[creation] Re: Virtual/created reality?

  • From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:59:34 +0000 (GMT)

I'm very happy with how this group has started, Marshall, and this posting from 
Jack is well pitched.
(For those who haven't already been there, Marshall has some detailed and 
interesting material on his website regarding the enormous amount that NASA 
spends on virtual reality -
www.fixedearth.com )
Marshall <fefinc@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Good response on this important subject, Neville!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Lewis" 
To: ; 
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 9:46 AM
Subject: [creation] Virtual/created reality?

> Dear Forum Members,
> This item may be of interest to many of you especially Neville. I have
scanned in a number of letters sent to New Scientist about concern regarding
real/simulated data in the media and how to tell the difference.
> Simulation signals
> From Chris James
> I strongly agree with Easter Russell (8 January, p 25). There should be a
media code of practice requiring that all simulations, artist's impressions
and so on are clearly marked as such. How authentic are the pictures of
Titan we are being shown from Huygens? New Scientist could set a good
example by stating when its pictures are not real - for example, that of
comet Tempel i on p 28 of the same issue. Eastleigh, Hampshire, UK
> From Roger Taylor
> I agree completely with Russell, and the sooner the better. Modern imaging
technology is so powerful, and presumably will become more so, that it could
lead to all manner of fraud and deception, and ultimately to an Orwellian
rewriting of history. This is not something we should tempt our politicians
with. Meols, Cheshire, UK
> From Peter Strickland
> It is a mistake to think of films or photographs as real. When you take
into account the choices that go into what to point the camera at and when
to film, there is an enormous amount of subjectivity involved. Then there
are choices about zoom, focus and aperture, which all affect what is seen
and how it is portrayed. And then, of course, the resulting film or
photograph will be edited, which will involve various digitally applied
modifications, and, in film, choices about timing, sequences and so on. The
difference between photography and digital imagery is more of a perceived
idea about authenticity than any practical difference. Leeds, UK
> From Stu Witner
> Once begun, where does one stop, I wonder? For example, all images from
the Hubble Space Telescope are "simulated" in that the colours are computer
generated. The colours are not only beautiful but enable researchers to
learn much more from them than if they were "real".
> Then there is the philosophical argument, "what is truth?", not to mention
the obvious public taste for drama over reality. I'm afraid Russell may be
tilting at windmills, 21st-century style. Seattle, Washington, US
> There was also an amusing cartoon which I shall have to describe in the
absence of a method for posting.
> It shows an office with a sign saying 'ECONOMY SPACE PROGRAMMES INC.' and
an assitant showing round a bemedalled, uniformed 'top brass' type
character. In the office is an artist painting and a lady sitting at a piece
of electronic equipment. The assistant is saying to the visitor,
> "Ron does lurid images and Sue does crackly sound effects".
> I wonder if any of these people have seen the video (available from myself
on a CD) 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon'. Check out
Neville's website, he has beaten the letter writers to it!
> Jack
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.1 - Release Date: 1/27/2005

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.1 - Release Date: 1/27/2005

 ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  

Other related posts: