![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Powers of Ten (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The introductory section is basically just copy-pasted text from the second and third paragraphs from here: http://www.powersof10.com/film, with a few minor changes. IBrow1000 ( talk) 14:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
That's not interesting; it's contrived for the sake of parading the
French proverb les extrêmes se touchent. The largest scale in Powers of 10 is 1026 m, which is certainly not the 'whole universe'. In a square 10 billion
light years on a side, the corners are just 7 billion light years from the center, where the Earth is located. That's just half the
age of the universe. Most points in the square are considerably closer.
—
Herbee 00:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if the number 1026 is really correct? The largest scale mentioned on the
website is only 1025 m. Pity I haven't seen the film.
—
Herbee 01:03, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I have seen this film (at School and in several museums) but I also recall once seeing a more recent movie that was very similar slightly more polished but in other ways not as good as the original. I think it may have been an IMAX (or another large format) movie. I also recall that instead of squares on the zoom out this other version had circles. Does anyone know about this or other remakes? - Waza 02:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
When zooming out, the 107 m rectangle fits snuggly around the Earth, when it should really be somewhat bigger
I think the earth-fitting-in-a-frame-of-10^7-m criticism is mistaken, which mostly vitiates the "errors" paragraph. The assertion of incorrect frame size ignores the angular width of the view, which will cause the view to span a larger sphere than the viewframe itself, because the earth is on the far side of the viewframe: The 10^7-meter view frame is constructed not through the middle of the earth but in a plane tangent to the near side of the earth, at Chicago. A customary angle of view for a camera shot of "ordinary" proportions (neither wide-angle nor telephoto) will be something like 32 degrees high and 49 degrees wide (for a 3:2 frame whose viewing distance equals its diagonal, the standard rule of thumb). Having a view frame of that height would place the viewpoint (the "camera") at an altitude of 1.8 x 10^7 meters from Chicago, i.e., 2.44 x 10^7 meters from the center of the earth, which would cause the view angle to lie tangent to a sphere centered on the center of the earth and having a diameter of 1.35 x 10^7 meters -- a bit larger than the earth, so this would allow leeway for a somewhat narrower view angle than I have assumed. I think Philip Morrison, who not only narrated but consulted on the film, would have done that trig. I think the Eameses could have too for that matter. Now -- I grant that as you zoom on out toward the next order of magnitude, the parallax should change and the earth should end up hanging out past the frame -- but computationally that's a bit much to ask of a film made in 1977. At the point in the film when the view frame's size was actually declared, the view was actually legitimate. And I grant that the frame is too big on the return trip. That was assuredly a lapse. But with the principal alleged inaccuracy being mistaken, I think the "errors" paragraph loses much of its point for being. Crispin miller ( talk) 02:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
How Big Are Things? was an experiment in avoiding some of the pedagogical pitfalls of "Powers of Ten". 66.30.119.55 14:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
@ Chris Rodgers-- "A Rough Sketch for a Proposed Film Dealing with the Powers of Ten and the Relative Size of Things in the Universe" (1968) http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0063525/ "Powers of 10" (1977, the finished version the above "rough sketch" eventually resulted in) http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0078106/
In fact, I recall seeing the former version at the Air & Space Museum as recently as 1997. I was rather startled upon hearing the female narration, 'cos it wasn't the same as the male narration I'd heard in repeated screenings of the latter on 16mm at school..... ;o) MXocross 00:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This article would definitely benefit from images. I imagine the cover jacket of the book or video are considered fair use? 24.63.125.78 14:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This sounds almost identical to the 1968 Canadian short documentary Cosmic Zoom, which was based on the book Cosmic View. Pufnstuf 03:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Contact and Men in Black had scenes that involved zooming out from earth to a scale much larger. Should they, too, be listed in this section of this article? -- HantaVirus 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Not all these works are references to this film. This is a very old concept and only works which are verifiable reference should be listed. (no original research!)
