[4x10] OM's Quick-n-Dirty Panorama of Earth Skyline & Bridge
OM
http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld/images/blog/06-08/BSG4x10/BSG-Earth-rawPano-4x10.jpg
...There's been no color and/or contrast correction, sharpening, edge
blending, or any parallax correction, but it'll give you kids the big
picture of what the landing party saw, as well as the bridge
everyone's speculating on. I may, if time permits, go back and make a
cleaner knit of the frames, as I saved it as a PSD file with layers
entact. In any case, enjoy what speculation fodder this image
supplies!
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Hunter
says...
> ...Here's a quick-n-dirty panorama I did of the skyline from 4x10:
>
> http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld/images/blog/06-08/BSG4x10/BSG-Earth-rawPano-4x10.jpg
>
> ...There's been no color and/or contrast correction, sharpening, edge
> blending, or any parallax correction, but it'll give you kids the big
> picture of what the landing party saw, as well as the bridge
> everyone's speculating on. I may, if time permits, go back and make a
> cleaner knit of the frames, as I saved it as a PSD file with layers
> entact. In any case, enjoy what speculation fodder this image
> supplies!
>
>
> OM
>
Looks good! But the perspective seems to be off. What I think is the coast of
Manhattan looks too far comparing your rendering to my tape of the scene. Otherwise
very good! Looking forward to you tweaking it.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
BaJoRi
"OM" <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote in message
news:o8ee541us8aebq4t9...@4ax.com...
> ...Here's a quick-n-dirty panorama I did of the skyline from 4x10:
>
> http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld/images/blog/06-08/BSG4x10/BSG-Earth-rawPano-4x10.jpg
>
> ...There's been no color and/or contrast correction, sharpening, edge
> blending, or any parallax correction, but it'll give you kids the big
> picture of what the landing party saw, as well as the bridge
> everyone's speculating on. I may, if time permits, go back and make a
> cleaner knit of the frames, as I saved it as a PSD file with layers
> entact. In any case, enjoy what speculation fodder this image
> supplies!
This brings up an interesting point: could they, in fact, be looking across
the river at New Jersey, and if they just turned around they would see a
bustling Big Apple?
ruthless
<bajor...@aol.com> wrote:
Well, that part of NJ looks pretty much like that today...
OM
>This brings up an interesting point: could they, in fact, be looking across
>the river at New Jersey, and if they just turned around they would see a
>bustling Big Apple?
...I can see it now:
Adama: "Earth. Was this what we fought and died for?"
Roslin: "Oh my Gods. Bill...what is *that* behind us?"
[Camera pans behind Landing Party, then zooms out and back to reveal a
giant, two-hundred story Macintosh Classic standing on two accordion
legs. The screen has a picture of Steve Jobs with a big evil grin on
his face, as befits a madman who destroyed a planet because he could
not own it.]
Joseph D. Korman
> ...Here's a quick-n-dirty panorama I did of the skyline from 4x10:
>
> http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld/images/blog/06-08/BSG4x10/BSG-Earth-rawPano-4x10.jpg
>
> ...There's been no color and/or contrast correction, sharpening, edge
> blending, or any parallax correction, but it'll give you kids the big
> picture of what the landing party saw, as well as the bridge
> everyone's speculating on. I may, if time permits, go back and make a
> cleaner knit of the frames, as I saved it as a PSD file with layers
> entact. In any case, enjoy what speculation fodder this image
> supplies!
>
>
> OM
Thanks. This composite completely rules out Brooklyn to Manhattan or
Manhattan to Brooklyn. It appears that we are looking across to an
island. If that's Manhattan, the only place we could be viewing from is
Governors Island, but there's no bridge of any kind off that Island. In
addition, GI is very small compared to Brooklyn or Manhattan, they
wouldn't have landed there.
See Google Earth:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.693785,-74.016781&spn=0.040088,0.067034&t=h&z=14
You can see that if the view is looking from Brooklyn toward Manhattan,
we could see the mouth of the Hudson River to the left, but Manhattan
would be continuously visible to the right, not more water.
If the view is looking from Manhattan to Brooklyn there would be no
water visible on either far side, just continuous land.
And no it's not New Jersey near New York, the George Washington Bridge
is way uptown and the view would not show water on both sides of the far
shore. For that matter, this rules out Camden to Philadelphia (Ben
Franklin Br) for the same reason.
So where are we?
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
RT
> OM wrote:
>
> > ...Here's a quick-n-dirty panorama I did of the skyline from 4x10:
> >
> > http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld/images/blog/06-08/BSG4x10/BSG-Earth-rawPano-4x10.jpg
> >
> > ...There's been no color and/or contrast correction, sharpening, edge
> > blending, or any parallax correction, but it'll give you kids the big
> > picture of what the landing party saw, as well as the bridge
> > everyone's speculating on. I may, if time permits, go back and make a
> > cleaner knit of the frames, as I saved it as a PSD file with layers
> > entact. In any case, enjoy what speculation fodder this image
> > supplies!
