• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Planes Filmed Standing Still In The Air

In this case there are multiple factors that are tricking the viewer's eye into believing the plane may be standing still.

First ... Look at the very beginning of the video. You'll see that the car isn't traveling in a straight line relative to the plane's apparent path. There's a sweeping curve to the right. This means the perspective of the camera is to some extent "circling" the plane's path and hence eliminating the viewer's ability to judge the plane's progress along a linear trajectory.

Second ... The scene has woodland in the ground-level foreground. Whatever ground reference points may lie directly beneath the plane are obscured, so the viewer cannot judge whether the plane is moving relative to the ground beneath it.

Third ... The camera angle changes from "out front to the right" (relative to the car) to "off to starboard." This shift makes it impossible to tell how far the plane may be traveling relative to the car or any other fixed reference point. This is further enforced by the way the image is framed to remain fixed on the plane with little peripheral imagery by which to judge its orientation or movement.

Fourth ... As noted earlier, the plane is descending (as evidenced by its growing visually larger). In addition, the plane is maintaining an orientation relative to the camera that suggests it isn't tracking away from the car as the car proceeds around the curve. I suspect this means the plane isn't really flying parallel to the road, and it may well be tracking or turning slightly to its right / starboard (i.e., toward the road; perhaps to cross the road).
 
Last edited:
(CGI of birds standing still in mid-air.
kamalktk: Please make a point to introduce / contextualize any external links you post.)


 
Last edited by a moderator:
In this case there are multiple factors that are tricking the viewer's eye into believing the plane may be standing still.

First ... Look at the very beginning of the video. You'll see that the car isn't traveling in a straight line relative to the plane's apparent path. There's a sweeping curve to the right. This means the perspective of the camera is to some extent "circling" the plane's path and hence eliminating the viewer's ability to judge the plane's progress along a linear trajectory.

Second ... The scene has woodland in the ground-level foreground. Whatever ground reference points may lie directly beneath the plane are obscured, so the viewer cannot judge whether the plane is moving relative to the ground beneath it.

Third ... The camera angle changes from "out front to the right" (relative to the car) to "off to starboard." This shift makes it impossible to tell how far the plane may be traveling relative to the car or any other fixed reference point. This is further enforced by the way the image is framed to remain fixed on the plane with little peripheral imagery by which to judge its orientation or movement.

Fourth ... As noted earlier, the plane is descending (as evidenced by its growing visually larger). In addition, the plane is maintaining an orientation relative to the camera that suggests it isn't tracking away from the car as the car proceeds around the curve. I suspect this means the plane isn't really flying parallel to the road, and it may well be tracking or turning slightly to its right / starboard (i.e., toward the road; perhaps to cross the road).
I travel frequently under the flightpath of an airport as planes are coming in to land and often see this effect. With no reference points if you are looking into the sky, it can be quite a strange effect. If you park up and watch of course you see the plane's trajectory quite clearly.
 
People trust their eyes far too much. I remember staring at stars at night and wondering why some of them were moving in a circle. They weren't, it was my pupil. They oscillate to aid with depth perception. That's how, with one eye, I have reasonable depth perception from infinity to about ten feet away. You only use the crossover between two eyes for close in stuff. Which means I can do archery on an 'unmarked' course (where you don't know the distance to the target) but can't play tennis or cricket. (And I've tried hard at the latter - can't bat, can't catch, can spin the ball a bit.

Aside: When I was in my earlier years at senor school and being bullied - and of course not telling anyone about it - our English teacher, a Mr Webster, found out about my love of cricket and spent many hours with me seeing if I could overcome the problem with practice and technique. Couldn't be done, so he made me team scorer. That gave me some pride in the middle of a whole world of pain.
 
Back
Top