Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Note that most of these aren't wide angle shots. The ones that are, aren't close-ups. They're more scenic shots taken at a distance and don't show wide-angle distortion. Certainly there's nothing as dynamic as the photo posted in this thread.
May be this collection doesn't have one using some kind of fish-eye lens. But, you can see that effect in the video posted earlier. Even if one doesn't use a fish-eye lens, they can surely use PS to achieve that goal. The point here really being that air-to-air photography exists. An aerial photograph of a flying plane doesn't need to be entirely photoshopped.
PS. Here is an example of a fish-eye lens equipped camera mounted on the outside of an airplane. Such set ups can be used in formation flights as well, instead of a regular lens.
May be this collection doesn't have one using some kind of fish-eye lens. But, you can see that effect in the video posted earlier. Even if one doesn't use a fish-eye lens, they can surely use PS to achieve that goal. The point here really being that air-to-air photography exists. An aerial photograph of a flying plane doesn't need to be entirely photoshopped.
PS. Here is an example of a fish-eye lens equipped camera mounted on the outside of an airplane. Such set ups can be used in formation flights as well, instead of a regular lens.
Of course it exists, I don't think anybody ever suggested otherwise. I simply said this photo could be a PS. Might be, might not be.
Given that it seems pretty much debunked that a small camera will disturb a plane too much in air, I'm going to stick with my initial assessment, a camera mounted on the plane, that's just had the rig edited out after (like the do the car photographies).
Given that it seems pretty much debunked that a small camera will disturb a plane too much in air, I'm going to stick with my initial assessment, a camera mounted on the plane, that's just had the rig edited out after (like the do the car photographies).
Although I don't know anything about photography, I do like your explanation. Thanks for your reply.
There are a couple shots in the video that demonstrate a fish-eye/ultra wide lens effect on the airplane.
Yep. As a matter of fact, a flight I took from London to Mumbai a few months ago had a front facing external camera in the underbelly. It was a Boeing 777 operated by Jet Airways (an Indian airline). It was interesting to have a view from just outside the airplane during the take off and landing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron.
Although I don't know anything about photography, I do like your explanation. Thanks for your reply.
Here's one example for you, of howthis tye of photography can be done.
Considering the wide angle on the plane shot, you can assume that the lens was placed a lot closer to the plane, it's also likely (if this is the technique they used) that they used a "bullet cam" which is a small footprint, often a lot more aerodynamic that would disturb the airflow and the plane less, if at all.
Here's one example for you, of howthis tye of photography can be done.
Considering the wide angle on the plane shot, you can assume that the lens was placed a lot closer to the plane, it's also likely (if this is the technique they used) that they used a "bullet cam" which is a small footprint, often a lot more aerodynamic that would disturb the airflow and the plane less, if at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.