We can all agree -- THIS is a great aviation video...

[[email protected]]

I love reading and posting in this group, but we need some of this time
to time...Now THIS is a great aviation video:

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/PBY_fishing.wmv

Not only is it hilarious, it's the best video of a PBY Catalina I've
seen, too!

Many thanks to John O. for sending it in...
--
Sammie

[gatt]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I love reading and posting in this group, but we need some of this time
> to time...Now THIS is a great aviation video:
>
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/PBY_fishing.wmv
>
> Not only is it hilarious, it's the best video of a PBY Catalina I've
> seen, too!


It's the only part of the movie "Always" that was any good; ie, the part
featuring the airplane and no dialogue.

[Jim Macklin]

I guess when you're making a movie, violation of the FAA and
USCG laws are OK?


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
|
| > wrote in message
|
ups.com...
| >I love reading and posting in this group, but we need
some of this time
| > to time...Now THIS is a great aviation video:
| >
| >
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/PBY_fishing.wmv
| >
| > Not only is it hilarious, it's the best video of a PBY
Catalina I've
| > seen, too!
|
|
| It's the only part of the movie "Always" that was any
good; ie, the part
| featuring the airplane and no dialogue.
|
|
|

[Flyingmonk[_1_]]

> I guess when you're making a movie, violation of the FAA and
> USCG laws are OK?
>
>

Sure, why not? Some movie violate trafic laws, criminal laws... Some
even violate the law of PHYSICS.

Afew years back my wife and I were eating at a restaurant in
Georgetown, DC when we came out, the streets were closed and a car with
a couple of terrorists in were parked on the side of the street nea the
door to the restaurant. These guys had lights lighting up their faces
mounted under the dashboard. Strange I thought, then we saw the
Terminator walking across the street holding a gun repeatedly. We then
asked what movie are they shooting? It was the movie "True Lies" with
the sexy Jamie Lee Curtis.

Monk

[gatt]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
ups.com...

>> I guess when you're making a movie, violation of the FAA and
>> USCG laws are OK?

How is it a violation?

-c

[Newps]

>>I guess when you're making a movie, violation of the FAA and
>>USCG laws are OK?

Ever heard of a waiver?

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:17:58 -0700, Flyingmonk wrote:

> holding a gun repeatedly

How does one hold a gun repeatedly?

And that's "Governator", if you please.

<Laugh>

- Andrew

[Jim Macklin]

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation.
No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless
manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air
navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than
for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the
surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce
(including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or
discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless
manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.



§ 91.115 Right-of-way rules: Water operations.
(a) General. Each person operating an aircraft on the water
shall, insofar as possible, keep clear of all vessels and
avoid impeding their navigation, and shall give way to any
vessel or other aircraft that is given the right-of-way by
any rule of this section.

(b) Crossing. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a vessel,
are on crossing courses, the aircraft or vessel to the
other's right has the right-of-way.

(c) Approaching head-on. When aircraft, or an aircraft and a
vessel, are approaching head-on, or nearly so, each shall
alter its course to the right to keep well clear.

(d) Overtaking. Each aircraft or vessel that is being
overtaken has the right-of-way, and the one overtaking shall
alter course to keep well clear.

(e) Special circumstances. When aircraft, or an aircraft and
a vessel, approach so as to involve risk of collision, each
aircraft or vessel shall proceed with careful regard to
existing circumstances, including the limitations of the
respective craft.



§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails,
an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or
property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city,
town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of
persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest
obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the
aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet
above the surface, except over open water or sparsely
populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be
operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than
the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section if the operation is conducted without hazard to
persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person
operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or
altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the
Administrator.



Note that just because you are taking off, you still must
comply with the regulations. Read this again...

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet
above the surface, except over open water or sparsely
populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be
operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
vehicle, or structure.






