You have perfectly described the feeling I had regarding the first belly flop demo (at least I think it was the first one?)

https://youtu.be/gA6ppby3JC8?si=wY7TQsbR_wxoud75&t=70 (ten seconds from the timestamp)

▲

sneak 6 months ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, that shot is so clean and smooth it feels like a render. Absolutely iconic even after a dozen rewatchings. The iris flares and the framerate… gotta hand it to whoever planned that shot and placed that camera. A+ videography.

▲

Cthulhu_ 6 months ago | parent | next [-]

As another commenter pointed out, it's down to better cameras; higher resolution and framerates than "traditional" cameras used in this kind of recording. But it could be better still, the camera setup in the clip still gets a lot of shaking from the blasts.

IIRC they use regular off the shelf gopro cameras to mount on the ones going into space. Granted, the mount is ruggedized metal else the cameras wouldn't survive, lol [0].

I'm also reminded of NASA's cameras which were mounted on the mechanisms of an anti-air gun, great for slow and precise movements. I'm sure they still use that today but I couldn't find a good source. I did find an article about NASA's ruggedized cameras for use on spacecraft and the like though [1].

[0] https://www.quora.com/Was-the-GoPro-camera-modified-for-the-... [1] https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Redefining_the_Rugged_Video_Camera

	▲	diggan 6 months ago \| parent [-]
		> it's down to better cameras; higher resolution and framerates than "traditional" cameras used in this kind of recording It looks cool because of the angle and framing though, someone knew exactly what they were doing. Without the angle/framing, you can have all the resolution and framerates in the world, it still wouldn't look as cool. It's a cinematographic choice that made that shot. > But it could be better still, the camera setup in the clip still gets a lot of shaking from the blasts. I'd love to hear ideas how you'd prevent the shaking. Forget gimbals or similar semi-pro setups as they wouldn't be nearly enough. What are you attaching it to, in your better setup? A drone would be blown away, and anything attached to the ground would likely start to shake regardless of your setup.

▲

dzhiurgis 6 months ago | parent | prev [-]

It the high dynamic range (HDR) that makes it look "unnatural" because we are so used to seeing over-compressed photos and videos.

Plus maybe something they do with stability and frame-rate.

▲

keepamovin 6 months ago | parent | prev [-]

If cutting edge engineering with conventional physics looks fake to you folks imagine what a hard time you’re going to have with real videos of actual UFOs.

▲

elicksaur 6 months ago | parent | next [-]

They’re being rhetorical for emphasis. No need to twist it into an ad hominem.

	▲	keepamovin 6 months ago \| parent [-]
		It's not twisted and not ad hominem. No attack on a person, just a statement of the relative difficulty of appreciating something truly new when cutting edge looks fake.

▲

yreg 6 months ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't believe your ability of classifying videos as real or fake to be any greater than mine. Maybe you just have more confidence?

	▲	keepamovin 6 months ago \| parent [-]
		You’re not being attacked. The comment is in reply not just to your, but to all similar sentiments here. Your ‘ability to classify videos as real or fake’ (heh, funny AI tech phrase -- but also why assume our ‘ability’ would be the same? We are different people, made different, with different prior data, we would feel differently about it, right? Why would you think not, heh? You’d be wrong if you assumed people react in the same way. Back to the point:) -- your ‘ability’ is also not somehow being judged. You expressed a feeling in response to it. Okay, good. Now imagine how much harder a time you will have with real videos of UFOs when even cutting conventional engineering looks fake. That’s the point. Are we clear?