It's not visibility it's distance and angles, as I said in the response you quoted.
You said “the distances and angles for the observation platform are all wrong”, but they are not. You somehow seem to expect footage filmed with a movie camera to look identical to a spherical image shot for Google Maps, despite the obvious difference in focal length, making distances appear different.
My pic had the top of his head at least an inch below the second hole from the top, your pic had his head several inches above it. So the only one not fooling people here is you.
Yeah, and? You posted a screenshot from the moment he tilted his head down for a second before climbing the fence, so it looked a little lower there (although still clearly reaching the fifth hole from the top, as I originally said). You posted a fragment of the whole sequence, I posted the whole thing. It's clear from watching it that he has
not — as you claimed — “already climbed up a step”. What you said was demonstrably wrong. Again.
And thanks again for providing a gif that proves my point about it being nearly twice his height.
I think you must get your eyes checked, because the fence clearly fucking isn’t twice as high as him. How many more screenshots do I have to provide to show you to be the teller of untruths?
Here are the shots of Caleb climbing up and jumping down the fence combined into one, proving that the fence is
not twice as high as him.
Yes... It's the exact same... So long as you assume a very large amount of digital post production work to alter the entire environment.
I have no clue what you are even talking about. They clearly shot it at the Kelso Conservation Area sometime in Fall/Winter when trees had less leafs, brown leafs or no leafs at all. The minimal digital post production they had to do was limited to painting out some park facility and signage they couldn’t shoot around and probably adding those seconds of campfire. But otherwise it is the exact same real world location. Not just in that one comparison shot I prepared, but in all of the shots of the camp in the episode.
Yes, yes, you caught me rounding into a generalized number instead of counting the exact number of seconds fire was on screen in the episode.
As if that wasn't obvious from the estimative term I used.
Dude, are you for real?
You were the one trying to fucking correct me when I originally was referring to a “few seconds of campfire”, pointing out “They had deep conversations in front of the fire,
so more like minutes.” And now
you are the one telling me
I’m being too precise? The “estimative term” you used was “more like minutes
[and not seconds]” and I merely pointed out that my original statement of it being seconds was fucking correct. What is wrong with you?
On a side note, that "triviality easy" is just
straight up wrong.
Simulations (like realistic fire, flowing water, hair, or cloth movement) are the priciest because they demand heavy computing power and loads of fine-tuning.
Digitally creating that fire would have been thousands of dollars a second.
From everything we saw in the episode, my guess would be they took some establishing shots with a drone, composited the camp and everything else onto that, then for perspective shots in the camp proper used the volume and threw a gaussian filter over things to give an improved illusion of depth. (Hence why distances are slightly blurry in the camp scenes.)
Wow, what the hell are you even going on about? Why on Earth would they need fucking fire simulation to add those seconds of campfire to a handful of shots? You clearly don’t have a clue about any of this. We’re are not talking about entire burning buildings or environments or whatever here, but just a pile of timber, possibly with a smoke machine beneath it. They basically just needed to track those shots and overlay them with one of a variety of stock footage clips of burning campfire. As I said, it’s trivially easy for anyone who’s spent some time with video effects.
Just to drive home that point here’s some clips from “Beta Test” where I quickly added some campfire for shits and giggles. Of course it’s not perfect, but then again I wasn’t paid a thousand dollars for it.
And no, those outdoor scenes from “Vox in Excelso” were absolutely
not filmed on the volume. This is just your newest fantasy, after originally saying they filmed it at the “suspiciously familiar bit of 'wilderness’” next to the “University of Waterloo”.
I disagree, so unless you want to get Frakes here to make a statement it seems we're at an impasse.
Well, we won’t need to ask him. The only thing you have to do to show that what you claim is correct is find even one set piece from the “300th Night” market set that you recognize from
Picard. But who are we kidding, of course you won’t. Because you simply can’t.
Given the times I've shown you wrong in this debate, is that really an argument you want to make?
Because if so, both of our arguments will need to be thrown out.
You’ve not shown me wrong even one fucking time, whereas several of your wild claims have been disproven at this point, even though you’re curiously almost never able to fess up to it when it happens. Let’s see …
