Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <peftch13fovgi3q83mvmkkmvsftorgju9s@4ax.com>, at 13:56:06 on
> Wed, 13 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72177720300516129>
>>
>> See if you can get your newly purchased AI software to fix the
>> 'fattened people at the edges' problem.
>
> My 30 second solution (could do better and more, but it's the principle
> which counts):
>
> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/fatman-gone.jpg

So, a non-solution.

In message <tams27$2dmk7$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:07 on Wed, 13 Jul
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <peftch13fovgi3q83mvmkkmvsftorgju9s@4ax.com>, at 13:56:06 on
>> Wed, 13 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72177720300516129>
>>>
>>> See if you can get your newly purchased AI software to fix the
>>> 'fattened people at the edges' problem.
>>
>> My 30 second solution (could do better and more, but it's the principle
>> which counts):
>>
>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/fatman-gone.jpg
>
>So, a non-solution.

The fat man is fixed. He was obscuring the view of the barriers, anyway.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tammb9$2d3ng$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:33 on Wed, 13 Jul
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <k54rchlabg2j2n78lljnav7s3d6tka00ic@4ax.com>, at 16:26:35 on
>> Tue, 12 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 16:02:40 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <0jvqch9ebdjpg8mqke2dj1rbkknml0fd5d@4ax.com>, at 15:03:06 on
>>>> Tue, 12 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> If it was photoshopped, that usually scrubs most of the metadata anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not necessarily. It just depends on your settings. I always keep the exif
>>>>> data when I edit images.
>>>>
>>>> Even if it's a composite image where the metadata might only apply to
>>>> part of it?
>>>
>>> You could choose to use the main picture as the base, so the composite
>>> would inherit its data. That's what I do.
>>
>> And that's how you get confusion like this driver-picture.
>
>Nope.

How else did that confusion arise?

>>>> I recently did an AI re-rendering of a phone movie I took 12 years ago.
>>>> What data would you expect to find?
>>>
>>> None, if you did it.
>>
>> I don't always wipe the metadata.
>>
>>> But it is possible in some cases to extract video frames with exif
>>> data.
>>>
>>> I've not used it, but try PhotoFun Studio. Or there's ExifTool, but
>>> I've only used that with stills.
>>
>> I first got interested in Exif tags when Panoramio and Google Earth
>> would automatically locate photos taken with a suitably equipped camera
>> (in my case a C905 followed by an early smartphone).
>>
>> By 2011 it was becoming apparent that the public were inadvertently
>> leaking their locations via such photos (published on Social Media and
>> even eBay listings).
>>
>> So I wrote a paper which recommended FileTagSleuth and TAGView to
>> examine photos, and 'Exif Tag Remover' which does what it says on the
>> can.
>>
>> Of course there were also Exif editors, and my example was a photo of
>> the inside of St Pancras Station (complete with Olympic Rings) which the
>> mapping software obligingly put in the middle of a field just outside
>> Nottingham[1].
>>
>> It might have been better if our much discussed driver-picture had been
>> edited to have the location data of the platform-end shot at York,
>> rather than the engine cab in Crewe.
>
>It doesn't have any exif data at all.

It must have done when submitted to at least one of the picture
libraries. They of course might independently remove it.

>I don't know if you'd get it if you purchased the hi-res version, but I
>suspect not. Many pro photographers remove it because they don't
>necessarily want their camera gear and editing software to be
>identified.

