John Kettler Posted March 17, 2017 Share Posted March 17, 2017 Brother George posted this on FB, and I thought it might be useful to Vein and others. If not, it's still a spectacular photo. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 Lovely pic. However, is there validation? The problem with so many "amazing pics" we see these days is that most are doctored. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 18, 2017 Author Share Posted March 18, 2017 Erwin, Brother George has seen this stuff for real, so if it was fake, he'd say so. He's like that. Also, if you look at the footage here at around the 2:45 and 5:45 marks you can see the video is capturing the same colors as the still for the muzzle blast. Unfortunately, none of the footage shows such a verdant backdrop or that angle. Would therefore say the still represents something of a best case view of the muzzle blast, one without veritable sandstorms thrown up upon firing in the desert, for example, Sadly, there's no video reflecting the highly familiar to us keyframe. The same is true for the muzzle flash at ~1:20 here. The colors have shifted a bit, which is to be expected given the drastically different background and viewing angle, but notice how similar the core muzzle flashes are Could someone have tweaked something after the fact? It's a possibility, but I believe in the first instance the camera simply got that million to one perfect shot. Either that, if we presume no tampering, then a high speed camera was employed and the frame was hand picked. I don't have any Avid of similar on which to painstakingly do a frame by frame analysis. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 I've seen Abrams live fire as well, that huge muzzle flash happens to fast for the human eye to see during the daytime. It can be seen (albeit very quickly) at night. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 (edited) Ummm.....I can see it quite easily (For those of you who are apparently unable to see it, it's kind of a big bright orange thing that appears in front of the tank, just before the bang noise.): So.....Am I an alien? Or are you talking ****? Edited March 18, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 That is a high quality picture taken by a camera that can break things down that happen in time intervals faster than the human brain can process them. The flash is very quick. Keep in mind it's the side effect of firing a large Depleted Uranium spike at several thousand meters per second. The whole thing happens extremely quickly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted March 18, 2017 Share Posted March 18, 2017 No mate, it's a video. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Once again, high speed video shot=operates faster than human eye and brain= flash that occurs than human eye can catch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) I despair, I really do. The flash is burning propellant, it's clearly visible to the naked eye in broad daylight, always has been, always will be.....Are you suggesting those videos are slowed down to make it visible for some reason? If you are referring to the pretty patterns seen in the very high-speed video, no you won't see that....Unless you are an eagle. Edited March 19, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 19, 2017 Author Share Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) Guys, In light of what's been said here, the conclusion appears to be that the still I presented is, in fact, a real muzzle flash. In turn, it means the pic in the OP is what I believed it to be: a valid visual reference for tweaking muzzle flash graphics. Also, for me anyway, it confirms that BFCs in game rendering of such a shot, from any side, is dead on. Well done, BFC! Regards, John Kettler Edited March 19, 2017 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) No doubt the photographer has tweaked the image JK, it's just something that is done as a matter of course these days, simply because it is so easy to do. From this: To this: In a couple of clicks. I have no idea what I'm doing in Photoshop TBH, someone who does can achieve wondrous things. Edited March 19, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 24, 2017 Author Share Posted March 24, 2017 For comparison with the Abrams muzzle flash, take a look at the same muzzle flash phenomenology for a T-90SM. It's clearly visible (in slow motion, no less) at ~19:00 and 23:00 in the below video. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 Well, clearly the west is falling behind in the fashionable looks of the tanks as well as the tank's valuable flying and shooting while flying competition. Next we need to have a "dance off" between the Russian and western crews to demonstrate superior training techniques. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 (edited) On 3/18/2017 at 10:03 PM, Splinty said: Once again, high speed video shot=operates faster than human eye and brain= flash that occurs than human eye can catch. I know exactly what you're talking about. Anyone who has any decent time using and shooting firearms knows this. Seeing as our British cousins across the pond do not hold the same values when it comes to private citizens and the ownership of firearms, it makes sense that they have little to no practical experience of said flash phenomenon. For example, most firearms (pistol to rifle to shotgun to whatever) produce a flash of light when discharged. However, during the day the flash is so quick that it is generally missed. At night however it is much easier to see. In this photo you can see the large flash in the dark as the shotgun is discharged: https://goo.gl/images/xI934t During the day that same flash happens, it's just that ambient light and the speed in which it happens drowns it out. The reason flashes tend to be more visible in videos is because a video captures light differently than the human eye in the moment, which generally means that a flash that is hard to see in person is easier to see in a video. I believe this is the phenomenon Splinty is talking about. Edited March 28, 2017 by IICptMillerII 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 29, 2017 Author Share Posted March 29, 2017 (edited) IICptMillerII, If it's a digital camera, as opposed to a film camera (which would need, I believe, a special lense, film or both), it also sees into the near IR, which is why things are imaged which the photographer doesn't see. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cameras-seeing-through-clothes.275929/ Regards, John Kettler Edited March 29, 2017 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, IICptMillerII said: Seeing as our British cousins across the pond do not hold the same values when it comes to private citizens and the ownership of firearms, it makes sense that they have little to no practical experience of said flash phenomenon. Is that right? Actually the UK is just rather less keen on letting lunatics loose with the things than America appears to be. Edited March 29, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: Is that right? Actually the UK is just rather less keen on letting lunatics loose with the things than America appears to be. Hahahaha, that's right, I forgot. Rights only exist until something bad happens, then we throw them out the window! It's a wonder why those pesky colonies decided to take their leave from the crown. It figures that it's you who decides to derail the thread with your usual crap, adding nothing of value to the context of the conversation. You are clearly a bitter, delusional old man who comes here mostly to spew your particular flavor of bull-dung, and frankly it's gotten old. Luckily you likely only have a decade or so left on this earth, but I don't have to wait that long to be rid of you. Blocked, and good riddance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 (edited) ROFL! You really are a total cretin.....Where do you think the term muzzle-flash comes from? Do you think that firing at muzzle-flashes is something you can only do if you are using a video camera? Do you think pilots timing their evasive movements to the muzzle-flashes of their opponent's guns is something they made up to sound cool? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_flash If it wasn't so sad this thread would actually be quite funny. I'm not even going to begin to attempt to explain UK firearms law to a moron.....You wouldn't understand most of the words. This you might just about understand: Firearm related deaths per 100,000 population: USA: 10.54 UK: 0.23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate Edited March 30, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Yesh... might as well debate how many angles can fit on the head of a pin. Likely to get a fairer and more broad consensus with than debating firearms ownership issues and impacts. So knock it off. Sgt. Squarehead, we've been down this road before. Apparently you have a learning disability. But we're a school for a broad range of participants, so you're not being expelled quite yet. Take the weekend off from this Forum (I insist) and determine for yourself if you want to continue posting here. I'll know because I won't be directed back into yet another thread that you've derailed and have to clean up the mess you've made. IICptMillerII, please keep in mind that it takes two to tango. Rising to the bait doesn't help anything. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 As an aside, there are an unlimited number of angles on the head of a pin. Angels, though, you can only fit twelve. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 And the correct term SS should have used is "total congenital thyroid deficiency". Tut tut... But, please dear god/steve, let SS finish his current scenarios and campaigns for CMSF and CMA... (Or, announce CMSF II asap.) Thank you... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Sorry, Mikey, infinitely more Angels than angles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 23 hours ago, Battlefront.com said: IICptMillerII, please keep in mind that it takes two to tango. Rising to the bait doesn't help anything. My apologies Steve. It will not happen again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 Likewise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 Just because I work in the industry, and I can't help but clear some details..... JK - it's 99% certain it was shot using a high speed digital camera. Which model/make for stills specifically I'm not sure, but for video the standard is a Phantom or similar (1600fps+). Ive worked with 15K FPS (yes, fifteen Thousand frames per second) and I know there's a 20K+ version. Film is pretty much never used now, outside fringe/hipster/wealthy film makers. And no film could achieve this clarity at 15,000 FPS. Also, there's absolutely no organic grain, other than loss of detail as you progress along the resolution curve. The higher your frame rate the more light you need, and a hit some point it becomes exponentially more. Which is exactly why the above photo/video was shot mid day, and on a sunny, clear sky one as well. This photo above is, to my none-camera dept eye, possibly just 400 fps., but it's just a broad guess. Other than pedantically musing on HFPS camera work I have absolutely no clue what just went down over the last few posts. But it's cool that it's stopped, on both sides :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.