I could make a ironic answer to the comment of gandharva, but i better leave it be… mostly ppl that make such comment are either hater or envy about the person they critizise….
1. He was doing a shakedown later in the day.
I am perfectly aware of what filters do. The point of camouflage however is to make it harder to differentiate between real contours and painted ones, hence the complex structure they use. The point being; from a cameras perspective and on the resulting picture, the real curvature of the surfaces are harder to distinguish within the painted pattern. Using fancy filters will not help that. Your provided picture isn't really relevant here, as we aren't talking about masking water and nature. Long point short, your proposed IR filters will not magically make the camo pattern disappear.GrandAxe wrote: ↑13 Feb 2019, 02:21Your argument is thoroughly illogical.
I've included a photo taken in both natural and infrared light. The whole point of using filters to screen out various wavelengths is that colours show up differently, but depth remains constant. So you can simply subtract the parts that change while keeping the parts that don't, leaving contours only - basically a depth map - in that way, you can remove the camouflage.
Light, shade, reflection etc can be manipulated in any photo, except it consists of a single colour (like white or black) only.
Filters can be electronic, code, bog standard gel filters etc. Instead of tasteless James Bond jokes, you should at least read up on subjects you aren't familiar with.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _vs_IR.jpg
Credit https://en.wikipedia.org
I never said infrared filters would make the camo disappear, rather I provided the steps to follow to remove the camo, leaving a depth map behind. You have not addressed any of those steps, which makes it impossible for me to know exactly what you disagree with.Phil wrote: ↑15 Feb 2019, 11:56I am perfectly aware of what filters do. The point of camouflage however is to make it harder to differentiate between real contours and painted ones, hence the complex structure they use. The point being; from a cameras perspective and on the resulting picture, the real curvature of the surfaces are harder to distinguish within the painted pattern. Using fancy filters will not help that. Your provided picture isn't really relevant here, as we aren't talking about masking water and nature. Long point short, your proposed IR filters will not magically make the camo pattern disappear.GrandAxe wrote: ↑13 Feb 2019, 02:21Your argument is thoroughly illogical.
I've included a photo taken in both natural and infrared light. The whole point of using filters to screen out various wavelengths is that colours show up differently, but depth remains constant. So you can simply subtract the parts that change while keeping the parts that don't, leaving contours only - basically a depth map - in that way, you can remove the camouflage.
Light, shade, reflection etc can be manipulated in any photo, except it consists of a single colour (like white or black) only.
Filters can be electronic, code, bog standard gel filters etc. Instead of tasteless James Bond jokes, you should at least read up on subjects you aren't familiar with.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _vs_IR.jpg
Credit https://en.wikipedia.org
Seeing as he was quoted speaking at the launch, I’m guessing the letterNathanOlder wrote: ↑17 Feb 2019, 17:44https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/31120/me ... 2018-.html
Seems like Allison thinks they have solved their biggest problem of 2018. The tyre woes Mercedes have suffered. Have they managed to see results just in a filming day? Or do they know exactly what was needed and think they have it sorted now.
Well, that is surprising!Sevach wrote: ↑19 Feb 2019, 10:21https://www.mercedesamgf1.com/en/merced ... ng-begins/
Hamilton thinks the new car handles very differently...
which compound? C3?GPR -A wrote: ↑19 Feb 2019, 15:53Tyre degradation after 25 laps. Started with 1m21.5xxx and ended in 1m23.8xx.
https://i.imgur.com/JmdAFKR.png
Yes.siskue2005 wrote: ↑19 Feb 2019, 16:42which compound? C3?GPR -A wrote: ↑19 Feb 2019, 15:53Tyre degradation after 25 laps. Started with 1m21.5xxx and ended in 1m23.8xx.
https://i.imgur.com/JmdAFKR.png
Wrong thread, starting with a 1:21 means they're ~3/4ths of a tank.GPR -A wrote: ↑19 Feb 2019, 16:53Yes.siskue2005 wrote: ↑19 Feb 2019, 16:42which compound? C3?GPR -A wrote: ↑19 Feb 2019, 15:53Tyre degradation after 25 laps. Started with 1m21.5xxx and ended in 1m23.8xx.
https://i.imgur.com/JmdAFKR.png