Not saying you are wrong (though to my eye it does look legit) but bullet/shell drop is uniform no matter the range as it's an effect of gravity.

If you took a gun in one hand and a bullet in the other and dropped/fired simultaneously both bullets would hit the ground at the same time. The same goes for shells, the fins only keep it steady the shell itself does not "fly" it simply travels fast enough to cover a shitload of ground before gravity has its inevitable effect. i.e. the moment the shell leaves the barrel it is falling at the same speed it would if you just dropped it.

The camera is zoomed in which is making the distance seem shorter than it actually is and exaggerating the visual effect but the shell looks to be behaving pretty consistently with normal gravity to my eye.

If you zoom in at the top you can see a couple of fat rednecks hi-fiving each other.

even the cameraman couldn't keep up with the zoom shot.

Just: crap *turns left* fuck *turns right* FUCK *left again* @#$*#@$

They weren't using an "special" effects, they simply told the camera to only focus on what is in the center of the lens. So when the camera looked at the top of the "object" it would focus to the very back of the piece of paper and everything else would be out of focus. Move to the bottom of the piece of paper and the top goes out of focus.

I actually guessed the entire desk was a picture at the end, but for a much different reason. When it zoomed on the sunglasses I at first thought nothing of the scene was 2d because the shine on the glasses would be hard to do on a matte, and mainly because all shadows were correct. Then I thought "wait.. what if everything was a picture?" and she pulled the desktop off. So it was more a deductive reasoning and not because I saw anything.

I think you're on the right track but have it backwards.

I think they were flat sheets the whole time but they're using a tilt-shift lens during the zoom shot to simulate depth of field and make it look like parts of the object are further away.

On the first one, the globe, there is writing on the sheet of paper "under" the globe, yet the perspective never changes; we never see a little bit more of the writing peek out or get obscured as the camera pans around. I'm sure we'd have seen a little bit of this if it were a real object.

*viral *commercial

It's a little funny that they play with the focus as soon as they zoom in. Whether that is indicative of a swaparoo or just to fool our eyes into thinking it's 3D because of a carefully selected focus, i'll let you two argue over.

Then why does the camera stop moving every time they go to show the 'illusion'?

The zoom in, out of focus, shot is done with live objects, the camera goes stationary on a tripod and they line everything up for the 2D, paper version, then, cut from one shot to the other and it looks seamless. It's a very old trick.

OK, OK... I know I'm talking to a person who can't see a kid's head hit the ground in a video where a kid's head clearly hits the ground but please do me one favor:

Look at the park layout from google maps that Eric posted above. Really zoom in and get a good look. What I see is a skate park on the left with some soccer fields further on and a parking lot on the right. In between, there's a narrow pathway leading from one part of the park to the other. That's why we see all those people walking through there in the video. They're not walking through the skate park, they're walking along a path.

Now, by your rational, this guy is allowed to skate wherever he wants in this park with no responsibility for running into anyone who happens to be walking through(since a toddler runs at about a normal person's walking speed, maybe a little faster). So I'm curious, where do you draw the line? Is this guy literally allowed to rail slide up the play equipment? Slalom between the swings? I really want to know where you think the line is. Are you really saying that the only path from one end of this overall park to the other runs right through the skate park portion of it? And everybody that walks through is supposed to expect skaters that aren't watching where they're going?

I only get so specific because a skateboard is a vehicle. You can ride one in many public places and I'm all for that but you bear a responsibility for hitting someone just like you would on a bike or in a car.

And I wasn't saying that the kid was running towards the picnic tables. I was saying that the skater was heading toward them, which it seems you agree with since you said the kid was running away from them. (BTW: Where do you get the idea that this kid "barrels out from behind an object?" What object?)

What it looks like to me is that this kid and his mom were coming from the north end, maybe the kid gets excited running to the play equipment on the south end when a guy, skating down the middle of the only path through the park, runs right fucking into him with a skateboard.

And the first reaction everyone has is to blame the kid and his mom? For running down a path through a park?

She needs to hook up with the Zoom Zoom kid; she says "Mazda!" like a bawse.

This is probably not the case. He wants to be able to "see the boxes." Rather, as a typographer he would have to have been a master of stippling. It's not so much that his "vision is blurry" any more so than your peripheral vision is blurry. It's just that he only has peripheral vision to work with. You can still see these details with enough zoom, which is what the computer affords him. I suppose he could also do it with traditional optics (e.g. a jeweler's loop), but that would probably make the actual painting part pretty awkward.

Night photo of scene, Yellow Tarp is covering Trayvon's body.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/gallery/trayvon-martin-crime-scene-photos/slide_305143_2617618
_free.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mediaite.com/online/trayvon-martin-crime-scene-pictures-shown-to-jury-graphic-photos/&h=399&w=600&sz=78&tbnid=gTA2MCebV
ELF2M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&zoom=1&usg=__A7K2FL0q-9QTbs1LWEQMyT24-bk=&docid=lg7SLr3w8FMIgM&sa=X&ei=Mc_kUc3fHrKl4AP13YHACA&ved=0CDAQ9QEwAQ&dur=248


Daytime photo of scene:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://transferstation.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/spot-of-shooting.jpg&imgrefurl=http://marinadedave.com/journal/
2012/3/22/the-tragedy-of-trayvon-martin.html&h=1350&w=1800&sz=2038&tbnid=m1IKo5J0-675KM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=125&zoom=1&usg=__9IeX8ZPcjYhuuxVgrG-pvk6zszI=&do
cid=Qi5fmgt8p5KwWM&sa=X&ei=Mc_kUc3fHrKl4AP13YHACA&ved=0CE0Q9QEwCg&dur=16

So, not hedges blocking view on sides, but fences and building facades. Small trees to some degree blocking view. Generally and unlit walkway/footpath/alley overall.

As for definition of Alley: An alley or alleyway is a narrow lane found in urban areas, often for pedestrians only, which usually runs between or behind buildings

So I guess you can argue how narrow it has to be to be "narrow" and how "urban" this area is. The buildings aren't sky scrapers, but they rival the height of some of the buildings in the wiki pictures.

I'll take a few extra cookies for doing the looking up you could have done.

The camera zooms out.

On a more general note: These sort of videos are what they are; one side of the argument. Nothing more. Nothing less. This shows a very direct incident. The problem with other methods of energy creation (mainly burning fossil fuels) is that the majority of the casualties are from indirect incidents. Pollution causing a loss of fertility in the breeding population would be a good example of where a population could be massively affected, but it wouldn't be obvious what was happening and there wouldn't be the opportunity for such an attention grabbing video.

No-one is saying these wind turbines are perfect, but despite what we see in this video we'd need data from both sides of the equation to make an informed decision. What might ave been catastrophic for that bird may actually be the saviour of the species.

In the same way there are people who have been permanently deafened by airbags or injured or even killed by tem going off accidentally in cars. But I'm pretty sure no sane person would argue that they are a harmful addition to a car as they have demonstrably saved many, many thousands of lives. What we're seeing in this video is the equivalent of watching an airbag go off when it shouldn't a causing a crash. It's a terrible thing for sure, but without the overall figures you can't say it means airbags are bad (or good).

I like the video. He zoomed in on Chun Li's crotch.

It really looks like he's just testing out his camera and the bear chasing a man up a tree just happens to be in the right distance to test his zoom.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Drunk-Dude-Charges-A-Wild-Elephant

Slight POV(zoom) difference doesn't rise to....

Same footage.