Amazing video

[j1b]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9b8anjS6Xs

[glockinitup]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9b8anjS6Xs

I doubt that is real, but if it is... he is an AWESOME pilot!

[SharonAnne9x23]

utterly amazing!

[shred]

Looks like a model to me..

[el pres]

Acually thats real and fake !! I belive thats a put together video of an RC stunt plane that

lost a wing and the pilot brought it down in a knife edge manuver, see the massive bumping at

touchdown, thats because it only weighs like 20-30lbs.. I thing he would be at least hurt from the G's of

that bumping if it were real !!

I do remember also seeing the real RC video

a few years ago but cant remember clearly if that was the same paint. Either way he's still an

awsome pilot.

The RC Edge540, extra, type planes have such massive power to weight ratios that at full throttle they dont

need wings. I could hover all day on the prop with mine !!

Edited November 17, 2008 by DIRTY CHAMBER

[j1b]

I thought the same until the pilot opened the hatch.

I honestly thought the video was fake too. But when you think about what he does - stunt pilot - he of all people would probably be able to handle this situation.

I don't know. I thought it was a fake, then got to start believing it was real.

[D.Hayden]

I agree DC it looks real and fake spliced preety well.. I think the last part the momentum of the plane just stops too quickly for a real plane..

[j1b]

I suck.

Disregard.

[Jake Di Vita]

I personally love that you thought it happened.

No limits.

Buyin' you a beer someday for that one.

[el pres]

It happens all the time.....in the RC world anyway !!

Only so much balsa and fiberglass can do against G-force!!

This ones a 33%.......of the real thing !!

Her's a great example of what a Edge 540 in the right hands can do as far as power to weight ratio, see the hovering

manuvers. This pilot would be considered maybe A class in the RC acrobatic world, these are pretty difficult manuvers !!

Edited November 17, 2008 by DIRTY CHAMBER

[j1b]

Somebody help me with this. I know I've posted both the original video and the dis-prover.

I just can't figure one thing out though, outside of trick photography.

The last few sequences of the video show a one winged plane barreling in, flips, and lands on the wheels. The camera never really leaves the plane. It does slip to the tail end, but the plane is always in the camera's view finder. Then, in the end, a pilot climbs out.

I see that the plane in the beginning isn't the plane at the end. Which leads me to believe this is clearly a fake. But that last sequence still plagues me a bit.

Any good answers?

Thanks in advance!

Jack

[raz-0]

Somebody help me with this. I know I've posted both the original video and the dis-prover.

I just can't figure one thing out though, outside of trick photography.

The last few sequences of the video show a one winged plane barreling in, flips, and lands on the wheels. The camera never really leaves the plane. It does slip to the tail end, but the plane is always in the camera's view finder. Then, in the end, a pilot climbs out.

I see that the plane in the beginning isn't the plane at the end. Which leads me to believe this is clearly a fake. But that last sequence still plagues me a bit.

Any good answers?

Thanks in advance!

Jack

Do you think there is a real full sized millenium falken that harrison ford flies around? It's sepcial effects, and they are cheapper, easier, and more convincing than ever.

I'll tell you right now. Someone took som footage of a real plane, and cut it with a RC model. They then used the RC model parts as a reference to map the animation of a 3D rendered image. At the end, they composite the 3d model and someone getting out of a real plane. You can use a mask anywhere, and only mask out part of the image. With the advent of CGI, you can have an animated mask very easily.

Things that say it's fake:

1) Like the included video says, the paintjob doesn't quite match. The main reason for this is that doing a CGI equivalent of a retroreflective material is HARD. Either lots of coding and lots of Real light simulation, or you ahve to animate the material properties by hand until it looks just right.

2) The shadows on landing. Look at the lighting in the video. the shadows are WAY, WAY too hard and dark.

3) The focus. Lots of animators are good animators, but don't know crap about cameras or cinematography. A handheld camcorder uses edge contrast autofocus. An air show is mostly at infinity focus, with a plain blue background with white clouds on occasion that are also at infinity focus. A real camcorder wouldn't hunt focus like that without something in the foreground to confuse it. It's there to hide the "cuts" and make it look "real". The last "lost focus lock" is probably where they transition to using a real plane taxiing and just composite the CGI model over top of it. They fuzz it out because they aren't spending a lot on it, and the transition would be noticable otherwise.

4) Whoever did the shaders for the model sucks at hard surfaces. The light does not reflect off it correctly. The speculars are WAY too diffuse. You'll notice this in the comparison video too.

5) then there's the bounce at the end. The physics just isn't right unless you are small with an insane power to weight ratio. at 2 feet long, the stuff an RC model is made of is increadibly strong compared to the mass and energy involved. At 30 feet long, it's much closer to it's maximum tolerances. Even if it could survive, at the very least missing a wing would cause some wobble on the bounce unless you have a VERY low mass wing. Real stunt planes have damn robust wings. ( i honestly doubt you could make just one come off without physically impacting something).

6) Look at the smoke. It doesn't look rgiht at all. That's because it is all animated.

