PDA

View Full Version : How close together do these planes look?


Debaser
30-01-2006, 00:22:02
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/uk_enl_1138567284/img/1.jpg

They're at least 2.5 miles apart according to the Civil Aviation Authority... *strokes chin*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660644.stm

Koshko
30-01-2006, 06:26:49
Well given the size variance, it really doesn't necessarilly look close.

Gary
30-01-2006, 09:02:48
Yeah, but the smaller one is nearer.

Difficult to tell without knowing your planes and how far away both are from the camera. Looks odd though.

Funko
30-01-2006, 09:37:45
They really do look close.

Nills Lagerbaak
30-01-2006, 09:47:05
The sky above london is absoutely rammed full of planes, circling round in 3 dimensions. It's scary!

Funko
30-01-2006, 09:49:06
Wow, planes travelling in three dimensions?! :eek:

Nills Lagerbaak
30-01-2006, 09:50:00
Exactly!

Funko
30-01-2006, 09:56:37
Vertical, left-right and time right?

King_Ghidra
30-01-2006, 10:53:05
my plane travels exclusively in the 5th dimension

this does make boarding somewhat problematic, but you can't have everything

*End Is Forever*
30-01-2006, 12:11:07
2.5 miles at 500mph is only about 15 seconds... that said they seem to be at very different altitudes looking at the relative sizes of the planes. Also that shot will be with a long lens presumably, which makes distance very hard to judge.

Nills Lagerbaak
30-01-2006, 12:26:46
DHL were involved in that other air collision. That was an interesting story resulting in the murder of an airtraffic controller...

Funko
30-01-2006, 12:30:59
link please!

Nills Lagerbaak
30-01-2006, 12:44:18
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/28/1077677014178.html

Spartak@CPH
30-01-2006, 12:54:19
Not that interesting. A sad story for everyone involved.

Debaser
30-01-2006, 12:58:54
Well given the size variance, it really doesn't necessarilly look close.

2.5 miles at 500mph is only about 15 seconds... that said they seem to be at very different altitudes looking at the relative sizes of the planes. Also that shot will be with a long lens presumably, which makes distance very hard to judge.

Difficult to tell without knowing your planes and how far away both are from the camera. Looks odd though..

The size difference isn't that great, they're both big, 2-engined planes. Compare the size of the engines, or the wing-flaps, or even the lights underneath. They might not be as close as they look, but they are still very very close.

Nills Lagerbaak
30-01-2006, 12:59:03
Well, I saw a very interesting documentary on it. Obviously a tragedy on all counts, but it did raise important questions about different countries' perceptions of each other's pilots, and training on the use of the computerised plane protection system.

Funko
30-01-2006, 13:00:27
That is a sad story. :(

Venom
30-01-2006, 13:07:02
From that angle, there's no way they're 2.5 miles apart. The plane in the back ground would be higher in the air and therefore smaller, not to mention the general perspective of the photo.

*End Is Forever*
30-01-2006, 13:07:25
Did anyone else watch the Sky documentary "Mid-Air Collision Over Britain"? Terrifying...

King_Ghidra
30-01-2006, 13:32:13
no, what was it about?

*End Is Forever*
30-01-2006, 13:33:07
Own goal! :lol:

King_Ghidra
30-01-2006, 13:36:18
:D

*End Is Forever*
30-01-2006, 13:38:34
Not a bad effort though, C+ :D

Scabrous Birdseed
30-01-2006, 14:42:06
http://elver.cellosoft.com/flen2.png

Nills Lagerbaak
30-01-2006, 14:54:08
In that example it is assuming that the cow is also a long way away, right? Otherwise the cow would be very blurry in the second case.

Scabrous Birdseed
30-01-2006, 15:09:51
It's difficult to find a decent example, unfortunately. In my photography class we had a brilliant one with a man and an advertising pole, that managed to make it look as though they were right next to each other even though they were hundreds of metres away.

Funko
30-01-2006, 15:10:55
Reminds me of the famous Jaws zoom.

It's really common now but was first seen in Jaws I think. You know when he's sitting on that chair on the beach and sees the shark there is that great effect where it looks like the background rushes away?

It's done by moving the camera away from the subject and zooming in at the same time so that the focus of the image (in that case Roy Scheider's head) stays the same size but the background rushes away.

Nills Lagerbaak
30-01-2006, 15:14:42
Are you sure? I thought it was done by switching from a wide angle to a narro angle, such that the subject remians undistorted but everything at the perifary of the lense get's fooked.

Funko
30-01-2006, 15:18:22
That's a slightly different variation of the same thing I think, it's also mentioned here but this is the one I'm talking about.

In its classic form, the camera is pulled away from a subject whilst the lens zooms in, or vice-versa. Thus, during the zoom, there is a continuous perspective distortion, the most directly noticeable feature of which is that the background "changes size" relative to the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertigo_shot

Nills Lagerbaak
30-01-2006, 15:27:04
Ah yes, I just assumed they would do it by changing lense, but they do it the "manual" way. I guess a wide angle / narrow view lense that can be continuously varied doesn't exist??

Chris
30-01-2006, 15:31:26
Doesn't look like 2.5 miles, I would say the caption is wrong.

MoSe
30-01-2006, 15:43:03
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
I guess a wide angle / narrow view lense that can be continuously varied doesn't exist??

err... ogp?

IF I understand what you mean, I think that's what's called "zoom" indeed!

When I used to take some pics decades ago, I had a 28-85 zoom lens, which indeed allowed me to continuously vary the lens focal length from a good wide-angle to a short-tele, rather versatile.
The difference is that when taking stills, the transition is not seen (unless you intentionally operate the zoom using a long shutter time, like half second or more, to obtain a special "blast" or "fugue" effect).

In movie you don't think to it that way but it's actually just the samne as in your camera.
Of course now with digital cameras you're more used to think in terms of digital zoom. pixls and the like

Nills Lagerbaak
30-01-2006, 15:57:34
Well, kind of, but I'm thinking more of a lense that doesn't change the distance of the subject, rather restricts the width of the picture. As the subject is in the middle of the frame he remains unchanged while it looks like your zooming into/ out of the background

Venom
30-01-2006, 16:04:56
I thought that was a Hitchcock zoom, not Jaws.

Debaser
30-01-2006, 16:11:24
Yup, hence the name "Vertigo Shot" in Mikes link...

Funko
30-01-2006, 16:21:25
Yes. The link pwned me.

King_Ghidra
30-01-2006, 16:29:39
There's a great shot like that in La Haine too

Venom
30-01-2006, 16:54:59
pwnage!!!

Sir Penguin
30-01-2006, 16:59:41
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
http://elver.cellosoft.com/flen2.png
THE MOON IS FALLING!?!?!!!?!!!/1/!!!??

SP

Debaser
30-01-2006, 18:41:56
UPDATE: The AAC are now saying that they were "at least 1000ft apart". A bit more believable, but it still looks a lot closer...