October 9, 2007: Blue Angel makes pass over Frisco Bay boaters

The Mail, via Spluch. All you need to know:

wow

Would've been funny if it got caught in a net.

my precious ears

I call BS. Has got to be photoshop.

Here's the bit of the pic they cropped.....

It is an interesting photo . . . generally, in order to take a photo of something moving fast like that, you have to use a really fast shutter speed. And if you use a fast shutter speed, I wouldn't think you'd get the kind of motion blur that's showing on the boats in this picture.

I think the photographer was panning with the jet and also using a pretty high shutter speed.

Or maybe it was photoshopped. I tend to believe it's real though. Even though it looks unreal.

No...way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbolty I call BS. Has got to be photoshop.

That's not a "water vapor cloud" around the jet; that's a weird phenomenon that you get for a moment when a jet breaks the sound barrier: Google Images link.

I suspect that if a jet broke the sound barrier that close to a bunch of boats, people would be deafened. There might also be criminal charges involved for the pilot.

So yeah, Photoshop is my guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMolecule That's not a "water vapor cloud" around the jet; that's a weird phenomenon that you get for a moment when a jet breaks the sound barrier: Google Images link. I suspect that if a jet broke the sound barrier that close to a bunch of boats, people would be deafened. There might also be criminal charges involved for the pilot. So yeah, Photoshop is my guess.

From MM's link:


similar but not identical. why bother to shop another?

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster From MM's link: similar but not identical. why bother to shop another?

I still think it was a Bush family vacation, though

Not BS, I've seen this in person when I was a kid living in southern California at the Miramar air shows (though that was over ground not water). These guys are so damn good it is mind blowing. And yes that cloud is water vapor, you can see the same sort of thing when a jet is at high speed and suddenly changes to a high angle of attack.
You can see the water vapor starting to shake off here:

Which then turns to this:


Also called "pulling vapor".

Those telephoto pictures are also very deceiving as to how close the jet was to the boats and spectators. Judging distance between two objects laterally in a telephoto image is next to impossible, so often it appears as if two objects are much closer than they actually were when the image was captured. I very much doubt anyone was close enough in reality to get hurt by the jet's repercussions. The Blue Angels are extremely professional and would never pull a stunt that would endanger the public so recklessly.

I googled around to see if there was backup for this. In the process, I found this page, which has some really nice Angels pics.

This page has a similar pic with an AP byline. So I'm guessing the photo is valid.

I'm a'jump--I say I'm a'jumping on the BS Bandwagon. Not for the vapor cloud, but for the proximity to the boats and people in general. Big Brother is very strict about where you can and cannot generate sonic booms. I believe the powers that be would frown MIGHTILY upon the pilot who pulled this alleged stunt. Definitely PS'ed. Cool pic though.

According to my quoted text, this is a stunt that is performed elsewhere, and it's sub-sonic. It's loud, but not sonic boom loud.

And the comment Bullitt made about a telephoto lens compressing a picture is right on. It's very likely that there's a mile or more of open water between the boats in the foreground and the boats in the background. That jet is nowhere near the boats.

i find it funny how many people jump on the "shopped" wagon, i really dont find this shocking or anything, just youtube some F-16 Vids and you will see this is nothing special

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fJGVXp...elated&search=

The plane is just reaching the 'sound barrier' and the cloud produced is the shock wave.

It can also happen well below the sound barrier, especially if the humidity is very high.... ie, close to the water.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure it isn't photoshopped. This is just another 100 million dollar plane flying 1300+ miles per hour less than 50 feet off the ground in a bay loaded full of boats.

$35 million
These pilots have extraordinary skill in flying these airplanes
Shut up with the omg its $hopp3d comments, all of you

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickja1 Oh, yeah, I'm sure it isn't photoshopped. This is just another 100 million dollar plane flying 1300+ miles per hour less than 50 feet off the ground in a bay loaded full of boats.

A picture used to be worth a thousand words.
Now it's worth a thousand denials.

Awsome shots!

