If the pilot of G-JPTV is reading this...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks fake to me. Look at pic 3 and 4, the camera's position has changed, as well as the lorry doing 150 mph. If it was zoomed, why isn't the JP larger than in the other pics? Lighting is different in the last two pics....
nice try though
nice try though
Just call me Rotty
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Rotty's Bar and Grill (@RJAF) Shinshu JP
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where's the shadow from the jet? Considering the proximity to the ground there should be one, it's dark enough under the truck...
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah! I looked at this thread using MSIE and now I see pictures. Mozilla's anti-virus and spam was removing them.
The picture of the JP and the truck is a fake - the JP isn't that big compared to a truck (unless the truck is a Tonka toy).
Nice one though.
And isn't it amazing how that car got there within milliseconds of the truck, and how the truck had disappeared completely by then.
The picture of the JP and the truck is a fake - the JP isn't that big compared to a truck (unless the truck is a Tonka toy).
Nice one though.
And isn't it amazing how that car got there within milliseconds of the truck, and how the truck had disappeared completely by then.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Too Far North
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some observations:
I agree that the abnormal things in the main shot are the canopy, flap, and mainwheel. They all appear to be explainable. Note that the oleo's are extended so the aircraft was airbourne when the shot was taken.
rotated:- Look at the shadow of the tailplane in the main pic and compare to the shadow under the lorry and car. I think they match.
2donkeys:- If you pan the camera with the aircraft the it will be sharp and the lorry blured. Conversely, if the photographer had held the camera steady on the lorry then it would be sharp and the aircraft blurred. If both were sharp then I would suspect a fake.
englishal:- Lighting difference will be due to the change of exposure as the camera was panned away from the sun, Also I see nothing to suggest that the position has changed, the photographer has merely swiveled on the spot.
If it's genuine then I think the pilot might be needing a good lawyer.
If it's fake then the original poster might need one!
I agree that the abnormal things in the main shot are the canopy, flap, and mainwheel. They all appear to be explainable. Note that the oleo's are extended so the aircraft was airbourne when the shot was taken.
rotated:- Look at the shadow of the tailplane in the main pic and compare to the shadow under the lorry and car. I think they match.
2donkeys:- If you pan the camera with the aircraft the it will be sharp and the lorry blured. Conversely, if the photographer had held the camera steady on the lorry then it would be sharp and the aircraft blurred. If both were sharp then I would suspect a fake.
englishal:- Lighting difference will be due to the change of exposure as the camera was panned away from the sun, Also I see nothing to suggest that the position has changed, the photographer has merely swiveled on the spot.
If it's genuine then I think the pilot might be needing a good lawyer.
If it's fake then the original poster might need one!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jury is still out...!
For example - this is a "manipulated" (aka Fake!) picture - just to show you what 60 secs in Paint Shop Pro can do for you
BA B777
Not sure about the Mk5a above........maybe real - but as said before, someone needs a good lawyer!
Alan
For example - this is a "manipulated" (aka Fake!) picture - just to show you what 60 secs in Paint Shop Pro can do for you
BA B777
Not sure about the Mk5a above........maybe real - but as said before, someone needs a good lawyer!
Alan
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All looks feasible to me. JP length is approx 34ft, compared to truck width of what... 7ft? All seems in scale. As for the speed of the truck, the camera is rapidly panning, the truck doesn't so much 'vanish' - the shot with the car is of a completely different section of the road.
Nice pics.
Nice pics.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also I see nothing to suggest that the position has changed
Also, the is it my imagination or the pilot looking out the left side....straight towards the camera. Would have though looking forward would be slightly more sensible during this stage of flight
good one though
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northants, UK
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It tells you I have a sense of humour...
These pics aren't fake.
If anybody REALLY wants them the originals are available, but as I said before, they're 2-3Mb EACH.
Flap40 is dead on with his explanations.
I didn't want a shot with the JP sharp and the road blurred, so I went for a high shutter speed - 1/1000 to try and keep both sharp. However as the truck was still moving diagonally away from me, it's slightly blurred. It kept moving too, hence why it's no longer in frame in the shot with the car - though it's only just out of the frame. It *does* throw a little bit of shadow on the grass at the extreme right, better shown up on the full size version.
