On A Sea Of Glass Real Time Sinking Animation


Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,169
646
208
21
I think it’s so interesting how the final plunge happened so quick. All throughout the years there have been paintings, drawings, movie scenes, and other medias that focus on those last moments. And to see it happen all within the span of about three minutes is really grounding for some reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nov 14, 2005
2,322
1,221
308
I think it’s so interesting how the final plunge happened so quick. All throughout the years there have been paintings, drawings, movie scenes, and other medias that focus on those last moments. And to see it happen all within the span of about three minutes is really grounding for some reason.


What do we think?
For all who worked on it they did a good job on this. But I only watched a few minutes at the start, in the middle and the last 10 mins or so. And I ran it through a vid program (VLC) because I had to brighten it in spots to see what was going on. I'll view it later on the big screen where I'm sure it will be better. Thanks for posting it.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,169
646
208
21
For all who worked on it they did a good job on this. But I only watched a few minutes at the start, in the middle and the last 10 mins or so. And I ran it through a vid program (VLC) because I had to brighten it in spots to see what was going on. I'll view it later on the big screen where I'm sure it will be better. Thanks for posting it.

If you can, watching in 4K helps a lot when the lights go out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Nikki Farmer

Member
Apr 14, 2019
82
64
48
Maine, USA
I think it’s so interesting how the final plunge happened so quick. All throughout the years there have been paintings, drawings, movie scenes, and other medias that focus on those last moments. And to see it happen all within the span of about three minutes is really grounding for some reason.
It really gives a much clearer view of what survivors meant when they said she took a "fearfull plunge".

What do we think?
I've re-watched the animation a few times in the past two days (not counting the re-watchs of the anniversary stream), while going back to the book On a Sea of Glass and reading publicly available survivor testimonies.

I think Levi did a excellent job programming and animating everything into place in a manner that is very authentic to what happened that night and what survivors said they saw cross examined with evidence from the wreck site. Its quite the chilling experience to watch especially in the last 20 minutes.

I will be looking forward to seeing the adjustments and touch ups they do for "version 2" of this animation on the 110th next year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,169
646
208
21
It really gives a much clearer view of what survivors meant when they said she took a "fearfull plunge".

I've re-watched the animation a few times in the past two days (not counting the re-watchs of the anniversary stream), while going back to the book On a Sea of Glass and reading publicly available survivor testimonies.

I think Levi did a excellent job programming and animating everything into place in a manner that is very authentic to what happened that night and what survivors said they saw cross examined with evidence from the wreck site. Its quite the chilling experience to watch especially in the last 20 minutes.

I will be looking forward to seeing the adjustments and touch ups they do for "version 2" of this animation on the 110th next year.

I definitely agree about that plunge. It’s crazy how quickly the boat deck is WASHED with water and the funnel is swept away.
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,169
646
208
21
Probably one of the things that I’m not sure on is the last few seconds. What would cause the stern to go into a sudden spiral like that. I’d think that any rotation would be very subtle and stretched out.
 

Nikki Farmer

Member
Apr 14, 2019
82
64
48
Maine, USA
Probably one of the things that I’m not sure on is the last few seconds. What would cause the stern to go into a sudden spiral like that. I’d think that any rotation would be very subtle and stretched out.
A few survivors notably Jack Thayer described the stern rotating in the final moments after the break up.
 
Nov 14, 2005
2,322
1,221
308
If you can, watching in 4K helps a lot when the lights go out.
I'm sure your right about that. I have LED flat screens but they aren't 4K. Just HD 1080p. Probably should go get one because I saw the other night Wally World was practically giving them away. 65" 4K smart tv for $500. I was like "wow". Remember when something like that would cost you a small fortune. Cheers.
 

Nikki Farmer

Member
Apr 14, 2019
82
64
48
Maine, USA
I'm sure your right about that. I have LED flat screens but they aren't 4K. Just HD 1080p. Probably should go get one because I saw the other night Wally World was practically giving them away. 65" 4K smart tv for $500. I was like "wow". Remember when something like that would cost you a small fortune. Cheers.
you can still get a good image when loading youtube in 4K with a 1080p monitor. You'll just be down-sampling from 4k to 1080.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Nov 14, 2005
2,322
1,221
308
you can still get a good image when loading youtube in 4K with a 1080p monitor. You'll just be down-sampling from 4k to 1080.
Yes you are right about that. And a lot of tv's/monitors have different modes you can select..standard, movie, sports, outdoor mode..ect. But there's another factor that hopefully you won't need to find out for a long time...young eyeballs vrs older ones. Lately I have been having to wear my cheaters when watching tv to get the good visuals. But really the video they made on the sinking is quite good. I only had to tweak it in a few spots. They did a good job on it.
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,622
992
388
65
OK animation but I was a bit unconvinced about the final plunge. IMO the lights failure is probably shown about 30 seconds too early and the break-up once again too soon afterwards. Then I felt that the stern section took too long to sink below the surface.

