Quote:
Originally Posted by Upthair
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The vidoe above, which you selected to show I was wrong, actually proves my doubt. Please look at the following pictures captured from the video.
In either picture, the tracer "light rod" has both varying brightness and varying diametre (thickness) from head to tail. The fact is too clear to be overlooked.
More can be captured from the video but these two are enough. In addition, the absence of homogeneity (eg, in terms of brightness) along a tracer "light rod" in the air may not be visible at night, because all parts of it are too bright in darkness, so that the camera or the human eye will most probably register all parts as "maximum brightness".
Some people may have also noticed that the distance between the tracer and the camera can play a part in influencing what the tracer looks like in the film - which is quite natural, since the nearer you are, the more details you get.
As I said, what tracers look like is a complex subject.
~
|
You two "proof" photos are only showing that the tracer has just lit as it is coming out of the barrel and takes a foot or two to reach full brightness, nothing more.
Take a look at the tracers after they reach full brightness. Their width is the same down the length of the trace.
On film and in the human eye the brighter a small object becomes, the bigger, or wider in this case, it appears.
As far as their appearance being a complex subject, I agree as much as saying that a simulated tracer must be dynamic to be realistic. It must be able to have varying lengths depending on apparent speed to the observer.
This is what Ilya is talking about when he says that the tracers are perfect as this is taken into account.