--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P


"gatt" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
|
ups.com...
|
| >> I guess when you're making a movie, violation of the
FAA and
| >> USCG laws are OK?
|
| How is it a violation?
|
| -c
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Yes, but I didn't see a waiver. Do you know whether there
was a waiver? The point I was making is that we shouldn't
be laughing at fat people being thrown from horses, kids on
skate boards crushing their jewels or pilots making an
unsafe take-off.


"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| >>I guess when you're making a movie, violation of the FAA
and
| >>USCG laws are OK?
|
| Ever heard of a waiver?
|
|

[Flyingmonk[_1_]]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:17:58 -0700, Flyingmonk wrote:
>
> > holding a gun repeatedly
>
> How does one hold a gun repeatedly?
>
> And that's "Governator", if you please.
>
> <Laugh>
>
> - Andrew

:-)

I'm surprised that that was the only typo and/or spelling and grammar
mistake that caught your eyes. I saw at least thee. <g>

Monk

[Gary Drescher]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:GTgrg.62820$ZW3.17380@dukeread04...
>"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>>news:L5drg.62804$ZW3.40846@dukeread04...
>>> I guess when you're making a movie, violation of the FAA and
>>> USCG laws are OK?
>>
>> How is it a violation?
>
>§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
> (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation.
> No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless
> manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Even assuming that the scene was filmed without special effects, a
meticulously planned and executed stunt--carefully coordinated with the
stunt performers in the boat--would not have endangered anyone. (Since there
are no clear rules as to what counts as reckless, the FAA could conceivably
try to invoke 91.13a anyway; but that's true regarding *any* flight, and in
any case they apparently haven't done so.)

> (b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air
> navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than
> for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the
> surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce
> (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or
> discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless
> manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

No airport surface was involved.

> § 91.115 Right-of-way rules: Water operations.
> (a) General. Each person operating an aircraft on the water
> shall, insofar as possible, keep clear of all vessels and
> avoid impeding their navigation, and shall give way to any
> vessel or other aircraft that is given the right-of-way by
> any rule of this section.

The aircraft kept clear, and it had right of way according to 91.115b (the
plane was to the boat's right).

> § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
> Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may
> operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

The aircraft was taking off, so the altitudes in 91.119 don't apply.

> Note that just because you are taking off, you still must
> comply with the regulations. Read this again...
>
> [91.119](c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet
> above the surface, except over open water or sparsely
> populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be
> operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
> vehicle, or structure.

Huh? According to the beginning of 91.119, parts a, b, and c *do not apply*
during takeoff or landing. If they did apply, then it would be illegal for
you to land on a runway whenever another plane is holding short less than
500' from your flight path!

--Gary

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Yes, but I didn't see a waiver.

You wouldn't, it's not like it's a billboard planted so everyone can see
it. It's a piece of paper allowing someone to deviate from certain
FAR's and under what conditions they may do so.


Do you know whether there
> was a waiver?


I wouldn't have any idea but I don't go jumping off half cocked assuming
there wasn't one. I assumed there was. They are easy to get and are
given every day for a whole host of reasons.


The point I was making is that we shouldn't
> be laughing at fat people being thrown from horses, kids on
> skate boards crushing their jewels or pilots making an
> unsafe take-off.

If it's funny I'll laugh. I don't care if you're fat, retarded, black,
whatever. If it's funny, it's funny.

[Jim Macklin]

key word, necessary... or was the take-off necessary.