Sure, and having a date might make it less attractive to people looking
for "a recent shot", not that many of the news media seem to care any
more.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tamp5t$2ddcf$3@dont-email.me>, at 15:42:53 on Wed, 13 Jul
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tam9h4$2bq05$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:15:48 on Wed, 13 Jul
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tam6hi$2bg1v$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:24:50 on Wed, 13 Jul
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> Comparing with this 92 (also taken in 2018) the middle pane looks a bit
>>>>>> too big (ie the side-view pasted in is a little too big).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Caledonian_S
>>>>>> leeper_Class_92_033_Euston_-_42922325644.jpg/1280px-Caledonian_Sleeper_C
>>>>>> lass_92_033_Euston_-_42922325644.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose that's possible, but why bother changing something like that?
>>>>
>>>> No bother, just using sufficient of the side-view to obscure the bottom
>>>> of that particular window frame. In fact it's probably easier than
>>>> leaving a small triangular wedge of black visible.
>>>
>>> No, I don't think the cab has been tampered with, apart from the usual UWA
>>> distortion.
>>
>> I'm still not convinced.
>>
>>>>> I'd expect everything about the cab to be genuine, with just the views
>>>>> through the windows replaced by one other, masked scene.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think what's causing that stretching of the window and driver's back is
>>>>> the use of an ultra-wide angle lens without applying volume anamorphosis
>>>>> distortion correction. It's the same effect that makes people at the edges
>>>>> of group photos look fatter. Unfortunately, many professional
>>>>>photographers
>>>>> fail to correct this distortion, as the distortion cannot be fixed
>>>>> automatically using the Adobe software that most of them use. Note that it
>>>>> happens with all ultra wide angle shots, and isn't due to any lens defect.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is software to correct volume anamorphosis deformation in
>>>>>UWA images,
>>>>> but not enough people use it. This video describes how it can be
>>>>> automatically applied, though note that it's not using the current version
>>>>> of the software, so the UI is different now: https://youtu.be/QVbJlLlFtdg
>>>>>
>>>>> I use the current version of this software with every image I shoot, and
>>>>> can probably dig out examples where it's made a big difference.
>>>>
>>>> I'm using some newly purchased software to do perspective adjustment,
>>>> and while normally you might expect that to be mainly vertical (to
>>>> correct pictures of buildings from the front) I find that horizontal is
>>>> helpful as well. Used that on some of my recent shots inside Farringdon
>>>> EL Station.
>>>
>>> Volume deformation correction (only available in specialist tools) is
>>> nothing to do with perspective adjustment (available in most photo
>>> editors).
>>
>> Did I say I was using anything other than perspective adjustment?
>
>We were talking about volume deformation correction, so why introduce
>perspective adjustment, which is something entirely different. The only
>conclusion one could draw is that you thought they were the same thing (you
>wouldn't be the only one — it's a common error).

It was to demonstrate I don't only use "20yr old" editing software,
something which you were gloating over.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tamp5t$2ddcf$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:42:53 on Wed, 13 Jul
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <l6htchh7b906kdndi02fe2plkhlql6u98e@4ax.com>, at 14:21:08 on
>> Wed, 13 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> I've found another 92 cab shot with the exif intact:
>>>
>>><https://www.mattypsrailwaypics.com/uploads/9/3/9/5/9395206/9717297_or
>>>ig.jpg>
>>>
>>> This was shot with an 18mm lens on a Canon APS-C camera, so it's 29mm
>>> equivalent, which counts as a slightly wide angle lens. It's clearly a
>>> much narrower angle lens than the one we've been discussing, which
>>> confirms that Rakusen was using a wider angle lens (probably around
>>> 20-24mm full-frame equivalent), though not, I think, a true UWA lens
>>> like I often use.
>>>
>>> I think this shot also confirms that Rakusen hasn't messed around with
>>> the cab windows, just with the scene outside.
>>
>> The new picture is cropped on the left, and so says nothing about the
>> apparent over-sized middle pane in the stock-shot.
>>
>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/92-windows.jpg
>
>The apparent over-sizing is more likely to be because of wide angle volume
>deformation.

Why don't you edit it and see?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <tams27$2dmk7$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:07 on Wed, 13 Jul
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <peftch13fovgi3q83mvmkkmvsftorgju9s@4ax.com>, at 13:56:06 on
>>> Wed, 13 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72177720300516129>
>>>>
>>>> See if you can get your newly purchased AI software to fix the
>>>> 'fattened people at the edges' problem.
>>>
>>> My 30 second solution (could do better and more, but it's the principle
>>> which counts):
>>>
>>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/fatman-gone.jpg
>>
>> So, a non-solution.
>
> The fat man is fixed. He was obscuring the view of the barriers, anyway.

Have you actually looked at the dreadfuly edited picture you uploaded?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <tammb9$2d3ng$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:33 on Wed, 13 Jul
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <k54rchlabg2j2n78lljnav7s3d6tka00ic@4ax.com>, at 16:26:35 on
>>> Tue, 12 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 16:02:40 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <0jvqch9ebdjpg8mqke2dj1rbkknml0fd5d@4ax.com>, at 15:03:06 on
>>>>> Tue, 12 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it was photoshopped, that usually scrubs most of the metadata anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not necessarily. It just depends on your settings. I always keep the exif
>>>>>> data when I edit images.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if it's a composite image where the metadata might only apply to
>>>>> part of it?
>>>>
>>>> You could choose to use the main picture as the base, so the composite
>>>> would inherit its data. That's what I do.
>>>
>>> And that's how you get confusion like this driver-picture.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> How else did that confusion arise?

That photo would have been in a batch of other photos taken in Crewe depot,
and caotioned as such. The libraries don't try and locate images from exif
dara.

>
>>>>> I recently did an AI re-rendering of a phone movie I took 12 years ago.
>>>>> What data would you expect to find?
>>>>
>>>> None, if you did it.
>>>
>>> I don't always wipe the metadata.
>>>
>>>> But it is possible in some cases to extract video frames with exif
>>>> data.
>>>>
>>>> I've not used it, but try PhotoFun Studio. Or there's ExifTool, but
>>>> I've only used that with stills.
>>>
>>> I first got interested in Exif tags when Panoramio and Google Earth
>>> would automatically locate photos taken with a suitably equipped camera
>>> (in my case a C905 followed by an early smartphone).
>>>
>>> By 2011 it was becoming apparent that the public were inadvertently
>>> leaking their locations via such photos (published on Social Media and
>>> even eBay listings).
>>>
>>> So I wrote a paper which recommended FileTagSleuth and TAGView to
>>> examine photos, and 'Exif Tag Remover' which does what it says on the
>>> can.
>>>
>>> Of course there were also Exif editors, and my example was a photo of
>>> the inside of St Pancras Station (complete with Olympic Rings) which the
>>> mapping software obligingly put in the middle of a field just outside
>>> Nottingham[1].
>>>
>>> It might have been better if our much discussed driver-picture had been
>>> edited to have the location data of the platform-end shot at York,
>>> rather than the engine cab in Crewe.
>>
>> It doesn't have any exif data at all.
>
> It must have done when submitted to at least one of the picture
> libraries.

I seriously doubt that that's a requirement. If you disagree, please
produce a cite.

> They of course might independently remove it.

The exif data from pro cameras doesn't usually contain the location data,
as most such cameras don't have GPS. I thought you were supposed to be an
expert in this field?

>
>> I don't know if you'd get it if you purchased the hi-res version, but I
>> suspect not. Many pro photographers remove it because they don't
>> necessarily want their camera gear and editing software to be
>> identified.
>
> Sure, and having a date might make it less attractive to people looking
> for "a recent shot", not that many of the news media seem to care any
> more.

That's pretty obvious, but did they ever care? Either a shot is very
obviously out of date, or it's not. In fact, errors are often the other
way, with too-modern vehicles appearing in supposedly historic shots or
clips (eg, an RM bus in shots supposedly from the 1940s).

The media don't care if a few nerds spot that the wrong type of bus, train,
plane, etc appears in a shot. Even expensive TV productions and films often
get it wrong.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <tamp5t$2ddcf$3@dont-email.me>, at 15:42:53 on Wed, 13 Jul
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tam9h4$2bq05$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:15:48 on Wed, 13 Jul
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tam6hi$2bg1v$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:24:50 on Wed, 13 Jul
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Comparing with this 92 (also taken in 2018) the middle pane looks a bit
>>>>>>> too big (ie the side-view pasted in is a little too big).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Caledonian_S
>>>>>>> leeper_Class_92_033_Euston_-_42922325644.jpg/1280px-Caledonian_Sleeper_C
>>>>>>> lass_92_033_Euston_-_42922325644.jpg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose that's possible, but why bother changing something like that?
>>>>>
>>>>> No bother, just using sufficient of the side-view to obscure the bottom
>>>>> of that particular window frame. In fact it's probably easier than
>>>>> leaving a small triangular wedge of black visible.
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't think the cab has been tampered with, apart from the usual UWA
>>>> distortion.
>>>
>>> I'm still not convinced.
>>>
>>>>>> I'd expect everything about the cab to be genuine, with just the views
>>>>>> through the windows replaced by one other, masked scene.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think what's causing that stretching of the window and driver's back is
>>>>>> the use of an ultra-wide angle lens without applying volume anamorphosis
>>>>>> distortion correction. It's the same effect that makes people at the edges
>>>>>> of group photos look fatter. Unfortunately, many professional
>>>>>> photographers
>>>>>> fail to correct this distortion, as the distortion cannot be fixed
>>>>>> automatically using the Adobe software that most of them use. Note that it
>>>>>> happens with all ultra wide angle shots, and isn't due to any lens defect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is software to correct volume anamorphosis deformation in
>>>>>> UWA images,
>>>>>> but not enough people use it. This video describes how it can be
>>>>>> automatically applied, though note that it's not using the current version
>>>>>> of the software, so the UI is different now: https://youtu.be/QVbJlLlFtdg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I use the current version of this software with every image I shoot, and
>>>>>> can probably dig out examples where it's made a big difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm using some newly purchased software to do perspective adjustment,
>>>>> and while normally you might expect that to be mainly vertical (to
>>>>> correct pictures of buildings from the front) I find that horizontal is
>>>>> helpful as well. Used that on some of my recent shots inside Farringdon
>>>>> EL Station.
>>>>
>>>> Volume deformation correction (only available in specialist tools) is
>>>> nothing to do with perspective adjustment (available in most photo
>>>> editors).
>>>
>>> Did I say I was using anything other than perspective adjustment?
>>
>> We were talking about volume deformation correction, so why introduce
>> perspective adjustment, which is something entirely different. The only
>> conclusion one could draw is that you thought they were the same thing (you
>> wouldn't be the only one — it's a common error).
>
> It was to demonstrate I don't only use "20yr old" editing software,
> something which you were gloating over.

Perspective adjustment was perfectly possible and routinely performed in
software 20 years ago. Just because you didn't know how to use the feature
doesn't mean it wasn't available. All that you demonstrated was your
profound ignorance about photo eiting, both in your original remark and
this response.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <tamp5t$2ddcf$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:42:53 on Wed, 13 Jul
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <l6htchh7b906kdndi02fe2plkhlql6u98e@4ax.com>, at 14:21:08 on
>>> Wed, 13 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> I've found another 92 cab shot with the exif intact:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.mattypsrailwaypics.com/uploads/9/3/9/5/9395206/9717297_or
>>>> ig.jpg>
>>>>
>>>> This was shot with an 18mm lens on a Canon APS-C camera, so it's 29mm
>>>> equivalent, which counts as a slightly wide angle lens. It's clearly a
>>>> much narrower angle lens than the one we've been discussing, which
>>>> confirms that Rakusen was using a wider angle lens (probably around
>>>> 20-24mm full-frame equivalent), though not, I think, a true UWA lens
>>>> like I often use.
>>>>
>>>> I think this shot also confirms that Rakusen hasn't messed around with
>>>> the cab windows, just with the scene outside.
>>>
>>> The new picture is cropped on the left, and so says nothing about the
>>> apparent over-sized middle pane in the stock-shot.
>>>
>>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/92-windows.jpg
>>
>> The apparent over-sizing is more likely to be because of wide angle volume
>> deformation.
>
> Why don't you edit it and see?

Edit it in what way?

Am 14.07.2022 um 08:48 schrieb Recliner:
> In fact, errors are often the other
> way, with too-modern vehicles appearing in supposedly historic shots or
> clips (eg, an RM bus in shots supposedly from the 1940s).

The flagship VW bus for our company's 50th anniversary also has been
identified by those in the know as a 1973 model rather than the
appropriate 1972 ;-)

Rolf Mantel wrote:

> Am 14.07.2022 um 08:48 schrieb Recliner:
> > In fact, errors are often the other
> > way, with too-modern vehicles appearing in supposedly historic
> > shots or clips (eg, an RM bus in shots supposedly from the 1940s).
>
> The flagship VW bus for our company's 50th anniversary also has been
> identified by those in the know as a 1973 model rather than the
> appropriate 1972 ;-)

It depends on what you are celebrating. If 1973 was the first year of
your company's existence, then 2022 is the 50'th year of its
existence.So 1973 could be correct.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 06:52:34 -0000 (UTC), Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tamp5t$2ddcf$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:42:53 on Wed, 13 Jul
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <l6htchh7b906kdndi02fe2plkhlql6u98e@4ax.com>, at 14:21:08 on
>>>> Wed, 13 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> I've found another 92 cab shot with the exif intact:
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.mattypsrailwaypics.com/uploads/9/3/9/5/9395206/9717297_or
>>>>> ig.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>> This was shot with an 18mm lens on a Canon APS-C camera, so it's 29mm
>>>>> equivalent, which counts as a slightly wide angle lens. It's clearly a
>>>>> much narrower angle lens than the one we've been discussing, which
>>>>> confirms that Rakusen was using a wider angle lens (probably around
>>>>> 20-24mm full-frame equivalent), though not, I think, a true UWA lens
>>>>> like I often use.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this shot also confirms that Rakusen hasn't messed around with
>>>>> the cab windows, just with the scene outside.
>>>>
>>>> The new picture is cropped on the left, and so says nothing about the
>>>> apparent over-sized middle pane in the stock-shot.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.perry.co.uk/images/92-windows.jpg
>>>
>>> The apparent over-sizing is more likely to be because of wide angle volume
>>> deformation.
>>
>> Why don't you edit it and see?
>
>Edit it in what way?

OK, I've amused myself and done some simple edits:

1. I've used DxO Viewpoint to apply volume deformation correction. In the absence of knowledge about the lens used in
the exif data, I had to guess how much to apply (the software normally calculates this automatically from the exif
data).

2. I've raised the resolution and sharpened it using Topaz Gigapixel AI. I suggest people download the full 3632x2730
image file if they want to take a close look on a 4k monitor.

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/52215416683>

Along the way, I spotted yet another compositing error: the windscreen has none of the bugs or dirt streaks you'd see
in a genuine shot through a cab windscreen.

In message <taoe77$2l53i$2@dont-email.me>, at 06:48:07 on Thu, 14 Jul
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tammb9$2d3ng$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:33 on Wed, 13 Jul
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <k54rchlabg2j2n78lljnav7s3d6tka00ic@4ax.com>, at 16:26:35 on
>>>> Tue, 12 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 16:02:40 +0100, Roland Perry
>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <0jvqch9ebdjpg8mqke2dj1rbkknml0fd5d@4ax.com>, at 15:03:06 on
>>>>>> Tue, 12 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it was photoshopped, that usually scrubs most of the
>>>>>>>>metadata anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not necessarily. It just depends on your settings. I always keep
>>>>>>>the exif data when I edit images.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if it's a composite image where the metadata might only apply to
>>>>>> part of it?
>>>>>
>>>>> You could choose to use the main picture as the base, so the composite
>>>>> would inherit its data. That's what I do.
>>>>
>>>> And that's how you get confusion like this driver-picture.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> How else did that confusion arise?
>
>That photo would have been in a batch of other photos taken in Crewe depot,
>and caotioned as such. The libraries don't try and locate images from exif
>dara.
>
>>
>>>>>> I recently did an AI re-rendering of a phone movie I took 12 years ago.
>>>>>> What data would you expect to find?
>>>>>
>>>>> None, if you did it.
>>>>
>>>> I don't always wipe the metadata.
>>>>
>>>>> But it is possible in some cases to extract video frames with exif
>>>>> data.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've not used it, but try PhotoFun Studio. Or there's ExifTool, but
>>>>> I've only used that with stills.
>>>>
>>>> I first got interested in Exif tags when Panoramio and Google Earth
>>>> would automatically locate photos taken with a suitably equipped camera
>>>> (in my case a C905 followed by an early smartphone).
>>>>
>>>> By 2011 it was becoming apparent that the public were inadvertently
>>>> leaking their locations via such photos (published on Social Media and
>>>> even eBay listings).
>>>>
>>>> So I wrote a paper which recommended FileTagSleuth and TAGView to
>>>> examine photos, and 'Exif Tag Remover' which does what it says on the
>>>> can.
>>>>
>>>> Of course there were also Exif editors, and my example was a photo of
>>>> the inside of St Pancras Station (complete with Olympic Rings) which the
>>>> mapping software obligingly put in the middle of a field just outside
>>>> Nottingham[1].
>>>>
>>>> It might have been better if our much discussed driver-picture had been
>>>> edited to have the location data of the platform-end shot at York,
>>>> rather than the engine cab in Crewe.
>>>
>>> It doesn't have any exif data at all.
>>
>> It must have done when submitted to at least one of the picture
>> libraries.
>
>I seriously doubt that that's a requirement. If you disagree, please
>produce a cite.

I can't produce a cite that the photographer in this instance left the
EXIF in, and that's how the picture library got the time and place, but
on the balance of probabilities why would he write "Crewe" on a Post-it
note when he submitted the picture by email, when he was clearly trying
to make it appear to be York?

>> They of course might independently remove it.
>
>The exif data from pro cameras doesn't usually contain the location data,
>as most such cameras don't have GPS.

I don't have an inclination to buy the latest blingy toy to play with,
but am genuinely surprised this isn't a feature they'd have.

Given that there have been GPS dongles since at least 2005...

<https://news.microsoft.com/2004/08/24/new-microsoft-streets-trips-2005-
with-gps-locator-puts-end-to-are-we-there-yet/>

....I had one for my laptop to give the kind of real-time mapping we are
now accustomed to on Smartphones. It would be an obvious thing for a
Pro-Camera maker to support.

>I thought you were supposed to be an expert in this field?

I'm an expert at what's in the EXIF, and in particular how that can
create vulnerabilities for the public. I recall a sceptical colleague
(who worked in the area of domestic abuse, and hadn't yet worked out how
ex-partners seemed so easily to be able to stalk their victims) and used
to tweet from her car while waiting to pick up her daughter from school
at 3pm, accusing *me* of doing something untoward when I sent privately
a picture of the school [because her Tweets, as was default at the time,
included any available location information]. Available to anyone, not
just me.

You could even get an app which showed you what your neighbours were
Tweeting about, because you could draw a circle round your home on a
map, and it then showed live all the tweets emanating from within.

As an aside, the information in the EXIF could [for relevant devices]
can include things I doubt most people would expect, such the ID of the
cellsite their smartphone was connected to. So that doesn't just leak
where they are, but who their mobile phone operator was.

But I digress. Do you seriously claim this isn't a Pro Camera:

<https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/uk/reviews/hasselblad-x1d-ii-50c-rev
iew>

Which they credit with "The best camera with GPS" award.

Is a Canon EOS 5D Mk IV (with GPS) a professional camera (for
professionals on a budget of only £2500)? You decide.

>>> I don't know if you'd get it if you purchased the hi-res version, but I
>>> suspect not. Many pro photographers remove it because they don't
>>> necessarily want their camera gear and editing software to be
>>> identified.
>>
>> Sure, and having a date might make it less attractive to people looking
>> for "a recent shot", not that many of the news media seem to care any
>> more.
>
>That's pretty obvious, but did they ever care? Either a shot is very
>obviously out of date, or it's not. In fact, errors are often the other
>way, with too-modern vehicles appearing in supposedly historic shots or
>clips (eg, an RM bus in shots supposedly from the 1940s).
>
>The media don't care if a few nerds spot that the wrong type of bus, train,
>plane, etc appears in a shot. Even expensive TV productions and films often
>get it wrong.

The BBC might have enough gumption not to print a photo of a steam
engine cab in a story about 2022 RMT.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 11:10:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <taoe77$2l53i$2@dont-email.me>, at 06:48:07 on Thu, 14 Jul
>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tammb9$2d3ng$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:54:33 on Wed, 13 Jul
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>> It might have been better if our much discussed driver-picture had been
>>>>> edited to have the location data of the platform-end shot at York,
>>>>> rather than the engine cab in Crewe.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't have any exif data at all.
>>>
>>> It must have done when submitted to at least one of the picture
>>> libraries.
>>
>>I seriously doubt that that's a requirement. If you disagree, please
>>produce a cite.
>
>I can't produce a cite that the photographer in this instance left the
>EXIF in, and that's how the picture library got the time and place, but
>on the balance of probabilities why would he write "Crewe" on a Post-it
>note when he submitted the picture by email, when he was clearly trying
>to make it appear to be York?

As I said, it would have been one of a batch of locomotive photos he submitted, and the Crewe location would have been
part of the information he provided to classify the photos. There would also have been a number of other keywords. The
library won't bother checking the exif data, particularly as most pro shots won't include GPS data anyway.

>
>>> They of course might independently remove it.
>>
>>The exif data from pro cameras doesn't usually contain the location data,
>>as most such cameras don't have GPS.
>
>I don't have an inclination to buy the latest blingy toy to play with,
>but am genuinely surprised this isn't a feature they'd have.

It's a feature some cameras had in the past, but most have dropped it more recently. For example, one of my cameras has
it, but its successor does not.

>
>Given that there have been GPS dongles since at least 2005...
>
> <https://news.microsoft.com/2004/08/24/new-microsoft-streets-trips-2005-
>with-gps-locator-puts-end-to-are-we-there-yet/>
>
>...I had one for my laptop to give the kind of real-time mapping we are
>now accustomed to on Smartphones. It would be an obvious thing for a
>Pro-Camera maker to support.

No, it's the other way round. All smartphones can put the GPS coordinates in the exif, and they generally do so by
default. Few users even think of, or know how to, turn it off. I must be one of the few who does turn it on and off.

>
>>I thought you were supposed to be an expert in this field?
>
>I'm an expert at what's in the EXIF, and in particular how that can
>create vulnerabilities for the public. I recall a sceptical colleague
>(who worked in the area of domestic abuse, and hadn't yet worked out how
>ex-partners seemed so easily to be able to stalk their victims) and used
>to tweet from her car while waiting to pick up her daughter from school
>at 3pm, accusing *me* of doing something untoward when I sent privately
>a picture of the school [because her Tweets, as was default at the time,
>included any available location information]. Available to anyone, not
>just me.
>
>You could even get an app which showed you what your neighbours were
>Tweeting about, because you could draw a circle round your home on a
>map, and it then showed live all the tweets emanating from within.
>
>As an aside, the information in the EXIF could [for relevant devices]
>can include things I doubt most people would expect, such the ID of the
>cellsite their smartphone was connected to. So that doesn't just leak
>where they are, but who their mobile phone operator was.
>
>But I digress. Do you seriously claim this isn't a Pro Camera:
>
> <https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/uk/reviews/hasselblad-x1d-ii-50c-review>

My guess is that very few professionals will buy it. They're committed to other lens mounts.

>
>Which they credit with "The best camera with GPS" award.
>
>Is a Canon EOS 5D Mk IV (with GPS) a professional camera (for
>professionals on a budget of only £2500)? You decide.

You might think that's a modern camera; I do not. My four most recent cameras don't have GPS built in (for good
technical reasons), but do have the ability to store the GPS coordinates. I have the option to turn it on or off.

You might want to check out the much more modern successor to the EOS 5D IV, the EOS R5: no built-in GPS.

Incidentally, that Whitechapel picture of mine that you butchered with the worst editing I've ever seen had the full
exif intact (before you mashed it up), but can't you see there's no GPS coordinates included? Conversely, this picture,
taken with the same camera on the same day in the Barbican entrance, does have the GPS coordinates in the exif:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/52114653673/in/album-72177720299439052/>

And, btw, that camera does not GPS built in.

>
>>>> I don't know if you'd get it if you purchased the hi-res version, but I
>>>> suspect not. Many pro photographers remove it because they don't
>>>> necessarily want their camera gear and editing software to be
>>>> identified.
>>>
>>> Sure, and having a date might make it less attractive to people looking
>>> for "a recent shot", not that many of the news media seem to care any
>>> more.
>>
>>That's pretty obvious, but did they ever care? Either a shot is very
>>obviously out of date, or it's not. In fact, errors are often the other
>>way, with too-modern vehicles appearing in supposedly historic shots or
>>clips (eg, an RM bus in shots supposedly from the 1940s).
>>
>>The media don't care if a few nerds spot that the wrong type of bus, train,
>>plane, etc appears in a shot. Even expensive TV productions and films often
>>get it wrong.
>
>The BBC might have enough gumption not to print a photo of a steam
>engine cab in a story about 2022 RMT.

Sure, but they did use a freight loco picture to illustrate a strike threat by passenger drivers. Not exactly a major
error by their standards, but still an error.

The drivers' strike will be three days later than the RMT strike, making
the whole week pretty much a write-off for most rail passengers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62166276

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> Am 14.07.2022 um 08:48 schrieb Recliner:
>> In fact, errors are often the other
>> way, with too-modern vehicles appearing in supposedly historic shots or
>> clips (eg, an RM bus in shots supposedly from the 1940s).
>
> The flagship VW bus for our company's 50th anniversary also has been
> identified by those in the know as a 1973 model rather than the
> appropriate 1972 ;-)
>

Lots of British TV dramas involve railways, and they mostly have to be shot
on preserved lines as access is rarely available to NR track and stations
using current trains. That can cause some hilarious gaffes in the eyes of
rail enthusiasts:

- If set in the steam era, they generally use a loco based on the line
they're shooting on, which seldom matches the story line. For example, if
the story is set in Scotland, scenes shot on the Bluebell rarely includes
authentic stations and trains. In fact, the loco usually identifies the
line that was used.

- If representing the modern railway, the producers can rarely borrow a
modern train. So the best you might see is something like a preserved Pacer
on a heritage line.

- The track is almost invariably single track and non-electrified, which
doesn't fit well with a mainline express storyline.

