- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,257
- Reaction score
- 2,693
Me myself - I haven't decided ... but does this look a little odd?
Fox reports - you decide
- Thread starter FluffyMcDeath
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,974
- Reaction score
- 2,156
I can't tell for sure. News reporters have been busted doing silly stuff during hurricanes. I remember once they got busted reporting about the brutal winds, with a stop sign flying back and forth in the background, the problem was they had a guy under the camera view jerking the sign post back and forth.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,257
- Reaction score
- 2,693
I can see why they would, technically, want to set up a camera and then overlay the reporter in studio so they can get clean audio but the whole costume and whatnot for verisimilitude ... well, it just becomes theatre - sure, it's theatre based on a true story but it's undermining.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
Hard to say about that first video. It looks more real then fake. The size of the SUV looks about right when it comes to a stop. Focal length could be a factor here. When the SUV is behind her it does look smaller, but when it's beside her it looks huge, yet it's distance delta is probably only a few feet from the camera. Focal length could explain that. My guess is the camera man is close to the news lady and is using a wide angle lens, but then again, I know shit about photography. Lighting is usually the dead giveaway for that sort of thing and I don't see anything unusual there. Red's video however is pretty funny.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,813
- Reaction score
- 6,534
Not to my eyes.
Me either but when you have a normal sized reporter, suddenly metamorphosing into Tom Thumb, me brain screams "FAKE!"
Maybe you're right. Maybe focal length could explain that. Maybe lens angle-width. Maybe relative distances.
But before I believe ANY of that, I need to see a demonstration.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,974
- Reaction score
- 2,156
My parents have a photo from my childhood of me and a friend of the time standing a few feet apart. In this picture my friend looks like he is only a few inches tall. How this happened, I have no clue as I know nothing about photography.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,813
- Reaction score
- 6,534
Yes, I have lots of weird photographs too but the Fox clip is in motion. It starts out looking real then changes to screaming fake.
If the reporter is really standing in the same shot as those cars, I'd be astonished.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
The fact that it's in motion doesn't say much, it simply demonstrates the physics of the lens. Wide angle lenses are known to "stretch perspective". Read these two articles for an explanation:
Wide Angle Lens
Getting the Most from Wide Angle Lenses
But fancy photography tricks aside, let's just think about this for a second. Perhaps we're asking the wrong question here. The YouTube video asks us to compare the size of the SUV to the reporter, but it doesn't say exactly at which point in the video. While the SUV is passing behind her, the SUV looks about right when behind her, a little small before it passes behind her and a little large afterwards. We should be asking, how does the SUV change size so dramatically even though it doesn't appear to get that much closer to the camera. The video of the SUV seems authentic, how it changes shape may be a mystery, however, that says nothing at all about the reporter being overlaid on a video of a SUV driving by. In other words, you can't make the argument that the reporter is super imposed on that video because of the size changing SUV.
Wide Angle Lens
Getting the Most from Wide Angle Lenses
But fancy photography tricks aside, let's just think about this for a second. Perhaps we're asking the wrong question here. The YouTube video asks us to compare the size of the SUV to the reporter, but it doesn't say exactly at which point in the video. While the SUV is passing behind her, the SUV looks about right when behind her, a little small before it passes behind her and a little large afterwards. We should be asking, how does the SUV change size so dramatically even though it doesn't appear to get that much closer to the camera. The video of the SUV seems authentic, how it changes shape may be a mystery, however, that says nothing at all about the reporter being overlaid on a video of a SUV driving by. In other words, you can't make the argument that the reporter is super imposed on that video because of the size changing SUV.
Wow. Such a hard call to make. Clearly the image has been manipulated. But, is that just an artifact of the extreme wide angle lens? There's some funny tricks in those lenses to minimize fish-eye effect.
Mathematically, I don't see anything impossible about the geometry of the shot. The Lexus GX is a huge SUV. It is about 6.25 ft tall. So, it should somewhat dwarf her. Especially when it's closer to the camera. The only thing that confuses me is that her feet look low. Almost like she'd have to be standing in a hole. But the camera is high and pointed downward. (Possibly being held old school on a shoulder?) So again... The height may also be an artifact of the lens.
The lighting seems reasonable. And clearly, she is standing in rain. (You can see it in front of her.) Of course, lighting and water sprinkler are easy enough in a studio, as well. But if you're going through all that hassle, wouldn't it be easier to just send her out there?
I've thought about it both ways, and my vote goes for real.
Mathematically, I don't see anything impossible about the geometry of the shot. The Lexus GX is a huge SUV. It is about 6.25 ft tall. So, it should somewhat dwarf her. Especially when it's closer to the camera. The only thing that confuses me is that her feet look low. Almost like she'd have to be standing in a hole. But the camera is high and pointed downward. (Possibly being held old school on a shoulder?) So again... The height may also be an artifact of the lens.
The lighting seems reasonable. And clearly, she is standing in rain. (You can see it in front of her.) Of course, lighting and water sprinkler are easy enough in a studio, as well. But if you're going through all that hassle, wouldn't it be easier to just send her out there?
I've thought about it both ways, and my vote goes for real.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
Funny, I spent so much time looking at the SUV I didn't even notice it was on Fox. It's definitely fake!
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,257
- Reaction score
- 2,693
It's still a tough call for me. I want to find a better resolution clip but I don't see one.
The perspective is off as far as I can see. Wide angle stretching should be more noticeable in the horizontal axis near the edge of the screen and there should be noticeable distortion of the geometry of the vehicle. I don't think the camera is as close to the road as it appears.
The rain in front of the reporter would be easy to add on an overlay but if she's keyed into the background it's done well. The site lines look off when she glances over but the sound seems to be very clean (proximity of the mic really helps that and the transcoding for the vid is crap enough to hide faint background). However, where she is standing she looks like she's on the road and that's probably not good.
The perspective is off as far as I can see. Wide angle stretching should be more noticeable in the horizontal axis near the edge of the screen and there should be noticeable distortion of the geometry of the vehicle. I don't think the camera is as close to the road as it appears.
The rain in front of the reporter would be easy to add on an overlay but if she's keyed into the background it's done well. The site lines look off when she glances over but the sound seems to be very clean (proximity of the mic really helps that and the transcoding for the vid is crap enough to hide faint background). However, where she is standing she looks like she's on the road and that's probably not good.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
I agree, she does seem to be vertically challenged in a way, but it's really hard to say with that massive banner along the bottom. A viable explanation for that is that they compressed the raw image vertically (possibly non-linearly which is actually most likely) so they can show the full width while also displaying that big stupid banner on the bottom. I think that's the most likely explanation for that.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 31
It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was a lens thing. Wide angle lenses can do all manner of weird things with perspective. Something suddenly becoming larger is exactly what you would expect. It would also explain why she appears to be standing in the middle of the road, in reality the camera is probably very close to her.
For example:
For example:
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,257
- Reaction score
- 2,693
Well, wide angle it's not.
I've been able to locate where the camera was positioned in the real world. It seems that the camera is zoomed in and the angle is quite narrow. On entering the left side of the frame the vehicle is about twice as far from the camera as it is on the right side of the frame (hence it looks twice as big).
The distance along the ground between where the SUV enters on the left to where it leaves on the right is about 25 feet.
I won't be able to work on this any more for a couple of days. If she is there (and she may be) she has chosen a silly place to stand.
I've been able to locate where the camera was positioned in the real world. It seems that the camera is zoomed in and the angle is quite narrow. On entering the left side of the frame the vehicle is about twice as far from the camera as it is on the right side of the frame (hence it looks twice as big).
The distance along the ground between where the SUV enters on the left to where it leaves on the right is about 25 feet.
I won't be able to work on this any more for a couple of days. If she is there (and she may be) she has chosen a silly place to stand.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,813
- Reaction score
- 6,534
I just watched it again - still screams fake to me.
Supposing it is real, why on earth would Fox, of all channels, run a report that *looks* so fake?
They get enough criticism (usually valid) for making stuff up as it is, without running reports that are genuine but look fake.
Supposing it is real, why on earth would Fox, of all channels, run a report that *looks* so fake?
They get enough criticism (usually valid) for making stuff up as it is, without running reports that are genuine but look fake.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,767
- Reaction score
- 697
That's funny, the more I look at it the more real it looks to me.
@Fluffy, I'd be curious to see how you ruled out the wide angle. Initially I too suspected that the reporter was far from the camera and was being zoomed in, but I couldn't explain why I thought that. I then read about wide angle lenses and thought that was a more plausible explanation. Curious to see what your logic is.
Still, I'd say that none of the "evidence" we discuss is very relevant to the authenticity of the video report. It really doesn't matter what lens was used to record the SUV, you'd have to show that it's somehow different from what was used to record the reporter - and I don't think we're expert enough for that task. Also, where the reporter was standing is irrelevant.
@Fluffy, I'd be curious to see how you ruled out the wide angle. Initially I too suspected that the reporter was far from the camera and was being zoomed in, but I couldn't explain why I thought that. I then read about wide angle lenses and thought that was a more plausible explanation. Curious to see what your logic is.
Still, I'd say that none of the "evidence" we discuss is very relevant to the authenticity of the video report. It really doesn't matter what lens was used to record the SUV, you'd have to show that it's somehow different from what was used to record the reporter - and I don't think we're expert enough for that task. Also, where the reporter was standing is irrelevant.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,257
- Reaction score
- 2,693
It's a low value report. It's really trivial which is why I wouldn't be surprised if they just grabbed some footage from the scene and then threw an available weather lackey into the picture. It's not a big deal if they did or didn't but I find the analysis interesting. I will share when I get it in a presentable shape.