PureBasic Forums - English

Okay it is fake.

why do you think that?

the second photo convinced me that it's no fake at all.
the poor insect is still menacing to the biggest enemy,
the guy on the bike, who is actually protecting it from cars.

I bet, the guys took the mantis from elsewhere and put it
on the street to get a good surrounding for the photo.

it is a damn good photo, could win a price.
but it is less work to arrange such a setting and take a good picture if you know how,
than sitting at a modeller for dozends of hours to create such a model.

the appearing short depth of field is completely realistic.
I shot Macro-Photos myself, I know that it's normal that way.

Kaeru Gaman wrote: the appearing short depth of field is completely realistic.
I shot Macro-Photos myself, I know that it's normal that way.

Me too, and i know that it is realistic. But i also know its possible to do on a computer.


Now when i look at that bike photo, it looks something like toy story. It looks COMPLETELY fake. the bike and the guy's leg looks completely wrong. The lightning on the bike/leg is way too "bursting" out, looks completely how a lot of people try to make CG look.

Well, I don't know if it is fake - but if you look at the EXIF data here;
http://www.flickr.com/photo_exif.gne?id ... hotostream
Maybe someone can get something out from that? Anyway - if you look at some more pictures she's taken - some are really good! and I must admit Casio EX-Z750 seems as a pretty good digital cam.

techjunkie wrote:I must admit Casio EX-Z750 seems as a pretty good digital cam.

Still won't match a good SLR
I think the images it takes looks too "overcoloured". I like to be able to set such stuff myself.

however, yeah for a non-slr it looks good

To shake your noodles...

Fake or real???

both fakes.

the first could be a photo, even though that would be a nice scene to practice rendering.

the second, convincing as it is, has some details that are rendered for sure.

Kaeru Gaman wrote:both fakes.

the first could be a photo, even though that would be a nice scene to practice rendering.

the second, convincing as it is, has some details that are rendered for sure.

Yeah, the first one looks almost like it could be real but both are fakes!

Rook Zimbabwe wrote:Nope no CGI, with a narrow depth of field it would look like that, low light and an wide open apeture would cause just that condition... if it IS a fake, it is a good one... (I have not blown it up PIXEL by PIXEL though... that would be the acid test!)

The image is a fake but it is made up of real parts. The Background is real (this includes the street and house with the focus being set to a spot in the street). The mantis is real, but it's part's have been duplicated and placed in their current positions (not a natural pose; note which lens is reflected in the eye, it should always be the center one vertically and horizontally, it this case it's not). These parts include duplicated limbs. The two images were combined. This is what makes the image odd, the background was compressed using a different detail level than the insect. The results show via the highlighting around the insect body, on both the shadow and light side.



There is also a shadow on the left that indicates the mantis had something in its hands. I've used a computer to reconstruct what that object might have been based on the light that would have been reflectected from it onto the street.



Apparently he was heading home after registering some software. [Case Closed]

more examples?

No.1


No.2


No.3


No.4


No.5


No.6

Demivec wrote:

Apparently he was heading home after registering some software. [Case Closed]

I still think it's suspicious that the focus starts and ends exactly where the
mantis legs do. And if you zoom in on the house in the background in the
first pic, the pixels are too uniform and "clean" to be a real photo:

PB wrote:I still think it's suspicious that the focus starts and ends exactly where the
mantis legs do. And if you zoom in on the house in the background in the
first pic, the pixels are too uniform and "clean" to be a real photo:

The focus is possible, but yes it would require some presicion to make it happen just like that. Now the background is my main concern. It is too smooth and clean! It certainly looks just like toy story. I am 100% sure this is a fake "photo"

thefool wrote:I am 100% sure this is a fake "photo"

That blow-up looks slightly indecent. You sure it is from the main picture?