I quite like the 'new' footage from the 2012 version of Cameron's version of the break-up and stern sinking.

One interesting thing that I found in this (the above one) animation is how Woolner and Stefansson got on board Collapsible D from A-deck. It is shown that they moved as forward as possible keeping abreast of the lifeboat and when it got close, literally stepped across the gap. Personally, I believe that is how it happened.

They must have calculated, correctly as it seemed to turn out, that after reaching the surface of the sea Collapsible D would be rowed a forwards ( ie parallel to the long axis of the sinking Titanic) for a few strokes before moving away.
 
Last edited:

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,169
646
208
21
OK animation but I was a bit unconvinced about the final plunge. IMO the lights failure is probably shown about 30 seconds too early and the break-up once again too soon afterwards. Then I felt that the stern section took too long to sink below the surface.
I think they were trying to convey the moment when some witnesses thought the stern would float. Because of this, 2:15-2:17am’s events might have played out faster than what we’re used to seeing.

In terms of the lights, I had always thought that the breakup (early stages (when the double bottom was pushed upwards)) is what caused the lights to go out. Do you think that the break followed a bit later after power failure? Lightoller described the lights going out during the sound described as a “rumbling roar.”
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,622
992
388
65
Do you think that the break followed a bit later after power failure?
I have always been particularly interested in the last 5 minutes of the Titanic's life with survivor accounts from different perspectives. What I did a couple of years ago over a LONG weekend (that almost cost me my marriage! ;)) was to collate relevant information from various sources like Walter Lord's A Night To Remember, Titanic by Eaton & Haas, Don Lynch's Titanic: An Illustrated History, Paul Quinn's Titanic at 2 am, of course On A Sea of Glass, Sam Halpern's Centennial Reappraisal, relevant testimonies from Titanic Inquiry Project and so on and tried to make a small timeline of the final moments as I understood it. Based on that IMO (and that only):
  • Collapsible A floated free just after 02:16 am.
  • Lights failed sometime between 02:17 and 02:18 am, likely closer to the latter time.
  • The breakup occurred about a minute after the lights failed, ie almost 02:19 am. IMO the flooded bow section either broke away and started to sink immediately or remained attached to the stern at the keel for a few seconds only.
  • The stern section started rapidly flooding immediately, rolled to port and then rotated, rose and sank very similar to the way depicted in Cameron's 2012 modification. I believe that the last of the stern sank below the surface a few seconds after 02:20 am.
In other words, I think the stern lasted no more than a minute on the surface after the break-up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,169
646
208
21
In other words, I think the stern lasted no more than a minute on the surface after the break-up.

I don’t have names right now, but there were many who said that the stern was in a horizontal position for about five minutes after the break and then another five minutes in a final, vertical position. Obviously this could not have happened since the bridge went under at 2:15. But those estimations tell me that they each would have been at least one minute per stern configuration (roughly).
 

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,227
535
188
16
Maryland, USA
I think they were trying to convey the moment when some witnesses thought the stern would float. Because of this, 2:15-2:17am’s events might have played out faster than what we’re used to seeing.

In terms of the lights, I had always thought that the breakup (early stages (when the double bottom was pushed upwards)) is what caused the lights to go out. Do you think that the break followed a bit later after power failure? Lightoller described the lights going out during the sound described as a “rumbling roar.”
I think honestly she broke closer/at 2:18. Too much time for her to sit there vertical, and things when people are in a tragedy or an accident, seems to "slow down" but that's just my opinion.

I get the keel buckled upwards, Roy Mengot's research is amazing. But the survivors saw a clean break which not happen if she broke keel up and mushed the upper decks together, which was not visible when looking at the breakup on the bow in 1985. The double bottom keel pieces being bent "upwards" could very well be the exercising of the pieces before they separated.

anyhow, sorry to dump this on you haha
I have always been particularly interested in the last 5 minutes of the Titanic's life with survivor accounts from different perspectives. What I did a couple of years ago over a LONG weekend (that almost cost me my marriage! ;)) was to collate relevant information from various sources like Walter Lord's A Night To Remember, Titanic by Eaton & Haas, Don Lynch's Titanic: An Illustrated History, Paul Quinn's Titanic at 2 am, of course On A Sea of Glass, Sam Halpern's Centennial Reappraisal, relevant testimonies from Titanic Inquiry Project and so on and tried to make a small timeline of the final moments as I understood it. Based on that IMO (and that only):
  • Collapsible A floated free just after 02:16 am.
  • Lights failed sometime between 02:17 and 02:18 am, likely closer to the latter time.
  • The breakup occurred about a minute after the lights failed, ie almost 02:19 am. IMO the flooded bow section either broke away and started to sink immediately or remained attached to the stern at the keel for a few seconds only.
  • The stern section started rapidly flooding immediately, rolled to port and then rotated, rose and sank very similar to the way depicted in Cameron's 2012 modification. I believe that the last of the stern sank below the surface a few seconds after 02:20 am.
In other words, I think the stern lasted no more than a minute on the surface after the break-up.

exactly what I think, good post Arun! :)
 

Kyle Naber

Member
Oct 5, 2016
1,169
646
208
21
I think honestly she broke closer/at 2:18. Too much time for her to sit there vertical, and things when people are in a tragedy or an accident, seems to "slow down" but that's just my opinion.