> >
> Manhattan to Brooklyn. It appears that we are looking across to an
> island. If that's Manhattan, the only place we could be viewing from is
> Governors Island, but there's no bridge of any kind off that Island. In
> addition, GI is very small compared to Brooklyn or Manhattan, they
> wouldn't have landed there.
>
> See Google Earth:
>
> http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.693785,-74.016781&spn=0.040088,0.067034&t=h&z=14
>
> You can see that if the view is looking from Brooklyn toward Manhattan,
> we could see the mouth of the Hudson River to the left, but Manhattan
> would be continuously visible to the right, not more water.
>
> If the view is looking from Manhattan to Brooklyn there would be no
> water visible on either far side, just continuous land.
>
> And no it's not New Jersey near New York, the George Washington Bridge
> is way uptown and the view would not show water on both sides of the far
> shore. For that matter, this rules out Camden to Philadelphia (Ben
> Franklin Br) for the same reason.
>
> So where are we?
This pic provided by Bo Raxo (thanks!)
http://pics.livejournal.com/proggrrl/pic/00030z15
There is no masonry/stonework visible in the BSG side.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/BrooklynBridgeSchematic.jpg
Note in the above link that the juncture with the road level shows further
support work (also visible in Bo's picture).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Bridge#Construction
...
The towers are built of limestone, granite, and Rosendale cement.
...
so that rules out structural steel for the BB. So this isn't the BB. Get over it,
people.
OM
<joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>So where are we?
...They landed on Marvel Universe Earth 616, where Manhattan has been
backwards since Hercules dragged it back after it had been stolen in
an issue of "The Champions" back in the mid-70s. That's why nothing
seems to fit, and one of the Gods of Kobol is responsible for another
frackup :-)
Hunter
It's Blackened like everything else? How can you tell?
>
> Note in the above link that the juncture with the road level shows further
> support work (also visible in Bo's picture).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Bridge#Construction
> ...
> The towers are built of limestone, granite, and Rosendale cement.
> ...
>
> so that rules out structural steel for the BB. So this isn't the BB. Get over it,
> people.
As I said, it is blackend. You can't tell what it is made out of in its state. Ever
seen a scorched brownstone or equivalent? I am going by the form that looks very
familiar. Hell, everything there is blackened. I don't recognize the circular
structure besides the Tower but this was probably New York of the 22nd century.
Anyway, if it *isn't* New York, I will be the first to admit it, but at least you
will know why from my previous posts. We got about six to seven months-unless the
webisodes spill the beans then we will have about five months to wait.
Brad Templeton
RT <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>> And no it's not New Jersey near New York, the George Washington Bridge
>> is way uptown and the view would not show water on both sides of the far
>> shore. For that matter, this rules out Camden to Philadelphia (Ben
>> Franklin Br) for the same reason.
>>
>> So where are we?
>
>This pic provided by Bo Raxo (thanks!)
>
>http://pics.livejournal.com/proggrrl/pic/00030z15
>
>There is no masonry/stonework visible in the BSG side.
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/BrooklynBridgeSchematic.jpg
>
>Note in the above link that the juncture with the road level shows further
>support work (also visible in Bo's picture).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Bridge#Construction
> ...
> The towers are built of limestone, granite, and Rosendale cement.
> ...
>
>so that rules out structural steel for the BB. So this isn't the BB. Get over it,
>people.
Correct. The Brooklyn Bridge was built before reinforced concrete
became used in the USA.
Also any steel rods exposed to the elements would be rust pretty
quickly. Either they goofed or this is supposed to be recent
destruction.
Note that the bridge with the reinforcing rods coming out would be the
Manhattan bridge, which was built in the early 20th century and perhaps
has reinforced concrete -- anybody know for sure?
--
Support "Canadians for Global Warming"
http://www.templetons.com/brad/cfgw.jpg
Joseph D. Korman
The main towers of the Manhattan bridge are steel. The base of the
towers are a bit over the waterline.
Same for the Williamsburg bridge in case anyone asks.
Bash
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:39:08 -0400, "Joseph D. Korman"
>
> <joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >So where are we?
>
> ...They landed on Marvel Universe Earth 616, where Manhattan has been
> backwards since Hercules dragged it back after it had been stolen in
> an issue of "The Champions" back in the mid-70s. That's why nothing
> seems to fit, and one of the Gods of Kobol is responsible for another
> frackup :-)
Or it's Ceti Alpha 5...... ;-)
With a bit of star drift thrown in for good measure......
OM
wrote:
>Anyway, if it *isn't* New York, I will be the first to admit it, but at least you
>will know why from my previous posts. We got about six to seven months-unless the
>webisodes spill the beans then we will have about five months to wait.
...Actually, while I haven't done any more tweaking to those caps -
and to be honest I'll probably wait for the DVD so I can get better
quality frame grabs - I did notice one thing that pretty much rules
out this being New York City. Kids, there wasn't one bit of graffitti
to be seen. Not one scrawl or tag. Not even a "Mets Are Bums".
