I'm not sure why this happened...

 

Yeah, it didn't happen.

wow, some editing....!

 

Computer graphics are, indeed, wonderful.

Edited July 15, 20223 yr by W2DR
kant spel

1 hour ago, W2DR said:

Computer graphics are, indeed, wonderful.

Yup, there are a lot of good things about the way this was faked, the lighting on the 3D aeroplane model and the matching of the resolution and blur is pretty well done, but the problem with video CGI is that unless you select a video very carefully to do something like this with, where - barring aerodynamics - it would be physically possible for the object to be pulling the move you fake, you'll give away the fact that it is CGI. This is something I was always careful to tell my students when teaching them how to do this sort of CGI, as if you are not careful with that, you could create some really great CGI from a technical standpoint, but still not convince people of its veracity for other reasons, which is a mistake you do see in a lot of the CGI in big movies.

The two obvious problems in this regard with this clip, are that the flap configuration on the substituted model which performs the roll is not the same as that of the real aeroplane on the original footage (you can see this toward the end of the clip where the passing truck is used to make the transition from the model to the real aeroplane), and the altitude is too low for the wing of the model to clear the terrain as it comes out of the roll.

Contrary to what people might imagine, this sort of thing is comparatively easy to do in something such as Adobe After Effects, although in fairness, this is not the easiest clip one could pick to have that process be largely automatic, so it helps that the model is only traveling on a linear path, which would have mean the only real difficulty to do this, would be to match the speed and angle of the render. More often than not you will use a flat ground plane or some other horizontal or vertical object in the shot to get the camera tracking data for the simulated 3D space you then work with to match the 3D model moves with the live footage. This matching has been done very well in the faked clip in spite of this, but it's the altitude and the configuration of the aeroplane's flaps and slats, and the wing flexing, or rather the lack of it, which give it away. And of course the fact that we know such a maneuver isn't possible either. You might also notice it has no nav lights on it either, which is another missed detail that could have been added in to help sell the shot.

Incidentally, the other thing you tend to do with this sort of CGI, is film the source footage as steadily as you can, then add-in in the 'camera shake' post-process, to help cover up any switches or glitches, which is something very apparent in this clip. But in spite of this, it is pretty well done from a technical point. 

You can see a problem of this nature in this clip from the movie 'Knowing' below, which has a very dramatic plane crash CGI'd in it. There is some very clever shot planning, editing and switches between differently dressed sets in this scene, notably the conversation which Nicholas Cage has with the cop, which allows the shot angles to be changed to allow the damage to the vehicles and the fire trail of burning jet fuel across the road to be set up to look like it has just occurred in real time. Unfortunately, they do still fluff the angles a bit when the cop 'spots' the crashing plane but is looking the wrong way (Cage does this too), which is a fault on the director's part, but thereafter from about 1:05 in this clip, the transition between the pre and post crash scenes on the set are very well done, making it look like it is all one shot, which helps to sell it to us.

This is what I was talking about when saying that if you make it look like it couldn't possibly have been an edit to cover a switch, it will fool you into thinking it looks realistic, which in this case is aided by the camera pan back to Cage for his shocked reaction after the CGI crash, which allows these two differently dressed sets to be utilised and the edit to be masked with what just looks like a fast hand-held camera pan. In spite of that small mistake with the cop and Cage looking the wrong way, this is still one of the more convincing CGI scenes in a movie of recent years, and it's a pretty good fun movie too of course:

 

Edited July 15, 20223 yr by Chock

There was a plane in that video?  🙂  

Just now, psolk said:

There was a plane in that video?  🙂  

Yup, that was my reaction too!

You guys are so wrong. Its not CGI. This actually happened.

Its the famous "Dancing Girls Pilot Concentration Test. At the end of ones training, you are expected to execute a perfect barrel roll at low altitude while not being distracted by pretty girls dancing.

Some countries insist on the girls being totally naked. 

I'm stunned that as aviation enthusiast you didn't know this. 

Just now, Chock said:

Yup, that was my reaction too!

LOL, I'm glad someone got it Alan!!  That's like one of those if you see a car in this picture tricks... 😉  

11 hours ago, Chock said:

The two obvious problems in this regard with this clip

I think there is also a third. The angle of attack is all wrong. You'd have to have at least 20+ degrees nose-up to have any chance of pulling this off. I really enjoyed the video though.

Here's the real thing in a 707....