Searching \ for '[OT]:: Darwin award candidates - Sukhoi SU62 G-SII' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=darwin+award+candidates
Search entire site for: ': Darwin award candidates - Sukhoi SU62 G-SII'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]:: Darwin award candidates - Sukhoi SU62 G-SII'
2007\04\18@000412 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
The most impressively bizarre and *apparently* dangerous feat of
flying that I've ever seen (photo only so far).

You'd have to think this photo was a makeup but odds are its real**.
Don't try this at home (even if you have a Sukhoi G-SIID).

       http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow05/riat05/partone/curtis.jpg

I suspect that the level of skill and / or bravery required by all
concerned must be rather less than it appears.

Gargoyling on the tail number (G-SIID) for images finds it doing many
interesting things (so somebody here has probably seen it), but none
of its other feats seem to quite match this one for utter fine tuned
death-to-everyone-if-any-of-slip-or-even-flinch derring do.

Just think what he could do if the engine was running! :-)


       Russell


Apparent motion blur of poles, if this is real, is caused by an
impressive feat of camera focusing, a long lens at large aperture and
more foreshortening than the brain suggests - just as well for all
concerned.

** Even though there are a number of similar photos of this around
it's still hard not to feel it's a makeup and the shadow looks strange
compared to other shadows in the picture. But the sites where this
appear lend credibility to it being real.

2007\04\18@015523 by greydove

flavicon
face
Looking at the photo things do not add up, the persons holding the poles are
fuzzy due to movement yet all aspects of the plane are sharp including the
prop...

{Original Message removed}

2007\04\18@024914 by Peter Bindels

picon face
That's just moving the camera at the same speed as the plane, except
rotational instead of translational. That means, the plane and its
shadow move along with the camera imaging direction, so they're sharp,
and all the people on the ground & background and so on are blurry
since they "move" with respect to what the camera is photographing.

On 18/04/07, greydove <spam_OUTgreydoveTakeThisOuTspamtiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Looking at the photo things do not add up, the persons holding the poles are
> fuzzy due to movement yet all aspects of the plane are sharp including the
> prop...
>
> {Original Message removed}

2007\04\18@041610 by Lee Jones

flavicon
face
> The most impressively bizarre and *apparently* dangerous feat of
> flying that I've ever seen (photo only so far).
>
> You'd have to think this photo was a makeup but odds are its real**.
> Don't try this at home (even if you have a Sukhoi G-SIID).
>
>     http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow05/riat05/partone/curtis.jpg
>
> I suspect that the level of skill and / or bravery required by all
> concerned must be rather less than it appears.

It seems likely to be real to me.  I recall seeing Art Scholl using
his verital fin / rudder to cut a ribbon supported by ~10 foot poles.
I saw it at several airshows back in the early/mid 1980s.

> Apparent motion blur of poles, if this is real, is caused by an
> impressive feat of camera focusing, a long lens at large aperture

This is common when tracking a fast moving object by panning the
camera during the exposure.  It's so common that Canon's image
stabilizer systems in long lenses have a mode (switchable) that
supports horizontal panning while doing vertical stabilization.

                                               Lee Jones

2007\04\18@043042 by Bob Barr

flavicon
face
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 06:55:09 +0100, "greydove"
<.....greydoveKILLspamspam@spam@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>Looking at the photo things do not add up, the persons holding the poles are
>fuzzy due to movement yet all aspects of the plane are sharp including the
>prop...
>

Sorry, I have to disagree. What really doesn't add up is the lack of
visible staining of the pants of those guys on the ground. Believe me,
if I were in their positions, I can assure you that a change of
underwear would certainly be in order. :=)


Regards, Bob

2007\04\18@050508 by Jinx

face picon face
> What really doesn't add up is the lack of visible staining of the
> pants of those guys on the ground

Ah, brown - the colour of fear

The no-stain reason is simple - they're holding up a papier-mache
plane and were Photoshop blurred

2007\04\18@052120 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>>Looking at the photo things do not add up, the persons holding the
>>poles are
>>fuzzy due to movement yet all aspects of the plane are sharp
>>including the
>>prop...

> Sorry, I have to disagree. What really doesn't add up is the lack of
> visible staining of the pants of those guys on the ground. Believe
> me,
> if I were in their positions, I can assure you that a change of
> underwear would certainly be in order. :=)

Various visual cues suggest that the visual effects MAY be caused
mainly by a large aperture long focal length lens focused in precisely
the right position. Depth of field in such cases can be close to zero.
Unlike most photos involving airborne aeroplanes, the position of the
subject in this case is known very very very accurately in advance, or
else. If the subject was very slightly off the focus point then the
resultant photo would be so stunning and horrifying that the lack of
precise focus would be a minor matter.


       Russell


2007\04\18@052236 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face

>... they're holding up a papier-mache plane ...

It was a genuine world record attempt.


       Russell


2007\04\18@053746 by Joe McCauley

picon face
Yes I was thinking that too. To freeze the plane & shadow so well would
require a fast shutter speed. Focus on the plane is spot on. The only thing
that makes sense (apart from a faked photo which is possible I suppose) is
that the photographer was panning the camera to track the plane and followed
through while the shutter was open. This would keep the plane sharp while
leaving the static objects in the frame blurred as we see here. A well
executed shot if it was done that way, as there is no blur discernable from
top to bottom. Of course a panning tripod could have been used....

Joe

> {Original Message removed}

2007\04\18@053921 by Jinx

face picon face

> >... they're holding up a papier-mache plane ...
>
> It was a genuine world record attempt.

Yes. It is rather a lot of papier-mache

2007\04\18@054147 by Jinx

face picon face
> >... they're holding up a papier-mache plane ...
>
> It was a genuine world record attempt.

I've seen some of the World Aerobatics rounds, and belive that
"stunt" is quite possible

2007\04\18@063512 by Richard Prosser

picon face
But wht is the prop not blurred?
RP

On 18/04/07, Joe McCauley <joe.mccauleyspamKILLspamtcd.ie> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\04\18@070419 by Jinx

face picon face
> But why is the prop not blurred?

If you look very closely it is

Assuming 1m blades @ 2500rpm, gives tip speed of 131m/s. 5cm
blur would be 382us shutter speed

2007\04\18@085559 by Walter Banks

picon face
There was an airshow act about 30 years ago by Joe Hughes in an
airplane called a Super Stearman  that involved a wing walker.  Part
of the act was an inverted pass with the wingwalker on the top wing
doing a ribbon cut about 10 feet off the ground.

I saw this about act about a half dozen times at various airshows,
scary. Eventually it happened, too low killed the wing walker and tore
off the top of the stab. It didn't stop the act. They fixed the plane and
and found a new wing walker and continued.

I don't know about this picture hard to believe a stopped prop and
blurred man.

The Canadian airobatic champion for many years flew out of the
same airport I did used to do a low and over then enter the
circuit. He would go the length of the runway at about 4 feet
inverted and often stayed in the circuit inverted rolling upright just
as he turned final in his Pitts.

w..



Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\04\18@100521 by Philip Pemberton

face
flavicon
face
Jinx wrote:
>> But why is the prop not blurred?
>
> If you look very closely it is
>
> Assuming 1m blades @ 2500rpm, gives tip speed of 131m/s. 5cm
> blur would be 382us shutter speed
>

Which is 1/2617.8 of a second. The nearest shutter speed to that is probably
1/2000, which is completely plausible in bright sunlight with the aperture
almost completely open.

One thing's for sure, the photographer was either very close, or had a VERY
good lens. I don't think even the Canon L-series glass is that sharp fully open...

And at that sort of speed, IS would be utterly pointless. The blur is just
because the camera's panning to keep the plane sharp, but because the people
are static they're getting blurred (because the camera's moving). It's an old
trick, but it works well.

*removes 'photography geek' hat*

--
Phil.                         |  (\_/)  This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny
.....piclistKILLspamspam.....philpem.me.uk         | (='.'=) into your signature to help him gain
http://www.philpem.me.uk/     | (")_(") world domination.

2007\04\18@104901 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>One thing's for sure, the photographer was either very close,
>or had a VERY good lens. I don't think even the Canon L-series
>glass is that sharp fully open...

It may also be cropped, so any problems at the corner of the picture would
disappear and make the lens look better ...

2007\04\18@111729 by Recon

picon face
Look at the shadows.  To me the sun appears to close to over head on the
peoples shadows
but if you look at the airplane shadow things just do not look right.  
Compare the the shadow of the horizantal stabilizer on the vertical
stabilizer to the shadow on the ground. The wings are level with the
gound so the shadow should be the same width as the airplane.

As far as the blurred people,  if it can stop the prop,why not the
people?  In fact everything in the picture except the airplane.

Recon


Jinx wrote:

{Quote hidden}

2007\04\18@113053 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> *removes 'photography geek' hat*

I've been looking at the picture close up with such photography geek
eyes as I can muster (vaaast experience, questionable skill :-) ), and
the more I see the less I believe it. It's essentially certain that
the event was real and that the aeroplane did essentially what we see
in the photo but it MAY have been a cut and paste from two photos to
improve the overall result. If so the editing is superb. The outline
is immaculate. The through cockpit view is not quite what I'd expect,
but that's still possibly OK.

