Understand: I'm not saying that the photos are fact or fake; I'm just trying to reason out what they portray accurately.

DeadlyDad

JetJock

RogSalmon

There is no way any aircraft would be controllable in the wake of a Herc. As an example, look at what happened to an F-104 pilot who got too close to an XB-70. A Herc is a blob compared to the XB-70, so imagine the turbulence.

[www.area51specialprojects.com]

Ednonymous

Your statement, as it stands, is the opposite of the truth. Zoom levels have nothing to do with changing proportions; changing positions is what changes proportions. In your linked example, the change in position changes the relative sizes of near and distant objects -- the change in lenses simply changes the field of view at each position.

Thus, while you may understand things correctly in your head, your statement itself could not be more incorrect.

BTW, a blowhard is someone who talks very authoritatively, as if they know everything and are always right. Believe me, it takes a blowhard to know a blowhard, and I can tell you that we are both blowhards cast of the same die...

liquidsoapdispenser

Mfumbi

Kim

Kim98

@Kim98:

Actually, I'm correct. In your Point #2, you said, "No matter what the perspective is, the relative size of objects in the background to objects in the foreground remains..." Did you conveniently forget you said this? It seems to me that moving backward would produce a different perspective, and moving backward while zooming will change the proportions of objects in the background relative to those in the foreground. So, I was not wrong, and I fully understood the link I provided, which is why I provided it. Thank you.

@liquidsoapdispenser:

Totally erroneous information? I'm sorry you feel that way, because you're wrong (see, I can use the bold tag too!), as I explained above. Furthermore, I never took the time to learn what a "blowhard" is, so I'm not particularly offended by it. I'll even say that you are one as well. Ha!

Let me clear something up: I was critiquing what Kim said regarding proportions in the situation of changing perspectives, and I was (am) right. I never said that objects do not remain in proportion with the same perspective, which is what Liquid Soap Dispenser (LSD, for short) thought, for some reason.

Slick

As a boom operator, on a 135-R, I can confirm that the turbulence is insane at the rear of an aircraft. Pilots of small fighters have a hard time staying in the pocket (about 20 feet away) during refueling.

The turbulence behind a 130, with the cargo hatch open is even worse. Also, the c-130 is not doing top speed when the rear is open. Meaning, for the fighter to maintain it's position at the ramp would put it at stall speed. The pilot would have to be magical to maintain the craft in turbulence and at the edge of it's ability to stay in flight.

However, there is one way that this could be real: the pilot flew in and was in the position (about 15 feet from the c-130) for only a moment before he dropped away and increased thrust to maintain flight.

Were the photographer ready, then it is possible that the fighter was as close as 15 feet, but there's no way he was inside the c-130 or anywhere near anything that would restrict the pilot's ability to get away quickly.

That's not to say pilot's are the smartest, especially when one thinks he can barrel role a 707, but these guys tend to know the limitations and wouldn't do something deadly just for a photo op.

RGFrog

Seriously, you all need to take a look at the bigger picture...Because what this is all really about is Mav and Goose.

*********************************************
The spin was induced by the disruption
of air flow into the starboard engine.

This disruption stalled the engine. -

- Which produced enough yaw rate
to induce a spin -


- Which was unrecoverable.

There was no way Lieutenant Mitchell
could see or avoid the jetwash.

The Board of Inquiry finds that he was
not at fault in the accident of 9 July.

His record will be cleared. He's restored
to flight status without further delay.

These proceedings are closed.
******************************************

Well, the Board of Inquiry may have cleared Mav, but I haven't...and I won't, ever.

You see, Goose was the best wingman I ever had...gone now, thanks to Mav's irresponsible disregard for standard flight procedure.

Mav...you'll get yours...!!

I've got tone!!! FIRING...

Mav's a goner. Hallelujah, great balls of fire!!

Mfumbi

(not the useless pics, but rather "..the pilot got fed up and whizzed right up to the entrance of the Hercules...")

Fierock

[www.militaryphotos.net]

krkeegan

I also wonder about the amount of air those giant intakes could really be getting? Or why the camera cords in the first shot are not at least moving in the wind?

Like I said I am no expert, it just seems too improbable. Add to that some of the suspicious stuff in the photos that is mentioned above and I just don't believe it.

krkeegan

My guess would be that the Typhoon pilot approached from below the C130 and then popped into the burble (slipstream area caused by the the C130) and then almost immediately fell back down into clean air, as it is impossible to fly in no air. Would be interesting to know how many of this type of flyby was done until the photographer got the exact shot he was going for, as he would have to be very fast on the trigger.

