China Flanker Thread II

[Deino]

Please read my previous reply carefully. I did not claim the whole aircraft is a CG.

I know, you said that in Your opinion "The low visibility insignia and the missile are CG"... but IMO why making so much work to fake low visibility markings and a new missile into a real video sequence?

Especially since we know, that the PLAAF is introducing low visibility markings?

 

[huitong]

I know, you said that in Your opinion "The low visibility insignia and the missile are CG"... but IMO why making so much work to fake low visibility markings and a new missile into a real video sequence?

Especially since we know, that the PLAAF is introducing low visibility markings?

Forget about those markings, the only thing worth watching is that new missile. Let’s wait and see more evidences to find out what it is.

 

[Deino]

Forget about those markings, the only thing worth watching is that new missile. Let’s wait and see more evidences to find out what it is.

Hmm?? I hope you did not take my post as a critic - You hopefully know how much I trust you ! - or even offence, but IMO it simply does not fit to fake/ps such a brief clip and therefore thee most likely and reasonable explanation is at least for me, this is indeed a new missile, maybe an ARM.

But again, you are correct, we need to "wait and see more evidences to find out what it is".

 

[Totoro]

Can anyone provide a link to the video? FB group is not free to access.

 

[Deino]

Can anyone provide a link to the video? FB group is not free to access.

It is uploaded there and so far I haven't seen another link.

 

[Deino]

Again something concerning a strange Flanker image: This one shows a Su-30MKK with a 62xxx serial.

This would fit to the 9th AB, but we know it is currently under conversion (if not completed already) to J-20s. My first idea was, it is a faked image.

Now one at the CDF came up, it could be the 16th AB, which would make sense since the 16th AB is flying the oldest original J-11/Su-27SK.

What do you think?




PS: ... this seems to be the same pilot, the same aircraft and most likely the same photo-shooting now with psed low visibility markings and serials.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[taxiya]

Here is the link to the video posted by

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I have downloaded it and watched it repeatedly frame by frame. There are certainly some CGs such as engine running inside the hanger and the kill marks on J-20. But I don't see anything unusual regarding the flankers, either the missile or the LO markings. They are "blurry" simply because the video is only 1080p at 30 frames per second. It is HD in pixel count and frame speed for a video, but not high enough to see details due to insufficient pixel density and frame speed. There is no sign of deliberate manipulation (faking, CGing, Photoshoping etc.)

 

[huitong]

Here is the link to the video posted by

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I have downloaded it and watched it repeatedly frame by frame. There are certainly some CGs such as engine running inside the hanger and the kill marks on J-20. But I don't see anything unusual regarding the flankers, either the missile or the LO markings. They are "blurry" simply because the video is only 1080p at 30 frames per second. It is HD in pixel count and frame speed for a video, but not high enough to see details due to insufficient pixel density and frame speed. There is no sign of deliberate manipulation (faking, CGing, Photoshoping etc.)

No manipulation? I saw J-11B 10226 with low vis marking. It looks hilarious.

 

[taxiya]

No manipulation? I saw J-11B 10226 with low vis marking. It looks hilarious.

Not by examining the given video. I don't claim that I won't be fooled, but with my 20 years photographing and video-shooting experience I could not find any indication of manipulation.

By "hilarious", do you talk from the perspective of photography? Or because you know for a fact that 10226 was, is and will never be painted or re-painted in LV marking? If it is the later, I can only say that whoever did it did a perfect job in frame by frame manipulation which takes quite some manpower and machine power. But that it is out of the scope of my post 7937.

This is the part of video that I examined. The inside of the front landing gear door is red in the right tone, that is no loss of color due to manipulation (which would make it purple/pink). The background sky is also yellowish rather than pure gray after yellow and red removed. So the only way to totally remove the red and yellow in the marking without affecting other area would be lots of post-processing work, not saying not doable, but from a pure picture perspective, it is indistinguishable from real.

 

[taxiya]

Again something concerning a strange Flanker image: This one shows a Su-30MKK with a 62xxx serial.

This would fit to the 9th AB, but we know it is currently under conversion (if not completed already) to J-20s. My first idea was, it is a faked image.

Now one at the CDF came up, it could be the 16th AB, which would make sense since the 16th AB is flying the oldest original J-11/Su-27SK.

What do you think?

View attachment 65403


PS: ... this seems to be the same pilot, the same aircraft and most likely the same photo-shooting now with psed low visibility markings and serials.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 65404

That is very easy to tell the manipulation, it simply removed almost all red element in the original photo, everything looses the red element. Pretty much look like an underwater photo below 10 meters.