1.    A closeup of the prop allows you to see space ahead and behind
the 'spinner' so you can assess whether there is any front / back
ghosting. There's none that I can see. Either the shutter speed was
very very very fast or the panning was very good.

The lens was a Sigma 170-500mm telephoto. These are f5+ and cost about
$US500 on ebay so are moderately priced for their spec. I'd expect
them to be a reasonably good performer but certainly not utterly
superb.

The photo is AFAICS about 25 feet across. At 500mm that could have
been taken from about 400 feet away. Say around 130 feet at 170mm .
Airshows being what they are more like the former is more likely
unless the photographer was inside the crowd barriers - which he may
have been.

If he was panning then 'motordrive' at about ?4 frames / second would
have allowed several prior "gates" to also be photographed as the
plane approached, but the precise placement suggests a single shot (or
cooked photo).

The EOS350 would probably not have been set to above 400 ISO to get
that quality. If it had been a higher spec Canon then a faster ISO
would be possible.

2.    You can see details of all aspects of the rear pole bearer
through the pole. For this to happen the pole would have had to have
moved sideways by at least a pole width during the course of the shot.
Given the high shutter speed that was almost certainly used he must
have waved his pole VERY fast to achieve this. I would hope that a
pole bearer would do a fine imitation of a rock in such a
circumstance. A panning camera would help this effect a little if it
panned in the opposite direction to which the pole was waved BUT the
effect would have to be very large to achieve a significant effect.

Taken to extremes, say he moved the pole only 2 inches sideways and
the shutter speed was only 1/100th of a second. The horizontal
velocity would be 2/.01 = 200"/second =~ 17 feet/second =~ 11+ mph.
I'd be surprised if they'd employ a person in this role who was not
much much steadier than that (by an order of magnitude or two), and
that's at 1/100th second. At 1/1000th second (far more likely) he's
waving his pole sideways at 110 mph. They all die :-) :-(.

If he is NOT waving the pole that fast then there is something aglae.
Because -

If a distant in focus object has a thin out of focus object closer to
the lens such that the lens can "see" the in focus object on either
side of the interposing object then the closer object may become
invisible. I have taken photos through wire netting fences with a long
focal length lens at large apertures such that the fence is completely
unseen in the photo. The quality suffers but non-experts may not be
aware that there was anything in the foreground. In this case this
"seeing through things" does not apply as the pole is obscuring the
scene (person) immediately behind it and no part of the lens can "see"
all the hidden material. So, the fact that we CAN see completely
through the pole is "suspicious".

The same applies to the red triangular objects protruding rearwards
from the wing tips. Both of these are visible right through the
frontmost pole.
This could be explained by claiming that the panned aircraft travelled
this far during the shot so that the image was taken before the
triangle entered the region behind the pole. HOWEVER this would
equally apply to all leading and trailing intersections with the plane
and background and especially the rear of the vertical stabiliser and
front of the prop/spinner should have similar "ghosting". They are all
as clear as could be desired.
The general sharpness of the outline throughout without background
interaction is very 'troubling' in this respect.

A possible factor would be use of flash, which would greatly enhance
the contrast of foreground over background, but there doesn't seem to
be pronounced flash effect on the pole holders.

Shadows are not impossible but feel wrong. There is massive telephoto
foreshortening which may account for some of this.

Look at shadow angle from rear horizontal stabiliser (tail). Note
angle of shadow pointing to where the sun is.
Now note the main shadow on the runway relative to the wings and the
pole holders shadows. Also the shadow of the horizontal stabiliser on
the runway. All the runway shadows appear far closer to vertically
below the craft than the shadow angle on the tail would indicate they
would be.

Also note the shadow line just above the H of Honda. This is far
closer to vertical than the tail shadow line.

The shadow below the front edge of the wing is consistent with most
other shadows. The tail/stabiliser shadow seems to be the odd one out.

All of the above shadow stuff MAY be explained by the sun coming from
off to one side so the tail shadow is a projection from one side BUT
the aircraft runway shadows and pole bearer shadows suggest near
vertical sun.

Other small shadows seem a bit randomly oriented.



So, overall:

       I think it *seems* to be a clever montage showing a real event
but using material from several photos.

But - I may be wrong.


       Russell McMahon





{Original Message removed}

2007\04\18@114851 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Also note the shadow line just above the H of Honda. This is far
>closer to vertical than the tail shadow line.
>
>The shadow below the front edge of the wing is consistent with most
>other shadows. The tail/stabiliser shadow seems to be the odd one out.
>
>All of the above shadow stuff MAY be explained by the sun coming from
>off to one side so the tail shadow is a projection from one side BUT
>the aircraft runway shadows and pole bearer shadows suggest near
>vertical sun.

