New J-10 thread II

[Totoro]

It's not a dummy round (those are usually painted red) nor is it quite a real live ammo round. It is a training round with a seeker, so the pilot can experience a true, non-simulated lock on, before he presses the fire button. Anyway, that's my theory, at least.

[FugitiveVisions]

I agree with Crobato that the two planes flying in formation are not simply copy/pastes of each other. And you don't have to be a rocket scientist or a professional photographer to figure this one out either.

Since the picture in question was only one of a series of pictures showing J10s flying in tandem, the skeptic only has to discredit the rest of pictures showing J10s flying in tandem to prove his point.

I hope I'm not asking too much.

[FugitiveVisions]

And it's not as if the PL-8s can't be placed in the inner pylons.

[crobato]

That's true. The PL-8s can be put into the middle pylons, exactly where that PL-12 is on the bottom picture.

I wanted intelligent discussion not egoistic argument, moronic wrangling for its own sake. And I am not going to waste anymore of my time on this.

Good because you already wasted everyone's time, bandwidth and valuable display space on this. There is nothing intelligent about your purpose and discussion.

[crobato]

J-10s in a magazine cover.

[tphuang]

a picture of a twin seater, looks like 10543 from the 3rd division.

[wlchang]

I think this shouldn't be the way any discussion should be going. I think I'll edit all my previous responses to make it as objective as possible. It's up to the moderator whether he wants to edit the "responses in quote" that I can't edit. I will explain later what I mean by "the angle of shot/views" later as and when I have the time to do so.

[wlchang]

Originally Posted by FugitiveVisions

I agree with Crobato that the two planes flying in formation are not simply copy/pastes of each other. And you don't have to be a rocket scientist or a professional photographer to figure this one out either.

Since the picture in question was only one of a series of pictures showing J10s flying in tandem, the skeptic only has to discredit the rest of pictures showing J10s flying in tandem to prove his point.

I hope I'm not asking too much.

They are all genuine. all right, but the two pictures I am talking about certainly are photoshopped. I am not trying to make this a contentious issue, just want to point out some facts.

[crobato]

Pointing out facts without any explanation? I say stop wasting our time and bandwidth here. If you want to state something, give the reason.

You have to prove the rest of the pictures are PS as well, and the site discredible, which by the way, is the Chinese edition of a foreign industry magazine. Otherwise, its not fact, its your opinion only.

There are perfectly and completely rational explanations how you can produce those pictures, and yet you are unable to disprove those explanations either. You have been claiming that you have reasons so and so and you have been saying it for days now. And so for all this time, where is the beef?

Moderators Please take action on this guy.

[wlchang]

Originally Posted by Deino

Thanks, but regarding that picture I agree with crobato as this one is from a series of pictures published by Aviation.now showing a formation of 4 J-10A in very close formation and sometimes only two of them.

So IMO this is one of them showing only two J-10 !

Deino

http://centurychina.com/plaboard/upl...180447.gif.jpg

I have just got to see the pictures in the later post and I agree they are all genuine, but the two I am talking about certainly are not (even if one of these two, comes from the series of pictures in the magazine.)

[crobato]

And up to now, you have not given your explanations and proof of so...

Look, if you actually have any true reasons at all, you should have said it in the very first post.

Stop wasting our time. Moderators please.

[Asymptote]

Why is it almost all the pictures I see of J-10 are not equip with any missiles at all? At most I see is fuel storage under the wing.

[AmiGanguli]

Originally Posted by wlchang

I will explain later what I mean by "the angle of shot/views" later as and when I have the time to do so.

If your point is that the two planes should be at different angles from the camera, keep in mind the effect of a telephoto lens. It's natural to imagine the camera as being something similar to our own eyes, so an object that fills the frame should be relatively close. But with a telephoto lens the camera is actually very far away from the subject, and this makes the difference in angles much less.

This is what people mean when they say a telephoto lens "flattens" an image.

... Ami.

[wlchang]

Good question! At least this would start people thinking a bit.

I will get back to you shortly. Otherwise, it would be in bits and pieces. Frankly, I find it hard to even start under the "pressure" I am under if you know what I mean. Also quite busy now.

[crobato]

Originally Posted by AmiGanguli

If your point is that the two planes should be at different angles from the camera, keep in mind the effect of a telephoto lens. It's natural to imagine the camera as being something similar to our own eyes, so an object that fills the frame should be relatively close. But with a telephoto lens the camera is actually very far away from the subject, and this makes the difference in angles much less.

This is what people mean when they say a telephoto lens "flattens" an image.

... Ami.

And there is also the opposite effect. In the night picture where the J-10s are standing by with the ground light markers dominating the background, we have an extreme wide angle lens distorting the image by exaggerating the depth of the image, and oversizing foreground objects.

A lot of people cannot tell the difference or the effects of perspective distortion via telephoto or wide angle lenses.

I had a laugh when an "expert" criticized the picture of the 44th Division J-10 ceremony, scribbing a grid around the image to illustrate distortions at the edge of the picture, as well as pointing out the locations of the J-10s are not where they are supposed to be in relation to the shadows. I told him that all the distortions are completely consistent to a wide angle lens. It was a mistake to use straight lines to grid the image, when he should have been using a curved grid. Sure enough the metafile of the photo happened to be revealed to the public, revealing not just the date of the picture, but the camera and the lens used---a 17mm. A wide angle.