An eighth one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam An eighth one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt I think the photographer was panning with the jet and also using a pretty high shutter speed. Or maybe it was photoshopped. I tend to believe it's real though. Even though it looks unreal.

if the first pic is actually a frame from a film rather than a still shot, the effect of the boats seeming to be so close could be adjusted through the depth of field. In effect, making what seems a long way off, much closer. (or vice versa if that's what you want to show)

That is correct. That's how you get the subject sharp and in focus and blur the background. Used heavily in automotive racing photography. If you use a slower shutter speed and pan the camera with the subject, the background will be blurred while the subject remains sharp, giving the photo a sense of movement and speed instead of what looks like a car just sitting on the track.

Is it a plane flying low or a speed boat skimming a bit high? :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce A picture used to be worth a thousand words. Now it's worth a thousand denials.

On closeness and blurred backgrounds:

Almost all sports photography and most spectator event photography uses telephoto lenses to bring the action close while the photographer is safely distant. Telephoto lenses see things differently than the standard 35mm lens (which is the closest approximation to the human eye). Telephotos "flatten" the image. That is, a distant object does not appear to diminish in size as it would seen through a standard lens. This elimination of linear perspective generally goes unnoticed by the public.
It can be used to great effect artistically, often employed for certain shots in film to give a specific feel- as in a HUGE setting sun. (The best example I've ever seen of this is when, in Poltergeist, Jobeth Williams looks down the hall to her children's door- the cameraman pulls focus while switching FROM telephoto, giving the illusion of a lengthening hallway- brilliant!)
The photographer's lens is reason the plane looks so close to the boats. Since I've spent years looking at sports photographs (sculpting from them) I've gotten pretty good at judging distances. The plane IS close, but not THAT close.

The blurred background is very likely an unintended consequence of following such a rapidly moving object. It can be done for dramatic effect (as mentioned, in making a car appear to be moving fast), but I believe that in this case it is most likely due to the extreme speed of the jet- even the fastest shutter speed couldn't freeze the background while panning the camera that fast. Nascar cars don't exceed 200 mph- WELL within any camera's ability to take a crisp, unblurred photo. Those photographers are probably doing it for dramatic effect. This jet is moving at about 1100 fps (750 mph) - tough to freeze the action.

And that's all I have to say about that.


(Damned Photoshop has ruined the simple appreciation of great pictures!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam The blurred background is very likely an unintended consequence of following such a rapidly moving object. It can be done for dramatic effect (as mentioned, in making a car appear to be moving fast), but I believe that in this case it is most likely due to the extreme speed of the jet- even the fastest shutter speed couldn't freeze the background while panning the camera that fast. Nascar cars don't exceed 200 mph- WELL within any camera's ability to take a crisp, unblurred photo. Those photographers are probably doing it for dramatic effect. This jet is moving at about 1100 fps (750 mph) - tough to freeze the action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveDallas I agree... which is why I'm curious as to how you can pan fast enough, and accurately enough, to freeze the plane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveDallas Also I note that in almost al of the other shots--the ones linked by glatt for example--both the plane and the accompanying scenery are--this effect is not present.

From now on I am referring to passed gas as pulled vapors.

Right on Adam. There are a great number of things to consider when working with telephoto and looking at a telephoto image.

Another thing to consider SteveDallas is that a general rule of thumb for telephoto lenses is that you need a minimum shutter speed of whatever mm length you are "zoomed" to in order to create a sharp, non blurry image of something stationary to begin with, let alone freeze action. Cameras can only have so high of a shutter speed (unique to each camera, example my Nikon D50 DSLR has a high of 1/4000th of a second, my previous Panasonic FZ7 had a high of 1/2000th). So if the photographer was far away using say a 300mm lens, which is a somewhat common telephoto length, then he/she needed to use a minimum shutter speed of 1/300th of a second in order to first have a non blurry image of anything, and then go up from there in order to attempt to freeze the plane in motion. Combine panning with that and the jet moving ridiculously fast and it becomes hell of hard to get a sharp image.

The reason why some of the other images do not appear to be as shaky is because the photographer was not using such a long telephoto length (closer to the action and/or simply cropped the original photo) and thus has much more control of the image.

