Because i just found this.
Fuck if someone can get a larger res of this image il give them some rep as i really want to try and model that helmet the spartan is holding. http://i40.tinypic.com/2igoggi.jpg
October 4th, 2009, 09:28 AM
Alwin Roth
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
wait the picture above?
What's going on in there?
October 4th, 2009, 09:54 AM
=sw=warlord
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alwin Roth
wait the picture above?
What's going on in there?
Yes the picture above.
A spartan is holding another spartans helmet while being held back by 2 ODST's.
October 4th, 2009, 10:22 AM
Ganon
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
looks like the spartan on the left is having a bad day
October 4th, 2009, 10:57 AM
Delta4907
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Is it just me or is the one on the left missing part of his head?
October 4th, 2009, 11:01 AM
rossmum
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Yeah, that's kind of the whole idea... he's dead.
October 4th, 2009, 11:06 AM
Rob Oplawar
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
If they made the the Halo movie with Spartans that big, it would be amazing.
October 4th, 2009, 11:20 AM
Heathen
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
I mean, he is like 9 foot tall.
Or something really tall.
October 4th, 2009, 11:23 AM
Jean-Luc
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathen
I mean, he is like 9 foot tall.
Or something really tall.
He's supposed to be 7 feet tall.
October 4th, 2009, 12:03 PM
Chainsy
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
What I got out of it: The 2 spartans were fighting or trying to escape some odd thing, and a fight between the odsts and the spartans ensued. The odst commando shot the spartan in the head, which is why there is a hole in the spartan's head and helmet and hy the commando is holding a pistol in his hand. MC is also damaged, sparking with smoke, which suggests that they were in a fight.
October 4th, 2009, 12:12 PM
Siliconmaster
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Where did those pics come from? Concept art? Or someone's standalone artwork? Either way, they're both really cool.
October 4th, 2009, 12:41 PM
=sw=warlord
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Looks alot like a plasma bolt hit the back of the spartans head which would be one of the few things to burn a hole that big and have blue steam comming off the armour.
Im reasonably sure the standard pistol would not make such a big hole in a spartans armour as it is safe to guess the UNSC would not make their supersoldiers so weak against small arms fire.
Infact the shot might have been a beam rifle shot as it goes through both the front and back of the helmet.
October 4th, 2009, 12:54 PM
TeeKup
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siliconmaster482
Where did those pics come from? Concept art? Or someone's standalone artwork? Either way, they're both really cool.
That's what I'd like to know, I'm eager to see more pictures like these.
October 4th, 2009, 01:35 PM
ICEE
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sKc_Chains
What I got out of it: The 2 spartans were fighting or trying to escape some odd thing, and a fight between the odsts and the spartans ensued. The odst commando shot the spartan in the head, which is why there is a hole in the spartan's head and helmet and hy the commando is holding a pistol in his hand. MC is also damaged, sparking with smoke, which suggests that they were in a fight.
Looks to me more like the spartans were working together under the dude with the hats orders, he gave a stupid command or something that ended up getting the left spartan killed. the right spartan is not pleased
October 4th, 2009, 01:39 PM
Dwood
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICEE
Looks to me more like the spartans were working together under the dude with the hats orders, he gave a stupid command or something that ended up getting the left spartan killed. the right spartan is not pleased
This. Btw, how would you like a 7 foot tall soldier that has to be restrained by 3 odsts (He can flip a freaking tank, why would 3 guys stop him?) to keep him from crushing your head in completely?
I've got higher res of 1st 2 he posted if anybody wants them btw.
October 6th, 2009, 01:10 PM
Rob Oplawar
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
One of the worst and most spectacular landing systems conceived. I can't believe it worked. It's like watching a stuntman do an idiotically dangerous stunt and succeed- you're in awe, but you can't help but facepalm at him.
e: Seriously! Look at that friggin thing! Now imagine dropping it from a hundred or so feet! >.<
ee:
Of course, the obligatory panorama:
<3
October 6th, 2009, 01:53 PM
=sw=warlord
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
I have no issues with imagining that falling hundreds of feet and surviving.....
October 6th, 2009, 04:55 PM
Rob Oplawar
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Have you ever competed in an egg-drop?