"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:GTgrg.62820$ZW3.17380@dukeread04...
| >"gatt" > wrote in message
| ...
| >>"Jim Macklin" >
wrote in message
| >>news:L5drg.62804$ZW3.40846@dukeread04...
| >>> I guess when you're making a movie, violation of the
FAA and
| >>> USCG laws are OK?
| >>
| >> How is it a violation?
| >
| >§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
| > (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air
navigation.
| > No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or
reckless
| > manner so as to endanger the life or property of
another.
|
| Even assuming that the scene was filmed without special
effects, a
| meticulously planned and executed stunt--carefully
coordinated with the
| stunt performers in the boat--would not have endangered
anyone. (Since there
| are no clear rules as to what counts as reckless, the FAA
could conceivably
| try to invoke 91.13a anyway; but that's true regarding
*any* flight, and in
| any case they apparently haven't done so.)
|
| > (b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of
air
| > navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other
than
| > for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the
| > surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce
| > (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or
| > discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless
| > manner so as to endanger the life or property of
another.
|
| No airport surface was involved.
|
| > § 91.115 Right-of-way rules: Water operations.
| > (a) General. Each person operating an aircraft on the
water
| > shall, insofar as possible, keep clear of all vessels
and
| > avoid impeding their navigation, and shall give way to
any
| > vessel or other aircraft that is given the right-of-way
by
| > any rule of this section.
|
| The aircraft kept clear, and it had right of way according
to 91.115b (the
| plane was to the boat's right).
|
| > § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
| > Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person
may
| > operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
|
| The aircraft was taking off, so the altitudes in 91.119
don't apply.
|
| > Note that just because you are taking off, you still
must
| > comply with the regulations. Read this again...
| >
| > [91.119](c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude
of 500 feet
| > above the surface, except over open water or sparsely
| > populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be
| > operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel,
| > vehicle, or structure.
|
| Huh? According to the beginning of 91.119, parts a, b, and
c *do not apply*
| during takeoff or landing. If they did apply, then it
would be illegal for
| you to land on a runway whenever another plane is holding
short less than
| 500' from your flight path!
|
| --Gary
|
|

[Jose[_1_]]

> key word, necessary... or was the take-off necessary.

Takeoffs are optional. Landings are mandatory.

Jokes aside, the key word "necessary" does not require that the takeoff
be necessary, but that once the takeoff is happening, the altitudes and
such be necessary.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gary Drescher]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Bmirg.62828$ZW3.25169@dukeread04...
>>> Note that just because you are taking off, you still must
>>> comply with the regulations.
>>
>> Huh? According to the beginning of 91.119, parts a, b, and c *do not
>> apply*
>> during takeoff or landing. If they did apply, then it would be illegal
>> for
>> you to land on a runway whenever another plane is holding short less than
>> 500' from your flight path!
>
> key word, necessary... or was the take-off necessary.

No, that's not a sensible parsing of the qualifier "Except when necessary
for takeoff or landing".

A takeoff is virtually never necessary. So if 91.119 meant what you think it
does, then you'd be forbidden to take off from a runway if your flight path
would bring you within 500' of another aircraft that's on the ground near
the runway (on a parallel taxiway, for example). Is that really the rule you
follow when you fly?

--Gary

[Jim Macklin]

In the case in question, there was a fishing boat, with two
people and the PBY did in fact take-off directly toward the
boat. I understand that this was a staged movie and it is
possible that they did get a waiver [it is also possible
they didn't]. But the video clearly shows the boat rocking
on the bow wave, which does indicate that this was an actual
take-off toward the boat.

THAT operation is illegal, unsafe and unnecessary. In
crowed harbor, there will often be boat traffic, some being
canoes, small motor boats and most will be operated by
untrained "captains."

Don't confuse normal airport traffic near a runway with boat
traffic on a lake or harbor.On a lake, a take-off or landing
may come closer than 500 feet to a boat, but it should NEVER
be aimed at that boat.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:Bmirg.62828$ZW3.25169@dukeread04...
| >>> Note that just because you are taking off, you still
must
| >>> comply with the regulations.
| >>
| >> Huh? According to the beginning of 91.119, parts a, b,
and c *do not
| >> apply*
| >> during takeoff or landing. If they did apply, then it
would be illegal
| >> for
| >> you to land on a runway whenever another plane is
holding short less than
| >> 500' from your flight path!
| >
| > key word, necessary... or was the take-off necessary.
|
| No, that's not a sensible parsing of the qualifier "Except
when necessary
| for takeoff or landing".
|
| A takeoff is virtually never necessary. So if 91.119 meant
what you think it
| does, then you'd be forbidden to take off from a runway if
your flight path
| would bring you within 500' of another aircraft that's on
the ground near
| the runway (on a parallel taxiway, for example). Is that
really the rule you
| follow when you fly?
|
| --Gary
|
|

[Jose[_1_]]

> THAT operation is illegal, unsafe and unnecessary.

