The Desktop Pic Thread
- Thread starter Shane
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
fauker
Louqe
- Jun 27, 2001
- 2,340
- 0
- 0
- 40
fauker
Louqe
- Jun 27, 2001
- 2,340
- 0
- 0
- 40
it's possible that young peeps here haven't found much time to practice loading a roll of film. so about the photo I posted: I'm not convinced of editing, supersonic or not. also, no one in their right mind has their finger on the button on that camera. remote activation.. (duh?) in any case, I have yet to be shown obvious evidence of editing in the photo (someone mentioned obvious). in addtion, IMO, this is a frame taken from a high-speed movie camera so the best shot could be picked. some of you may have guessed by now (or, heaven forbid, even know 
) that exposures can appear blurred or sharp at almost any distance from the lens. if the lens aperture is very small, details far and near are viewed pretty much evenly. in addition, all very high-speed film gives an unfocused, grainy appearance to the entire exposure--even when shooting a static object.
further: let's presume that F-4s aren't designed to fly that low, either. agreed? but we'll all find out (the curious ones anyway) that there is an F-4 (decommissioned with the name "Sageburner"), that flew over mach one at extremely low altitude, maybe 30 or so years ago. it's being stored in the Smithsonian awaiting restoration. obsolete aerodynamics or not, it may still hold that record. to be clear, the Tomcat could be supersonic in the photo, and indeed is capable at low altitude. if you're not satisfied yet, speak with anyone who's worked on a carrier flight deck.
it's not my intention to drag this out, and I'm not the smartest bozo on the block. I'm simply, and only, poking large holes into some unsupported assumptions.
nice, Maj.
I thought I'd do some review, and I'm incorrect on two counts. the record was established over 40 years ago, and the restoration facility is owned by, but not located in the Smithsonian.
) that exposures can appear blurred or sharp at almost any distance from the lens. if the lens aperture is very small, details far and near are viewed pretty much evenly. in addition, all very high-speed film gives an unfocused, grainy appearance to the entire exposure--even when shooting a static object.further: let's presume that F-4s aren't designed to fly that low, either. agreed? but we'll all find out (the curious ones anyway) that there is an F-4 (decommissioned with the name "Sageburner"), that flew over mach one at extremely low altitude, maybe 30 or so years ago. it's being stored in the Smithsonian awaiting restoration. obsolete aerodynamics or not, it may still hold that record. to be clear, the Tomcat could be supersonic in the photo, and indeed is capable at low altitude. if you're not satisfied yet, speak with anyone who's worked on a carrier flight deck.
it's not my intention to drag this out, and I'm not the smartest bozo on the block. I'm simply, and only, poking large holes into some unsupported assumptions.
nice, Maj.
I thought I'd do some review, and I'm incorrect on two counts. the record was established over 40 years ago, and the restoration facility is owned by, but not located in the Smithsonian.
Last edited by a moderator:
I like Kiss. 
the theory.
Jet's usually don't fly that close to water, if they get too much moisture in their engines it's not good.
Though it IS possible. I've seen it before. But not at that speed, it'd probably get pulled into the water, plus the intake feild at that distance would be different.
the theory.Jet's usually don't fly that close to water, if they get too much moisture in their engines it's not good.
Though it IS possible. I've seen it before. But not at that speed, it'd probably get pulled into the water, plus the intake feild at that distance would be different.
I bumped this thread since I bumped into this sweet SHODAN background today, so I changed it from a giant red biohazard logo on a black background to this instead:
--Notice the little square in the top right corner: that's MikroAmp for Winamp 2.xx ... the thing kicks ass :tup:
--Also notice all the System Shock 2 influence, not to mention the mouse pointer and all other cursors I have made using the blue-green colors from the cyber interface... in addition to all my custom sound effects for stuff. I love my windows theme.
--Notice the little square in the top right corner: that's MikroAmp for Winamp 2.xx ... the thing kicks ass :tup:
--Also notice all the System Shock 2 influence, not to mention the mouse pointer and all other cursors I have made using the blue-green colors from the cyber interface... in addition to all my custom sound effects for stuff. I love my windows theme.
Attachments
Last edited: