B-29s Battle Nicks

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:07 pm

Both sides have their fangs out!

MattP38 · **Joined:** Sat May 20, 2006 7:36 pm **Posts:** 273

I take it there is a bit of a depth perception to that photo, as the Nick looks like a Gee Bee in that picture. Granted it was smaller than the B-29, but not that small.

muddyboots · **Posted:** Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:47 pm

telephoto lenses tend to flatten an image out. Use a eep enough depth of field and it would do that.

JDK · **Posted:** Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:58 pm

muddyboots wrote:

telephoto lenses tend to flatten an image out. Use a eep enough depth of field and it would do that.

Problem is it's clearly between us and the B-29; therefore it has to be closer.

A quick check shows the B-29 was 99ft long, the Nick 36ft, or roughly just over 1/3 of the length of a B-29. (30 metres to 11 metres in Metric.) As it can't be behind that B-29; it has to be 1/3 or more (depending on how close to the photographer) the length of the B-29. A rough measurement on the screen shows it to be significantly less than 1/3 the length. Most puzzling.

I don't think it's a fake image (too messy for that, IMHO) but there's something I don't get about it.

muddyboots · **Posted:** Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:04 pm

Erm...If the twin engine is closer to the camera than the B29, and the telephoto is flattening the image out, the twin engine is gonna look bigger...Both are being shot in perspective at the distance they really are, only they're scrunched up together by the telephoto...

50mm

70mm

Note the stakes seem bigger relative to the lettuce in the background. Both images are shot from the same perspective, but the stakes seem bigger because they are closer. The lettuce seems the same because it's the true focal point.

MattP38 · **Joined:** Sat May 20, 2006 7:36 pm **Posts:** 273

muddyboots wrote:

Erm...If the single engine is closer to the camera than the B29, and the telephot is flattening the image out, the single engine is gonna look bigger...Both are being shot in perspective at the distance tehy really are, only they're scrunched up together by the telephoto...

50mm

70mm

You make a good point. The Nick is a twin, though

http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/ArmyJB&W/Ki45-3.jpg

muddyboots · **Posted:** Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:07 pm

*slaps self*
I can see it now. Edited for clarity.

Shay · **Posted:** Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:09 pm

The picture looks right to me. Just need to keep angle and perspective in mind.

To me it looks like the Nick is directly 40ft or so below the B-29's centerline/fuselage. Pretty much right under the open bombay. Perhaps after diving away from a head-on pass?

What concerns me is the B-29 to the upper left. With regards to the rest of the flight, it looks like it's banking to the left heading nose down while over the target. Just a guess. Check out the return fire smoke from the 29s.

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

JDK · **Posted:** Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:13 pm

Exactly, Muddy, I think you've misread what I stated - it has to be either the correct relative size or bigger, as I said. It can't be smaller, as it would be behind. As we know the lengths of the two objects, and the (twin-engine) Nick isn't as big, relative to the B-29 as they were in reality.

IIRC, the flattening of perspective doesn't affect the relative sizes to the degree of inverting them, in other words. Whatever type of telephoto lens you use, wherever you stand, a closer object of the same size will remain larger than one further away; only the degree of how much lager changes. It can't get smaller!

MattP38 · **Joined:** Sat May 20, 2006 7:36 pm **Posts:** 273

Agreed. It looks like that B-29 is going down after taking a hit.

MattP38 · **Joined:** Sat May 20, 2006 7:36 pm **Posts:** 273

JDK wrote:

Exactly, Muddy, I think you've misread what I stated - it has to be either the correct relative size or bigger, as I said. It can't be smaller, as it would be behind. As we know the lengths of the two objects, and the (twin-engine) Nick isn't as big, relative to the B-29 as they were in reality.

IIRC, the flattening of perspective doesn't affect the relative sizes to the degree of inverting them, in other words. Whatever type of telephoto lens you use, wherever you stand, a closer object of the same size will remain larger than one further away; only the degree of how much lager changes. It can't get smaller!

It almost looks as though the Nick is super imposed in that photo. Strange.

muddyboots · **Posted:** Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:23 pm

JDK wrote:

Exactly, Muddy, I think you've misread what I stated - it has to be either the correct relative size or bigger, as I said. It can't be smaller, as it would be behind. As we know the lengths of the two objects, and the (twin-engine) Nick isn't as big, relative to the B-29 as they were in reality.

IIRC, the flattening of perspective doesn't affect the relative sizes to the degree of inverting them, in other words. Whatever type of telephoto lens you use, wherever you stand, a closer object of the same size will remain larger than one further away; only the degree of how much lager changes. It can't get smaller!

All I can think to say is: It's a Peggy? They were about 60 feet long...

JDK · **Posted:** Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:26 pm

61 ft long, or 18 metres - nearly 2/3 the length of a B-29. That don't help, as it'd be even bigger then.

My head hurts.

muddyboots · **Posted:** Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:30 pm

Half the length... :cry:

Closer to th eright size. Only six built...

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:31 pm

It's either a smaller plane - that we don't have an ID on yet - OR, is it possible that the folks from IMPACT did some really good work at a composite photo? I've just been looking at a higher res. version and it certainly looks real, but it is quite odd the way that measures up.

Ryan

Warbird Information Exchange

B-29s Battle Nicks

Who is online