If it's the same takeoff I'm thinking of, it was most definately
necessary. How else would it be filmed for the movie?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

Filming a movie is not necessary, it is optional. There may
even be alternative ways to film the scene. Those are
things that the FAA will consider before issuing a waiver.

It is possible that the scene was filmed in Mexico or some
other country, but that might make it legal, but it is still
unsafe.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
land and seaplane rated



"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
|> THAT operation is illegal, unsafe and unnecessary.
|
| If it's the same takeoff I'm thinking of, it was most
definately
| necessary. How else would it be filmed for the movie?
|
| Jose
| --
| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
music.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Filming a movie is not necessary, it is optional. There may
> even be alternative ways to film the scene. Those are
> things that the FAA will consider before issuing a waiver.

Flying is not necessary either.

> It is possible that the scene was filmed in Mexico or some
> other country, but that might make it legal, but it is still
> unsafe.

I do not agree that it is unsafe, except inasmuch as breathing causes
death. That's a very long lens on the camera; this compresses
perspective. Just like aerobatics demonstrations (which are
unnecessary), the visual tricks fool the viewer into thinking things are
a lot closer than they are.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

Note the time delay is just a few seconds as the airplane
passes overhead and the wake rocks the boat, that was not a
telephoto lens but a real close pass.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Jose" > wrote in message
.com...
|> Filming a movie is not necessary, it is optional. There
may
| > even be alternative ways to film the scene. Those are
| > things that the FAA will consider before issuing a
waiver.
|
| Flying is not necessary either.
|
| > It is possible that the scene was filmed in Mexico or
some
| > other country, but that might make it legal, but it is
still
| > unsafe.
|
| I do not agree that it is unsafe, except inasmuch as
breathing causes
| death. That's a very long lens on the camera; this
compresses
| perspective. Just like aerobatics demonstrations (which
are
| unnecessary), the visual tricks fool the viewer into
thinking things are
| a lot closer than they are.
|
| Jose
| --
| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
music.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

In article <kXwrg.62937$ZW3.47903@dukeread04>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> Note the time delay is just a few seconds as the airplane
> passes overhead and the wake rocks the boat, that was not a
> telephoto lens but a real close pass.

And how do you know there was not some special effects contraption out
of sight behind the rowboat to generate those waves?
Remember... it's only a movie!

[Bob Noel]

In article <kXwrg.62937$ZW3.47903@dukeread04>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> Note the time delay is just a few seconds as the airplane
> passes overhead and the wake rocks the boat, that was not a
> telephoto lens but a real close pass.

I watched the scene several times last night. Note that the camera
pans down to see the boat "rocked" but by what? The bow wave
doesn't look close to the boat and it seems hard to figure out
the distant between the plane and the boat. Doesn't a long lens
put the background out of focus? (or did I get that backwards?)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Gary Drescher]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:l8trg.62919$ZW3.30020@dukeread04...
> Don't confuse normal airport traffic near a runway with boat
> traffic on a lake or harbor. On a lake, a take-off or landing
> may come closer than 500 feet to a boat, but it should NEVER
> be aimed at that boat.

Certainly not without the boat occupants' competent cooperation; that would
be reckless. But in this case (assuming the scene was even real), the stunt
performers in the boat *were* cooperating, and presumably had the expertise
to do so safely.

Your assertion that 91.119 prohibits the takeoff can't be correct, because
otherwise 91.119 would also forbid you to take off or land whenever doing so
would bring you within 500' of a person or vehicle. There's nothing in the
wording of 91.119 that addresses whether or not you are "aimed at" the
object you come close to.