Hmm, this is a bit like the "landing on the moon was a hoax, look at the
shadows" thing.

2007\04\18@115207 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Apr 18, 2007, at 7:05 AM, Philip Pemberton wrote:

>>> But why is the prop not blurred?
>
> The blur is just
> because the camera's panning to keep the plane sharp...

Effective panning speed is greater than prop tip speed?
That seems ... unlikely.  Perhaps the stunt includes having
the motor off  :-)

BillW

2007\04\18@135406 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:50:10 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:

> The most impressively bizarre and *apparently* dangerous feat of
> flying that I've ever seen (photo only so far).
>
> You'd have to think this photo was a makeup but odds are its real**.
> Don't try this at home (even if you have a Sukhoi G-SIID).

That's not the model number - it's a UK civilian aircraft registration, so there is only one "Sukhoi G-SIID"  :-)

>         www.airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow05/riat05/partone/curtis.jpg
>
> I suspect that the level of skill and / or bravery required by all
> concerned must be rather less than it appears.

I disagree!  I suspect that some of them discovered during the event that adrenaline is brown!  :-)))

As for its authenticity, the movement/blurring looks about right for a well-panned photo (I've done similar things
myself with showjumping horses, racing cars, and low aircraft flypasts) but the shadows are puzzling.  The person
holding the closest pole doesn't seem to have a shadow, but the pole he's holding does!  The aircraft's shadows seem
to be consistent with an aircraft flying low and inverted (and the lighting on the main undercarriage, and the position
of the tailwheel seem to support this too) but there is a strange shadow on the fuselage behind the wing which is
difficult to explain - it should be of the aileron, but the angle is far too shallow compared with the rest.

Ah well, we'll probably never know unless someone confesses...


Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\04\18@140042 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Bill,

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:51:03 -0700, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

{Quote hidden}

The prop's angular movement is pretty-much towards the camera, so its movement around its arc is small from the
camera's point of view, while across the frame it's the same as the rest of the aircraft.  Fast-revolving objects can
often look odd when photographed head-on - it's not uncommon for one propeller blade to appear heavily curved
while that blade is moving in the same or the reverse direction as the focal-plane shutter, but another blade moving at
right angles is almost straight, however from the side the movement is almost invisible.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\04\18@151945 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Howard Winter wrote:

>>         http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow05/riat05/partone/curtis.jpg

> The aircraft's shadows seem to be consistent with an aircraft flying low
> and inverted

Several people have said this, but I don't get it.

In the picture, the shadow (from wing tip to wing tip) appears shorter than
a single wing from tip to body.

The shadow should be about as wide as the plane -- when looking from
straight above (or at both from the same angle towards each). The angle
we're looking at the shadow is different from the angle we're looking at
the plane, but it is different in a way so that the shadow should appear
wider, not smaller (we're almost at the height of the plane, above the
ground).

Gerhard

2007\04\18@154734 by John Pfaff

picon face
The short answer: it's real!

Here it is in context:
http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow05/riat05/partone/curtis.htm

Here's another picture:
http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow05/riat05/parttwo/10su26.jpg

and here's a page on the whole air show:
http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow05/riat05/partone/riat05.htm

I saw a similar stunt at Wings Over Pittsburgh a couple of years ago.  
If I remember correctly, the wings are very short, thus the small shadow
width.  The poles the people are holding are very tall (long), and it's
very logical that their shadows would be a lot longer that the peoples'
shadows.  The plane went under the ropes that are strung between the poles.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\04\18@155716 by Richard Prosser

picon face
On 19/04/07, Howard Winter <EraseMEHDRWspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I'm not convinced.
The prop blur (what little there is) is significantly less than 1/10
revolution.
If the shutter speed is 1/2000 sec as previously estimated then at
100km/hr (27.8m/sec) (~minimum speed for this stunt ??) the plane will
have moved 28m/2000 = 14cm. If the camera is being panned at this
speed to freeze the plane, then the background "moves by" 14cm. But it
is blurred much more than that - maybe 10x this amount. The plane may
be going much faster, but it won't be going that fast.

OTOH Russels comments re the poles moving could be explaned by the air
displacement as the plane went past?

