[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: hqdefault.jpg (11 KB, 480x360)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
c'mon, there's no way this is real right??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z464Kkz_i8s&lc=z23lilyhblb2cjl4y04t1aokgr1xzak1shzb3fnpgjtmbk0h00410.1518735834189746

please someone tell if me that's unaltered video or not, and if possible, specifically why it is or isn't
>>
Its real anon, I have seen them come back on their drone ships.
>>
but why does this clip look so fake though??
>>
Which part of it looks fake? The part where it's perhaps obviously reversed so it looks like it keeps landing and taking off? Otherwise that landing is real stuff, no CGI whatsoever.
>>
no i mean, it looks like 90s CGI, like the rocket and exhaust are floating over a green screen.
>>
specifically, if it were due to the focusing, wouldn't the landing area in the foreground directly under the rocket match the sharpness of the rocket and exhaust? but it doesn't, it's blurry like the car nearby and grass and rest of the background.
>>
>>606941
Anon... if you're referring to this little blurry cone in pic related, that's a physics concept known as refraction. Rocket engines work by forcing out the energy from the combustion of rocket fuel, basically Newton's third law. Because the fuel is combusted, i.e. it explodes, the exhaust is very, very hot. The heat from the exhaust transfers into the air and heats the air up. Hot air is less dense than cold air, hence it refracts light differently and causes that blur you see directly below the rocket.

Furthermore, the focal plane in this video is basically the entire video. Due to the long focal length used by the camera filming this, the video has virtually infinite focus, meaning everything is in focus. You see the faraway areas begin to fade away because that's another principle known as aerial perspective.
>>
yea, i get what you're saying about the blurry area, but i'm focusing more on the body of the rocket and how it contrasts with the rest of the image. i dunno, it just doesn't seem right. the vehicles in the bottom right corner seem to match the landing area in terms of sharpness. but the body of the rocket looks completely different. maybe it's just me...
>>
>>606948
You have to realise that the rocket itself is also in the area of refraction. Hot air rises and stuff, y'know? Plus, there's also a chance of you just not registering the rocket as something normal. It's definitely not something you see everyday, and the only instances you've seen it would probably just be in film or digital media. Could lead to your brain interpreting any representation of a rocket to be something from film, i.e. CGI, though, I can assure you that this video is real capture of a space booster landing. You can look up more SpaceX booster landings, if you need more proof.
>>
no i know--that's the thing! the other ones look completely real. that's why i don't get this one. and half the people i talk to insist it looks nothing like CGI, and the other half see exactly what i'm talking about. wish i knew more about photography/video editing, i'm probably not explaining it correctly -__-
>>
>>606951
Hm, weird. The best I can offer is it's probably due to the high focal length that appears to "crush" the image, almost making the rocket seem superimposed onto the background. If you play any vidya, focal length is basically your FoV, field of view. Higher focal length means smaller field of view, and with smaller field of view perspective gets more and more straightened out, and thus begins looking more and more alien-like. Our eyes generally have quite a small "focal length", if you could assign our eyes those. A good example of how focal length can distort perception would be in portraits, take this gif for example.
>>
File: spacex1.jpg (590 KB, 2500x1667)
590 KB
590 KB JPG
this is what i expect from focus to infinity
>>
i see. it doesn't focus by distance? that's why i was pointing out the landing area right under the rocket.
>>
>>606955
And you'd be right. That is pretty much infinite focus. It's much sharper and clearer compared to the video because this is a still, a photograph rather than a video.

>>606957
What do you mean "focus by distance"? Focusing is always by distance. You can't focus any other way. And honestly, I just can't see why you see the landing area under the rocket to be incongruent to the rest of the image. Its perspective to the rest of the shot is correct, its sharpness and clarity in contrast to the plane its on is correct, it responds to the light produced by the exhaust, it kicks off dust and dirt correctly when the rocket lands, etc. If it's possible, can you highlight the areas that look off to you?
>>
basically the borders of the body of the rocket stand out insanely to me. i can't see it any other way now. it's like when an optical illusion "snaps" into place and you can't change your perception anymore.
>>
>>606960
Ah, I see why now. There's a very distinct black line running up the sides of the rocket when its against the ocean, right? If that's the case, I understand why. The best thing I can offer for that is just camera artifacting. Can be caused by a lot of things, lens refraction, poor sensor, atmospheric haze, detail compression due to file settings/low resolution, et cetera. It definitely makes it harder to claim that it's real coming from a CGI perspective.

Here's the thing, though. If this were CGI, that artifacting would be deliberate, i.e. added in post. Compositing onto a background wouldn't leave those black lines unless it came from a black background, which is incredibly stupid to do on the artist's part. First off, you can produce renders with transparent backgrounds. Secondly, if you had to have a background for whatever reason, you would choose luminous green, as that colour is the easiest to eliminate. Now, if the goal was to create a convincing shot to pass to media, there wouldn't be such an egregrious error present, right?
>>
mmm...okay, i think i get it. will probably need to look up artifacting, as i thought that was a playback issue only and unaffected by the raw footage. thank you!
>>
>>606963
Could be playback as well, honestly. Compression is a bitch when it comes to preserving detail.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.