Can someone explain how this pic was taken?

[EGLD]

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/640853/L/

[Memetic]

Photoshop?

Well reading the comment under the image the photographer says that is not the case.

Could it be a lensing effect caused by heat haze? - if it were I would have expected a lot more distortion but who knows.

Memtic.

[ETOPS]

Easy - they hired a light aircraft (Cessna 172 or similar) and flew the low level VFR route past LAX. This runs roughly North/South along the coast past the runways at LAX. Using a long lens -say 400ml - it's just a matter of timing to get into position......

[akerosid]

As ETOPS says, these photos were taken from a light aircraft, flying over LAX.

If you look in A.net under the name of Sam Chui, you'll find more photos like this, but WOW - this one is breathtaking! I'm sure there are others from Mr. Warner as well.

Just goes to show that no matter how much airport & aviation security tries to suppress it (not that they're going to have much luck at 2,000'!), there will always be a passion for aircraft photography as long as there are aircraft.

[IDENTING]

Who cares how it was taken! its a truely awesome photo and can only help strengthen our passion for aviation. Thanks for pointing it out, who knows when i would have fallen apon that corker!

[av8boy]

I believe this is a perspective/distortion issue. Once upon a time I knew a lot more about barrel and pincushion distortion, among other things... The clue for me was that, in photographs, generally, things that are closer to the camera look larger. However, the runway behind the aircraft appears wider than that in the foreground. For grins I threw it into PhotoShop just to see what it would look like if I altered the perspective and made the runway in the background narrower than the runway in the foreground. Here's what I got:



Looks more like a "normal" departure.

Note that I'm not a PhotoShop pro, nor am I current on distortion issues. Also, the aircraft doesn't come out of this transformation looking quite right. Still, I think that two things are important to keep in mind:

1. It is highly unlikely that a 74 departing LAX had the sort of deck angle the one in the original image appears to have; and,
2. The look of the runway in the original image is not quite right.

This having been said, I am not implying the photo is faked (nor am I implying that it is not faked). I believe that it may be a trick of the lens. A stunning trick, yes. But a trick none-the-less.

Dave

[dudduddud]

he he he

1 000 points for Dave

The only way this shot would be possible is if the camera (and the Jumbojet) had become upside down.

Compared with Dave's version, looking at the original too long makes me feel kinda queezy.

[av8boy]

Actually, no points for Dave. I am too stupid for words, and dudduddud, I am very sorry to have dragged you into this as well.

I was toying with the image some more, and I tried flipping it one way and another... then something caught my eye: I had flipped it upside down and backwards, and even though I was looking at the picutre from the other side (that is, as if I'd turned my monitor upside down), the wider part of the runway still appeared at the top of the photo! In other words, whether I had the image facing as it originally was, or whether it was upside down, the wider part of the runway still appeared to be at the top of the frame, regardless of whether the top of the frame was in front of or behind the aircraft. OK. That's clear as mud. Here's the illustration. The two red lines are exactly the same length:



So, remember how I went on about how things that were closer to the camera appeared larger. Well, yeah. Just like in this picture. Please. Somebody print the picture and measure it. Check my work. The way I see it, the runway appears wider at the top of the frame, but when I measure it, it is wider at the bottom of the frame.

Somebody else can figure this out. I'm going to bed.


Dave

PS For further research...

The aircraft in the image appears to be departing 25R at LAX. The taxiways in the frame are Papa and November. That's a 9,000 feet remaning marker in the foreground to the left side of the image--from where we're sitting that's 9,000 feet behind the aircraft, with roughly 3,000 in front of it (at Papa). The dots on the diagrams place the airframe on the airport, moving right to left (east to west).




There\'s more than one illusion at work here.

[sheenboy]

Thanks Dave and others for your excellent points on this.

I have suggested a few times on other forums that many photos being distributed around are subject to photoshop tinkering, but generally people want to believe they are real (often whipping themselves into a near-sexual frenzy in their praise of the pics).

Its interesting to note that the photographers of these 'spectacular photos' often have hundreds of 'spectacular photos' which makes me think they have got very skilled at photoshop trickery.....you can be lucky once or twice and get a great pic but not every single time....surely....

On this particular photo, I would suggest that the plane wasn't ever even IN that background. Its been cut and pasted on maybe? We'll never know. But I'd really like to see more PPruners have a healthy degree of scepticism when leafing thru this stuff.

What next? Apparently there is a photo doing the rounds of a goat calmly grazing on the wing of a B744 (or a B742? not sure) at full cruising speed at 35,000 ft above the Moon. Oh and the goat looks a bit like Bill Gates.

[MAN777]

I think the photo is genuine for these reasons

To get "so close" a large focal lenght lens must have been used, i would suggest 400-600mm. The larger the focal lenght the higher the magnification. The larger the focal lenght the less distortion you get, as in this case there is very little if any perspective causing lines to diverge, hence the strange look to the runways.

High resolution digital cameras coupled with image stabilisation lenses are well capable of obtaining images like this without any photoshop tinkering.