RP

2007\04\18@171104 by Richard Stevens

flavicon
face
Two things feed my suspicion.
1) If we treat the sun as a distant point source of light, surely we expect
the shadow of the fuselage to be fractionally wider than the fuselage
itself. Yet it appears to be the width of the runway centreline.
2) Look at the line where the shadow cast by the rear horizontal tail
aerofoil (I forget what it's called) cuts through the letters SIID. Project
that line to the ground. It hits the ground far to the rear of where the
ground shadow of that aerofoil appears in the photo.
Richard
On 18 April 2007 04:50, Russell McMahon [SMTP:apptechspamspam_OUTparadise.net.nz]
wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\04\18@180107 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
If the runway is very wide (ie, 50 feet?  100 feet?) and the
photographer low to the ground (5 feet off the ground, 400 feet away)
then the shadows would look very similar to what we see in the photo.

A fast shutter speed means that the trailing shutter follows the
leading shutter very closely, giving the sensor only a moving slit of
light.  This causes a moving subject to tilt.

So all we need to look for is 1) the plane should not be tilted and 2)
the background should be tilted (ie, squares are no longer square)

As far as I'm concerned, though, the shadows look good.  The sun is
almost directly over head, which means the people cast little shadow,
and the plane's shadow appears over the centerline.  The poles, which
are very long, will cast a small shadow.

I'm curious about the propeller though - I would have expected the
propeller to be moving faster than it appears given a suitably fast
shutter speed.  The propeller will also be affected by the moving
shutter slit, unlike the plane, so it should curve unnaturally.  Would
like a picture of the plane stationary, but not badly enough to find
one.

-Adam

On 4/18/07, Richard Stevens <@spam@piclistKILLspamspamengineerontherun.co.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\04\18@183238 by Jinx

face picon face

> Look at the shadows.  To me the sun appears to close to over head
> on the peoples shadows but if you look at the airplane shadow things
> just do not look right.  

My brother had a big panoramic print of Montanan buttes and desert.
An impressive wall feature. I asked him one day if he'd noticed that
the shadow of one butte in the background went right, and all the others
went left. He hadn't. I still feel a bit of heel for that


2007\04\18@195444 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
And:



I wonder about the shadow ...
--
Peter Fairbrother


And well you should, Peter.  The shadow says it all.  I am not a pilot
so
I cannot address piloting skills or the aircraft's capabilities, I am,
however, a producer and I know a "comped" jpg when I see one.

Shadow=time of day.  The shadows behind the men are cast to a vastly
different angle than the shadow under the aircraft or the shadows on
the
aircraft itself, never mind the quality and density difference of the
shadows as well.

There are many, many ways to shoot this kind of image, some of which
also
allow for sharp details on the men such as shooting with an
intervelometer
with a 15 degree offset lens as we do on some car commercials.  The
focus
is not the giveaway in and of itself necessarily, but the shadow?
Well,
only the shadow knows!

This has "graphic designer with alot of free time" written aaaalll
over
it.  Fun image anyway.

Best,
Denise Pouchet
_______________________________________________
RemoveMEaRocketTakeThisOuTspamexrocketry.net
http://exrocketry.net/mailman/listinfo/arocket

2007\04\18@195446 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
There is no doubt at all that the event is real.
The question is, is that photo a real single shot.
Here's a video, and I'll post a graphic producer comment next:



> Video at  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCbwRzgJLhk
>
>
> Anthony J. Cesaroni
> President/CEO
> Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace

2007\04\18@202820 by Cristóvão Dalla Costa

picon face
On 4/18/07, Richard Stevens <spamBeGonepiclistspamBeGonespamengineerontherun.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Two things feed my suspicion.
> 1) If we treat the sun as a distant point source of light, surely we
> expect
> the shadow of the fuselage to be fractionally wider than the fuselage
> itself. Yet it appears to be the width of the runway centreline.


The sun´s also "infinitely" distant and the difference in width "zero".

2) Look at the line where the shadow cast by the rear horizontal tail
> aerofoil (I forget what it's called) cuts through the letters SIID.
> Project
> that line to the ground. It hits the ground far to the rear of where the
> ground shadow of that aerofoil appears in the photo.


The plane´s not perfectly aligned to horizontal. That might be due to roll.

2007\04\18@204117 by Peter van Hoof

face picon face
Go to this url
www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=photo_id%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=120&&regsearch=G-SIID&thumbnails=tiny
there are many photo's here of the same (or similar event) with just as good camerawork
I do not believe any of these photo's are doctored in any way.

Peter van Hoof

{Original Message removed}

2007\04\18@204601 by David VanHorn

picon face
www.mauleairinc.com/img/Clears_the_hangar_color.jpg

How about this one?

2007\04\18@230445 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> http://www.mauleairinc.com/img/Clears_the_hangar_color.jpg
>
> How about this one?

They specialise in STOL.
And that's certainly STO :-).
They seem quite proud of that picture and feature it on their front
page so it's probably real BUT the back door of the hangar may have
been open.

