Why did they not use photoshop for a "photo op" over NYC?

[acptulsa]

That Chicago simulation didn't fool me for a second. No graffiti.

 

[Original_Intent]

If we had been a little faster we should have started an online competition to see who could do the best photoshop of AF1 and NYC.

Sent it to the White House:

1 copy of Photoshop: Free
Labor : Free (could be a condition of entry in the contest)
Not scaring the hell out of the inhabitants of NYC: Priceless

 

[Agent CSL]

They could have used a myriad of tools. Photoshop, Poser, CAD, FireWorks... Sure it would have taken more time to create, but no one would be scared shitless or outraged.

A vector image can be created at a low resolution and then ballooned as big as they want. It's not difficult to do an image with nothing but vectors.

 

[acptulsa]

Now, will someone tell me how either the VC-25 or the F-16 is the least bit suitable as a camera platform? There is no RF-16...

 

[Bruno]

Now, will someone tell me how either the VC-25 or the F-16 is the least bit suitable as a camera platform? There is no RF-16...

Was there a helicopter flying behind the planes? I haven't that from any videos. Otherwise, where in the hell were they taking photos from?

They should have to provide the pictures to the public as proof that that is in fact what they were doing.

If we had been a little faster we should have started an online competition to see who could do the best photoshop of AF1 and NYC.

Sent it to the White House:

1 copy of Photoshop: Free
Labor : Free (could be a condition of entry in the contest)
Not scaring the hell out of the inhabitants of NYC: Priceless

Brilliant!

 

[torchbearer]

Was there a helicopter flying behind the planes? I haven't that from any videos. Otherwise, where in the hell were they taking photos from?

They should have to provide the pictures to the public as proof that that is in fact what they were doing.

we paid for them.

 

[phill4paul]

Was there a helicopter flying behind the planes? I haven't that from any videos. Otherwise, where in the hell were they taking photos from?

They should have to provide the pictures to the public as proof that that is in fact what they were doing.



Brilliant!

For what it cost us taxpayers we each should get a darned calender.

 

[acptulsa]

Was there a helicopter flying behind the planes? I haven't that from any videos. Otherwise, where in the hell were they taking photos from?

Haven't seen any Cessnas, either. Those often have their doors removed for photography.

There is a recon pod available for the F-16, but I can't imaging a less efficient way to get photos--unless from a twin-engine fighter. Can't imagine that you'd get the prettiest shots from a remotely-controlled pod, either.

Makes no sense on so many levels.

 

[JoshLowry]

Was there a helicopter flying behind the planes? I haven't that from any videos. Otherwise, where in the hell were they taking photos from?

They should have to provide the pictures to the public as proof that that is in fact what they were doing.



Brilliant!

FOIA Request

Would this work?

 

[Ninja Homer]

They should have to provide the pictures to the public as proof that that is in fact what they were doing.

But then they'd just photoshop it.

 

[LATruth]

I believe most fighters and modern planes have high res cameras on them. How else would they get a majority of the shots from af.mil ?

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Was there a helicopter flying behind the planes? I haven't that from any videos. Otherwise, where in the hell were they taking photos from?

They should have to provide the pictures to the public as proof that that is in fact what they were doing.

Well... if they don't already have them, they'll just photoshop them. lol.

 

[Bruno]

FOIA Request

Would this work?

Sure might! Can't exactly be a matter of national security, as they did it right in the open and Obama calls for an investigation and transparency.

 

[mczerone]

Now, will someone tell me how either the VC-25 or the F-16 is the least bit suitable as a camera platform? There is no RF-16...

Holy inconsistent details, Batman!

The more this is fleshed out, the more it looks like a ploy.

What agency had control of the jet? Is it under White House command? Did the Air Force need to sign off on this photo-op? It seems that they would have a few people who are very wary of allowing fly-overs of civilian areas.

As in so many other areas, either they are corrupt or inept, but either way there is no excuse for allowing the power to remain where it is.

 

[acptulsa]

I believe most fighters and modern planes have high res cameras on them. How else would they get a majority of the shots from af.mil ?

Those are generally 'gun cameras', and not trainable. If fixed forward, it would be very dangerous to try to photograph another airplane with them--especially a slower airplane. And, yes, there are recon versions of various fighters, but not the F-16 (that was my RF-16 reference earlier). No such thing.

 

[Bruno]

For what it cost us taxpayers we each should get a darned calender.

+1 or a mousepad

Who was in the plane? Reporters need to be on this (but won't). There had to be dozens of people on that plane.

Anyone important?

Names, I want names, damn it!

 

[KoldKut]

...

 

[JoshLowry]

Isn't it possible that the "photo shoot" was actually a video or filming activity? Maybe even something in IMAX, with it's gigantic specialized film stock? Something not easily or cheaply duplicated on a laptop? Those long computer animated sequences in Hollywood movies are very expensive and time consuming to produce, and are invariably not as good as the "real" thing.

Possible.

I'm not saying that the government necessarily had "evil" plans.

Just asking why they decided to do it this way if it was simply a photo they wanted.

 

[acptulsa]

Isn't it possible that the "photo shoot" was actually a video or filming activity? Maybe even something in IMAX, with it's gigantic specialized film stock? Something not easily or cheaply duplicated on a laptop? Those long computer animated sequences in Hollywood movies are very expensive and time consuming to produce, and are invariably not as good as the "real" thing.

But where was the camera? On the ground? Are you suggesting they buzzed the millions in Manhattan just so they could put the camera on the Empire State Building?

If someone has use of 28000 or 29000 for a couple of hours, they'll break out a dozen cameras and crews--and at least two or three will be in the air. And I don't for a second believe you can fit an IMAX camera on an F-16 underwing pylon.

 

[Bruno]

Isn't it possible that the "photo shoot" was actually a video or filming activity? Maybe even something in IMAX, with it's gigantic specialized film stock? Something not easily or cheaply duplicated on a laptop? Those long computer animated sequences in Hollywood movies are very expensive and time consuming to produce, and are invariably not as good as the "real" thing.

Possible, but unlikely. They would have said that instead of stating it was a "photo op"?

Even so - purpose of said video or filming activity? Audience? Video/photographical proof?