Stephen Dedalus
Class of Elements
Clongowes Wood College
Sullins
County Kildare
Ireland
Europe
The World
The Universe A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man Kwenchin ( talk) 18:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
According to SCOTT QUINN's website ( http://www.withoutuntil.com/sq.htm) Shawn Lane's record's named after the book. Kwenchin ( talk) 03:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
During the late 80's to mid 90's (AFAIK) this was shown continuously in a dedicated seating area in the bottom floor of bradford's national museum of photography film and television, saw it several times there when growing up and it totally blew my mind :-)
may be relevant to this page somehow, may not
I could almost swear I saw this Powers of Ten (I'd forgotten the title, but I remember the man on the blanket) much earlier in the '70's, because it was in "Bull Moose Films" which were shown during lunch-ish time when I was at the University of Washington, and I wasn't there after about 1973. Can there have been an earlier version? 81.43.76.71 21:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Catanea
(See above section) Earlier version was "A Rough Sketch..." (1968) Kwenchin ( talk) 02:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the feature film was referencing this short film specifically in that sequence. I've never seen this short film, nor can I recall having even heard of it until now, but I have seen a sequence before similar to the one in Men in Black, where zooming out ultimately showed something like what was portrayed in the feature film, with the entirety of the known universe as merely some trivial object in a fantastic setting, because I was reminded of it while I watched that part of Men in Black. Unfortunately right now I can't think of the source or even the details of this alternate reference. Of course, whatever it was I was reminded of could have been referencing Powers of Ten anyway. B7T 16:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 19:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
One thing that has struck me as odd about Powers of Ten is whether we're really "zooming out" and "zooming in" as the article implies. When we travel into the blood vessel, we're not just magnifying / zooming in, but actually travelling INTO the body, no? Coop ( talk) 15:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Are there any free videos to the same effect? With Wikipedia's new powers of video hosting, this would be an encyclopedic project. The macroscopic part could be rendered quite easily with Celestia or similar, but I am not familiar with software that could be used for the microscopic part. -- dab (𒁳) 17:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This article currently includes the statement:
I've removed the following external link:
from that sentence because it does not show what the statement says it should. I don't know if it's because there's something wrong with the link, if Google removed the text, or whatever else the problem might be. I've fact-tagged the statement in hopes that someone might fix this. Otherwise we should remove the sentence. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Did this article used to have a section for these?
I wanted to add a link to this very popular internet cartoon:
-- Adxm ( talk) 15:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles are notable, or they are removed. Content is encyclopedic or not. See WP:NNC. Lentower ( talk) 08:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
There are two citations to the revised book. The year differs, as well as minor details:
Can they be combined into one? If yes, please do so. Lentower ( talk) 07:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The article contained a broken link to http://www.powersof10.com , which is a broken link. I deleted the link. User Lentower reverted my edit without explanation. I'm redeleting the broken link. Lentower, please don't make further counterproductive edits without participating in discussion or giving reasons for your actions.-- Fashionslide ( talk) 00:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Powers of Ten (film). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Powers of Ten (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Powers of Ten (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
The introductory section is basically just copy-pasted text from the second and third paragraphs from here: http://www.powersof10.com/film, with a few minor changes. IBrow1000 ( talk) 14:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
That's not interesting; it's contrived for the sake of parading the
French proverb les extrêmes se touchent. The largest scale in Powers of 10 is 1026 m, which is certainly not the 'whole universe'. In a square 10 billion
light years on a side, the corners are just 7 billion light years from the center, where the Earth is located. That's just half the
age of the universe. Most points in the square are considerably closer.
—
Herbee 00:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if the number 1026 is really correct? The largest scale mentioned on the
website is only 1025 m. Pity I haven't seen the film.
—
Herbee 01:03, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I have seen this film (at School and in several museums) but I also recall once seeing a more recent movie that was very similar slightly more polished but in other ways not as good as the original. I think it may have been an IMAX (or another large format) movie. I also recall that instead of squares on the zoom out this other version had circles. Does anyone know about this or other remakes? - Waza 02:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
When zooming out, the 107 m rectangle fits snuggly around the Earth, when it should really be somewhat bigger
I think the earth-fitting-in-a-frame-of-10^7-m criticism is mistaken, which mostly vitiates the "errors" paragraph. The assertion of incorrect frame size ignores the angular width of the view, which will cause the view to span a larger sphere than the viewframe itself, because the earth is on the far side of the viewframe: The 10^7-meter view frame is constructed not through the middle of the earth but in a plane tangent to the near side of the earth, at Chicago. A customary angle of view for a camera shot of "ordinary" proportions (neither wide-angle nor telephoto) will be something like 32 degrees high and 49 degrees wide (for a 3:2 frame whose viewing distance equals its diagonal, the standard rule of thumb). Having a view frame of that height would place the viewpoint (the "camera") at an altitude of 1.8 x 10^7 meters from Chicago, i.e., 2.44 x 10^7 meters from the center of the earth, which would cause the view angle to lie tangent to a sphere centered on the center of the earth and having a diameter of 1.35 x 10^7 meters -- a bit larger than the earth, so this would allow leeway for a somewhat narrower view angle than I have assumed. I think Philip Morrison, who not only narrated but consulted on the film, would have done that trig. I think the Eameses could have too for that matter. Now -- I grant that as you zoom on out toward the next order of magnitude, the parallax should change and the earth should end up hanging out past the frame -- but computationally that's a bit much to ask of a film made in 1977. At the point in the film when the view frame's size was actually declared, the view was actually legitimate. And I grant that the frame is too big on the return trip. That was assuredly a lapse. But with the principal alleged inaccuracy being mistaken, I think the "errors" paragraph loses much of its point for being. Crispin miller ( talk) 02:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
