Chinese Earthquake Photos!!

Again, please re-read my updated post. I have added further analysis on images.
All I am saying is, I know the reconstruction is real. And these THREE images could be just presentation renderings presented to the developmental board of trustees (or whoever is in charge) before the construction.


Seriously, LOOK AT THE PICTURES. Read my analysis.

 

This is what Ambient Occlusion looks like in CG rendering :

 

Why would they need to? Considering the city is huge, there are plenty of area that has been completed where they could take good pictures from. It is absurd to think that they would rather take pictures of construction sites and then spent an unimaginable amount of work and time to produce a CGI.

Which is not a proof that can be used to question the authenticity of the pictures.

 

It is impossible to prove a negative

A year ago, I had a debate with a French person. He claimed that France was soooo technologically ahead of China. In response, I posted a video of China's spacewalk. I asked him, "Where is France's video of its spacewalk? If you don't have one then France is technologically behind China in manned spaceflight, no?"

He claimed that China's spacewalk was computer generated and fake. How in the world do you convince a conspiracy theorist that he's nuts and out of touch with the rest of the world?

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

In police work, you examine motive

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.

 

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.