But the basic formula for something like this is to get ahold of your real world subject (actor, plane, model, whatever), and a location. Choreograph your scene. Shoot the subject doing as much as you can possibly get while following the choreography for the camera (you should also do fu things like get reference shots of clouds, weather, GPS coordinates, date, time, etc for help lighting). Shoot the scene again wihout anything in it but the scene following the choreography for the camera (If you have cash, you use a motion control rig so the camera does the EXACT same thing at the EXACT same time, each and every time). That last step gave you your background plate. Now you ahve your background plate, and your live footage. You then rough out the models and animation and come up with an animatic to cut and composite with the live footage. Once you tweak the animatic corretly, you create the hero model and getyour animation down. then you skin it and light it. Then you create a matted image of the live footage isolating your subject. Then you composit and edit animation, the matted live footage, and you composite it all over top of the background plate and viola, movie magic.

Cutting corners, you can dig up the computer hardware, software, and cameras necessary to generate something of this quality for about oh.. under $5k. Some talent and patience, and access to someone with a stunt plane and the cash to rent an airfield covers the rest.

[j1b]

Somebody help me with this. I know I've posted both the original video and the dis-prover.

I just can't figure one thing out though, outside of trick photography.

The last few sequences of the video show a one winged plane barreling in, flips, and lands on the wheels. The camera never really leaves the plane. It does slip to the tail end, but the plane is always in the camera's view finder. Then, in the end, a pilot climbs out.

I see that the plane in the beginning isn't the plane at the end. Which leads me to believe this is clearly a fake. But that last sequence still plagues me a bit.

Any good answers?

Thanks in advance!

Jack

Do you think there is a real full sized millenium falken that harrison ford flies around? It's sepcial effects, and they are cheapper, easier, and more convincing than ever.

I'll tell you right now. Someone took som footage of a real plane, and cut it with a RC model. They then used the RC model parts as a reference to map the animation of a 3D rendered image. At the end, they composite the 3d model and someone getting out of a real plane. You can use a mask anywhere, and only mask out part of the image. With the advent of CGI, you can have an animated mask very easily.

Things that say it's fake:

1) Like the included video says, the paintjob doesn't quite match. The main reason for this is that doing a CGI equivalent of a retroreflective material is HARD. Either lots of coding and lots of Real light simulation, or you ahve to animate the material properties by hand until it looks just right.

2) The shadows on landing. Look at the lighting in the video. the shadows are WAY, WAY too hard and dark.

3) The focus. Lots of animators are good animators, but don't know crap about cameras or cinematography. A handheld camcorder uses edge contrast autofocus. An air show is mostly at infinity focus, with a plain blue background with white clouds on occasion that are also at infinity focus. A real camcorder wouldn't hunt focus like that without something in the foreground to confuse it. It's there to hide the "cuts" and make it look "real". The last "lost focus lock" is probably where they transition to using a real plane taxiing and just composite the CGI model over top of it. They fuzz it out because they aren't spending a lot on it, and the transition would be noticable otherwise.

4) Whoever did the shaders for the model sucks at hard surfaces. The light does not reflect off it correctly. The speculars are WAY too diffuse. You'll notice this in the comparison video too.

5) then there's the bounce at the end. The physics just isn't right unless you are small with an insane power to weight ratio. at 2 feet long, the stuff an RC model is made of is increadibly strong compared to the mass and energy involved. At 30 feet long, it's much closer to it's maximum tolerances. Even if it could survive, at the very least missing a wing would cause some wobble on the bounce unless you have a VERY low mass wing. Real stunt planes have damn robust wings. ( i honestly doubt you could make just one come off without physically impacting something).

6) Look at the smoke. It doesn't look rgiht at all. That's because it is all animated.

But the basic formula for something like this is to get ahold of your real world subject (actor, plane, model, whatever), and a location. Choreograph your scene. Shoot the subject doing as much as you can possibly get while following the choreography for the camera (you should also do fu things like get reference shots of clouds, weather, GPS coordinates, date, time, etc for help lighting). Shoot the scene again wihout anything in it but the scene following the choreography for the camera (If you have cash, you use a motion control rig so the camera does the EXACT same thing at the EXACT same time, each and every time). That last step gave you your background plate. Now you ahve your background plate, and your live footage. You then rough out the models and animation and come up with an animatic to cut and composite with the live footage. Once you tweak the animatic corretly, you create the hero model and getyour animation down. then you skin it and light it. Then you create a matted image of the live footage isolating your subject. Then you composit and edit animation, the matted live footage, and you composite it all over top of the background plate and viola, movie magic.

Cutting corners, you can dig up the computer hardware, software, and cameras necessary to generate something of this quality for about oh.. under $5k. Some talent and patience, and access to someone with a stunt plane and the cash to rent an airfield covers the rest.

Thanks - I needed that clarity.

I don't believe there's a millenium falcon, that's good. So you don't think I'm incredibly gullable, I also am very questionable on this whole moon landing thing. Star Wars effects were better . . .

I yes, I do believe there was a second, or third, gunman. Said differently, I think there was more than one shooter . . .

Thanks for the explanation! I do appreciate it. I am no photographer, cinemaphotographer, actor, producer or anything else. And I didn't stay at a Holiday in last night so I'm really very sluggish today.

[A-shot]

oO XD

Things that say it's a fake...

1. It landed.

That is all.

[ima45dv8]

raz-o,

You have reminded me again of one of the things I love most about this place. The shooting information is outstanding, but there's also damn few questions one can ask and not find an expert answer, on almost any subject.