Friday 2010-02-05 Screenshots AND Discussion Thread

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by Insuber

I'm starting to feel all this bridge detail hunt a little exaggerated. What's next, a request for progressive weathering of the bridge paint ? Priorities ...

Me too

But as a Londoner I saw some details posted here that were incorrect and it was difficult not to correct especially as were were invited to "comment" by Oleg on the posted updates.

Im not a chart monkey but the links I had provided hadn't been viewed and I simply put a visual aid to help.

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

I doubt if the Thames has been blue since the Romans arrived. A muddy brown with the occasional dead dog would be closer...

LoL..OK then: it was painted a muddy brown, but they changed it after too many dogs ran straight into the river .

The model looks fine to me, by the way. I think there is absolutely no need to alter it.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

I doubt if the Thames has been blue since the Romans arrived. A muddy brown with the occasional dead dog would be closer...

Wadda ya mean, Romans? That mud is good natural mud, not pollution (mostly, even now), and it's been like that since long before the Romans.

[jippy13]

Hi Oleg,

Here in Marseille, we also had a bridge destroyed by the Germans in 1944.

Maybe you could use the attached pictures for creating a mission over Marseille ... who knows

[fireflyerz]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

The bridge was painted 'Thames Blue' during the war so that it could not be spotted from above by enemy aircraft, but it was later changed back after far too many civilian vehicles drove straight into the river.

If thats true , thats well funny......"isnit" ,"standed"

[Foo'bar]

Originally Posted by jippy13

Hi Oleg,

Here in Marseille, we also had a bridge destroyed by the Germans in 1944.

Evil dzermanz

[brando]

Water is naturally clear, and the perception of colour is dependant on particles suspended in it and light reflected from it. Therefore it's also dependant on time of day, nature of weather, and state of tide. (The Thames is tidal all the way up to Teddington lock) Thus the river looks browner as the tide goes out and the mudbanks are exposed - with the other extreme being altogether dependant on sunlight, cloud cover, blueness of sky and so on.

I wouldn't want to rely on hand-coloured photos or some of the cine-film which seems to have more garish hues than reality. Suffice to say that at full tide on a sunny day it looks at its best, but it never obtains the Mediterannean blue that the tourist photos suggest.

As far as the models are concerned, they look great! My request is to reproduce the drab result of over fifty years of unremitting coal smoke which polluted all of the buildings in London. Tower Bridge as modelled looks entirely convincing, just too clean and bright.

B

[KG26_Alpha]

I've taken hundreds of pics from on the River Thames

And be sure its mostly brown sandy mud silty colour.

Although I've seen it quite blue greeny looking in places also.

Here's some pics from my own collection showing how brown the water usually is, also overcast days makes it look murky too as the light cant hit the water to well..

[Igo kyu]

Further to how murky rivers in the UK can be, this satellite photo was from the time of the snow a couple of weeks ago, you can't see the Thames for cloud unfortunately, but look how far the brown extends out to sea from the river in the south west. If the mud from the Thames extends a third as far, then you'll never see blue water in London.

[mungee]

Hehe!

If I'm not mistaken, the colour of water is affected by the position of the sun in relation to the camera - if one is taking the pic facing the sun, the water will appear brown - if the sun is behind you, it will appear blue. That's "more brown" and "more blue"!!
I'm nowhere near water now to test this out (it's also nightime here in South Africa at the moment).
Anyone else hear that explanation? - I recall my father (a keen photographer in his day) telling me this.