I've been in airplanes that have done similar things like this, and have videoed two Twin Otters getting VERY close to each other in staggered pattern, and actually fly that way for much longer than a few seconds. It was really cool to look out the open door and see into the windshield of the other plane.

Oh, and someone said that everything would have gotten sucked out the door when it opened. Loose paper maybe, but it's not a giant vacuum, just lots of wind. Similar to what happens when you open the windows in a moving car.

scottbre

Stealth43

2 meter separation = not particularly impressive for a fighter jock

Oh and flying slowly behind a C-130...not particularly tough for a plane that was designed with huge intakes and a silly-low stall speed.

WMyers

liquidsoapdispenser

You're clearly not prepared to take the guy or his friend's (reported) word on the matter, so why would some data that could be adjusted by a bloke and his favourite hex-editor be any more concrete? ASCII's more easily faked than image artifacts.

I don't find it too difficult to swallow the notion that the pilot got Way Close, but that the shots were adjusted to make that look Really Damned Close for a bit more impact, and that's all that's being claimed.

DeathBoy

So, maybe cropped to be closer, but definitely two different pics.
No expert here, but maybe he just took a little dip towards the big one, like annoying the guy in front of you on the highway: you can not hold two vehicles at 250kph, but you can approach and let them know to get outta your way (German highways, that is)...

Philmore

1) The orignal photos with EXIF data about the lenses used in each one
2) Your (or your friends) statement of how close the planes were. 2 -meters like the 2 last photos suggest, or more like 50 meters?

Kim

Kim98

Actuall you are incorrect. If you read closely on the URL that you sent, you'll find that it says "Because of the changes in shooting position and field of view, the backgrounds in the images look very different. What's more, there appears to be less depth of field in the right-hand image.". Notice he says "changes in the shooting position". Note that the foreground object in his photos is the same size even though he zoomed in. Why? Because he moved backwards. That's the same technique used by Hitchcock where he moved a camera backwards on a rail while zooming in. It would make the object in the foreground appear the same size but the background would come alive - giving the viewer vertigo. The effect is called "dolly zoom". [en.wikipedia.org]

Without moving back, the relative size of objects in the foreground retain the proportion to the objects in the background. Both, however, grow. This is easy to understand if you draw it on a piece of paper. Put the camera down as a point, then draw a foreground object e.g. 1 cm wide and one in the background e.g. 2 cm wide. Draw lines from the edges of those objects to the camera point.

When you "zoom in", the only thing that changes is the field of view. In other words, the "width" of the entire scene is narrower in a zoomed in view. However, positions of objects don't change, so in the paper model, and the RELATIVE size of the objects don't change.

Here's a better image to describe it from Encyclopedia Britannica:

[cache.eb.com]

Compare the relative size of the ship to the background mountain.

I'm not an aviation expert. But then the vast majority of the claims I made are about the photo and I happen to be somewhat of a photography expert and a quite serious graphics expert. From that, it's quite clear to me what happened. Two later shots are merely zoomed in - tele lenses. The plane is roughly 50 meters from the C-130 - not 2 meters like the last 2 photos make it seem. Even 50 meters is damn close but the last two photos are misleading. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not claiming the photos are *fake* or *edited* (other than the normal post production done to all digital photos from an SLR where RAW images are used) so I don't have to be a photo manipulation expert to say what's going on here.

Kim

Kim98

I said from the beginning that the optical effect made it look closer than it really was, but the fact remains that the plane got awfully close.

Jesus Diaz

Are the non-cropped, non-zoomed versions around anywhere?

Mondoz

Still a nice image though, kudos to the creator,

David

enizlopd

You doubting Thomases' need to get out more - perhaps in an F-14? But dont send us a photo because we will ACUSE YOU OF LYING.

MeesterBell

While I must admit that it feels great to be addressed positively by a member of the Giz staff, I'm not completely sure that my observations support your argument.

From the evidence I presented above, it is reasonable to conclude that images such as those of the plane could be produced by the photographer walking back into the cargo bay and then zooming in on the fighter jet. This would have the effect of making the leg appear to be the same size while making the fighter jet appear to be larger/closer to the C-130.

Additionally, I think that Kim98, in his first post, presented the strongest evidence against the photos' representation of reality: a jet pilot should never lose his temper over something so trivial as an annoying director, and if one indeed did, I would consider it grounds for punishment.

To summarize, it seems that most of us believe the photos are actual *photos* that haven't been doctored, per se, to make the jet look much closer than it is. However, through established optical principles, they misrepresent reality in a way that fools us into seeing something that wasn't there, even if this wasn't intentional. It may have happened, or it may not have happened; only EXIF information or a testimony by the original photographer can prove either way.

But we have all forgotten to address the true question: will it blend?

Slick

Jesus Diaz

Kim,

If there's one thing I don't like, it's a person who claims to be an authority on something while not actually having the knowledge to back that claim up in reality. In doing this, you risk misleading people who believe that you actually know what you are talking about. In this comment, I am going to correct your knowledge on a crucial aspect of photography with which you should already be familiar.

Your second point is completely, utterly wrong. Objects in the foreground and background certainly DO NOT remain in the same proportions with differing zoom levels. Have you ever heard the notion that zooming in will increase the apparent "blurriness" (bokeh) of the background? People do this to substitute for a small maximum aperture. The reason this effect works the way it does is because zooming of a scene causes background details to increase in size relative to those in the foreground. When the background details increase in size, the viewer is placed under the impression that it is "blurrier."

It is difficult to describe this in text, so please refer to Figure 1 on this page for actual proof of what I have explained: [www.creativepro.com] You can clearly, definitively see that background objects increase in size relative to those in the foreground when zoomed in farther.

You may very well be intelligent when it comes to photography and graphics, but please make sure to research your claims before you make them. Otherwise, people will question how well you actually know the back of your hand.

Slick

BTW turbulence from close formation photo shoots have led to the loss of aircraft in the past.
[area51specialprojects.com]
This site tells of the loss of the valkyrie XB-70 when an F-104 starfighter that was in extrememly close fomation was caught in wingtip turbulence. The F-104 rolled across the back of the XB-70 taking out part of the wing and the two vertical stabs.

Two pilots lost their lives.

crimsontiger6

Stealth43

You are neither an aviation, nor photo manipulation expert, so your opinion as to the veracity of these images are really little more than garbage.

Further more, The pilot did INTENTIONALLY come EXTREMELY close to the cargo bay. You arent impressing anyone with your ohh so amazing skepticism. The reason this set of photos has made the rounds in the aviation world is because of what was done by the pilot.

-Those who can, do
those who cant, doubt

Stealth43

it would also seem that the cargo hold was opened for awhile at that time and that everything is tied down or gone already. (why open up the cargo door just for expensive equipment to fly out? I think they have things bolted and netted down or whatever flew out is out.

No the plane is not landing in the cargo hold.
I'm 85-90% sure that this photo isn't fake, btw they are taking the picture on purpose (looking at the first image)

br4nd0nh347

zarchitect

You are missing the point. Yes, it was close. But it wasn't 2 meters away from the ramp like the two last photos make it seem. Those two photos are taken with a telephoto lens, as you say yourself, which is which is evident to anyone who knows anything about photography. Here's some points how you can see it:

1) The perspective is seriously flattened. What does that mean? Look at this photo to see what it means: [www.flickr.com] Note how even though the street goes way into the distance, the street isn't getting much narrower and cars and houses appear to be more or less the same size. With a wide angle lens, things become small rapidly. Like this: [www.flickr.com]

2) No matter what the perspective is, the relative size of objects in the background to objects in the foreground remains. I.e. if an air intake is the same width as a leg with one level of zoom, it retains that same proportion with another level of zoom. In these shots, you can see that the leg of the people inside the C130 gets REALLY huge in the last two shots, as does the Typhoon. However, the size of the Typhoon relative to the people in the plane (or the cargo ramp details) doesn't change much at all.

3) Details in the background clouds become much larger. This again tells you that the photos are way zoomed in. By comparing the size of details to the first shots (which are shot with a fairly "normal" perspective (around 50mm focal length equiv. on a 35mm SLR) you can actually calculate the focal length of the two other shots. If you did, you'd notice they are probably taken using a 200 or even 300mm lens!

4) A typical edit on photos is to do an unsharpen mask. What this does is that it takes areas of high contrast and further exaggerates that contrast. This results in a bit of a white halo at the high contrast areas, e.g. at the border between the legs of the people in the plane and the sky. This is normal and looks fine unless you zoom in a photo and crop it AFTER the unsharpen mask has been applied. When you look at the last two photos and look at the area around the legs of the people you can see the unsharpen mask halo. Compare the thickness of that halo to that in the first two photos and you can see that it's thicker. All other artifacts such as color fringing are also much larger than in the two first photos. This strongly suggests that the last two photos are crops from larger photos that had already been edited for "final" publishing (e.g. color corrected, unsharpen masked, etc.).

I challenge you to provide the original shots so we can look at the EXIF metadata on the shots. I'd be willing to bet that the first two shots have a focal length around 50mm and the last two have something close to 300mm.

Having said all this, I don't doubt that the pictures are faked as such. This certainly took place and the fighter was realy close. As close as during in-flight refueling or perhaps even a little bit closer. But the point is that they weren't 2 meters apart like the last two shots try to make it seem. More like 30 meters apart or perhaps even more.

Lloyd: I agree with you. It is ridiculous to see a lot of people calling photos fake or edited that are not. E.g. the Apollo moon mission shots, where people have no clue what they are talking about (shadows line up => many lights. uh, no, many lights => several shadows from each object). However, let me assure you I know both photography and graphics like the back of my hand and there's no question about what has happened here. The two last photos are taken in a situation with the plane perhaps 50 meters from the C-130 - not 2 meters. The reason they look closer is a telephoto lens.

Kim

Kim98

It is a real sequence of photos, if you look around the aviation forums you can find the original posting.

Now the rest of you get back to Warcraft or whatever.

markandrewpowell

Cool pics.

Zodduska

Jesus Diaz

Now, any of you who are both a pilot, and a professional spending at least three days a week doing special effects, comping, or digital matte painting, I would love to hear what you think of this. The rest of you, grow up. You are neither an aviation, nor photo manipulation expert, so your opinion as to the veracity of these images are really little more than garbage.

I get so sick of the amateur digital CSI squad talking out their ass about how every photo, screen shot, or product shot is some elaborate hoax.

L. M. Lloyd

I am sure there are plenty of self appointed experts out there to trash these photo's. That's cool. I feel lucky I got them from someone who is part of the team and who distributed them to enthusiasts for pleasure and not on the web for profit.

hextor25

zamafir

Jesus Diaz

Rekno

ImABigTool

It looks to me like the pilot decided to recklessly give the director and the filming crew a scare.

Jesus Diaz

zamafir

The F-16 is a tiny (for a fighter jet) single-engine multirole fighter. The F-14 is a rather large twin-engine air superiority fighter and long-range interceptor designed in part specifically to carry the AIM-54 Phoenix fleet defense missile.

Rhainor

ilovespammerz

ilovespammerz

Jesus Diaz

And Mav flew too close to another F-14, not F-16 (aviation geek pedant mode off)

markandrewpowell

Again, not directly behind, but if the Top Gun game for the NES taught me anything, it's that refueling is DEFINITELY a pinpoint thing. Or really, wholly impossible--has anyone actually managed to do it?

Just trying to point out that the speed matching part isn't necessarily an issue...

Ricky

Jesus Diaz

ethanthom

EBone

All aircraft have to be careful of getting too close to the rear of other aircraft. First, as we all know, Goose died b/c Mav got into the wake of another F-16 (bad idea). Goddamn it, Mav!!

Second, even if the jet isn't directly in the wake of another jet engine, it still needs good airflow so that it's engines don't stall (like they did when Mav killed Goose). This is why jets (and other aircraft) have a ceiling, an altitude beyond which there isn't enough air to support their aircraft's flight)

I wonder how much air those intake ports are going to be getting from the C-130's cargo bay?

My $0.02...happy to stand corrected if wrong.

Goooooooooose!!! NOOOOOO!!!!

Mfumbi

alexpwnsyousucka

girraffesack

blank

Though I still think its a fake...

Stang70Fastback

liquidsoapdispenser

JPQsat

As far as the possibility of the plane "flying into the cargo bay", look at the size of the videographer's leg - it gets bigger in every shot. Somebody zoomed and cropped the photos to make it look like the plane was getting closer...

JacquesAss

meatwad

Probably a fake, but anything is possible, you know?

bmg50barrett

The turbulence created by flying 100 feet behind a C-130 makes it difficult to fly controlled, let alone 10 ft.

To add to that the c-130 would have to be flying close to its maximum speed to avoid collision and the typhoon would have to be flying at its stall speed. That does not lend itself to gracefully pinpoint flying.

Do not claim it is similar to an air to air refueling because during such process the boom actually helps to aerodynamically stabilize both aircraft.

So while there is always a chance, such a move is incredibly suicidal.

Galls

James

gwolf

zarchitect

TerryinSt.Paul

Joseph

Then howcome in the two images with the plane being "really up close", the size of the plane is the same in relation to the people's legs as it is in the first two pics? And how come the perspective appears to be more flattened, indicating a seriously long-focal length lens (zoomed WAY in)? And how come the color fringing and the white unsharpen-mask halo around the people's silhouette is thicker, indicating editing (namely resampling and cropping) in Photoshop? And howcome the camera crew isn't sucked into the air-intakes despite being just a few meters away from jet engines at high RPM? And howcome the cold-headed pilot with years of military discipline and training would suddenly just forget about all of that and endanger his career and peoples lives with a stupid stunt?

Perhaps the truth is actually somewhat different than what the story suggests?

Kim98