Galactica blooper
#1
Posted 15 June 2008 - 01:55 PM
#2
Posted 15 June 2008 - 05:01 PM
#3
Posted 15 June 2008 - 06:33 PM
#4
Posted 16 June 2008 - 12:32 AM
No way. You can see the knee, the heel and the foot. Look again. An empty pant leg doesn't hang horizontally for about 40 cm!
#5
Posted 16 June 2008 - 05:10 AM
#6
Posted 16 June 2008 - 06:34 AM
#7
Posted 16 June 2008 - 06:36 AM
Then he must have the skinniest calf and most square foot I have ever seen. LOL. When I saw him stand up from his chair I remember thinkg that his pant leg looked pretty odd sticking back like it was. And remember shadows stretch depending on how far away the light is. I still stand on my rulling that it is not his lower leg. Another way to check is actualy try and hold your leg in the position that would make that shadow. It is not a natural position and does not match the way he is holding his leg.
#8
Posted 16 June 2008 - 07:10 AM
Yet to the trained eye (and I've been photoshopping for more than 10 years now) it's sooooo obvious.
But getting back to Galactica. Are you guys saying the actor really lost his leg? No, his leg was digitally removed.
Let me help you. I have drawn where his leg must have been. Notice on the picture right that where they removed the leg, they did not paint in the chair's leg. Instead they painted the empty spot in the color of the background. That is however something you don't see unless you make the image very light. So indeed, they did remove his leg digitally. But they forgot to remove the shadow. And you notice it even more when you play the scene and see the moving image.
And as to the calf being skinny? One word: perspective.
#9
Posted 16 June 2008 - 08:52 AM
#10
Posted 16 June 2008 - 09:45 AM
I'm with Bernsie on the first photo though, there is definitely a leg sticking out there.
#11
Posted 16 June 2008 - 11:16 PM
#12
Posted 17 June 2008 - 07:14 AM
#13
Posted 17 June 2008 - 07:19 AM
#14
Posted 17 June 2008 - 07:24 AM
LOL!!! That's the best joke I've heard in days. Just one thing to add. I didn't photoshop the WWW picture. But those who did made a mistake. A mistake the trained eye spots on the spot.
Oh and I won't be argumenting about the Galactica picture anymore. I know what I see and I don't really give a frak if others don't see it. Case closed.
#15
Posted 17 June 2008 - 10:08 AM
Just for that, you are on my list mister!!
#16
Posted 17 June 2008 - 12:28 PM
http://www.scifi.com...e...=9&sub=blog
About 2/3 of the way through they are interviewing Alessandro and they pan down to show his leg in a tight green sock. Anyway, I think his shadow was left unpainted too.
#17
Posted 17 June 2008 - 06:40 PM
WOOHOO!! FINALLY!! It's in all good fun Slayerone76, you know that. But you might want to remind Bernsie, I think he's taking this too seriously I stand by my shenigans though for the WWW pic, it's to detract from his weak arguments on the BSG leg shadow. Speaking of which, why isn't this in the BSG form It wasn't until I sat down at my computer that I realized this was in the wrong forum, lol. I'm usually looking at the forum through my phone and didn't catch it when I hit "View new posts"
#18
Posted 18 June 2008 - 02:30 AM
I've never been accused of taking things too seriously.
#19
Posted 18 June 2008 - 07:45 PM
#20
Posted 21 June 2008 - 09:11 AM
Look at Artie's hat. It is obviously digitally added to the picture. Least obvious is the angle. Artie is looking left of the camera but the hat would suggest he's looking right of the camera. A little more obvious is the angle the light comes from. On his face the light source is right of the camera, on the hat the light source is left of the camera. but the most obvoious thing about it is something one should spot immediately. There is no shadow of the hat on his forehead. Look at the shadow Artie's nose leaves. There should be a shadow like that (but bigger, since the rim of the head sticks out a lot more than his nose) on his forehead. All in all, this amateur (me) says that this picture is the work of an amateur.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users