Movie Gadget Friday: the Voight-Kampff and Esper Machines from Blade Runner
Ridley Scott's Blade Runner is easily the best science
fiction film ever made, and the only film
based on Philip K. Dicks writing that is actually any good. It's coincidentally the film I've seen more often than
any other movie, since I spent a disproportional and unhealthy amount of my adolescence in love with Roy Batty.
We're going to take a look at two gadgets this week, first off is the Voight-Kampff Machine. Combined with
a series of questions about wasps, evil children
and your mum, this tests whether you are human or actually a replicant - an android slave built to do the rubbish
jobs. The test measures the subject's empathic response to the aforementioned questions, looking for 'flattening of
affect'. A fundamental and pretty obvious flaw of the machine is that it works on the principal that human beings
necessarily possess some level of empathy for others.
In the book (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, in case there is a single person reading this who doesn't
know that) the machine is made up of a unit operated by the person asking
the questions, a light beam which measures pupil dilation and a cheek patch which measures your blushes. In the
film it's just the eye beam.
The Esper Machine isn't in the book at all, but is one of the most
aspirational movie gadgets ever. Deckard, whose job it is to hunt down the escaped replicants, uses the compact,
voice-controlled computer to analyse a crime scene by using a photograph. The Esper turns a photograph into a three
dimensional capture of an event - enabling you to zoom into a high resolution picture, and navigate it - Deckard uses
it to look round a door to see one of the replicants. And people are impressed with 3-megapixel cameraphones?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:04AM
i don't think the esper machine turns a photograph into a "three dimensional capture of an event". as i recall, deckard zoomed in on a mirror on the wall and was able to further zoom in on that reflection...
T-sq @ Dec 19th 2005 12:04AM
If I remember from the scene in which it was used, the Esper can scan deep into an image without pixelation for detail extraction. What Deckard was able to do was look into a mirror's reflection and see that there was someone reclined on the bed when the photo was taken - the serpent lady Zora.
Shane @ Dec 19th 2005 12:04AM
Well ok, I just happen to have watched the DVD the other night (for the first time in years, I swear), and noticed a couple things I hadn't before. Since they have to do with that second device, I felt compelled to comment:
On the less sublte side, it did definitely appear that the machine doing the zooming was doing more than just zooming: toward the end, after a "go right" voice command (which I had assumed before was Ford/Deckard slang for "pan," but now wonder about) the reflection does move independently of the rest of the image, and indeed something even passes in front of it. This is both impossible to get from an ordinary photo and the product of some special effects work, as the black edges indicative of the optical printing it took to put the sequence together suggest.
Second and less obvious, one of the "photos" held up for the camera (and us) to see starts moving. The dappled sunlight on the porch moves as if the shadow-casting tree was blowing in the breeze. It's only a few frames: i just barely caught it and had to back it up a few times to make sure (like one of those continuity obsessed movie fanatics counting all 17 shots from an un-reloaded revolver in some western).
So if I were to guess, I'd say from the 'playback' of that print, and the machine's apparent spacial capabilities, that the filmmakers had something closer to advanced holography in mind; as if the the prints themselves were 3D or even 4D (time) records of the scene, and deckard's machine allowed him to examine them by moving around within all 3 or 4 dimensions.
Cuprohastes @ Dec 19th 2005 12:04AM
If you assume tha teh Photos are actually holograms, and the front is merely a 2D snapshot for showing without havign to have an ESPER display, then the ESPER makes sense. In fact the pictures have some sort of coding printed down the right hand edges.
The nitpicking you should be doing is asking - "If Deckard can get a high resolution zoom on his screen... why is the picture he gets printed out really low resolution and blurred?"
Eion @ Dec 19th 2005 12:04AM
There's been a number of decent films based on Philip K. Dick's books (at least, decent IMO) - Total Recall, for one. But Minority Report, Screamers, and Impostor were all perfectly enjoyable (I've not seen Paycheck yet, so I can't comment on it).
Now William Gibson, on the other hand...
Rob O. @ Dec 19th 2005 12:04AM
I'm with you, Eion. Why hasn't anyone attempted to do Gibson's "Neuromancer?"
"Paycheck" was a total waste and imposter didn't live up well to the premise. "Blade Runner" does indeed set the bar pretty darned high, but many of these others are just junk movies that are more CGI fluff than substance. Somehow, the importance of plot and ideals in science fiction has given way to mindless eye candy... Sad.
Dr. Zoidberg @ Dec 19th 2005 12:04AM
Cool Article!
Just a quick statment though, even though they don't attach the patch from the book, interestingly enough Tyrell meantons the "Blush Respone" (and, indeed, one of the tracks on the soundtrack is titled "Blush Response"). I'm not sure if that means this machine is somehow measureing the Blush Response as well (perhaps some thermal scanner that's fed back to the user in a digital data format instead of a visual?), or if perhaps this was an older part of the machine that was cut out because the eye part has become more accurate and it makes it more portable?
In response to the above comment, Total Recall was "decent" but Minority Report was excillent. I wish they would somehow make a movie from "The Man in the High Castle."
As to the Esper, I'm not entirely sure. Both sides make good points, but it would seem that it DID do more than just pan and zoom.
(Oh yeah, and a couple people tried Neuromancer, but none to Gibson's satisfaction. I have to respect Gibson giving up a whole lot of money because he wants his film done right and not completely mashed and garbled. I think the only way that's going to happen is with an independent and not with the major studios and indie films don't have the budget.)
John @ Dec 19th 2005 12:04AM
There are various pieces of software that do similar things as the mythical esper machine. A popular piece of software is Canoma. Although it's discontinued, it's widely regarded as one of the best applications that would assist a user at producing a 3d model of a scene from a photograph (and then subsequently calculating and exporting the 3d textures for use elsewhere -- animations, games, etc.
Look for Canoma information at www.canoma.com
Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 12:04AM
I guess I'm the only geek that hated Blade Runner.
--Matt
David @ Dec 19th 2005 12:04AM
Question,"how can anyone ,"not like Blade Runner"..?,I feel that DVD fans have been ultimately cheated out of viewing one of "the best movies to have come out of hollywood in the past ohh some 30 years and the "so-called film's bond-completion guarantors" need to realize what they are missing out on ,this film that they (have the rights to,;) )made has fans around the world,and the DVD would ultimately sell thousands if not millions of copies,so what do they have to lose by giving it the "Ok"...?,not a darn thing,everyone has read the comments saying,"scientists say Blade Runner is best movie", I had the privledge of seeing the original movie,in the theater back when it came it did come out and I was blown away by the premise,good story,good plot and good effects,and directors thoughts aside,"I think the VO version worked great",I liked hearing Harrison Fords comments and narrative,it gave the film substance where others lack it most of the time,lets hope that at some time in the next couple of years ,that Mr. Bud Yorkin and Mr.Jerry Perenchio both realize they are sitting on a potential gold mine and give WB the go-ahead and finish the special edition DVD and let it be released and let the fans watch their fave movie in a new and exciting version with special features included ,please sign the petition if you already have'nt http://www.petitiononline.com/B26354/petition.html ,the current DVD thats out there for sale ,I consider to be a "sorrowful and pitiful version" to say the least and I will not buy it ,I'd rather go without then watch something I do not like,thats my comments,I'm out.
jonathan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:04AM
David, I appreciate your enthusiasm but I think you've had just about enough coffee for one day.
David @ Dec 19th 2005 12:04AM
Sorry Johnathan,but I did'nt have any coffee that one day,I was making my comments know,thats all,appoligies to all.
David @ Dec 19th 2005 12:04AM
Sorry Johnathan,but I did'nt have any coffee that one day,I was making my comments know,thats all,appoligies to all.
anub @ Dec 19th 2005 12:04AM
give me in brief aboutth topic " how gadgets make man slaves to machines"