I get the keel buckled upwards, Roy Mengot's research is amazing. But the survivors saw a clean break which not happen if she broke keel up and mushed the upper decks together, which was not visible when looking at the breakup on the bow in 1985. The double bottom keel pieces being bent "upwards" could very well be the exercising of the pieces before they separated.

I agree 100%. I think the stern did stay around for 2 or 3 minutes after the break (not the 10 minutes that some said). Time would have passed a bit slow for some in such a situation as you said.

I think the double bottom would have popped upwards immediately before the decks opened up top. I think that buckling is what caused the lights to fail and the stern would have settled right after.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Nikki Farmer

Member
Apr 14, 2019
82
64
48
Maine, USA
I think honestly she broke closer/at 2:18. Too much time for her to sit there vertical, and things when people are in a tragedy or an accident, seems to "slow down" but that's just my opinion.

I get the keel buckled upwards, Roy Mengot's research is amazing. But the survivors saw a clean break which not happen if she broke keel up and mushed the upper decks together, which was not visible when looking at the breakup on the bow in 1985. The double bottom keel pieces being bent "upwards" could very well be the exercising of the pieces before they separated.

anyhow, sorry to dump this on you haha


exactly what I think, good post Arun! :)
I agree 100%. I think the stern did stay around for 2 or 3 minutes after the break (not the 10 minutes that some said). Time would have passed a bit slow for some in such a situation as you said.

I think the double bottom would have popped upwards immediately before the decks opened up top. I think that buckling is what caused the lights to fail and the stern would have settled right after.
Yea, and J.Kent did state in the livestream prior to the publishing of this first version that for next years version of the animation there will be further tweaks both to the ship model and what is depicted.

Specifically in the livestream at 1:32:00 he said they might move certain events a minute or two forward, or earlier.

Also revelations based on the final position of the lifeboat davit's worm gear and how they had to be adjusted to accompany the ship's list might add to the adjustments for next year.

2:32:50 in the livestream for the discussion on the lifeboat davits and the ship's lists.

Also gonna attach one of my favorite shots from the animation.
 

Attachments

  • unknown.png
    unknown.png
    376.4 KB · Views: 92
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Cam Houseman

Member
Jul 14, 2020
2,227
535
188
16
Maryland, USA
I think honestly she broke closer/at 2:18. Too much time for her to sit there vertical, and things when people are in a tragedy or an accident, seems to "slow down" but that's just my opinion.

I get the keel buckled upwards, Roy Mengot's research is amazing. But the survivors saw a clean break which not happen if she broke keel up and mushed the upper decks together, which was not visible when looking at the breakup on the bow in 1985. The double bottom keel pieces being bent "upwards" could very well be the exercising of the pieces before they separated.

anyhow, sorry to dump this on you haha


exactly what I think, good post Arun! :)
small typo, meant, "Which would not happen"
I agree 100%. I think the stern did stay around for 2 or 3 minutes after the break (not the 10 minutes that some said). Time would have passed a bit slow for some in such a situation as you said.

I think the double bottom would have popped upwards immediately before the decks opened up top. I think that buckling is what caused the lights to fail and the stern would have settled right after.
agreed with this, also 100%!
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Jul 8, 1999
2,622
992
388
65
But those estimations tell me that they each would have been at least one minute per stern configuration (roughly).

I think the stern did stay around for 2 or 3 minutes after the break
Hmmmm.....there are others who express doubts whether the stern was horizontal and then vertical in the literal sense in the first place. When the ship broke-up, the exposed deck spaces would have resulted in rapid and massive flooding. Since the stern had been dry and exposed till then, there would have been open portholes and other spaces through which air would have got displaced; I admit there might have been small pockets of trapped air here and there but I find it hard to believe that even collectively they would have provided significantly buoyancy for the stern section to remain afloat for long.

The stern section would have fallen back to an almost horizontal position immediately after the break but with rapid flooding rolled to port and then started to sink while at the same time rose and rotated counter-clockwise by probably 50 to 60 degrees as shown in Cameron's reconstruction.After that it sank steadily and disappeared - IMO the whole process from the break to the stern disappearing took somewhere between 60 and 90 seconds. But given the circumstances, that might have seemed considerably loner to onlookers from lifeboats because of the known phenomenon of time "slowing and spreading" in crisis times where several events take place in a short interval.