This is a discussion on Chinese Earthquake Photos!! within the General Pictures forums, part of the World Strategic Defence Area category; Originally Posted by Asymptote This is what Ambient Occlusion looks like in CG rendering This is absurd. In fact, it's ...
Senior Member
This is absurd. In fact, it's beyond absurd. You are arguing that a real scene is fake because of techniques that add realism to CGI.Originally Posted by Asymptote
The reason why pavement near buildings is darker is because 1) those area receive less light from the sky due to obstruction from the adjacent buildings and 2) light has more chances to bounce around and get absorbed.
You are a perfect of example of people who only see what they want to see.
Banned Idiot
Again, re-read my post at #98 - I am fairly certain these 3 pictures in particular are CG.
The other pictures on Xinhua or WSJ are real photos, with exception to these 3 pictures.
I have no idea why Xinhua would use these 3 pictures as example.
If you don't believe me, ask someone you trust with over 20 years in CG experience and see if they give a different opinion.
Last edited by Asymptote; 05-14-2011 at 11:11 PM.
Senior Member
I have read your post, which contains no proof that the pictures are CG. Claiming so and so in the picture is CG then conclude the picture is CG is a logic fallacy thus not a valid argument.
Senior Member
Are you seriously claiming that the reporters and editors at Xinhua, Global Times, Chinaview, People's Daily, etc. are all willing to risk their jobs and imprisonment to make a photograph look a little prettier? You know that is absurd.
Most Chinese don't care that much about some pictures of reconstructed towns. China's space program, world's-fastest high-speed-trains, stealth fighters, etc. are far more sexy programs. However, it is something else to claim fraud against major Chinese news organizations without solid proof.
Unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary, which means a challenge from a major Western news organization or well-known photographic expert, all of the photographs are to be accepted as authentic.
This is my final post on this matter. I get tired of debunking the conspiracy theorists.
Last edited by Martian; 05-14-2011 at 11:18 PM.
Banned Idiot
No, under such lighting condition, it would not create such contrast in shadow. Skylight would still light up those shadow area a lot more than the first pictures were shown. It is almost complete darkness in the shadow area, while the shadow from sunlight (direct shadow) are almost non-existent. Its a very glaring inconsistency.
Also, that top right timber deck part, also stands out.
Last edited by Asymptote; 05-14-2011 at 11:20 PM.
Banned Idiot
Maybe other western news didn't see these pictures. The WSJ certainly didn't host these 3 particular pictures on their site. And Xinhua reporters probably didn't know these 3 pictures are CG renderings. The rest of the Chinese newspapers just hotlink the images into their paper. The problem is, you assume just because they all put it in their publication so it must be real. That's a fallacy of thinking.
The ORIGINAL PICTURES (these 3 pictures) might be CG renderings to show the higher ups/whoever was in charge what the development will look like. The reporter might mistaken these pictures for real when they are supplied by the people they have in contact with. I am just offering plausible explanation. The rest of the photos in the series are real. All I am saying these 3 pictures stands out as CG rendering that's all.
Who knows, maybe they just don't think its such a big deal to mix CG pre-development planning images with real photographs. After all, they did fake the Olympic fireworks with CG to global audience.
Last edited by Asymptote; 05-14-2011 at 11:38 PM.
Senior Member
No, you have no knowledge of what the lighting condition was when the photo was taken, thus it cannot be used as a support for your absurd arguments.
Shadow from sunlight is clearly visible. Dark areas are dark because they receive less light from the sky due to 1) obstructions from buildings and 2) absorption from multiple reflection. This is a physical phenomena, and it is what ambient occlusion aims to achieve. The picture is perfectly consistent.
Nope, nothing out of place there.
Senior Member
The problem is that you are assuming they are faked, and then arguing that they are fake based on the assumption. This is a logical fallacy.
The reality is that these 3 pictures are authentic, and it's just you who are so keen on nitpicking faults from China which has made you so out of touch with reality.
"Might be", "perhaps", "possibly"... all weasel words that indicate you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that can prove that the pictures are not authentic.
Last edited by Engineer; 05-14-2011 at 11:45 PM.
Banned Idiot
The reality is that these 3 pictures are authentic, and it's just you who are so keen on nitpicking faults from China which has made you so out of touch with reality.
I didn't assume they are fake when I see them. I see several photographs, some are real and I have no doubt, and some caught my eyes as pretty out of place and certainly look CG. That's all.
If I have prejudice in my bone and I assume they are fake they would all be fake.
I was just offering explanation to possible scenario to how the pictures got into the newspaper."Might be", "perhaps", "possibly"... all weasel words that indicate you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that can raise question on the authenticity of the pictures.
I have little doubt about these 3 images being CG though.
Member
I don't get some of your arguments people. So China isn't allowed to use computer drawings to plan out the construction and layour process? So when they use computer drawings to depict what they are going to build? China is lieing and its all fake? So what China is just mean't to build the buidlings without planning and computer drawings. And pointing something as fake, when its a computer drawing, well duH!
Most of the time when China puts stuff on CCTV they never say its their own, or its real. They use reference of other footages to compliment their own, cause they don't have the footages. Like when CCTV uses Iraq war footages to explain their argument, what cause China uses another person footage to get the message across makes it a fake?
About the whole Top Gun thing, did China ever actually say the footage was their own? They didn't mention it, and then 5 years later the Western media brings up some ancient story, cause they have nothing better to report on, or base reports of online bloggers.
If this is computer drawing yea so what. Computer drawings are obviously fake, cause its COMPUTER drawing. You can't call something fake, when the person didn't say it was real. Why are some of these online posters getting more and more dumb.
Banned Idiot
[QUOTE]The only photo I had an issue with was in Martins post@81. Its an expanded view of a wide area and perhaps it was unavoidable to include work in progress. The section I have my doubts over, is a little area 2" from the top and 2" from the right. The details on those tall whitish buildings aren't as distinguishable as the surrounding buildings or the ones even futher away, where windows can clearly be seen.
They possibly they did'nt want to show work in progress so rather than go to the hassel of taking another photograph, they just embellished it with the finished look.
The reason they may have wanted to include this photograph is because, maybe it was in one of the worst hit regions, therefore its importantance to the documentary.
Last edited by bladerunner; 05-15-2011 at 04:29 AM. Reason: punctuation
Senior Member
The three pictures look real to me. Just try to look for the minute details. The stains and other random things on the ground, roads, balconies. The randomness of things like the Chinese flags hanging out of the windows, the substle shades and shadows. The trees are just newly transplanted young seedlings.
On the other hand, CG renderings on property sales brochure can easily be recognised as such and can easily be differentiated from real pictures of buildings.
Senior Member
There are eight more pictures of post-quake reconstruction in Sichuan at the following link: english news Ó¢ÓïÐÂÎÅ-Bird's-eye view of post-quake buildings in Sichuan
The bird's-eye view photo taken on April 17, 2011 shows reconstructed schools in Dujiangyan, southwest China's Sichuan Province.
The bird's-eye view photo taken on April 18, 2011 shows Yinghua Township in Shifang, southwest China's Sichuan Province.
The bird's-eye view photo taken on April 18, 2011 shows Hongbai Township in Shifang, southwest China's Sichuan Province.
Senior Member
Perhaps there isn't work in progress in that photograph to begin with. You are assuming the photograph was doctored in the first place, then reasoned they did that because part of the city in the photograph was incomplete, then conclude that the photograph was doctored. That's circular reasoning, the same one that Asymptote is making, and is a logical fallacy. But if you have definite proof that that part is incomplete, then by all mean present it.
Details at those distance is beyond the resolution of the image. There's nothing strange with this.
So you are saying they didn't want a little hassle, but would rather go for a huge hassle instead that would take huge resources to pull off -- make a CG city, match the lighting, then doctor the photo to merge the two together? You are so desperately picking faults from China here that you are effectively grasping at straws.
If it is that important, then I'm sure the photographer would have taken multiple pictures from multiple different angles, and that he/she would select a few that simply don't show places that are still under construction.
The Last Jedi
Regarding the photos of the new structures in Sichuan Province. I'm very sure I saw photos of them under construction some time ago on sina.com. In fact I may have posted some in the Chinese daily pix thread.
Be sure to check out...
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
don't forget
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
am what I am.... 'Dat's all what I am"
Posting Permissions
1Likes
Bookmarks