Picture this: You have to launch your egg in a rocket, let it coast for a really long time, then separate from the rocket, then deploy a parachute, then discard its protective casing, then inflate a bunch of airbags, then drop off of the parachute high enough that there's absolutely no chance of being covered by the parachute when it lands, then bounce for several minutes, and then when you've stopped moving, you have to open up and let the egg roll out.
e: landing on Mars is already a jarring enough experience as it is without adding even more things to go wrong. Airbags are cool in the same way base-jumping is cool; it's fucking ballsy and there are much safer ways of getting down. All well and good if you're looking to have a good time, but when your goal is to successfully complete a mission...
Don't get me wrong, I think the whole mission was very cool and I salute the scientists who pulled it off. Still, using airbags was a bad idea from the start.
October 6th, 2009, 08:19 PM
ExAm
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
I'm going to have to completely disagree with you there. The landing capsule is anything but an egg. There's a pretty damn low risk of damage to the equipment inside, unless those things pop as easily as giant party balloons. Additionally, if you want to second-guess fucking NASA, be my guest. I just don't think your argument will hold up once you've actually talked to them about it.
October 6th, 2009, 08:31 PM
Warsaw
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
I second-guesed fucking NASA...and decided it was a good idea to fuck it anyways, because they keep wasting money on got damn unmanned projects.
Seriously though, the giant raspberry is probably one of the most hilarious and simultaneously ingenious landing systems ever devised.
October 6th, 2009, 09:08 PM
rossmum
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
I dropped an egg protected by assorted pads and air sacs from considerable height, and it survived. vOv
edit: Looks like those photos are combined from two different exposures.
October 6th, 2009, 10:21 PM
Jean-Luc
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shamisen
edit: Looks like those photos are combined from two different exposures.
I wouldn't be surprised. It just strikes me as mindblowing that it's possible to capture the fuckin Milky Way, on Earth, using a simple camera.
October 6th, 2009, 10:23 PM
kid908
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean-Luc
I wouldn't be surprised. It just strikes me as mindblowing that it's possible to capture the fuckin Milky Way, on Earth, using a simple camera.
ancient people used to see it like that before all the city folks and their lights. After all, it's called the MILKYWAY by them for a reason.
October 6th, 2009, 10:24 PM
Jean-Luc
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kid908
ancient people used to see it like that before all the city folks and their lights. After all, it's called the MILKYWAY by them for a reason.
I'm not quite sure it was so vibrant as in these pictures. I've been in areas where there is no light, and I mean none. You can clearly see the milky way, but you can't see it with as much color and detail as these photos have captured.
October 6th, 2009, 10:26 PM
kid908
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
color wised, the photos do capture more, but your post suggested that you mean just the milkyway period.
October 6th, 2009, 10:51 PM
rossmum
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Wow, those are beautiful.
October 6th, 2009, 11:20 PM
Rob Oplawar
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExAm
if you want to second-guess fucking NASA, be my guest.
I work for Lockheed Martin...
October 6th, 2009, 11:22 PM
klange
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Oplawar
I work for Lockheed Martin...
Oooooh snap. Yeah, ExAm, Rob here works for the guys that make the shit for NASA.
October 7th, 2009, 12:53 AM
annihilation
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Sup.
Major huge mega super amazing gigantic ultra big space image here.
*Note: Some browsers may experience trouble veiwing this image due it its size.
My point stands. You're still seriously implying that they're a bunch of idiots for choosing this method. It's not crazy, it's not stupid, it's not illogical, and it's not impractical. It makes perfect sense and it works, and if it didn't, they wouldn't have used it to put a multimillion dollar rover on fucking mars, where if anything mechanical goes wrong, the whole operation is fucked.
October 7th, 2009, 02:42 AM
rossmum
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DEEhunter
post
That's why they used it for the coolant water in K-19 (the movie, not the actual sub, obviously)
oi anywhere i can get high rez pictures of that D:? i need a new backround D:
October 7th, 2009, 04:26 AM
Pyong Kawaguchi
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
I too, want high res pictures of that.
October 7th, 2009, 09:30 AM
Jean-Luc
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ßðÐŻÍ££å
oi anywhere i can get high rez pictures of that D:? i need a new backround D:
I'll keep an eye out but I'm fairly certain the only way I could get higher res is by paying the $100 for the 12"x36" photographs from his website (which I might end up doing anyway because they're so damn cool.)
However, I am going to attempt to capture these types of photos later this week when the sky clears up. According to the author, it's not as complex as one might imagine:
This the info straight from the photographer, Wally Pacholka, as posted on Society for Popular Astronomy message board.
