Chinese Earthquake Photos!!


Status
Not open for further replies.

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
These could be stills from video footage, yes, but video footage of the actual city. The city has been ready for people to move in at least a month ago, if not longer, and this was reported in Chinese media back then. A well made video has no correlation whatsoever with whether these pictures are real or not.
captions under one of the photographs says

"According to the country's general reconstruction plan, the rebuilding in the quake zones is expected to be fully completed by the end of September,"

So under the circumstances , how about a little bit of embellishing?



And what does that has anything to do with the photos? Absolutely nothing. One is a documentary on what to come, the other is a documentary on what has been done.[
just highlighting their imagery skills
 

Asymptote

Banned Idiot
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.
 
Last edited:

Engineer

Major
captions under one of the photographs says

"According to the country's general reconstruction plan, the rebuilding in the quake zones is expected to be fully completed by the end of September,"

So under the circumstances , how about a little bit of embellishing?
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.

just highlighting their imagery skills
Which is not a proof that can be used to question the authenticity of the pictures.
 

Martian

Senior Member
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?
 

Engineer

Major
This is what Ambient Occlusion looks like in CG rendering
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.
 

Asymptote

Banned Idiot
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.

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:

Engineer

Major
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 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.
 

Martian

Senior Member
In police work, you examine motive

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.
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:

Asymptote

Banned Idiot
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.

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:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top