2046 wrote:Dear Oragahn,
I am done with you, because, after this thread and having re-read the other, I cannot escape the opinion that you make SDN'ers look like paragons of virtue and reason.
Ah, I'm a waste of your time but you enjoy rereading the
other thread as well?
Examples:
A. The Gradient Issue
There is no gradient issue, and it's totally irrelevant to the problem at hand.
Background: Comparison of equivalent shots of the out-the-Senate-window view and the Palpatine office view make it clear that the Senate scene sky suffers from a much higher color and luminosity gradient . . . i.e. that the sky isn't as bright where the sun's coming up. Ergo, it is earlier on a separate sunrise event.
This is most absurd.
The first shot shows less of the background than the one from the corridor. So of course there's going to be less gradient.
1. When you tried to use images where the background did not match up as evidence for your cause, I called you on it, noting that you were using a zoomed piece of sky instead of an equal portion. Yet you claim that my complaint about your picture-mixing was based on irrelevant building proportions, instead of field-of-view, despite having already been corrected on this point.
Well, obviously you're not getting it either.
The building comparison pic I posted in my former message is made from two different shots, one the being from Palpatine's office, the other from the corridor.
I didn't zoom on any of them (until I precisely zoomed on a pan of the window facade to illustrate the difference of brightness).
2. When finally forced to acknowledge the gradient issue, you again engage in field-of-view hucksterism. Whereas before you were trying to compare the Senate's ~20 degree field of view with another picture showing ~40, now you're attempting to equate a ~120 degree field of view with the existing ~20, and claiming there's "no difference".
I never acknowledged the gradient issue because there is none. I precisely showed, on the contrary, that there's as much gradient on the external senate shot as there is on different shots from Palpatine's office.
Again:
There's just as much gradient here than seen from the corridor. These are your own pictures btw.
That's from your own pictures.
B. The Tinted Window Assumption
Theory with evidence.
Background: You claim that the Senate walkway windows must be tinted for brightness and color, and that if untinted they would show the same sunrise. (Of course this ignores the gradient issue, et al., but whatever.)
The gradient is totally irrelevant. I didn't compare the horizon colour, I compared the building's windows. It's a pity that for a guy writing hundreds of pages of nitpicky detailing, you miss such a simple fact.
As evidence you point to our view of the windows of other buildings, assuming that the light coming out of them must be of equal brightness.
1. You have complained about the fact that the two separate shots from Palpatine's office featuring a slightly different focus level on the background result in different window brightnesses on the same building.
It does, as anyone can see above. Blurring bright pixels next to darker pixels will create a darker overall result.
I used the two shots which offer the same level of granulosity for the same building.
However, you fail to apply this reasoning to the Senate scene, instead assuming that the focus level must be perfectly equal to the image showing the brightest windows. For this you provide no evidence, instead simply showing modified images.
On the contrary, I precisely applied this to the senate scene. From my former post:
"3. The buildings which can be studied are far in the background, and the background in question is blurred, which means pixel colouration overloaps, and there can't be noticeable clear edges. "
Which pretty much helps me, because any blur will make the pink edges harder to notice. Due to the blur (which is technically a depth of field related effect), each original pixel has been vomiting its colours on the adjacent pixels, so the final result is, well, a blurred picture with mixed colours.
However, you once again employ the focus level argument in regards to the Senate night shot when it hurts your view. Why the selective approach? The answer is obvious.
As seen above, I wasn't selective, it's just you who couldn't read properly, and it actually
helped me.
2. When shown all three images (as above, since I quoted them) in response to your mention of the tinted window claim, you instead chose to quote only the use of two images (as in (A) above) which were specifically regarding the gradient issue, claim I was using them regarding the tinted windows, and from this anti-contextual basis you claimed that I had been dishonest.
Gradient: irrelevant.
Building's windows: relevant.
On that basis I correctly called you a liar in my reply, having been forced to that point by your frequent and repeated dishonesty in the thread. Yet in your response you claim to have quoted me "precisely", claiming I "cleverly" hid the other image to engage in my "glaring lie". Yet even in your own "precise" quotation my context is obvious to anyone.
Just to you and your misconceptions, I'm afraid.
It's obvious from what I already posted that you were very confused about what was going on.