--Gary

> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | news:Bmirg.62828$ZW3.25169@dukeread04...
> | >>> Note that just because you are taking off, you still
> must
> | >>> comply with the regulations.
> | >>
> | >> Huh? According to the beginning of 91.119, parts a, b,
> and c *do not
> | >> apply*
> | >> during takeoff or landing. If they did apply, then it
> would be illegal
> | >> for
> | >> you to land on a runway whenever another plane is
> holding short less than
> | >> 500' from your flight path!
> | >
> | > key word, necessary... or was the take-off necessary.
> |
> | No, that's not a sensible parsing of the qualifier "Except
> when necessary
> | for takeoff or landing".
> |
> | A takeoff is virtually never necessary. So if 91.119 meant
> what you think it
> | does, then you'd be forbidden to take off from a runway if
> your flight path
> | would bring you within 500' of another aircraft that's on
> the ground near
> | the runway (on a parallel taxiway, for example). Is that
> really the rule you
> | follow when you fly?
> |
> | --Gary
> |
> |
>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote

> Doesn't a long lens
> put the background out of focus? (or did I get that backwards?)

Yep. Everything is in focus with the long lens.
--
Jim in NC

[Jim Macklin]

And it could all be CG from ILM starring real space aliens.
Your point is that you want to defend an unsafe operation
and I am suggesting that pilot's put legality and safety on
the top rung.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
| In article <kXwrg.62937$ZW3.47903@dukeread04>,
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| > Note the time delay is just a few seconds as the
airplane
| > passes overhead and the wake rocks the boat, that was
not a
| > telephoto lens but a real close pass.
|
| And how do you know there was not some special effects
contraption out
| of sight behind the rowboat to generate those waves?
| Remember... it's only a movie!

[Jim Macklin]

The FAA has been much more safety minded since they killed
Vince Morrow. Lots of risks can be accepted. But some
risks should not be taken or encouraged.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:l8trg.62919$ZW3.30020@dukeread04...
| > Don't confuse normal airport traffic near a runway with
boat
| > traffic on a lake or harbor. On a lake, a take-off or
landing
| > may come closer than 500 feet to a boat, but it should
NEVER
| > be aimed at that boat.
|
| Certainly not without the boat occupants' competent
cooperation; that would
| be reckless. But in this case (assuming the scene was even
real), the stunt
| performers in the boat *were* cooperating, and presumably
had the expertise
| to do so safely.
|
| Your assertion that 91.119 prohibits the takeoff can't be
correct, because
| otherwise 91.119 would also forbid you to take off or land
whenever doing so
| would bring you within 500' of a person or vehicle.
There's nothing in the
| wording of 91.119 that addresses whether or not you are
"aimed at" the
| object you come close to.
|
| --Gary
|
| > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
message
| > . ..
| > | "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| > in message
| > | news:Bmirg.62828$ZW3.25169@dukeread04...
| > | >>> Note that just because you are taking off, you
still
| > must
| > | >>> comply with the regulations.
| > | >>
| > | >> Huh? According to the beginning of 91.119, parts a,
b,
| > and c *do not
| > | >> apply*
| > | >> during takeoff or landing. If they did apply, then
it
| > would be illegal
| > | >> for
| > | >> you to land on a runway whenever another plane is
| > holding short less than
| > | >> 500' from your flight path!
| > | >
| > | > key word, necessary... or was the take-off
necessary.
| > |
| > | No, that's not a sensible parsing of the qualifier
"Except
| > when necessary
| > | for takeoff or landing".
| > |
| > | A takeoff is virtually never necessary. So if 91.119
meant
| > what you think it
| > | does, then you'd be forbidden to take off from a
runway if
| > your flight path
| > | would bring you within 500' of another aircraft that's
on
| > the ground near
| > | the runway (on a parallel taxiway, for example). Is
that
| > really the rule you
| > | follow when you fly?
| > |
| > | --Gary
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[Jose[_1_]]

> Yep. Everything is in focus with the long lens.

