Real or fake?

Discussion in 'Picture Gallery' started by klymr, Jul 15, 2008.

  1. klymr macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Location:
    Utah
    #1
    We have a bit of a debate going on as to the validity of this image. A few people are chanting real due to the grainy image. One guy said it's a very powerful zoom lens, and that's why it's so grainy. I shouted fake and said the noise was quickly added in photoshop to make the image more unified.

    What do you all think?
     

    Attached Files:

  2. gauchogolfer macrumors 603

    gauchogolfer

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    American Riviera
    #2
    I think it's real...wasn't it in the LA Times? I'm here in Santa Barbara and the planes certainly were low overhead.
     
  3. gehrbox macrumors 65816

    gehrbox

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Location:
    Charleston,SC
    #3

    Fake. I don't think using a zoom lens would make the image noisy. If anything a digital zoom would make it pixelated. If it were a powerful optical zoom you might pickup blur, but not noise.
     
  4. hayduke macrumors 65816

    hayduke

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    is a state of mind.
    #4
    Real. Fast shutter speed froze the prop motion and resulted in some noise. I think the perspective makes it look like the plane and house are very close to eachother, but the house is obviously perched on a hilltop (look at the balcony/patio). I bet the fire was pretty close, but that the plane is flying 100-200 feet from the house.
     
  5. klymr thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Location:
    Utah
    #5
    Cool. I loose this round I guess.
     
  6. Melrose macrumors 604

    Melrose

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    #6
    My first guess would be fake, since the grain is so uniform. I use Photoshop every day, and have seen that grain a lot. Either that, or Photoshop does a really good job of mimicking real life photog...
     
  7. klymr thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Location:
    Utah
    #7
    Well according to the LA Times gallery, it's real. I called fake at first too due to the grain. Must be wrong.
     
  8. ipodtoucher macrumors 68000

    ipodtoucher

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Location:
    Cedar Park, TX
    #8
    This is hard to tell. The fast shutter speed doesn't coincide with the crappy photo. The speed of the shutter is too slow for a camera phone, but the noise is that like a camera phone....
     
  9. klymr thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Location:
    Utah
    #9
    Fast shutter+high ISO=grainy image. That's my best guess.
     
  10. gehrbox macrumors 65816

    gehrbox

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Location:
    Charleston,SC
    #10
    You can count on only unmodified and accurate pictures from the newspapers?

    I think the only real way to determine the planes real proximity to the house would be to take something from the house of a known height or length and compare it to something of a known size on the plane.
     
  11. MacBoobsPro macrumors 603

    MacBoobsPro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #11
    I think the plane is actually in front of the house and the illusion that it looks like its behind the house is causing it to look somewhat fake.

    The noise (although it does look like PS uniform noise) is probably caused by the plane and house etc being almost silhouetted against the background and then being 'lightened' so we can see more detail. Its probably a crap photo thats been adjusted so it is at least decent. Beccause its a great action shot they probably didnt want to discard it.
     
  12. MiniLifeCrisis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    #12
    FAKE!

    Where there is fire, there is smoke!?!? Why waste putting down the "red chemical" if there is not fire? :confused:
     
  13. klymr thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Location:
    Utah
    #13
    You don't dump that stuff ON the fire. You dump it AROUND the fire. The stuff is a retardant and build a barrier to contain the fire within the ring of the red powder. They are dumping it up that high so the house is somewhat safe.
     
  14. klymr thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Location:
    Utah
    #14
    No, the plane is clearly behind the house. You can tell by the dust floating behind the house and trees.
     
  15. MacBoobsPro macrumors 603

    MacBoobsPro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #15
    I think it goes Trees / Plane / House :D

    The red dust can be seen infront of the railings on the house and the window too.
     
  16. klymr thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Location:
    Utah
    #16
    There is too much noise to pass off the red on the windows as the powder. The railing is also hard to tell because you'd be able to see it through the bars if it were behind the house. The rails themselves are too thin to tell if it's behind or in front.

    The thing that doesn't sit right with me with your proposal is the angle of the plane. It doesn't seem right.
     
  17. MacBoobsPro macrumors 603

    MacBoobsPro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #17
    Ok fair point about the powder. I can see it in front of the house but its pretty hard to see it clearly and even moreso to convince some one.

    Regarding the angle of the plane, remember that it is dropping from the sky and the rudder (tail) is in use so the plane is infact yawing as it also drops at an unusual speed. Basically the nose is pointing to the left but the plane continues to go forward. A bit like skidding in a car. The rudder is on (right) to correct the left yaw and its causes a bit of an optical illusion.

    Also if the plane was behind the house it would have to be massive. Check the size of the engines. If it was behind then each engine would be roughly half the length of the house.

    I dont know what model of plane it is but I do know it is only a small (well medium) sized plane.

    Can you tell I'm bored? :D
     
  18. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #18
    I say it's "FAKE".

    It could be real, but only if it was taken with an 18x mega-zoom point&shoot cameras. No way that was taken with a DSLR. Furthermore, it looks like it was shot with a veeeery long lens to give it that really "flat" look people want for portraits, which is why I said an ultra-zoom p&s. A long zoom would make the background objects look bigger and less far away.

    I don't see how a fast shutter speed has anything to do with the noise in the image unless you also assume that the ISO is increased to allow for the fast shutter speed.

    I'm no expert, but to get the propellers to freeze like that would take a shutter speed of something like 1/2000 seconds or something. A mega-zoom p&s with a f/5.6 (or worse) aperture would probably require an ISO of 400 or 800 to get a shot off with a shutter speed of 1/2000 seconds, even in broad daylight. Of course, your image quality would suck, but that's your fault for buying a crappy 18x mega-zoom camera.


    Now, I said "real" if taken with a large zoom p&s, but honestly, why would I crank up the ISO in order take a photo of a plane moving at a far distance (assuming I'm right about using a long focal length)? The plane would appear to move slowly when standing far away, so I wouldn't need it.

    Is the high ISO needed to freeze the plane? No. There's no need for it if the plane is pretty far away.

    Is it to freeze the propellers? Probably not. There's no reason to do so.


    So yes, while it's possible for this photo to be taken with an ultra-zoom camera, I think it's fake because the REASON for using high ISO doesn't exist.
     
  19. pilotError macrumors 68020

    pilotError

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Long Island
    #19
    Don't quote me on this as I'm not positive this is the same set of photos, but on another forum I frequent, the guy who shot the photos posted them before they made the paper. He had a few of them, as the planes were making passes to put out the fire. He had a few different angles where you could see the distance between the plane and the house much better. If I remember correctly, he actually took a few from the driveway of the house in the photo at one point.

    The photos I'm talking about where from 1-2 years ago though, so it may or may not be the same set.
     
  20. TSE macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Location:
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    #21
    Fake.

    The sky is perfectly white, and it looks like they just cropped three seperate pictures: An airplane dropping red powder, a house, and a bunch of trees/bushes.
     
  21. redshift20 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
  22. floyde macrumors 6502a

    floyde

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Monterrey, México
    #23
    Somehow I thought this was going to be a thread about boobs :eek::D
     
  23. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #24
  24. kymac macrumors 6502a

    kymac

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Location:
    portland
    #25
    i say real.. those planes have to fly really low for the fires.. we had one fly over our house a couple of summers ago.. the sound was unreal and when we went outside we couldnt figure out how it made it over without hitting, it was flying so low.. also.. it appears the house is sorta on a hill type setting? so the ground behind the house might be even lower..
     

Share This Page