Identify this video, please...

[Jay Honeck]

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-merlins.mpeg

Can anyone give me some information on this remarkable video? It's
wonderfully clear footage of Merlin-powered Spitfires and Mosquitos,
but it looks too new to be original World War II footage.

It almost looks like Hollywood-quality stuff, but the guy who sent it
in didn't know its origin.

Thanks!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Flyingmonk]

Sorry can't help, but MAN! Would I love to fly one. :^)

The Monk

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-merlins.mpeg
>
> Can anyone give me some information on this remarkable video? It's
> wonderfully clear footage of Merlin-powered Spitfires and Mosquitos,
> but it looks too new to be original World War II footage.
>
> It almost looks like Hollywood-quality stuff, but the guy who sent it
> in didn't know its origin.
>

It doesn't look like Hollywood-quality stuff to me, it looks too accurate
for Hollywood. You're right that it looks too new to be WWII vintage, far
too new. The airplanes also look real, they don't look like models or
computer generated imagery. But vintage aircraft flown today typically
sport a modern antenna or two, I don't see any of those. I did a quick
check on the squadron codes. HE was used by 263 Squadron, which didn't fly
Mosquitoes, and JE was used by 195 Squadron, which didn't fly Spitfires. Go
figure.

[Tony Goetz]

Jay Honeck wrote...
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-merlins.mpeg
>
> Can anyone give me some information on this remarkable video? It's
> wonderfully clear footage of Merlin-powered Spitfires and Mosquitos,
> but it looks too new to be original World War II footage.
>
> It almost looks like Hollywood-quality stuff, but the guy who sent it
> in didn't know its origin.
>
> Thanks!


Jay,

While I don't know the background of the video, I do believe it's 100% CGI
(maybe some of the backgrounds are real). Below is the website it's off of
originally. Check out some of his other videos - some are obviously CG, but
some clips could easily pass for the real thing. I love that mosquito video
though!

http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/


-Tony Goetz

[Chris]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-merlins.mpeg
>
> Can anyone give me some information on this remarkable video? It's
> wonderfully clear footage of Merlin-powered Spitfires and Mosquitos,
> but it looks too new to be original World War II footage.
>
> It almost looks like Hollywood-quality stuff, but the guy who sent it
> in didn't know its origin.
>

Cannot help either but in my view the Mossie was the best aircraft of all in
WW2.

That video represents heaven

[[email protected]]

I would give my right arm for a trip in a Spitfire!

[Kyle Boatright]

"Tony Goetz" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote...
>> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-merlins.mpeg
>>
>> Can anyone give me some information on this remarkable video? It's
>> wonderfully clear footage of Merlin-powered Spitfires and Mosquitos,
>> but it looks too new to be original World War II footage.
>>
>> It almost looks like Hollywood-quality stuff, but the guy who sent it
>> in didn't know its origin.
>>
>> Thanks!
>
>
> Jay,
>
> While I don't know the background of the video, I do believe it's 100% CGI
> (maybe some of the backgrounds are real). Below is the website it's off of
> originally. Check out some of his other videos - some are obviously CG,
> but
> some clips could easily pass for the real thing. I love that mosquito
> video
> though!
>
> http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/
>
>
> -Tony Goetz

I completely disagree. Even the best CG stuff is pretty obvious if you know
what you're looking at. The stuff in The Aviator, Independance Day, etc. is
obviously fake. This footage is the real thing.

KB

[Kyle Boatright]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tony Goetz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Honeck wrote...
>>> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-merlins.mpeg
>>>
>>> Can anyone give me some information on this remarkable video? It's
>>> wonderfully clear footage of Merlin-powered Spitfires and Mosquitos,
>>> but it looks too new to be original World War II footage.
>>>
>>> It almost looks like Hollywood-quality stuff, but the guy who sent it
>>> in didn't know its origin.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> Jay,
>>
>> While I don't know the background of the video, I do believe it's 100%
>> CGI
>> (maybe some of the backgrounds are real). Below is the website it's off
>> of
>> originally. Check out some of his other videos - some are obviously CG,
>> but
>> some clips could easily pass for the real thing. I love that mosquito
>> video
>> though!
>>
>> http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/
>>
>>
>> -Tony Goetz
>
> I completely disagree. Even the best CG stuff is pretty obvious if you
> know what you're looking at. The stuff in The Aviator, Independance Day,
> etc. is obviously fake. This footage is the real thing.
>
> KB

On the other hand, the fact that the props are all in sync (e.g. all the
Spit's prop's are rotating at the same speed and have the same orientation,
same thing for the Mossies) can't be real...

KB

[Skywise]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in
:

>
> "Tony Goetz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Honeck wrote...
>>> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-merlins.mpeg
>>>
>>> Can anyone give me some information on this remarkable video? It's
>>> wonderfully clear footage of Merlin-powered Spitfires and Mosquitos,
>>> but it looks too new to be original World War II footage.
>>>
>>> It almost looks like Hollywood-quality stuff, but the guy who sent it
>>> in didn't know its origin.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> Jay,
>>
>> While I don't know the background of the video, I do believe it's 100%
>> CGI (maybe some of the backgrounds are real). Below is the website it's
>> off of originally. Check out some of his other videos - some are
>> obviously CG, but
>> some clips could easily pass for the real thing. I love that mosquito
>> video
>> though!
>>
>> http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/
>>
>>
>> -Tony Goetz
>
> I completely disagree. Even the best CG stuff is pretty obvious if you
> know what you're looking at. The stuff in The Aviator, Independance Day,
> etc. is obviously fake. This footage is the real thing.
>
> KB

I'm no expert at it, but I dabble with CGI, both raytracing and
rendering. I've gotten pretty good at recognizing CGI stuff from
looking at others artwork.

This video is CGI. I see the rendering "mistakes" all over the place
when I check it frame by frame. It's hard to describe, but as good
as this CGI is (and it is very good), there are some things computers
just can't do as good as mother nature - motion blur, surface
reflections, lights.

The clearest example is towards the end of the video. Look at the
light on the tail of the plane as it lands. Pause the video. It's
obviously not a real light.

Even the terrain looks CGI to me.

Kudo's to whoever did this. There was obviously a dedicated effort
to make this look as real as possible. I'd have to say most people
who are not familiar with how CGI is done will be fooled by it.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jay Honeck]

> The clearest example is towards the end of the video. Look at the
> light on the tail of the plane as it lands. Pause the video. It's
> obviously not a real light.
>
> Even the terrain looks CGI to me.

By GOD, that's amazing. I can't believe that's not real.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tony Goetz]

Kyle Boatwright said...
> > I completely disagree. Even the best CG stuff is pretty obvious if you
> > know what you're looking at. The stuff in The Aviator, Independance Day,
> > etc. is obviously fake. This footage is the real thing.
> >
> > KB
>
> On the other hand, the fact that the props are all in sync (e.g. all the
> Spit's prop's are rotating at the same speed and have the same
orientation,
> same thing for the Mossies) can't be real...
>
> KB


Heh, that was my reaction too. Same with everyone I've shown it to. If you
don't suspect that it's CG, it could get past you easily. Especially the
first few scenes in the mosquito video. But after those opening shots, there
are enough things just *slightly* off that it gives it away, like the light
that Brian mentioned, the dust kicked up at landing, or what looks (to me,
at least) like a regularly repeated grass texture.

Other than that, these items in the menu on his website lend suspicion...
Airplanes CGI
Lightwave

Pretty amazing stuff!

-Tony Goetz

[.Blueskies.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:zoAyf.490497$084.186710@attbi_s22...
>> The clearest example is towards the end of the video. Look at the
>> light on the tail of the plane as it lands. Pause the video. It's
>> obviously not a real light.
>>
>> Even the terrain looks CGI to me.
>
> By GOD, that's amazing. I can't believe that's not real.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Yes, it does look very good. Mega kudos to the author. Thanks for posting, Jay.

Another clue is when the Mosquito is setting up to land, it looks like it has full flaps in before the gear is lowered -
I'm sure that is backwards but could be wrong...

[Jim Burns]

Some things that haven't been mentioned...
If it were real, which the CGI pros in the group say it's not,
where in the world would there be 4 Mosquito's?
and 4 Spitfires?
painted similarly? (but wrongly according to SPM)
in recent history?
doing low passes with nobody watching?
You'd imagine that with all that famous rag and aluminum flying around, that
at least one car or person would show up. I know I would! Man what a site!

Also.. no typical prop wash "track" down the center of that impeccable
turf. And either the wind blows the dust in the wrong direction or the
pilot landing Mosquito lands on the downwind wheel first.

Somebody already mentioned the prop sync... even the Spitfires props are
synched.

Anybody know about the gear system? Would both mains lower at the identical
rate?

Awesome video non the less!

Thanks

Jim


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-merlins.mpeg
>
> Can anyone give me some information on this remarkable video? It's
> wonderfully clear footage of Merlin-powered Spitfires and Mosquitos,
> but it looks too new to be original World War II footage.
>
> It almost looks like Hollywood-quality stuff, but the guy who sent it
> in didn't know its origin.
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jim Burns]

> By GOD, that's amazing. I can't believe that's not real.
>Jay Honeck

NOT something you want to hear from your sig other. :)

Thanks for the laugh.
Jim

[George Patterson]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> I did a quick
> check on the squadron codes. HE was used by 263 Squadron, which didn't fly
> Mosquitoes, and JE was used by 195 Squadron, which didn't fly Spitfires. Go
> figure.

That rings a bell. There was a movie that used those codes on the Mossies. I did
not see the films and remember it (or possibly mis-remember it) only from
discussion in print about the misuse of the "HE" prefix. I've checked "RAF
Bomber Command in Fact, Film, and Fiction" and don't see a reference to it, however.

It's not one of the "633 Squadron" films - they used an "HT" prefix and stuck
fake nose guns on their Mossies.

FWIW, the British film industry started using color for war films about 1964.

Also. Neither 263 squadron nor 195 squadron were actually portrayed in film.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Doug]

When I saw it, I was impressed by it's CLARITY. Also, the sound was
obviously NOT from a distance of a ground observer (although the sound
WAS terrific). Intuitively, it was "too good to be true". It has
"Hollywood" written all over it. After others stated it was "CGI"
(just what does that stand for?), it clicked in my head, yeah, somehow
a studio creation. It shows how good they are getting, though. Even
though I thought it was somehow to clear and good to be true, I did not
know that this COULD be faked. Amazing!!

[Jay Honeck]

> Somebody already mentioned the prop sync... even the Spitfires props are
> synched.

See, now *I* explained that phenomenon away as a function of the movie
camera.

Funny -- we see what we believe should be there.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Flyingmonk]

CGI computer generated image.

[[email protected]]

>>>Somebody already mentioned the prop sync... even the Spitfires props are
synched. Anybody know about the gear system? Would both mains lower at
the identical
rate?<<<

The same thought struck me too, the props being in synch seemed odd. As
far as the gear on the Mosquito, it seemed to come down a bit fast and
a little too evenly IMO. Still, if it is CGI it was an amazing (and
fun) piece to watch!

Wooly

[Doug]

Gear does not come down that smoothly (although the video of it doing
it was wayyy cooool). Gear comes down in fits and starts, and not so
closely synchronized. Good point about the props being in exact synch
too.

[Ronald Gardner]

Nope, its Margarine

Jay Honeck wrote:

> > The clearest example is towards the end of the video. Look at the
> > light on the tail of the plane as it lands. Pause the video. It's
> > obviously not a real light.
> >
> > Even the terrain looks CGI to me.
>
> By GOD, that's amazing. I can't believe that's not real.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"