Nope. With a long lens, the depth of field is narrowed. That means
that if the foreground is in focus, the background will be =more= out of
focus than it would be had one used a short lens. There are of course
other variables (f-stop and film format) but all else equal, the long
lens narrows the depth of field and makes things seem "on top of each
other".

You can also get a sense of relative distance if you know the sizes of
the plane and boat in question, and measure the image.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article <kXwrg.62937$ZW3.47903@dukeread04>,
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>
> > Note the time delay is just a few seconds as the airplane
> > passes overhead and the wake rocks the boat, that was not a
> > telephoto lens but a real close pass.
>
> I watched the scene several times last night. Note that the camera
> pans down to see the boat "rocked" but by what? The bow wave
> doesn't look close to the boat and it seems hard to figure out
> the distant between the plane and the boat. Doesn't a long lens
> put the background out of focus? (or did I get that backwards?)

Focus is a function of "depth of field" which is determined by the
apperature (f-stop) and shutter speed. The higher the f-stop (smaller
the apperature) the more the light rays which pass through the lense are
parallel, making the background more in focus.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Note the time delay is just a few seconds as the airplane
> passes overhead and the wake rocks the boat, that was not a
> telephoto lens but a real close pass.

It was most definately a telephoto lens. I'm not convinced that the
wave that rocks the boat is the bow wave. We could figure all this out
- what kind of plane was it, what is its dimensions? (hull width, engine
spacing, wingspan). What is its typical approach speed?

It was also a close pass, but nowhere near as close as it looks. That's
how movies work. And remember, right at the end of a regular short
runway is stuff you don't want to hit too, but we take off of short
runways all the time.

It would be reckless for you and I and a few friends to go and do this.
However, Hollywood stunt people are well trained in these kinds of
things, they know, understand, and accept the risks (just like
aerobatics pilots do things that would be reckless for you or I to do
alone).

I have no problem with the flying in the shot.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Moore]

Jim Macklin wrote
> I guess when you're making a movie, violation of the FAA and
> USCG laws are OK?

It's pretty obvious to me that the airplane and the boat were never
in the same lake together. Just a large rear-projection screen like
Hollywood used in the past, or a good old blue/green screen effect.

Notice the number of different camera angles used to film the boat
and the men in it.
1. A wide angle shot from some distance off the port side of the boat.
2. A close-up of the man in the bow shot from the stern of the boat
or even outside the boat near the stern.
3. A close-up of the man and the engine shot from the water on the
starboard side of the boat.

How, and to where did all of those other cameras disappear to?

Nope! just a series of video clips assembled in front of a blue screen.

Bob Moore

[Gary Drescher]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> Jim Macklin wrote
>> I guess when you're making a movie, violation of the FAA and
>> USCG laws are OK?
>
> It's pretty obvious to me that the airplane and the boat were never
> in the same lake together. Just a large rear-projection screen like
> Hollywood used in the past, or a good old blue/green screen effect.
>
> Notice the number of different camera angles used to film the boat
> and the men in it.
> 1. A wide angle shot from some distance off the port side of the boat.
> 2. A close-up of the man in the bow shot from the stern of the boat
> or even outside the boat near the stern.
> 3. A close-up of the man and the engine shot from the water on the
> starboard side of the boat.
>
> How, and to where did all of those other cameras disappear to?
>
> Nope! just a series of video clips assembled in front of a blue screen.

It's possible that it was a blue-screen composite, but the sequence of
different shots with different camera angles has no bearing on that
question. That could easily have been done using real shots exclusively--in
which case the boat and the plane were indeed in the same lake at the same
time.

