J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)

Status
Not open for further replies.

SamuraiBlue

Captain
You don't know what you are talking about. Depth of Field or focal depth as you wrote is a function of the aperture and distance of the photographer to the subject. Smaller lens aperture produces smaller DOF and smaller distance between the photographer to the subject also produces smaller DOF. DOF is also effected by the lens focal length and the size of the sensor. So there are many factors that can affect DOF, and it is certainly possible that a photo can have almost everything in view in focus.
You do know what kind of ISO modern digital cameras are capable of right? When the camera is set to high ISO you can use a high shutter speed and still get clear photo of a high speed subject.
These are all very basic photographic principle.

Sorry but I know much more then you can possibly imagine working in the marketing communication industry looking at various photos and how pictures are composed.
 

vesicles

Colonel
Has the photo in question revealed anything new or shocking? If not, why would people go through the trouble PSing it? The fact that the photo in question becomes controversial suggests that the guy who made the alleged PS must be very good. So why would a CGI expert doctor a photo showing exactly what the actual plane looks like and nothing new? It makes no sense. Usually,when people PS something because they want the WOW factor. There is no wow here.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Looking a picture with a biased lens always give a good picture.;)


Regardless of whatever I may have or you may have, I'm honestly surprised that you are still arguing that those pictures are CGIs.

We've had dozens of high quality pictures of that particular underside of J-20.
Although I wouldn't mind if the pictures you're accusing are CGI, because god knows China could do with some CGI artists as good as that.

So, here you are, some other similarly HQ photos of J-20, many taken at high speed too.

hqmo.jpg


8lju.jpg


grxx.jpg


822h.jpg




And my favourite for the purposes of our discussion, which shows off details of the nose quite well -- you can actually count the rivets on the little yellow doo-dad forward of the nose landing gear and compare it to the picture you accused of being a CGI, it's similarly high quality.
41hj.jpg



You know I had no problem with you arguing the pictures may be CGI, but invoking the word "bias", and speaking with such perceived confidence of your own belief, while ignoring that most people on this forum have trawled through dozens if not hundreds of J-20 photos and have developed an eye for noticing CGIs, is going to rustle more than a few jimmies.

[right click/open larger to see the full size picture of course]
[addendum: I want to say that I resent having trawled through about fifty pages of posts on CDF to find these HQ photos, but let's be honest, the plane's so good looking it was actually a nice way to spend five minutes, so I suppose I should thank you for that lol]
 
Last edited:

shen

Senior Member
Sorry but I know much more then you can possibly imagine working in the marketing communication industry looking at various photos and how pictures are composed.

Why don't you use some of your knowledge to back up your argument then? Like I did in my post. I'll give you a hint why you are wrong, theory and practical application are different.

See the difference? are you saying the second photo is also a CGI?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


more example to further your education.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Engineer

Major
Obviously you pulled that from somewhere where the sun don't shine since you have no idea how optical camera works.
Such argument is weak since it is without any premise, which highlights your lack of ability to relate to basic photography concepts within my statement. From this, we can infer that you lack experience in photography, thereby eliminating any credential you have for questioning the authenticity of J-20 photographs. Furthermore, since I do know how camera works, your weak argument is also factually incorrect.

I rest my case.
 

Engineer

Major
Sorry but I know much more then you can possibly imagine working in the marketing communication industry looking at various photos and how pictures are composed.

So, you merely looked at photographs rather than took photographs. This doesn't do your credential any good.
 

shen

Senior Member
So, you merely looked at photographs rather than took photographs. This doesn't do your credential any good.

He probably only looks at close-up shots at his job, rarely any long distance shots. But still lack such basic photographic knowledge, are we sure he is really Japanese?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top