C. The Senate by Moonlight
Background: In the establishing shot of the Senate, we are clearly able to see that we are dealing with a moonlit night. Only a hint of purple on the clouds on the right, which I noted circa 2003, gives us the suggestion that dawn may be approaching. (This suggestion is picked up on by the interior shots, which show that there's more than a hint in other directions.)
1. You consistently ignore the fact that despite the twilight illumination of buildings even toward the west of Palpatine's office (as visible in the southwest view), the Senate and surrounding buildings are comparatively dark. Your continuing excuse for this . . . one of many utterly astonishing claims you've made . . . is that the twilight illumination cannot be seen due to brighter light sources washing out the pink glow. This you maintain despite the aforementioned fact that the buildings are
darker.
Uh-huh. The light disruption argument was applied to the senate building alone, which as you can notice (on the
large picture), is also significantly lit by artificial light sources.
2. You consistently ignore the fact that the Senate exterior view is lit only by moonlight and ground-level sources, whereas we can see from Palpatine's office that the ground in that scene is lit in the pinkish-purple hues of twilight, as occurs on the ground here on Earth. Presumably the moonlight represents one of your brighter light sources . . . but what, then, of the dark ground?
To which I told you to pay close attention to the buildings on the right side of
this picture.
Use photoshop or whatever pleases you, and check the RGB values.
Despite the pixel blur and colour soup, the blurred facades are eitehr brown or purple (when not looking at the pixels which correspond to pans highlighted from below).
You can notice in the image below, that it's particularily
hard to spot pink edges on the buildings as well, despite the far greater level of detail we get. You'll also notice that the facades are just as dark as those seen in the senate shot.
It's only when there's a
more detailed shot of the background that we can notice the very
thin edges and light reflexions on
some windows of a
few buildings.
It's therefore particularily wrong to argue that the external shot doesn't provide enough evidence, when the level of detail is simply poor to do such a thing.
That said, we can still look at
this picture (for some reason, Kane's pictures have more vivid and clear colours than yours, and I very doubt he bothered repainting the horizon pixel by pixel), and we can see that when adjusting for the tinted windows, the colours are there as well, gradient, pinkness, and all that.
3. Despite your claim (regarding office scene building illumination only) that numerous Coruscanti buildings are self-illuminated with floodlights or other light sources illuminating their facades, you have pointed to a lone structure in the moonlight that has a lavender glow, ignoring the fact that all the other buildings are rather dark, and you have therefore claimed that a bright dawn equivalent to what is seen outside Palpatine's office exists.
Again, I thought it was rather clear that due to my abundant mention of the senate building alone, I was talking about the senate building.
As I said above, the other buildings, despite their blurriness, have colourations corresponding to the colouration of the buildings seen in Palpatine's office.
D. Palpatine's Office
Background: While some of this has been covered already, the simple fact is that out of Palpatine's office we see a pre-dawn twilight sky, with clouds and buildings and even ground lit in keeping with what one would expect based on Earth dawns.
1. As noted elsewhere, you ignore most of the twilight lighting of buildings, since this is devastating to your attempt to equate the two dawns. Specifically, though, you ignore the
buildings lit by twilight to the southwest, which universally show more incident lighting than their
Senate-exterior counterparts. You even claim that the building "behind the creature's right eye" is "very dark" on its walls, which is obviously false.
As noted elsewhere, there's one real unaltered production shot that provides
a bit of a sample for study, and it's the senate shot. Just how many times I will to stress on the fact that the buildings in the background are blurry and lack the necessary detail for an objective, fair and honest comparison, and yet despite the sample's loss of quality, we can still observe similarities in colouration.
The only shot from that time (if we assume it's two different dawns) which is detailed enough is the corridor, and as proven, this one is not proper either, due to the window tint.
2. You also choose to ignore the fact that approximately one-third of the sky is brightened in the pre-dawn, excepting of course to try to use that fact in the aforementioned field-of-view hucksterism.
In what shot? How does it relate to the question?
E. Errata
Background: You've made a number of just plain damn peculiar claims in this thread.
1. For instance, regarding the Empire State Building pictures . . . one in which the building walls are dark along with the sky, and another in which the walls are showing the rosy tint of the sun just below the horizon . . . you claim that the pictures actually help you, because they are more "extreme" than the Coruscant scenes.