OR the hangar is > 200 feet long as that's about their best advertised
takeoff distance for any model with a pilot and 1/2 a tank. On  a good
day with a small pilot and 0.1 tank of fuel with a headwind into the
hangar and the back door open and ... that could be real.


       Russell



2007\04\18@232323 by David VanHorn

picon face
On 4/18/07, Russell McMahon <TakeThisOuTapptechEraseMEspamspam_OUTparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> > www.mauleairinc.com/img/Clears_the_hangar_color.jpg
> >
> > How about this one?
>
> They specialise in STOL.
> And that's certainly STO :-).

I've seen a better picture, hanging on the wall in their fave lunch
place in moultrie, and been to the hangar. It's not got a back door,
and it's not very deep either.

2007\04\18@235946 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>From Arocket - and my comment

>>   Another photo by the same photographer at:
>>     http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow05/riat05/parttwo/10.htm

>>   and yet another from a different photographer:
>>     http://www.airteamimages.com/15241.html
>
> I might believe one photo is faked.
>
> I might believe that two photos from the same guy might be faked.
>
> Looks to me like it was real...


Again. The event was unquestionably real.
The question is whether the stopped prop, transparent poles,
interesting shadows ghostless image is as photographed or a composite.

The above two images lend credence to the idea that the original is a
clever "fake".
All the questionable features in the original are not present in these
images.
Of especial note is the propellor image as it is in these two much as
would be expected and utterly different to the original which was
beautifully and totally stopped. Also, in these two examples, the
blurring from panning and pole images and transparency and more is
much more as would be expected.

These are great shots, but they do not come close technically to the
original.



       Russell





2007\04\19@041245 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>and here's a page on the whole air show:

and that is "just over the hill" from here. Fairford is about the only
airfield in the UK where the USAF operates from now AFAIK. Certainly during
the Bosnia conflict B52s flew out of there. I don't think there have been
any flown from there for the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. I believe they
use an Indian Ocean island base for those.

2007\04\19@042038 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>If the runway is very wide (ie, 50 feet?  100 feet?) and the
>photographer low to the ground (5 feet off the ground, 400 feet away)
>then the shadows would look very similar to what we see in the photo.

At Fairford the runway is wide enough to take a B52 ... I guess that makes
it pretty wide ...

2007\04\19@064256 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
M. Adam Davis wrote:

> If the runway is very wide (ie, 50 feet?  100 feet?) and the
> photographer low to the ground (5 feet off the ground, 400 feet away)
> then the shadows would look very similar to what we see in the photo.

Hm... it seems the photographer is higher than the plane: the right side of
the plane is higher (check out the wheels). Which means that the angle
we're looking at the plane is smaller (measured against the horizontal)
than the angle we're looking at the runway. Which means that (use
trigonometry) the shadow on the runway should be wider (in the picture)
than the original object casting the shadow. Which I don't think it is.

So how come -- explained geometrically -- that the shadow on the runway is
smaller in the picture than the object casting the shadow?

Gerhard

2007\04\19@084552 by Lee Jones

flavicon
face
> This has "graphic designer with alot of free time" written aaaalll
> over it.  Fun image anyway.

I still think it's real.  A Sukhoi Su-26 is certainly capable of
doing this in the hands of a good pilot.

Search Google for "sukhoi g-siid" and you'll get lots and lots
of hits.  One is

   http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=517128

It appears to be the same event from a different camera location.

If the first image is faked, then someone repeated the process
and faked another one from a different angle of view.


> the red triangular objects protruding rearwards from the wing tips.

The triangular objects are visual gauges to aid the pilot.  In top
notch aerobatic competition, the aircraft has to be kept exactly
veritcal, horizontal, or on a 45 degree angle for maximum points.
The pilot uses various parts of the gauge in visual relationship
to the horizon to properly position the aircraft.

                                               Lee Jones

2007\04\19@090921 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Search Google for "sukhoi g-siid" and you'll get lots and lots
>of hits.  One is
>
>    http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=517128
>
>It appears to be the same event from a different camera location.
>
>If the first image is faked, then someone repeated the process
>and faked another one from a different angle of view.

Maybe we should check with the photographer in the photo .... ;)

Not that although the propeller looks to be stationary, the blade tips are
blurred, which is about what I would expect for a shot about square on to
the rotating object.

2007\04\19@090937 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I still think it's real.  A Sukhoi Su-26 is certainly capable of
> doing this in the hands of a good pilot.

Again. Event unquestionably real. Image either a composite or
Photoshopped to produce an image beyond physcal possibility in places.
eg see through rear poles.


