The strangest view to me was the in-car. Maybe just the angle, but no sidepods.
The strangest view to me was the in-car. Maybe just the angle, but no sidepods.
Is it possible, as I read all the posts, so many are saying they look slow because it is a bit bulbous? Everyone knows slim and trim is fast and colorically challenged and bulbous can't possibly sprint. If it was just a bit trimmer would it look faster, and a lot trimmer then really fast? In spite of going the same speed
Katharine's Legge is in the gravel!--Jenks
__________________________________________________ ____________________
12-7-1941 Never, Never Forget 9-11-2001
Yes. And no not a bit bulbous, it looks like a tank with a vinyl wrap, along with the low RPM's, it just gives the appearance of an over sized, under powered sports car, lumbering from left to right tripping over curbs. No knife edge, exhilarating, eye opening, awe inspiring about it. On a road course, that may be slightly different, at Indy even more so. But these Sherman tanks on street courses look ridiculous.Originally Posted by Neshaminy
This is what takes the breath away, and if it looks like that on tv/video, in person it must be mind blowing (hint hint IC).
Spa - Eau Rouge
[/QUOTE]
That "comparison" is filmed with lenses so different that if you've flipped the two, the GT cars would probably look faster. I've been to Spa, and the F1's are going fast, sure, but not ~that~ fast.
Wow, now I've learned that lenses can make cars look faster then they actually are, maybe IC should get a hold of this video shooter and borrow his camera for IC street races.
Yup, lens trickery. Lets watch Kimi onboard.
He's not lying about the different lens. Read up a little bit of angle of view. A wider angle lens will distort the perspective, making close objects look closer than they really are, and distant objects look further away. When you shoot a car traveling toward or away from you with a wide angle lens, it appears to move faster because of the distortion. The wide-angle lens' used for NASCAR broadcasts makes stock cars look faster than indycars on the same tracks.
5 G's in downforce, no lift, 4 G's lateral. Send the link that you posted to IC, at least try and lie to the public, visually, that they are fast visually.
Again, watching bulbous tanks, low revving OW cars is a snore. IC had a shot to bring unification, teams, new car, turbos, paddle shifters, new ground breaking areo. Yet, they look like 4 wheeled bricks.
Monoco is even tighter then Barber, they can make it look good, because it happens naturally in the series. More lens trickery, I guess.
I never said that the performance of F1 cars weren't impressive. I never even brought that up. I'm just saying that the side-by-side shot you used was using two different lens'. I was just trying to educate you on focal lengths. If you go back and read my earlier posts in this thread, you'll see that I'm not in favor of the looks or hp of the DW12.
You know, I wont even go and do this..... Dont educate me.
I know who I know. Now, if you want to educate yourself, go and take the static shot of the F1 cars in the comparison. Now take that, and lay it, side by side with Kimi's run I posted. They are exact.
As a matter of fact, do the work with the still shot, use your reference points trackside, then put Kimi's run side by side. Huh. The same.
So I guess the FIA lenses used on Kimi's car are at question.
Match them, its the exact speed and climb, on board and static, or should I do that work for you as well.
It is 100% clear that in the comparison, the end of the viewable track in the F1 side looks noticeably further away than the GT side. So time wise, yes, Kimi's and the F1 comparison are exact; however you are fatally flawed when it comes to perceived distance. The F1 side LOOKS much faster because the camera makes the distance traveled seem further. So, because they are traveling the same distance, and F1 is already fast to begin with, then it makes then look to be traveling faster than reality ONLY BECAUSE of the perceived distance.You know, I wont even go and do this..... Dont educate me.
I know who I know. Now, if you want to educate yourself, go and take the static shot of the F1 cars in the comparison. Now take that, and lay it, side by side with Kimi's run I posted. They are exact.
As a matter of fact, do the work with the still shot, use your reference points trackside, then put Kimi's run side by side. Huh. The same.
So I guess the FIA lenses used on Kimi's car are at question.
Match them, its the exact speed and climb, on board and static, or should I do that work for you as well.
Thoughts on the new car. I was beginning to like the new car, but then I just watched the 2003 CCWS St. Pete race on youtube. After watching those Turbo V8s, and Lolas & Reynards, its hard to look at the DW12 and not see unesessary exagergations everywhere.
Nailed it! Well said.
The term "butt ugly" certainly applies.
A bit LMP2 like, but that would be dissing LMP2.
There's no shame in not knowing something. I wasn't attacking you. I was genuinely trying to explain to you why the side-by-side shot wasn't a fair comparison because of the different focal lengths of the lens'.You know, I wont even go and do this..... Dont educate me.
I know who I know. Now, if you want to educate yourself, go and take the static shot of the F1 cars in the comparison. Now take that, and lay it, side by side with Kimi's run I posted. They are exact.
As a matter of fact, do the work with the still shot, use your reference points trackside, then put Kimi's run side by side. Huh. The same.
So I guess the FIA lenses used on Kimi's car are at question.
Match them, its the exact speed and climb, on board and static, or should I do that work for you as well.
The F1 side-by-side shot and Kimi's onboard shot are the same because they're traveling the same distance in the same amount of time, but the lens used in the side-by-side shot exaggerates the speed because it LOOKS like they are traveling a greater distance. Look at the treeline in the background in the side-by-side shots. It looks further away in the F1 shot than it does in the gt shot. Therefore, the F1 cars look further away than the gt cars at the same spot on the track, too. It's physics, not trickery.
Here's another example, taken from Wikimedia Commons.
In this picture, the camera is the same distance away in each shot, but the far bottle looks further away in the top shot. If this were a video, and a hamster walked from the from the front bottle to the back bottle, it would look like it was traveling faster in the top shot. This is because of the perception that the far bottle is further away than it really is.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks