difference between a movie and the real thing.



Mike Brennan

 

[ericyoung]

It will be shown internationally on most networks.

Yes it is very descriptive to lay people to the damage a device can do, that is the editorial push behind the demonstration.
Terrorists already tried it out on air-planes and other vehicles.

Showing airline travellers just why they can't travel with more than 100ml of liquid is a public service.
I for one was led to believe that it wasn't a threat due to the complicated mixing process.

Thinking further about it, it's not really the actual explosion footage I feel uneasy about so much, as that could be any old explosion. It's the degree of description of the ingredients and their availability.

In the past, I recall the news just saying the ingredients were readily available in the households and supermarkets. Now we are naming brands and showing mockups of the actual devices.

IRA used diesel and fertiliser (very common on farms in Australia to blow up tree stumps).
I dont recall any cases of kids being injured after numerous docs on British TV showed the effects of this particular mix. Nor in the states with the Oklahoma bomb, there is a risk of a kid getting ideas but the good of the wider public far outweights the risk.

Didn't they just refer to those as fertiliser bombs, not diesel and fertiliser? So they left out one of the vital ingredients.

The public should be aware of the perils they face in the world.
A 500ml soft drink bottle with a wire coming out the top is a real threat.
A threat that is diminished by the public screening of demonstrations.

Not without risk of kids copying it , but not irresponsible.

Agreed. But the news/doc doesn't have to name the exact ingredients which I think does stray into irresponsible!

The "cool explosions" in movies you refer are not without causing social problems in kids, kids can't tell the difference between a movie and the real thing.

Well that's a slightly different topic. I would say that most movie bombs are far from realistic and therefore hard if not impossible for kids to copy at home. I would also note that only some kids can't distinguish the two, and they have other problems too.

 

[Michael Brennan]

Just to be clear as far as I'm aware there wasn't anything mocked up in the demo, wysiwyg.


I happened to be making a doc about the London air ambulance on April 24th 1993 the day the biggest IRA bomb on British soil was detonated at Bishopsgate in London. A 3,500lb fertilizer and Diesel truck bomb. After flying over it we went on foot to ground zero. The destruction was shocking.
£600m damage, equal to well over a £1 Billion in todays money.


On a smaller scale but equally shocking were the effects of the 500ml bottle of bleach and tang witnessed last week.

As a freelancer I would be troubled if something I shot were to make it easier for the bad guys but the reality is that fertiliser bombs were detailed in Encyclopaedia Britannia in the 1970s and bleach was used in 1925 so we have hardly been revealing secret processes.

But what is worth doing is making the public more aware and informed of the circumstances in which their life is under threat by the application of these devices into our modern world.

OK, there is likely to always be a tiny percentage of the population who through curiosity or boredom will become motivated into trying the latest bomb recipe.


But on balance, if the public are more aware that a 500ml bottle of liquid can (potentially) bring down a plane then hundreds of lives may be saved so surely this out weights the risk of accidental injury to a mischievous kid?

Knowledge can be used for good or evil.

There is a degree of intelligence (and preparation) required to make a tang bomb, but google indicates that in 2008 good old black powder is still the most popular form of accidental self harm for kid bombers.

No mixing required.


Mike Brennan

 

[ericyoung]

Hey Mike

I only hope the producers of this and other similar programmes take as much time to consider exactly how they choose to depict this matter as you have in your very reasonable posts.

The reason I am concerned is that I have had first hand experience of producers whose first concerns are how sexy the footage is and their showreels, and only consider the bigger picture when forced to do so by someone else. They aren't the majority, but there are certainly enough of them to bother me!

 

[Dylan Reeve]

Thinking further about it, it's not really the actual explosion footage I feel uneasy about so much, as that could be any old explosion. It's the degree of description of the ingredients and their availability.

In the past, I recall the news just saying the ingredients were readily available in the households and supermarkets. Now we are naming brands and showing mockups of the actual devices.

Then your issue there isn't potential terrorists, they will have no problem finding information on stuff that explodes.

You're perhaps more worried about impressionable kids (I recall heated discussions about MacGuyver from my youth and whether it was irresponsible to show that sort of thing).

Didn't they just refer to those as fertiliser bombs, not diesel and fertiliser? So they left out one of the vital ingredients.

I've heard many many references to the diesel and fertiliser bombs (the Oklahoma bomb was one, for example). Of course there is a very specific type of fertiliser required, a bag of horse poo will not work.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

...So does this mean that documentary I'm preparing on how to built an atomic bomb is a bad idea?

 

[Dylan Reeve]

There's some very detailed information about building atomic bombs online, but the complexity and scarcity of components pretty much negates any realistic risk of anyone other than a nation state doing it.

 

[Obin Olson]

give it up already folks about the:
mischievious juveniles out there that might have been content with playing with matches or maybe a few fireworks?

please!!! NOTHING is a secret anymore!