[BRISTOLRE]

The angle of the B744 adjacent to the ground looks way too steep to be true. It looks as if the aircraft is almost going up vertically. This is in regards to the orig pic posted on airliners.net
The pic posted here above on the right looks more natural !

[FOZ]

If this were real, would their not be visible heat haze behind the 744?

[Oshkosh George]

Well,there IS visible heat haze if you look closely,but whether it's enough for the take-off phase,I wouldn't like to say.

My other thought was would they let an aircraft take off if there was a transit aircraft passing so close? Perhaps it was a planned shot,for advertising,for instance,or a TV programme?

[jmc-man]

For you doubting thomas's and particularly for SheenGimp,

Try THIS

or

This

and an explanation from Sam Chui himself ( all available on the other website)

We are flying on a published LAX shoreline corridor route at 3500 feet, with most planes departing LAX at quite a distance at 500 feet or so and restricted to 1000 feet...so in most danger case you have 2500 feet between you, and of course you're cleared by the LAX control from long beach or Santa Monica/Hawthorne....Just let your camera and lens (and the brain) do all the work. All about is LUCK, anyone can fly over LAX on the published track at anytime, but to catch a heavy plane departure is something you can't control.

and finally , a discussion

here

[av8boy]

jmc-

I don't see your point...


Agreed: Hundreds of times each day, general aviation aircraft fly across LAX and are in a position over the 25s to take stunning photos. I spent a majority of my adult life working at two facilities "controlling" that airspace. Such flights are legal, approved, and commonplace.

Agreed: this gentleman says he took the photo and that he did not alter it. I agree that's what he says. Of course, "he" is under no obligation to tell the truth.

Our questions remain. Assuming it is authentic, what trick(s) of light would lead to a result like this one? I believe I speak for many when I say that I'd LOVE to find out that this thing was real. Prove it and help us understand the optics while you're at it.

Dave

[sheenboy]

Jmc-Gimp

Those additional photos look even more fake!

I actually don't have a personal crusade to prove all photos are fake, I was pointing out that many photos are.

Shame you go for name calling as a solution!

Cheers
SheenGimp

[JimmyTAP]

I actually don't have a personal crusade to prove all photos are fake, I was pointing out that many photos are.

You mean you think they are fake. What other photos do you think might be fake? Any unusual angles, lighting etc. Just because you don't understand how a picture is taken doesn't mean it's a fake.
Most people are impressed by the skill involved in getting such an image and are happy to accept that they are real.
I can imagine the photographers now, going to huge lengths and expense to get that "killer" image only to be accused of faking it by those whose photo skills are lacking in imagination or possibly non-existent

Signed,
JT, an irritated photographer

[Iolar]

Just a back of an envelope calculation...
If one assumes that the 747 in question has a pitch angle
shortly after roatation in the range 10-15 degrees, and we appear to be looking directly down the central axis of the aircraft, the photographer being in an aircraft at 3500 AGL then the approximate lateral distance from the 747 is 6-4 km approx(18000-12000 ft). 4 km from the rotation point puts the light aircraft more or less over the coastline.
Seems reasonable? or would one expect more camera shake over these distances?

[MAN777]

In response to the last bit of basic trigonometry, that does seem reasonable. I repeat my last posting, "modern digital cameras and stabilised large focal lenght lenses would not have any problem coping with this shot" Camera shake in good lighting conditions would not be an issue.

[GearDown&Locked]

My 2 cents, having worked for Nikon for 4 and half yrs...

For what I can see, and from a classic film camera point of view, this picture would be taken by a very large lens, maybe a 600mm or similar, with lots and lots of light (the sun is right above the photographer), resulting in a very closed diaphragm aperture (I would guess an 11 stop) which will focus both fore and background alike, and if the film was sensitive, say ASA 400, you could easily get a shutter speed of 500 or even 1000, that would freeze the image even sitting on a moving airplane, with the hands shaking.

You can obtain a visual effect like this using the right lens and the right light. The distortion of the picture is related to its quality. As you may know, the higher the lens focal distance, the lesser its picture quality, because the light has to cross a lot of glass until it reaches the film, and generally at greater focal distances the edges of the frame will be more magnified than the center.

You could have a good lens putting this view in the correct perspective, generally used in astronomy, the so called reflex lens, because of its mirror inside converging the light to a small number of glass lenses, but it would be 1st-very VERY expensive and 2nd- it would weight a ton and almost impossible to use, specially on board of a plane.

Those guys who know a bit more of photography, will notice this same effect on special cameras, like Hasselblad, that can tilt the lens according to the film plane, and for what purpose? For taking a picture of a building from the middle of the street but making the image look like it was taken from the middle of a building across the street, so the edges of the building look parallel. This is used allot by architects.

I would take a shot exactly like this using the following: Hasselblad Flex Body camera + Carl Zeiss Telephoto lens + Asa 200 film. No kidding.

Just edited to say that the Nikon D100, used by the photographer in question, with a 500mm or 600mm would have make the same effect, not by intentional camera ajusting, but for lens poor quality.

GD&L