Sorry no reply last night - I was out on the razz :O

The 744 was frozen in the same place for all three shots.

In Slides 1 &2 the spotter a/c is also frozen in the same location. I tried to get the spotter a/c as near to the shoreline route as poss, but was limited by what FS would allow. This meant that it was probably 1000' inland from the shore and at alt 2500'.

Slide 1 is with it zoomed in to look like the photo
Slide 2 is with it on normal zoom
Slide 3 is a side view of the 744 to show the pitch angle, which when I look at it now, may be even a little shallow? - I don't know what it would normally be at that stage.

Bottom line - it just backs up the original is real, as we know anyway from the linked discussion on airlines.net. It is interesting how much a zoom can play 'tricks' with a picture.


PS. Thanks V much to Av8boy for helping me get these screen shots up;)

TZ: IIRC, that route (LAX Special Flight Rules Area) takes you marginally landside of the shoreline, on a Santa Monica radial. Assigned altitude is 3500' southbound, 4500' northbound.

down&out.........thank you for taking the time and effort to bring this matter to what I think should be a close.

It seems such a shame that a lot of people prefer to look for all the negatives in life - like fake photos - instead of taking the photographer at their word and savouring the wonderful combination of skill and luck that brought it about.

"...that route (LAX Special Flight Rules Area) takes you marginally landside of the shoreline, on a Santa Monica radial. Assigned altitude is 3500' southbound, 4500' northbound."

Far as I know that route still specifies the SMO 132-degree radial, which should just about bisect runway 25R. How far you're allowed to deviate from that is a question (the class B surface area begins at the shoreline), but the pics certainly weren't taken from the SMO 132 radial. There used to be a shoreline route... and maybe there still is.

Another Photo by the same photographer. Same take off.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/647565/L/

Well done

I think the new photo is even better although I can imagine Sheenboy desperately trying to work out how it was faked.

JT

Hi all

sorry to comment on a subject thats closed - but just an observation - the first pic was as follows:

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

...which suggests the photographer was directly in line with the aircraft.

the second picture (with the subject aircraft at a higher altitiude) :

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/647565/L/

...suggests that the photographer was approaching the subject aircraft, almost as if it would past in front / below of him in the next few seconds.

So I assume the Cessna the photographer was in did a quick 180 degree about-turn between photos?

Rgds
B

"So I assume the Cessna the photographer was in did a quick 180 degree about-turn between photos?"

Don't see why the Cessna would have to make a 180. The 747 was taking off to the west, the Cessna was northbound maybe 3 km west of the end of the runway. First pic taken when the Cessna was in line with the runway, second pic (at a shorter focal length setting on the camera) after the 747 had gotten a bit farther west and the Cessna a bit farther north.

Sorry to pish on yer chips lads but Av8boy hit it on the head on page two. Photoshop CS, the latest and greatest version of the fab prog, provides just the tool for this kind of silly game.

The tool allows for simple perspective correction and by reverse engineering it is quite simple to achieve a normal perspective on this shot.

Hats of to Av8boy

:cool: :D :cool: