Hi, i'm a lurker that came out of hiding on this one as well. I'm gonna illustrate what I'm about to say in hopes it helps lend to what i think to
somehow be a real video. Granted the guy who posted has some cheesy stuff that seems a hoax, but so far i haven't heard any true "break down" on
why this particular thread’s video is a hoax.
but first:
www.neilslade.com...
The above link "debunking" the video makes me want to cry when I see details not properly thought out and used as "hoax proof" when in fact the
details described prove the opposite. i'm going to use this guys points to illustrate the authentic feel of the video:
the detail and accuracy of the landscape is amazing. I think we all agree upon that.
In the beginning of the video, the optics are shallow focused to gain a larger view of the landscape. This is why you see so much of the glass board.
At 11 seconds in, there is a large shake in the camera. Sort of like someone settling a piece in, bumping the camera, who knows.. when the camera was
jostled, the glass and numbers noticeably moved. This makes perfect optic sense. With a wide angle view, the aperture size is generally larger number
which actually means a smaller hole of light by the camera end.
At 19 seconds, there is another shake. this seems not as large and the numbers still move in a fashion that makes perfect optic sense.
When they zoom in to the ship, they then change to a 1.8 aperture. This makes sense for the use of a telephoto lens.
what adds to the authenticity of this video is the use of the word magazin. This implies the different apertures were stored in a magazine rack of
other apertures. The camera used was multi-purpose which means many parts anapertures are stored in magazines..
Once they switch apertures and start zooming in, the lens gets brighter and darker as it telescopes out for zoom. This looks to be a genuine focal
issue as the different aperture is reset ato the proper distance from the outside lens. during lens transition and aperture settling, more and less
light is let in as the lenses settle.
Once zoomed in to the ship, there is a much more severe camera shake. This makes optic sense as well because to zoom like that, they had to make the
lens distance form the aperture more like a pirates telescope. A tiny bit of movement makes a big difference being zoomed that far away. What's
important here is the fact that once they are zoomed in, the 50 written on the inside of the ship is still visible.. From an optical point of view,
this does make sense in a telephot lens setup. It's a bit fuzzy of course -- extreme telephoto doesn't get rid of foreground subjects by "focusing
through" like other lenses do with the use of depth of field control .
Back to the point: while zoomed on the ship nose and the camera is shaking, the foreground 50 that's written on glass doesn't shake. This make
perfect optic sense.
Why?
Take a string and tie it to the camera and than pull it to the ships nose in a straght line. Then shake the string by the ship in the same increments
the camera was shaking. The point on this imaginary line where the '50" written on the glass is will be SMALL. But it Is actually visible. in the
video. look close.. The 50 is moving from left to right ... barely.. This makes optical sense. a hoaxer would just have to be an absolute maniac to
reproduce.
Other notes that lend to authenticity..
Channel flutter. someone mentioned it was "cheesy" earlier. The RBG channels "flutter according to the direction of the sunlight. A "normal"
mixing program channel flutter doesn't normally take into consideration of the sun.. only the effect of a channel flutter.
The lens flare on the camera changes with a volumetric highlight that shows the shape of the lens. I've never seen a scripted, cgi lens flare with
consideration of sun direction and vulemtric highlighting to illustrate lens shape.
too cunning for a hoax
B
[edit on 16-5-2007 by Bspiracy]