Imagine trying to follow a moving object with your eyes from 200 meters, and then the same object moving at the same speed at 10 meters and you'll get what I'm saying. Just like how when you are driving your car, the grass is all blurred whizzing by but the mountains in the distance are nice and clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Use a pro camera like the Cannon EOS 1D Mark III- fire off 10 frames per second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickja1 Oh, yeah, I'm sure it isn't photoshopped. This is just another 100 million dollar plane flying 1300+ miles per hour less than 50 feet off the ground in a bay loaded full of boats.

Flickr is cool because many of the pictures there have the EXIF data for each picture listed.
for example, the picture below was taken under the following conditions:
Camera: Canon EOS 30D
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/1250)
Aperture: f/6.3
Focal Length: 400 mm
ISO Speed: 200

You can see the jet is pretty crisp, but the sailboat masts have some slight blur from the panning. The jet is coming more head-on here, so there isn't so much panning action as the original IotD photo at the top of the thread, where the jet is flying by. The large version of the image really shows this.

Here's my claim to fame. No water vapor but these are from my son's graduation from the US Naval Academy. I was shoooting with a 50-500mm Sigma zoom on my Canon 5D

That actually is water vapor around the fighter. It is created by the sudden extreme drop in air pressure behind the compressed shockwave. Since the pressure suddenly drops, the air cools instantly, and because cool air can hold less moisture than warm air, the moisture condenses into visible water vapor, but only for an instant.

When the shape of the object travelling through the air is faster than the speed of sound in the air, the compacted air has no time to dispand and the shockwave stays. That front does not break apart as it expands from the object - if it would, there would be no sonic boom.

I hope this explanation is comprehensible..

There is an interesting analogy to Cherenkov radiation.

So, are we saying there would or would not be a sonic boom at the formation of the vapor/cloud we see in the photo?

It takes two years to eat a plane, so lots of recipe potential here.... and probably lots of pulled vapors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theotherguy So, are we saying there would or would not be a sonic boom at the formation of the vapor/cloud we see in the photo?

I was looking very closely at the pulled vapors. I decided to clean off some artifacts and suddenly a dolphin...

that's not a dolphin!

*Knock knock* Telegram.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff I was looking very closely at the pulled vapors. I decided to clean off some artifacts and suddenly a dolphin...

Blue Angels will be flying around tomorrow, the Miramar Airshow is this weekend, and living at the top of a hill about 5 miles NE of the airfield makes us a convenient landmark for high speed U turns to get back for the next pass. They fly wingtip to wingtip and light off the afterburners as they come out of the turns. We're several hundred feet above the field, so they seem very close.

The windows don't stop rattling or the neighborhood dogs stop howling for three days. It's glorious.

The pictures are real. you can seen the coast guard and the buoy lines the boats stay behind. the flight lane is probably a mile wide like someone suggested. The precision and discipline these guys practice every day puts all of us to shame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViennaWaits LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO too funny. Ok, ya'll have me convinced that it may not be shopped. I just found it seriously hard to believe that they would be that close. Color me corrected.

Welcome to the Cellar narcuul !

Quote:

Originally Posted by narcuul There is an interesting analogy to Cherenkov radiation.

More pulling vapor from an airplane that will NEVER even come close to the sound barrier - I'm not going to imbed it, because it's not mine, and it's kinda large

http://op-for.com/A10.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlieG More pulling vapor from an airplane that will NEVER even come close to the sound barrier - I'm not going to imbed it, because it's not mine, and it's kinda large http://op-for.com/A10.jpg

And one of the best pictures I've seen of an A-10. Thanks CharlieG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC Welcome to the Cellar narcuul !

narcuul, there was an IOtD, way, way back, that sparked a long debate, on whether it was a shark or a dolphin in a wave, right next to a surfer. Now, when ever either one is mentioned, someone is likely to mention the other.

Hi narcuul,
I'm impressed with your grasp of English.

Quote:

Originally Posted by narcuul Thank you. (Like those dolphins. I just don't get it.. Yeah. I do feel slightly challenged right now.. )

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUCK Hi narcuul, I'm impressed with your grasp of English. This is the picture. This is NOT a shark. Sharks do not have a horizontal tail. Sharks have no interest in surfing. Dolphins love surfing and do it all the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary I don't think I have ever seen a dolphin that large before.