How Big Are Things? was an experiment in avoiding some of the pedagogical pitfalls of "Powers of Ten". 66.30.119.55 14:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
@ Chris Rodgers-- "A Rough Sketch for a Proposed Film Dealing with the Powers of Ten and the Relative Size of Things in the Universe" (1968) http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0063525/ "Powers of 10" (1977, the finished version the above "rough sketch" eventually resulted in) http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0078106/
In fact, I recall seeing the former version at the Air & Space Museum as recently as 1997. I was rather startled upon hearing the female narration, 'cos it wasn't the same as the male narration I'd heard in repeated screenings of the latter on 16mm at school..... ;o) MXocross 00:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This article would definitely benefit from images. I imagine the cover jacket of the book or video are considered fair use? 24.63.125.78 14:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This sounds almost identical to the 1968 Canadian short documentary Cosmic Zoom, which was based on the book Cosmic View. Pufnstuf 03:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Contact and Men in Black had scenes that involved zooming out from earth to a scale much larger. Should they, too, be listed in this section of this article? -- HantaVirus 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Not all these works are references to this film. This is a very old concept and only works which are verifiable reference should be listed. (no original research!)
Stephen Dedalus
Class of Elements
Clongowes Wood College
Sullins
County Kildare
Ireland
Europe
The World
The Universe A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man Kwenchin ( talk) 18:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
According to SCOTT QUINN's website ( http://www.withoutuntil.com/sq.htm) Shawn Lane's record's named after the book. Kwenchin ( talk) 03:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
During the late 80's to mid 90's (AFAIK) this was shown continuously in a dedicated seating area in the bottom floor of bradford's national museum of photography film and television, saw it several times there when growing up and it totally blew my mind :-)
may be relevant to this page somehow, may not
I could almost swear I saw this Powers of Ten (I'd forgotten the title, but I remember the man on the blanket) much earlier in the '70's, because it was in "Bull Moose Films" which were shown during lunch-ish time when I was at the University of Washington, and I wasn't there after about 1973. Can there have been an earlier version? 81.43.76.71 21:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Catanea
(See above section) Earlier version was "A Rough Sketch..." (1968) Kwenchin ( talk) 02:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the feature film was referencing this short film specifically in that sequence. I've never seen this short film, nor can I recall having even heard of it until now, but I have seen a sequence before similar to the one in Men in Black, where zooming out ultimately showed something like what was portrayed in the feature film, with the entirety of the known universe as merely some trivial object in a fantastic setting, because I was reminded of it while I watched that part of Men in Black. Unfortunately right now I can't think of the source or even the details of this alternate reference. Of course, whatever it was I was reminded of could have been referencing Powers of Ten anyway. B7T 16:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 19:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
One thing that has struck me as odd about Powers of Ten is whether we're really "zooming out" and "zooming in" as the article implies. When we travel into the blood vessel, we're not just magnifying / zooming in, but actually travelling INTO the body, no? Coop ( talk) 15:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Are there any free videos to the same effect? With Wikipedia's new powers of video hosting, this would be an encyclopedic project. The macroscopic part could be rendered quite easily with Celestia or similar, but I am not familiar with software that could be used for the microscopic part. -- dab (𒁳) 17:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This article currently includes the statement:
I've removed the following external link:
from that sentence because it does not show what the statement says it should. I don't know if it's because there's something wrong with the link, if Google removed the text, or whatever else the problem might be. I've fact-tagged the statement in hopes that someone might fix this. Otherwise we should remove the sentence. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Did this article used to have a section for these?
I wanted to add a link to this very popular internet cartoon:
-- Adxm ( talk) 15:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles are notable, or they are removed. Content is encyclopedic or not. See WP:NNC. Lentower ( talk) 08:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
There are two citations to the revised book. The year differs, as well as minor details:
Can they be combined into one? If yes, please do so. Lentower ( talk) 07:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The article contained a broken link to http://www.powersof10.com , which is a broken link. I deleted the link. User Lentower reverted my edit without explanation. I'm redeleting the broken link. Lentower, please don't make further counterproductive edits without participating in discussion or giving reasons for your actions.-- Fashionslide ( talk) 00:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Powers of Ten (film). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Powers of Ten (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)