>    http://web2.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=517128

> If the first image is faked, then someone repeated the process
> and faked another one from a different angle of view.

Most other images I have seen are far more believable. In most the
prop is a blur or at least visibly moving (although getting the prope
almost fully side on helps a lot to make it look still).

I still feel it is likely that at a minimum he had a vast amount of
post processing "help" and may have used multiple images.



           Russell



2007\04\19@111232 by Gacrowell

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspamTakeThisOuTMIT.EDU
> [piclist-bouncesEraseMEspam.....MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of Richard Stevens
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:09 PM
> To: 'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'
> Subject: RE: [OT]:: Darwin award candidates - Sukhoi SU62
> G-SIID and 5 friends
>
> Two things feed my suspicion.
...
> 2) Look at the line where the shadow cast by the rear horizontal tail
> aerofoil (I forget what it's called) cuts through the letters
> SIID. Project
> that line to the ground. It hits the ground far to the rear
> of where the
> ground shadow of that aerofoil appears in the photo.
> Richard


You're assuming that the elevator extends from the body as a linear
taper from the root; it doesn't.  The trailing edge of the elevator is
cut back near the body to allow side-to-side movement of the rudder.
The shadow angle that crosses the "SIID" is not caused by the angle of
the sun, but by the angle of the trailing edge of the elevator.

Gary

2007\04\19@111733 by Scott Touchton

flavicon
face
part 1 895 bytes content-type:text/plain; (decoded 7bit)

I have personally seen planes perform this stunt without the people on the
ground - basically fly inverted 10 - 15' off the ground.  Seems suicidal or
something.

However, what I really do not like about the original photo is the neutral
elevator position.  The plane has to obtain an upward attack angle on the
wing to create inverted lift, but to do this you need to apply "down"
elevator control.  In the photo, the elevator is neutral.  Sure, you are
always correcting it in flight, but it seems to be exactly at neutral which
seems to be a significant coincidence.  Also, the shadowing on the wheel
pants just seems wrong, but it is hard to tell the exact angle of the sun.

Scott




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007
5:32 AM




part 2 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

2007\04\20@101658 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Below is a response I just posted to the ARocket list on the Sukhoi
photo subject.
I've about done my dash on this.

Basically, I'm now convinced that what appears to be a photo is in
fact a work of art "inspired by" one or more photos which depicted
what is seen here. This may have been achieved with one original
picture or several but overall we are being presented with something
that a camera can never approach producing. Art's fine when it's
identified as such, but it's a shame when it comes in the cladding of
photography and you have to determine that it's not for yourself.

I've explained this further below, but essentially I'm saying that
photography can include quite extensive 'adjustment" of an out of
camera image, but producing essentially new image material strays
beyond this. In this case quite a long way beyond. The basic scene is
"real" but the camera concerned didn't do quite that well and no
camera on earth could have done what is seen there "out of camera".

All that said, I'd be happy to be wrong (even though it's impossible
that I am :-) ) and I hope to get to ask the photographer how it was
done..



           Russell

___________________________



{Quote hidden}

I am an electrical engineer by profession and all sorts of things by
enthusiasm (including an electrical engineer).

The enthusiasms outstrip the available 168 hours per week and so they
happen variably, compete with each other for time and go through life
cycles of relative time allotted to them.

One of my enthusiasms that is currently high on the allotment of
available (and unavailable) time is digital photography with subsets
of taking, sorting, printing and boring unsuspecting victims to death.
At any hour including late at night (like tonight) or even early in
the morning before the sun rises you are liable to find me
standing/lying / standing on the car roof/up a tree/ down a drain /
...  in any number of unlikely places taking photos of landscapes,
morning mist, flowers, people, billboards, motorways, seashores  and
more.

I am arguably currently at the "semi-professional" level. ie I do jobs
which I am paid little or nothing for either by request or just
because I want to with results that people say are well within the
range of normal compared to professional alternatives. (ie I'm better
than some who do such things for a living and worse than others). I've
done 21sts, weddings, conferences, festivals, social events and much
more mostly for low or no $ reward.

So - what relevance has that to the questions asked re the Sukhoi
photo?
This:

The engineer part of me which is (apparently) a fundamental part of my
DNA (as with all true engineers :-) ) wants to know how everything is
done, how everything works and how everything relates. The engineer
part of me doesn't mind too too much if it finds that something which
appears to be reality is actually art, as long as the art is not
presented as reality. If the engineer hind brain catches a whiff of
non-reality it sounds the alarm bells and the hunt is on.
- Did it REALLY get to orbit?,
- Is that Japanese exo-skeleton video a fake (yes),
- Can it really double your mpg (no), ...
- Is that Sukhoi photo, while obviously touched up, essentially "out
of camera" in essence? (no),
- ... ?

