[geocentrism] Re: Virtual/created reality?
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 07:59:24 +1000
Paint shop Pro is an excellent program. I have played with altering pics at
times. You can actually move and duplicate pixels. For example an object on the
floor can be replaced with pixels from the surrounding floor. Not covered,
replaced... as if it never was there. The mind boggles...A picture is no longer
a gaurantee of the reality.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 12:46 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] 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
Other related posts:
