shen
Senior Member
Well, the troll must be discredited first, so the good people don't get fooled. Second, the troll should be a fed a big heavy boot up, and I quote the troll, "somewhere where the sun don't shine".
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread IV (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Well, the troll must be discredited first, so the good people don't get fooled. Second, the troll should be a fed a big heavy boot up, and I quote the troll, "somewhere where the sun don't shine".
I didn't really know how to explain this in words, so I just put together this screenshot.
Full size image:
Camera model link:
This covers the questions of ISO, shutter speed, depth of field, camera model, subject speed, how detailed a shot can be with a simple camera, etc, right? Can we move on now?
Full size image:
Camera model link:
This covers the questions of ISO, shutter speed, depth of field, camera model, subject speed, how detailed a shot can be with a simple camera, etc, right? Can we move on now?
Last edited:
No wonder that cut off image looked so familiar, it was part of a bigger picture!
Anyway the last few posts have been one of the most absolute if not amusing burns I've seen in a while on SDF.
shen
Senior Member
A perfect example of the scenario proposed by Engineer earlier. A long range shot where the distance between the various points in view is tiny compare to distance between the subject and the photographer. Makes perfect sense why everything appears in focus. The keyword is "appears", under enough magnification, and if the photo quality is good enough, one can discern the difference of in focus between the various points.
broadsword
Brigadier
You can tell that the picture was taken with a telephoto lens or a zoom. That's why you can see such details and with either of those, the aperture is small and so the DOF is great and that is why near and distance objects are in focused.
Samurai, if you have one of those, put it on and take a picture of a jet coming to land, in daytime.
It helps if the camera is mounted on a tripod because I can see you are not experienced enough.
Samurai, if you have one of those, put it on and take a picture of a jet coming to land, in daytime.
It helps if the camera is mounted on a tripod because I can see you are not experienced enough.
superdog
Junior Member
From what you said here it is obvious that you don't know much about photography, especially about shooting planes.
It is almost impossible to have a shallow DOF effect when shooting planes from a long distance away, because the subject is simply too far away from the camera and the DOF will easily cover the whole plane. In many cases the camera will be at infinite focus, which means the whole plane and anything behind it, even the moon, will stay in focus. Even if you use tilt-shift lens it will be difficult to force shallow DOF at long distance plus long focal-length, although I have not tried this myself.
Using the EXIF data from the picture, and assuming that the J-20 is 200m away (most likely an underestimate) from the camera, one can calculate that the DOF in that picture will be 54.6m. Which means a real photo will easily have the whole plane in focus, and only a CGI or "edited" photo will pretend that there's a shallow DOF in order to convince people like you.
As for shutter speed and exposure, I don't need to explain to you why it is possible to obtain a clear picture of the side of a flying plane that is not under direct sunlight. If you really want proof, let me know and I can just show you photos I took myself, or other countless airplane photos posted on the Internet (you can also check on airliners.net).
I didn't really know how to explain this in words, so I just put together this screenshot.
Full size image:
Camera model link:
This covers the questions of ISO, shutter speed, depth of field, camera model, subject speed, how detailed a shot can be with a simple camera, etc, right? Can we move on now?
out with the exif data! i see you've finally brought out the big guns. makes you think why this "industry professional" didn't simply bring up the exif and instead spent so much time lecturing about elementary photography concepts like depth of field and shutter speed! some of us also have SLRs SamuraiBlue, so there's no need to be so pedantic and condescending.
on the other hand, i'm not an industry professional, (though photography is a major hobby of mine) and i was convinced the pic was not CG the second i saw it. -it simply doesn't look clean enough, especially the texture on the fuselage.
Last edited:
SamuraiBlue
Captain
If you compare the two pictures you posted you'll see the difference in details.
The focus on the front landing gear for example is not as sharp as the one on the finished photo. Same with various other points doing a picture to picture comparison.
The most interesting point is within the link you'll find that the rendering software is Photoshop 7.0 in which case you have no idea what had been done to brush it up.
Long message short there is no way a single long distance shot using a telescopic lens be that clear in details within the entire picture.
broadsword
Brigadier
It is entirely possible. It brings you up close and compresses the distance between the jet and the trees. If you don't have a telephoto, check with a professional cameraman first.
I concur, I was very surprised that no-one before Jeff called it, but he has a very educated Eye, which I do not, but my first thoughts were, these are CG.
- Status