New levels of Airprox, or is it ?
- Thread starter AeroJ
- Start date
The amazing thing about the human brain, is that when something is not what it should be, you get a feeling. That is the brain telling you that something is not right. Based on footage, and photos I have taken over the years, as well as work I have done with special effects artists in the motion picture industry, I believe that it is not real but a composite.
The real deal sealer is that there is no one looking at it.
Yes I too came down on the side of fake in the end; the black outlines round the heli, and the lack of reaction from the UAV. But I was still quite impressed by the effort made in the video - comping in footage of a heli that was verifiably at the event was a nice touch, but no idea how they got that footage !
Last edited:
I'm erring towards fake. If it was real, would the drone pilot really post that video so that whole world could see?! He'd have to be a complete d***!
Having said that, let's just suppose for a minute that it is real. Some things to consider pertaining to the regulations that we have and should adhere to as responsible drone pilots. I don't know what the regulations are in Belarus, only in the the UK. After watching this video, fake or not, I sort of realise why those regulations exist. 1. Congested area. The area is clearly a congested area. 2. Flying over gatherings of more than 1000 people. I think it's safe to say there'd be more than a thousand people at a beer festival. 3. Maintaining visual line of site. If the drone pilot had been maintaining VLOS instead of looking at his tablet screen, he would've seen the helicopter as it approached and taken appropriate avoiding action. He should have heard the helicopter anyway, which is another reason that I think it is fake. But as I said, fake or not, it highlights why those regulations exist.
If it is hoax, it's pretty elaborate. I think whoever made it must have some pretty sophisticated editing equipment. So the question is, why would they bother going through the time and expense of doing it? Some drone hater perhaps.....?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2017
- Messages
- 2,997
- Reaction score
- 3,185
- Location
- Central Florida
- Website
- copperdawg.com
Hmm, I am going to disagree. Sorta. The camera on these types of platforms (modern UAVs) are showing imagery that has never been seen, and certainly not with the type of cameras we're seeing them thru. Most of how our brains perceive action, when viewed on the screen such as this, has been formed by a lifetime of cinema and TV where normal methods to film high speed action is through the classic 24 -30 FPS and never has a camera been placed this close to a man-carrying flying object. In this case it is a high shutter speed camera, likely on full automatic at a very high shutter speed and indeed at a higher than normal frame rate. I agree that this looks nothing like what we are used too seeing but I understand why. As to the crowd not looking? Why would they? Anyone who has been to an event such as airshows and even sporting events where light aircraft and helicopters are regularly overhead gets used to this. Is it possible this helicopter was there giving rides? Covering the event throughout the day?
I think the video producer makes some valid points but misses glaring evidence that I find much stronger. The diffusion of the helicopter's shadow (not the reflection) over the water when it's at the lowest point and later, as it is higher is understandable. At first glance, shadows on the ground are not vividly apparent and due to the sun's angle, the helicopter's shadow location would be out over the water for much of the clip and due to the waters surface, non existent, it would need to be glass-like to see a shadow on the water at this low angle. Do you see the shadows of the three tall fountains in the lake? Are they fake as well? And he's right that the kind of detail close up, all but rules out a CG model, which leaves only a composite, either that or a full, 'in camera' shot. And here is where things break down for me. If it is a composite shot, one where the helicopter was actually filmed at a different location then keyed out and placed into the final crowd scene, then I think he will be getting a call from Skywalker Ranch because the attention to detail surrounding the moving helicopter and all of it's moving parts is beyond the scope of what currently exists in Hollywood and certainly to the general public.
But then I see another overwhelming problem with the video as represented. The producer claims, that he knows who the pilot is, that he knows what UAV this was shot from and that he even has the source video. He says it is a Mavic Air, but the video looks to have a much narrower view than a Mavic, it almost looks zoomed in which explains how it looks as though he went through the blades of the main rotor. He clearly did not, I think it stayed just above and much farther away than we are lead to believe.
But the real problem is; the claimed raw file is at 30 (29.97) FPS yet the video as posted is 60 FPS. (See picture below).
My guess is; this is either real and once again, some idiot has managed to put his UAV into a near miss with a man carrying aircraft and then; in a colossal act of stupidity posted it OR, we (the viewers) are being 'trolled' into believing some guy with after effects and a Mavic Air did this. If it is a fake it was done by someone with studio level equipment and more importantly - skill and raw talent. To anyone that has ever done compositing, rotoscoping and keying, you know what is hard to replicate and know where to look to find the evidence in a given frame that it was.
Moreover, even if it is a composite, then we still have a UAV being flown dangerously close to a manned flight and therefore from that perspective - it is real. But then this begs the question; why not just show us the shot pre composite? I mean after all, it's not like he kept us from seeing something he did wrong. He dang near flew into a helicopter!
So is this some guy who is stupid enough to fly danger close to a manned flight, showing an utter lack of common sense on the one hand yet on the other; use very high level skills and technique to stitch together a video that defies logic from a technical standpoint. Sort of a Jeckel and Hyde type of thing? I mean, he is filming at 60 FPS on full auto yet he is at a master level for a compositor in the film industry?
I think the video producer makes some valid points but misses glaring evidence that I find much stronger. The diffusion of the helicopter's shadow (not the reflection) over the water when it's at the lowest point and later, as it is higher is understandable. At first glance, shadows on the ground are not vividly apparent and due to the sun's angle, the helicopter's shadow location would be out over the water for much of the clip and due to the waters surface, non existent, it would need to be glass-like to see a shadow on the water at this low angle. Do you see the shadows of the three tall fountains in the lake? Are they fake as well? And he's right that the kind of detail close up, all but rules out a CG model, which leaves only a composite, either that or a full, 'in camera' shot. And here is where things break down for me. If it is a composite shot, one where the helicopter was actually filmed at a different location then keyed out and placed into the final crowd scene, then I think he will be getting a call from Skywalker Ranch because the attention to detail surrounding the moving helicopter and all of it's moving parts is beyond the scope of what currently exists in Hollywood and certainly to the general public.
But then I see another overwhelming problem with the video as represented. The producer claims, that he knows who the pilot is, that he knows what UAV this was shot from and that he even has the source video. He says it is a Mavic Air, but the video looks to have a much narrower view than a Mavic, it almost looks zoomed in which explains how it looks as though he went through the blades of the main rotor. He clearly did not, I think it stayed just above and much farther away than we are lead to believe.
But the real problem is; the claimed raw file is at 30 (29.97) FPS yet the video as posted is 60 FPS. (See picture below).
My guess is; this is either real and once again, some idiot has managed to put his UAV into a near miss with a man carrying aircraft and then; in a colossal act of stupidity posted it OR, we (the viewers) are being 'trolled' into believing some guy with after effects and a Mavic Air did this. If it is a fake it was done by someone with studio level equipment and more importantly - skill and raw talent. To anyone that has ever done compositing, rotoscoping and keying, you know what is hard to replicate and know where to look to find the evidence in a given frame that it was.
Moreover, even if it is a composite, then we still have a UAV being flown dangerously close to a manned flight and therefore from that perspective - it is real. But then this begs the question; why not just show us the shot pre composite? I mean after all, it's not like he kept us from seeing something he did wrong. He dang near flew into a helicopter!
So is this some guy who is stupid enough to fly danger close to a manned flight, showing an utter lack of common sense on the one hand yet on the other; use very high level skills and technique to stitch together a video that defies logic from a technical standpoint. Sort of a Jeckel and Hyde type of thing? I mean, he is filming at 60 FPS on full auto yet he is at a master level for a compositor in the film industry?
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2018
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 68
- Age
- 71
Ty, excellent write up! I was leaning fake, but you brougt attention to several points I quickly over looked. Learned something at the same time about cinematic components.
Similar threads
