• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does this look shooped to you?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Slightly off topic, but:

#40
Afghan girls attend school on February 16, 2009 in the village of Sandarwa in eastern Afghanistan. Women's education has been severely compromised in Afghanistan as a resurgent Taliban has practiced a policy of intimidation of female students. Women, who make up a significant proportion of Afghanistan's population, have been killed, burned and threatened for attending school. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Did that really need to be said? 😕
 
Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...msdmTM&feature=related

About 1:50 into the video, you can see what the muzzle flash actually looks like.

Problem is that the gun in the video isn't using a flash suppressor, so it would change the appearance quite a bit.



Originally posted by: SonnyDaze
As for the thumb off the trigger, the trigger system on this gun is located on the front and wouldn't need a thumb to fire.

Info on gun system.

Disclaimer: I'm not Canadian nor have I ever fired this gun. 🙂

I checked out that website and what I think you are mistaking for the trigger (the red plastic piece) is actually a guarded cover for the gun power switch. Cover flips up, switch turns on, then triggers are depressed to fire. Better visible in this picture: Text
 
Originally posted by: Born2bwire
Originally posted by: SonnyDaze
Doesn't look shooped though that is a big muzzle flash for 7.62.

Oh, you'd be surprised...

http://tfrwiki.midworld.co.uk/...x.php/Mosin-Nagant_FAQ

The first time I saw a Garand fired at a range, it let out an enormous BOOM that shook the walls and had a giant muzzle flash. The guy must've been using magnum ammo or something, since my brother's Garand doesn't make nearly that much of a scene.
 
Originally posted by: dammitgibs
Originally posted by: Number1
All the pictures in the essay are probably photoshopped to some extend.

Why would you care?

I think it's important that the media doesn't misrepresent or mislead the public by publicizing images of war, to either make them seem more or less dramatic than they are, here's a perfect example: WWII photo altered by main stream media

Typical lefty looking for conspiracies.

And how does a kool aid jug dramatises a WW2 picture?
 
Originally posted by: dammitgibs
Originally posted by: Number1
All the pictures in the essay are probably photoshopped to some extend.

Why would you care?

I think it's important that the media doesn't misrepresent or mislead the public by publicizing images of war, to either make them seem more or less dramatic than they are, here's a perfect example: WWII photo altered by main stream media

Ahahahahahahahahaah!!!
Something Awful is now mainstream media? Lowtax would be appalled.

I'm putting the OP down on my list of amusing posters to watch.
 
Originally posted by: dammitgibs
2) Looks to be flying at 3000-4000ft at least, tac effective range of a mini is 750-900m (tracer burnout) and max effective of 1500m, you can't hit shit at that altitude and 7.62 would be totally ineffective by the time it reached it's target

I'm not good at judging such large distances, but simple math makes me confused with your statement...

3000-4000ft (according to you), and the effective range of the mini is 750-900m

1m is roughly 39"

Decent effectiveness at 900 x 39 / 12 = 2925ft with a max effective range of 1500 x 39 / 12 = 4875ft.

I don't see how being at 3000-4000ft is an issue here as the rest seems like opinion.

That being said, I think it is photoshopped based on looks alone.
 
I would say that every photo in that set is "photoshopped" Each image has been tuned, refined, and altered by some method in photoshop. Whether its just levels, or curves, or contrast, something has been done.

But, do i think the photographer captured that muzzle flash? Yes. Has it been enhanced to some degree? Certainly. But that does not make it any less of an image.

Great link to the article, btw. Thank you.
 
Originally posted by: JJ650
Originally posted by: dammitgibs
Picture of minigun with muzzleflash
Source picture set and Boston Globe article

Figured there's lots of military type people here and photography and photoshop experts this would be a good place to ask

Reasons I think it's shooped;
1) Muzzle flash just looks odd to begin with
2) Looks to be flying at 3000-4000ft at least, tac effective range of a mini is 750-900m (tracer burnout) and max effective of 1500m, you can't hit shit at that altitude and 7.62 would be totally ineffective by the time it reached it's target
3) From what I see, he only has one hand on the gun (while it is possible to shoot with only one hand, I don't know of anyone who does)
4) His right thumb which is used to depress the lo-rate trigger is clearly off the trigger, unless this is a different sort of control unit than I'm familiar with.
5) No blur on the barrels which would be spinning at 2000 RPM (or 4000RPM on Hi-rate) and no motion blur on ammo feeding up to the gun

Thanks for any input



Well when shooting DOWN from high, that bullet is still going to carry a LOT of energy. More than enough to kill.
Miniguns don't really have a huge muzzle flash.

its a support gun anyways, i'd run for cover even if it was being fired from high up😛 thats all it has to do.
 
Back
Top