Speaking of Dolphins, EHOWA(maybe NSFW) had this picture taken in Bermuda.

According to Kurt Jones website, it's a dolphin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce Speaking of Dolphins, EHOWA(maybe NSFW) had this picture taken in Bermuda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha According to Kurt Jones website, it's a dolphin.

Well, I don't know. It looks like a shark to me to be honest. I'd challenge the horizontal tail fin myself. I don't think the picture shows clearly enough to make that distinction.

Also, dolphins are supposed to only grow to a maximum size of 2.5 metres. I suppose there could be mutants though.

Anyway, maybe it's photoshopped.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha Well, I don't know. It looks like a shark to me to be honest. ............ Anyway, maybe it's photoshopped.

ahuh...ok...ummmm...if you say so.

*backing away slowly*

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViennaWaits Dolphin or not, if I was the guy on the surfboard I would be needing a change of wetsuit. Sitting IN the ocean, I don't think I would have the wherewithall to make analytical judgements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsune The thread degradation to "whale penis" is almost complete.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPUCK This is the picture. This is NOT a shark. Sharks do not have a horizontal tail. Sharks have no interest in surfing. Dolphins love surfing and do it all the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlieG More pulling vapor from an airplane that will NEVER even come close to the sound barrier - I'm not going to imbed it, because it's not mine, and it's kinda large http://op-for.com/A10.jpg

Aircraft? Don't be silly, aircraft don't surf like Dolphins and sharks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce narcuul, there was an IOtD, way, way back, that sparked a long debate, on whether it was a shark or a dolphin in a wave, right next to a surfer. Now, when ever either one is mentioned, someone is likely to mention the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by narcuul Ok. So much for that.

If anyone is still questioning the truth behind the OP, here's a video of the event:
http://jumpcut.com/view?id=C009AF727...A&u_id=&them=1

Pretty awesome...

Quote:

Originally Posted by SparkStalker If anyone is still questioning the truth behind the OP, here's a video of the event: http://jumpcut.com/view?id=C009AF727...A&u_id=&them=1 Pretty awesome...

Excellent, SparkStalker, and welcome to the Cellar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beest 'Cause they can't falsify moving pictures :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by SparkStalker If anyone is still questioning the truth behind the OP, here's a video of the event: http://jumpcut.com/view?id=C009AF727...A&u_id=&them=1 Pretty awesome...

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce They can't falsify tens of thousands of eye witnesses.

That's the thing about IOtD. Were it not true, someone who was there, would pop up to deny it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce That's the thing about IOtD. Were it not true, someone who was there, would pop up to deny it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beest Magicians can make elephants appear out of nowhere in front of large crowds. Did you see it, or have you personally met some who said they saw it. Hearsay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beest A witness who didn't see anything would come forward to deny it. Sounds reasonable

(he's just yanking your chain. ignore him -like I do....)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadMolecule That's not a "water vapor cloud" around the jet; that's a weird phenomenon that you get for a moment when a jet breaks the sound barrier: Google Images link. I suspect that if a jet broke the sound barrier that close to a bunch of boats, people would be deafened. There might also be criminal charges involved for the pilot. So yeah, Photoshop is my guess.

Not Photoshopped

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8zP5s9vdX0

Fleet Week in SF 2007

DUDE THAT PLANE IS TOTALLY A DOLPHIN. And furthermore, if the water were moving backwards at an equal speed, it could still take off.

bringing that thread up again may cause you to be banned. tread carefully.

treadmill carefully?

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce You obviously underestimate the power of IOtD.

A pox on your geeky blaster, the power of IOtD is the glue holding the universe together.
The power that can not be challenged or destroyed.
Just questioning it, killed Albert Einstein.

Has to be photoshopped. That round plume as the planes passes usually denotes the aircraft has just broken the sound barrier. Those fisher dudes would be suing the Navy for causing deafness.

We've already established it can form at less that sound barrier speed.