He also clears the hedge by a good few feet - from the small versions above you're probably thinking all that greenery is the hedge when some of it is actually trees in the distance.
Edit - Treadigraph - Canon EOS D60 - this was its first outing.
These pics aren't fake.
If anybody REALLY wants them the originals are available, but as I said before, they're 2-3Mb EACH.
Flap40 is dead on with his explanations.
I didn't want a shot with the JP sharp and the road blurred, so I went for a high shutter speed - 1/1000 to try and keep both sharp. However as the truck was still moving diagonally away from me, it's slightly blurred. It kept moving too, hence why it's no longer in frame in the shot with the car - though it's only just out of the frame. It *does* throw a little bit of shadow on the grass at the extreme right, better shown up on the full size version.
He also clears the hedge by a good few feet - from the small versions above you're probably thinking all that greenery is the hedge when some of it is actually trees in the distance.
Edit - Treadigraph - Canon EOS D60 - this was its first outing.
Last edited by DamienB; 11th Aug 2002 at 17:24.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I don't buy it. The shot of the lorry is clearly taken with flash, look at the reflectors on the back: the level of light on the vehicle and bushes is consistent, but the illumination of the plane is not at the same level. There is no shadow of the plane to correspond with the shadow from the horse box. The shadow on the red car differs in direction too.
Now will the time confer with the ATC log at Cranfield?
Now will the time confer with the ATC log at Cranfield?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, these pictures look quite plausible, as do the explanations of my learned friends answering the doubters.
However, instead of arguing over shadows and reflections and slagging off Damien as a hoaxer, those doubters should remember that he has given a lot of information: Runway 04 at Cranfield, yesterday 10th August at 1715 - and we have a clear picture of the JP and its registration. Why would Damien provide all this checkable information if it could easily be disproved?
Surely its not beyond some of our more investigative bretheren to test some of this information which is being challenged. Do we have anyone that flys from Cranfield?
However, instead of arguing over shadows and reflections and slagging off Damien as a hoaxer, those doubters should remember that he has given a lot of information: Runway 04 at Cranfield, yesterday 10th August at 1715 - and we have a clear picture of the JP and its registration. Why would Damien provide all this checkable information if it could easily be disproved?
Surely its not beyond some of our more investigative bretheren to test some of this information which is being challenged. Do we have anyone that flys from Cranfield?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shot of the lorry is clearly taken with flash
(speed cam)Aircraft exists, just checked it on G-INFO....Still don't believe it though
EA
Last edited by englishal; 11th Aug 2002 at 18:09.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing how many 'expert' photo-analysts we have on this board.
Have to say, if I was Damien I'd probably be getting pretty fed up of being called a liar and I'd simply delete the whole thread.
Have to say, if I was Damien I'd probably be getting pretty fed up of being called a liar and I'd simply delete the whole thread.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 1,794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems unlikely these would be faked and they certainly don't look it to me. As another poster has said, there's a lot of checkable info there. If the picture is faked, DamienB, and indeed Capt. PPrune or whoever actually owns this forum, could easily and quite correctly be sued for libel. I'd be pretty pissed off if someone took a picture of my aircraft and superimposed it in this fashion, especially if it lead to a CAA action. That would certainly malign my reputation, such as it is.
QDM
QDM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northants, UK
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As landing flapless is hardly standard practice this is clearly an emergency so no CAA action necessary surely - but if the mods think this thread could be a problem for the pilot, please delete it.
The doubters... well it's not nice to be called a liar repeatedly, but in their position I'd be doubting it too so I understand, and forgive
Free flights from each of you, please, when you are proved wrong. A simple phone call to Cranfield ATC would sort it out, wouldn't it? Or would we then go on to 'yes a JP did land at that time but there was no lorry' blah blah... in which case we have his registration, write him a letter via the DVLA and ask the owner if he nearly had a jet take the top of his lorry off. I'm sure it was a memorable experience!!
No flash used - again the originals have EXIF data to back this up. The sun was fairly low, behind and to my right initially, then behind as I turned to the left.
The doubters... well it's not nice to be called a liar repeatedly, but in their position I'd be doubting it too so I understand, and forgive
Free flights from each of you, please, when you are proved wrong. A simple phone call to Cranfield ATC would sort it out, wouldn't it? Or would we then go on to 'yes a JP did land at that time but there was no lorry' blah blah... in which case we have his registration, write him a letter via the DVLA and ask the owner if he nearly had a jet take the top of his lorry off. I'm sure it was a memorable experience!!No flash used - again the originals have EXIF data to back this up. The sun was fairly low, behind and to my right initially, then behind as I turned to the left.
Moderator
DamienB,
How are you finding the D60 in general so far ? I have seen some good write ups on the camera and am angling to save sufficient pennies to buy one ....
Not worried about the good things ... rather have you found any nasty aspects to its capabilities and usage ... a respectable amount of pennies for a camera .....
How are you finding the D60 in general so far ? I have seen some good write ups on the camera and am angling to save sufficient pennies to buy one ....
Not worried about the good things ... rather have you found any nasty aspects to its capabilities and usage ... a respectable amount of pennies for a camera .....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northants, UK
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, we're back then!
My opinions may be coloured by the fact I had been increasingly frustrated with film - seems nobody out there can do the simple job of developing negs without cocking it up, so now I'm released from all that I'm as happy as a pig in, er, brown stuff.
On the negative side... well compared to my 50E, the bad points are:
AF is significantly inferior. Almost useless indoors - especially for anything moving about. Outdoors it's not as bad a difference but a Sigma and Cosina lens are nearly unuseable on the D60 whereas on the 50E the Sigma was fine and the Cosina bearable. Thankfully may main lens for aircraft photography is a Canon 75-300, and that's fine, still nice and responsive. All lens lengths multiply by 1.6 as the sensor is smaller than the 35mm neg area, so a 28mm lens becomes a much less useful 45mm.
Heavier.
People keep telling you you're a faker.
Plastered with a 'digital' logo (on the strap too) which just screams 'steal me'.
Seems to under-expose compared to film - and wants slower shutter speeds, or lower aperture values, in similar situations.
On the plus side... the 1.6 multiplier turns that 300mm into a monster 480 - great for airshow work! 700 odd shots on a 1Gb microdrive and the battery still didn't run out. Being able to test settings and see the results right away. Not having to pay for film. Not having to pay for developing, and get it screwed up. Not having to scan the negs and lose hours and hours of my life as a result. Built in flash is more powerful - but it eats the battery.
I found a place in Norwich that did 9 months interest free credit on it, so my paypacket is suffering the death of a thousand cuts rather than simply being pulped.
I'm pretty darn happy with it so far anyway.
My opinions may be coloured by the fact I had been increasingly frustrated with film - seems nobody out there can do the simple job of developing negs without cocking it up, so now I'm released from all that I'm as happy as a pig in, er, brown stuff.
On the negative side... well compared to my 50E, the bad points are:
AF is significantly inferior. Almost useless indoors - especially for anything moving about. Outdoors it's not as bad a difference but a Sigma and Cosina lens are nearly unuseable on the D60 whereas on the 50E the Sigma was fine and the Cosina bearable. Thankfully may main lens for aircraft photography is a Canon 75-300, and that's fine, still nice and responsive. All lens lengths multiply by 1.6 as the sensor is smaller than the 35mm neg area, so a 28mm lens becomes a much less useful 45mm.
Heavier.
People keep telling you you're a faker.
Plastered with a 'digital' logo (on the strap too) which just screams 'steal me'.
Seems to under-expose compared to film - and wants slower shutter speeds, or lower aperture values, in similar situations.
On the plus side... the 1.6 multiplier turns that 300mm into a monster 480 - great for airshow work! 700 odd shots on a 1Gb microdrive and the battery still didn't run out. Being able to test settings and see the results right away. Not having to pay for film. Not having to pay for developing, and get it screwed up. Not having to scan the negs and lose hours and hours of my life as a result. Built in flash is more powerful - but it eats the battery.
I found a place in Norwich that did 9 months interest free credit on it, so my paypacket is suffering the death of a thousand cuts rather than simply being pulped.
I'm pretty darn happy with it so far anyway.