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

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!

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

"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
|
|

"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

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!

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
| |
| |
|
|
|
|

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.

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.

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.

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