--Gary

[Jose[_1_]]

> It's pretty obvious to me that the airplane and the boat were never
> in the same lake together. Just a large rear-projection screen like
> Hollywood used in the past, or a good old blue/green screen effect.
>
> Notice the number of different camera angles used to film the boat
> and the men in it.
> 1. A wide angle shot from some distance off the port side of the boat.
> 2. A close-up of the man in the bow shot from the stern of the boat
> or even outside the boat near the stern.
> 3. A close-up of the man and the engine shot from the water on the
> starboard side of the boat.
>
> How, and to where did all of those other cameras disappear to?
>
> Nope! just a series of video clips assembled in front of a blue screen.

I doubt it was a process shot. However, it was several takes, perhaps
shot on different days. The close-ups could have been filmed any time
and anywhere, and edited in. It's hard to tell from the highly
compressed clip whether the original was process, but there is no reason
for it to be. This kind of operation can be carried out quite safely.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[PaulCurran]

Jose wrote:
> > It's pretty obvious to me that the airplane and the boat were never
> > in the same lake together. Just a large rear-projection screen like
> > Hollywood used in the past, or a good old blue/green screen effect.
> >
> > Notice the number of different camera angles used to film the boat
> > and the men in it.
> > 1. A wide angle shot from some distance off the port side of the boat.
> > 2. A close-up of the man in the bow shot from the stern of the boat
> > or even outside the boat near the stern.
> > 3. A close-up of the man and the engine shot from the water on the
> > starboard side of the boat.
> >
> > How, and to where did all of those other cameras disappear to?
> >
> > Nope! just a series of video clips assembled in front of a blue screen.
>
> I doubt it was a process shot. However, it was several takes, perhaps
> shot on different days. The close-ups could have been filmed any time
> and anywhere, and edited in. It's hard to tell from the highly
> compressed clip whether the original was process, but there is no reason
> for it to be. This kind of operation can be carried out quite safely.

It looks a fake

PC

[Marty Shapiro]

"PaulCurran" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Jose wrote:
>> > It's pretty obvious to me that the airplane and the boat were never
>> > in the same lake together. Just a large rear-projection screen like
>> > Hollywood used in the past, or a good old blue/green screen effect.
>> >
>> > Notice the number of different camera angles used to film the boat
>> > and the men in it.
>> > 1. A wide angle shot from some distance off the port side of the
>> > boat. 2. A close-up of the man in the bow shot from the stern of
>> > the boat
>> > or even outside the boat near the stern.
>> > 3. A close-up of the man and the engine shot from the water on the
>> > starboard side of the boat.
>> >
>> > How, and to where did all of those other cameras disappear to?
>> >
>> > Nope! just a series of video clips assembled in front of a blue
>> > screen.
>>
>> I doubt it was a process shot. However, it was several takes,
>> perhaps shot on different days. The close-ups could have been filmed
>> any time and anywhere, and edited in. It's hard to tell from the
>> highly compressed clip whether the original was process, but there is
>> no reason for it to be. This kind of operation can be carried out
>> quite safely.
>
> It looks a fake
>
> PC
>
>

While the capbilites the movie industry has today to manipulate shots, it
is getting more difficult to tell what was a carefully planned stunt and
what was done through the magic of special effects. But, at one time, the
industry didn't have the special effect capabilities we have become
accustomed to and still did some specatular stunts with aircraft.

One of the most spectacular was the scene in "It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World"
where a Beech 18 flies through a highway billboard. This was filmed in the
aarly 1960's. I guess it was easier to get waiver's from the FAA in those
days.

From a review of the stunts in the move: "The billboard that the twin-
engine Beechcraft flies through was made of thin balsa wood, except for a
thicker frame for support. Stunt pilot Frank Tallman had to fly the
aircraft directly through the center of the billboard or the thicker frame
would shear off a wing. Since the shattered wood would clog and stop both
engines, the billboard was built just off the end of the runway at the
Chino, CA airport. After flying through the billboard Tallman simply
lowered the landing gear and safely touched down on the runway."

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)