"Hi Gang,
I am the one that took this photo of this amazing place
Got a lot of comments on this so here is the real deal - short story & long story. Wally
Astroman,
I have no problem at all giving details about the False-Kiva Indian
Cave photograph. Since I have been hit with 100's of inquires about
this amazing photograph in the last few days I will attach a long
answer that will I hope answer most questions. The short answer is
that this real genuine photograph of a wide Indian Cave that required
panoramic stitching of 4 separate side by side single frame
photographs each showing the sky/landscape in one single 25 second
exposure at high iso setting without a tracking tripod giving pin
point stars and a sharp foreground with the small mm lens that I used.
I sent a correction to the APOD folk that this is not a long exposure
and that it is a pano stitching of 4 side by side single frame shots
each with sky/landscape frozen in the 25 sec exposure. I did not get
a chance to proof the APOD caption so some things are there that they
may have assumed but are not what actually happened - but thru no
fault of there own, but I simply failed to mention when I submitted
the image. They have published 28 other images of mine and all of
those were single image, so it is natural for them to asume this was a
single image. It is important to note that this is not a composite
image but a stitching of 4 separate side by side sky/landscape single
frame shots. Todays cameras do not need tracking systems to get pin
point stars if the exposure is short and the iso high so now
photographers can have the best of both worlds - sharp sky and sharp
landscape, but I also have 40 years experience doing this sort of
thing. It is easier now. But not if you consider that I made 4 1200
mile round trips to this location with bad photographic results and
only got my keeper shot after much planning (waiting for cresent moon
to light the hills) and was successful only on this 5th trip. See
brightnightgallery.com for more of my pics. That's the short answer.
That's long was is:
Sorry, I must of answered these questions a 100 times so am sending a
blanket explanation to help folk understand that the photo is indeed
real in every detail:
1. Answers to question #1 about how False Kiva photograph was taken:
I am simply an amateur astronomer that loves the night sky and has a
passion for recording the night sky as it really is from interesting
settings like national parks and landmarks that folk are familiar with.
I have been doing this now for 44 years and in that time not only have
I learnt a few things but I have seen tremendous advances in
technology that enable folk to take photographs of the stars as pin
points in seconds rather than minutes like in the old days. My night
sky/landscape photographs which are my trademark have traditionally
always been single frame shots of both the night sky and landmarks in
one single exposure. In the olden days like for comet hale-bopp, the
longer time exposures with tracked camera to follow the stars would
always leave a tell tail sign on the landscape rocks as they would
blur if lit or they would cast a shadow against the background stars
if you lit them momentarily like with a flash. Now a days, all is
different. Anybody with a decent digital camera like canon 20D and
24mm lens with high iso like 1600 at f/1.6 can record deep detail in
the Milky Way in just 20 seconds and 10 times more stars than the eye
can see. So now it is an easy matter to capture stars frozen as points
of light and the foreground in sharp focus with no movement even when
focused on infinite with the right lens. Folk that are saying there
must be star trails or ground movement in a shot like the False Kiva
shot are very accurate in their assessment for equipment and
technology that is several years old, but they are sadly lacking in
what can be done today with some of the more basic DSLR cameras
cameras that are available at the local costco store.
How False Kiva was taken:
Been to False Kiva Indian Cave near Moab, Utah (1600 mile round trip
from my home in Long Beach, CA) 4 previous times, all
photographic failures, hiked the 2 mile trail with last part down a
very steep canyon wall trail, hiked out in dark and got lost each and
every time. It's dark out there.
Canon 5D, iso 1600 Raw, f/2.5, 25 second exposure with camera on a
stationary tripod (no tracking). The cave is huge, so the 24 mm lens
required me to take 4 separate (camera vertical) shots shooting one
shot at 25 seconds and then moving the camera horizontally for the
next shot and so on until I got the entire cave. Each shot was a
sky/landscape shot and I had a professional lab stitch the photos
together with a panoramic blending software to make it one continuous
horizontal shot as I am a photoshop moron.
The lighting was from 4 sources (which I learnt from my 4 previous
failed attempts - after all one can drive 1600 miles to take a single
shot only so many times). The stars/Milky Way of course provided their
own light for the sky, the trip was planned for a small crescent moon
to be setting in the west to light up the left and center canyon
walls, and a large flashlight was positioned out side the cave on the
left to bounce light off a flat rock to hit the right canyon wall with
some faint light. Inside the cave, I used a series of flashlights and
or strobes to bounce light off the far left/right walls to evenly
light the cave (there was no direct lighting).
There was absolutely no superimposing of any portion in this image or
any other image I have ever done. To me that's important as my whole
purpose is to show folk what the sky really is like from different
landmarks in this great country of ours. As for the questioning about
why no haze is seen next to the horizon in the sky yet is seem in the
far canyon hills then my guess would be that those saying such are
thinking of a day shot. This is a night shot - everything is dark. It
rained that day heavily so there was no haze. It is the crescent moon
that is lighting up the close canyon walls and they are sharp, but the
farther you go down you run into moon shadow that is not haze but
simply darkness where the camera can not record detail so it looks
like haze. The same for the far canyon walls look like they are
covered with haze, but it is just because they are so far, the slight
moonlight does not bounce back enough light from those far canyons
for the camera to see any detail (some folk are calling that haze), yet
the stars which have their own light of course show through the haze
which is not there (but only in folks minds) and hits the camera
sensors full on.
I have been around long enough to know that no matter what
explanation I give as to how real a photograph I took is, there are
always the arm chair folk that would rather criticised others than do
anything themselves. If you don't believe what I say (everything here
is testable) and then believe the great body of work I have done over
the years that is clearly recognized by experts in the field of
astronomy/photography. This is my 29th Astronomy Picture of Day. Those
folk are not
dummies. I might be able to fool the APOD folk one time, but 29
times????
How about TIME-LIFE photo editors. They picked my Hale-Bopp pic as Pic
of year in 1997 - out of millions submitted. They also picked my Mars
Closest encounter in 50,000 years as Pic of year in 2003 for both LIFE
magazine and a different image for TIME magazine, again out of
millions submitted. My night sky work sells in over 30 national parks,
where each park goes thru an interpretive review process to determine
that the photos are genuine - none have been turned down. NASA still
has my Hale-Bopp shot on their front Hale-Bopp web page, etc....
For those of you who can, just enjoy the photograph and for others
that can't do that then simply take one that we all can enjoy.
We live in a great country with so much to see and photograph.
There is much that is untouched waiting for us to capture.
May you enjoy the process.
All the best.
Wally Pacholka
An amateur astronomer - my greatest honor
See more of my Pics at brightnightgallery.com'
2. Answers as to why APOD's description differs a little from mine
(like long exposure vs short exposure)
When I submitted the photograph to APOD I did not mention anything
about exposure. When they run a photo they do not check with the
photographer if everything in their comments are correct or not.
Generally these guys are dead on accurate. These guys know me (as they
have published me 28x prior) and in every case prior I have always
submitted single image one frame sky/landscape shots so in this case
they assumed this is Wally so it has to be single exposure. Keep in
mind, I submitted a horizontal pano photograph so I could show the
whole cave, but that pano is made up of 4 side by side sky/landscape
shots where each frame is a shot of the sky and landmark(cave) all in
one single exposure. This is no composite of the sky being put it. It
is a horizontal pano stitch of the sky and cave at once. With modern
cameras with high iso and short exposures the sky and landmarks can be
shot in one single exposure. Here I simply stitched 4 such shots
together to give the viewer the complete panoramic view. Every rock
and star is real in the photo.
May each of you experience this wonderful place called False Kiva someday.
See more of my Pics at brightnightgallery.com
Wally Pacholk
At any rate, I'll let you guys know if it actually works and if it does, I'll see if I can upload some wallpaper sized stuff. For now, I'll leave you with one more image of his that goddamn blew my mind.
e/ It's the quinine that does it if I recall correctly
October 13th, 2009, 07:14 AM
=sw=warlord
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
bit small but im looking for a larger image of this.
Im not entirely sure where this image came from so if someone can link me to the source or possibly a larger resolution of this i would be gratefull. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/ha...d4/Mkivtcp.JPG
October 13th, 2009, 08:14 AM
Sever
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Here's what I found:
Largest image:
Largest clean image:
October 13th, 2009, 08:49 AM
=sw=warlord
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Thank's sever, i didnt realise it was the front cover for cole protocol.
October 15th, 2009, 11:18 PM
Rob Oplawar
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
October 15th, 2009, 11:28 PM
OmegaDragon
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
October 16th, 2009, 12:26 AM
Cortexian
Re: The best pictures you've seen.
Wat.
Also, is it bad that the first thing I saw in this picture was the Jeep?