Yes they are more extreme, but only slightly.
Ah, ok, so they are
slightly extreme. ... >_>
The difference is simply
huge, in comparison to the AOTC shots.
I suppose you're not moved at all by the fact that in the
second picture, the sky behind the building is actually very bright. Just imagine, there, the brightness of the light source.
Even the brightest AOTC shot doesn't even remotely close to that.
2. You claim it is not silly to have argued that photons will come to a dead stop in mid-sky, yet simultaneously you claim that you don't argue that.
No. What is silly is building idiotic strawmen. I never pretended that photons will come to a dead stop in mid-sky, only that clouds took most of the light, notably due to their altitude, and that the light they'de diffuse would, obviously, be far less concentrated. It was just pointing out the obvious, to show how we shouldn't expect any extreme colouration, considering that only a small portion of the sky is pink, even in the office shots.
3. Regarding the Vancouver panorama you claim there is a pink glow somewhere offscreen, a claim for which you provide no worthwhile evidence.
Oh, it's a very bright pink bordering on white.
We can see this, especially on the third building in that composition below:
Check the third building. Tell me the very bright reflexion on the windows is a figment of my imagination. It's the only building with its windows properly orientated to return most of the light towards the camera.
Even more interesting is to look at the snowy peaks behind, which, as you probably know since you go outside more than anybody else, are rather white and of course very luminous when hit by sunlight, and you also know that they're higher than the buildings. Yet, they are particularily dark, despite the pointed out bright light source.
All in all, I call your wavings pure denial.
Sidepoint: that city looks ace. Must add it to list of cities I have to visit.
You also choose to ignore the fact that the buildings are illuminated in the twilight conditions, instead claiming that they are insufficiently illuminated when compared to your illusory pink glow somewhere offscreen. And then you audaciously attempt to appropriate the gradient argument, strangely trying to apply it to domed structures in Vancouver where there is no cause for gradients to exist, except in your pink glow fantasy.
The lack of reason for a distinctive gradient to exist on the dome would precisely help me, as it would mean that there couldn't be a side of the dome coloured with a given hue, and the rest of the dome coloured with a progressive change of colours (gradient).
If I were you, I would rather argue that there should be a gradient and a pink hue on the side of the senate's dome, and the say ha, there's none, so there.
Which you don't, which makes my job easier.
But aside from the proved existence of the bright light source over the horizon, let's look at Vancouver's dome in detail, and see how the natural gradient is "disrupted" and how the dome largely reflects the sky above, not what's on the horizon:
F. Conclusions
There is much more to go into . . . long as it is, the above constitutes merely a short overview of your follies.
Shortening still further, the simple fact is that you are trying to ignore obvious and basic facts which are clear to anyone who has been outside in their lives in order to support your preferred conclusion. It's not like we're discussing quantum physics or subspace dynamics or interplanetary economic structures in the early Republic era . . . it's a fucking sunrise, and you just don't get it.
As noted previously, you have a deep and seemingly unrecoverable problem with issues of spatial orientation, light angles, buildings, atmosphere, and so on, and though I've tried to figure out where the flaws in your thinking come from (i.e. looking at too much bad CGI, thinking planets are much smaller than they are, not recognizing the depth of the atmosphere, et cetera), the simple fact is that the flaws are too numerous and interrelated . . . and their presentation too annoying . . . for me to untangle.
It is clear that you refuse to be educated further . . . nor is it my job to try. You are invested and entrenched in your ignorance, and willing to use a great deal of intellectual and direct dishonesty to maintain it.
Perhaps the most annoying thing is that I've allowed you to waste a great deal of my time. This was my error . . . a hope that you would, literally and figuratively, see the light. However, hopefully someone who might've initially been snookered by your attempts to mislead and obfuscate has come to realize how full of shit your argument has been.
But of course, had they simply read my page to begin with, without a liar trying to mislead them about it in the first place, such would not have been necessary.
In your inevitable response, you will undoubtedly engage in further attempts to mislead, not to mention continuing your attempts to misrepresent my self-opinion. Though pitiful, such dishonesties are par for the course for a natural-fit-SDN'er like yourself.
Feeling better?