OM
Templeton) wrote:
>Correct. The Brooklyn Bridge was built before reinforced concrete
>became used in the USA.
>
>Also any steel rods exposed to the elements would be rust pretty
>quickly. Either they goofed or this is supposed to be recent
>destruction.
...Any New Yankees out there have any stats on how often those
rust-prone elements have to be serviced and/or replaced in this
respect?
Bash
> and to be honest I'll probably wait for the DVD so I can get better
> quality frame grabs - I did notice one thing that pretty much rules
> out this being New York City. Kids, there wasn't one bit of graffitti
> to be seen. Not one scrawl or tag. Not even a "Mets Are Bums".
>
> OM
> --
> ]=====================================[
> ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
> ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
> ]=====================================[
I lined up the view on Google Earth versus the last frame before the
credits - and no I'm not convinced this is New York at all.
What I do know is that it's gonna be a long 6 month wait......
Bry
Mac Cool
> so that rules out structural steel for the BB. So this isn't the BB.
> Get over it, people.
I'm not saying it is the BB but I wouldn't give that much credit to the
special effects companies. It's unlikely they would know that bit of
trivia, especially since they are on the west coast.
GMAN
>....Here's a quick-n-dirty panorama I did of the skyline from 4x10:
>
>http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld/images/blog/06-08/BSG4x10/BSG-Earth-rawPano-4x10
>.jpg
>
>....There's been no color and/or contrast correction, sharpening, edge
>blending, or any parallax correction, but it'll give you kids the big
>picture of what the landing party saw, as well as the bridge
>everyone's speculating on. I may, if time permits, go back and make a
>cleaner knit of the frames, as I saved it as a PSD file with layers
>entact. In any case, enjoy what speculation fodder this image
>supplies!
>
>
> OM
RT
> In article <4859EF42...@hotmMOVEail.com>, traR...@hotmMOVEail.com says...
> > "Joseph D. Korman" wrote:
> > > OM wrote:
> > >
> > > > ...Here's a quick-n-dirty panorama I did of the skyline from 4x10:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld/images/blog/06-08/BSG4x10/BSG-Earth-rawPano-4x10.jpg
> > > >
> > > > ...There's been no color and/or contrast correction, sharpening, edge
> > > > blending, or any parallax correction, but it'll give you kids the big
> > > > picture of what the landing party saw, as well as the bridge
> > > > everyone's speculating on. I may, if time permits, go back and make a
> > > > cleaner knit of the frames, as I saved it as a PSD file with layers
> > > > entact. In any case, enjoy what speculation fodder this image
> > > > supplies!
> >
> > This pic provided by Bo Raxo (thanks!)
> >
> > http://pics.livejournal.com/proggrrl/pic/00030z15
> >
> > There is no masonry/stonework visible in the BSG side.
> >
> > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/BrooklynBridgeSchematic.jpg
>
It's clear enough to see there's no masonry texture.
> > Note in the above link that the juncture with the road level shows further
> > support work (also visible in Bo's picture).
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Bridge#Construction
> > ...
> > The towers are built of limestone, granite, and Rosendale cement.
> > ...
> >
> > so that rules out structural steel for the BB. So this isn't the BB. Get over it,
> > people.
>
> As I said, it is blackend. You can't tell what it is made out of in its state. Ever
> seen a scorched brownstone or equivalent? I am going by the form that looks very
> familiar. Hell, everything there is blackened. I don't recognize the circular
> structure besides the Tower but this was probably New York of the 22nd century.
A blast as powerful as hit the city in that panorama would blow away, or nearly blow
away, a structure without any structural steel. This bridge shows evidence of
some. Plus, look at the schematic for the BB. The base of the reall BB would be much
much wider. Not too mention three support columns in the real BB, and the one
in the panorama only has two.
RT
> RT <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> >> And no it's not New Jersey near New York, the George Washington Bridge
> >> is way uptown and the view would not show water on both sides of the far
> >> shore. For that matter, this rules out Camden to Philadelphia (Ben
> >> Franklin Br) for the same reason.
> >>
> >> So where are we?
> >
> >This pic provided by Bo Raxo (thanks!)
> >
> >http://pics.livejournal.com/proggrrl/pic/00030z15
> >
> >There is no masonry/stonework visible in the BSG side.
> >
> > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/BrooklynBridgeSchematic.jpg
> >
> >Note in the above link that the juncture with the road level shows further
> >support work (also visible in Bo's picture).
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Bridge#Construction
> > ...
> > The towers are built of limestone, granite, and Rosendale cement.
> > ...
> >
> >so that rules out structural steel for the BB. So this isn't the BB. Get over it,
> >people.
>
> Correct. The Brooklyn Bridge was built before reinforced concrete
> became used in the USA.
>
> Also any steel rods exposed to the elements would be rust pretty
> quickly. Either they goofed or this is supposed to be recent
> destruction.
Or, it isn't steel but some other material.