Then there's the photographer disease imbedded in my brain
How DID they take that
- Portrait of two cricketers caught mirror image mid wicket,
- Incredible portrait / rally car yumping / ballerina / ... / warplane
/ animal / ... ?

What aperture would they have HAD to used?
What sort of lens can do that.
What sort of camera has that mix of ISO & noise.
...

As noted, an out of camera digital image is NOT a final image (even if
it's eg JPG rather than RAW).
"Sharpness" is an inseparable part of the overall image.
Contrast and sharpness are different sides of the same coin.
White balance can not be achieved in some cases and in others
adjustment after the event may be as valid a choice as not adjusting
it.
Depth of focus is a manufactured phenomena.
Shutter speed (as noted) adjusts what is recorded.
Even things like double blind "sliding window" shutters (which most
are these days) can modify the image (although most photos are not
noticeably affected by this and many are not more than vaguely aware
that 'things can happen' in this area.
High speed "multi-strobe" flash (HSS in Minolta language) can also do
useful and interesting things
And much more.

To the extent that post editing plays within the realm of adjusting
the extent of things like those above my photographer brain is happy.
*BUT* when the basic image content is altered in ways which are beyond
the realms of possibility from the raw material then I at least want
to know that the photo has become art in its own right. If I am
striving to do something with a camera which I see someone else do
then I want to know that I'm trying to emulate a photographer and not
a graphic artist. I'll never be a graphic artist. While I appreciate
their skills and ability to do things that I'll never be able to do I
do not have a burning drive to do what they do. But I do want to be a
better photographer and to achieve things with a camera which are
above what can usually be expected. This isn't and almost certainly
never will be my day job. But I'm very keen on it (as may be obvious
:-) ).

The Sukhoi photo seemed to offer an impossible achievement.
The lens was good but not fantastic.
The camera (EOS350D) is near the bottom of the DSLR pecking order and
about as good as mine (Konica Minolta 7D) (but I have anti shake which
can help greatly in some cases)
The ISO setting to achieve a real world result like that would need to
be impossibly high OR the result achieved for the necessary real ISO
setting would be impossibly good.
If the details said "work of art inspired by an EOS350D / Sigma
170-500mm photo" (which of course it never would) I could admire the
graphic artists skills and move on. Instead it leaves out the
"inspired by" bit and my photographer disease passes the hint to the
engineer and we're off ... .

I am now convinced (for all the many reasons that I am others have
listed) that that photo is "art" in its own right - whether by editing
beyond the boundaries of adjustment or through combining multiple
images. The engineer wants to know how it was done and the extent to
which things have been done. The photographer is a bit disappointed,
would like to know what the out of the camera shot(s) looked like, and
has been inspired by some of the shots seen while researching this
picture and will probably try lurking on the Manukau mud flats at the
end of the Jean Batten Airport main runway some day to see what can be
seen, if the security men don't get too too upset. [[And my 500mm AF*
mirror lens is looking forward to seeing what it can do with spinning
props at a distance, and the inlet of a 747 engine as it spools up for
takeoff]].



       Russell McMahon

* The only AF mirror lens ever built. All others are manual focus.
There has to be SOME compensation for using Minolta gear :-).












2007\04\22@183120 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Alan,

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:20:32 +0100, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

> >If the runway is very wide (ie, 50 feet?  100 feet?) and the
> >photographer low to the ground (5 feet off the ground, 400 feet away)
> >then the shadows would look very similar to what we see in the photo.
>
> At Fairford the runway is wide enough to take a B52 ... I guess that makes
> it pretty wide ...

Standard RAF runways dating from WWII are 46m wide (150 feet in old money).  And the centreline is much wider than
you'd expect - people expect it to be like the lines on roads, but they start at about two feet wide and go up from
there!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\04\22@190331 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Look at these, pilots were always crazy:

members.home.nl/bdaanje/forumpics/ErnstUdetKunstflug.wmv
http://www.sn-medien.de/modellpilot/images/videos/flamingo/udet-landung.wmv

Tamas


On 4/22/07, Howard Winter <EraseMEHDRWspamh2org.demon.co.uk> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\04\23@153209 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
On 4/22/07, Tamas Rudnai <RemoveMEtamas.rudnaiEraseMEspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
> Look at these, pilots were always crazy:
>
> members.home.nl/bdaanje/forumpics/ErnstUdetKunstflug.wmv
> http://www.sn-medien.de/modellpilot/images/videos/flamingo/udet-landung.wmv
>
> Tamas

Bob Hoover still beats them all...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZBcapxGHjE

Nate

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...