- A high proportion of Tube station scenes are shot in Aldwych or Charing
Cross stations, regardless of the story line.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/07/2022 11:33, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/07/2022 09:31, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62121258
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To go off at a slight tangent, does anyone recognise the train whose cab is
>>>>>>>>> shown in the photo, and whether it’s a real train or a simulator? The
>>>>>>>>> windows look like a class 91 or a Mk4 DVT approaching the Holgate Road
>>>>>>>>> bridge southbound at York, and the signal, Y228, seems to be at the south
>>>>>>>>> end of platform 5, but the dials look odd: the rotary dial in the middle
>>>>>>>>> looks to be pegged at max which it couldn’t be if it’s a speedo at that
>>>>>>>>> location, and I don’t know if the ones on the left hand pillar ought to be
>>>>>>>>> pointing down like that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The view out of the window of a simulator wouldn't look that good from the
>>>>>>>> 'wrong' angle (ie from not looking forwards from the driver's seat), and
>>>>>>>> the graphics are never that realistic either!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The big gauge in the middle of the desk is a brake pipe pressure gauge
>>>>>>>> reading zero; the duplex gauges on the window pillar are bogie brake
>>>>>>>> cylinder pressure and main reservoir/main reservoir pipe gauges, also all
>>>>>>>> reading zero - which would be consistent with a loco which has been shut
>>>>>>>> down for long enough for all the air to leak out - several hours at the
>>>>>>>> very least.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The track in front of the train looks too far to the left for the cab we're
>>>>>>>> in to be on that line; comparing OTT maps and Google Maps, I realise I
>>>>>>>> don't know York well enough to tell whether it might be stabled on the bay
>>>>>>>> platform roads, with the tracks hidden behind the windscreen pillar, or
>>>>>>>> whether those are the tracks on the right; in which case it seems that
>>>>>>>> someone's photoshopped a platform-end photograph into the windows of a dead
>>>>>>>> cab, with someone pretending to drive it (presumably that part was posed
>>>>>>>> for a publicity photo at some time).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure if Alamy or Getty allow photoshopped images. This one is
>>>>>>> available in fairly high res, so any tampering would probably be evident.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know about Getty, which has its name on this image, but some of
>>>>>> the stock photo libraries collect many of their images from free sources
>>>>>> such as Wikimedia Commons, simply adding a description and a price tag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think Alamy does that. For one thing, it names the photographer,
>>>>> Monty Rakusen, and provides the date and (possibly suspect) location of the
>>>>> shot. It's a 60MB (uncompressed), 21mp file, so definitely not one that you
>>>>> could harvest on the web. It has strict quality controls, and one of its
>>>>> many reasons for image rejection is 'Noticeable retouching'. Getty also
>>>>> bans heavy retouching of submitted images.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.alamy.com/contributors/alamy-how-to-pass-qc.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It does not match a Class 91 cab shown in this photo:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/83791520@N00/31941954446
>>>>
>>>> May just be a specific design for the simulator.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It matches the class 92 cab interior posted elsewhere in the thread.
>>>
>>> Also don't forget that the two cabs of the class 91 aren't identical; I
>>> don't know how much difference there is inside them.
>>
>> In the original BBC/Getty/whoever photo it was the sloping windscreen and
>> the quarterlight that caught my eye and make me think of the pointy end of
>> a 91 or a DVT. The 92 is less pointy, but still pointier than the blunt
>> end of a 91.
>
> In the third post of the thread I identified it as a class 92 cab, later
> confirmed in another post.

Yes, and thank you for that.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 14/07/2022 22:12, Recliner wrote:
> That can cause some hilarious gaffes in the eyes of
> rail enthusiasts:

Does it matter?

I am sure there are films and programmes that you watch and enjoy but
someone with knowledge of the area or some specialist knowledge will see
glaring errors.

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/07/2022 11:33, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/07/2022 09:31, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62121258
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To go off at a slight tangent, does anyone recognise the train whose cab is
>>>>>>>>>> shown in the photo, and whether it’s a real train or a simulator? The
>>>>>>>>>> windows look like a class 91 or a Mk4 DVT approaching the Holgate Road
>>>>>>>>>> bridge southbound at York, and the signal, Y228, seems to be at the south
>>>>>>>>>> end of platform 5, but the dials look odd: the rotary dial in the middle
>>>>>>>>>> looks to be pegged at max which it couldn’t be if it’s a speedo at that
>>>>>>>>>> location, and I don’t know if the ones on the left hand pillar ought to be
>>>>>>>>>> pointing down like that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The view out of the window of a simulator wouldn't look that good from the
>>>>>>>>> 'wrong' angle (ie from not looking forwards from the driver's seat), and
>>>>>>>>> the graphics are never that realistic either!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The big gauge in the middle of the desk is a brake pipe pressure gauge
>>>>>>>>> reading zero; the duplex gauges on the window pillar are bogie brake
>>>>>>>>> cylinder pressure and main reservoir/main reservoir pipe gauges, also all
>>>>>>>>> reading zero - which would be consistent with a loco which has been shut
>>>>>>>>> down for long enough for all the air to leak out - several hours at the
>>>>>>>>> very least.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The track in front of the train looks too far to the left for the cab we're
>>>>>>>>> in to be on that line; comparing OTT maps and Google Maps, I realise I
>>>>>>>>> don't know York well enough to tell whether it might be stabled on the bay
>>>>>>>>> platform roads, with the tracks hidden behind the windscreen pillar, or
>>>>>>>>> whether those are the tracks on the right; in which case it seems that
>>>>>>>>> someone's photoshopped a platform-end photograph into the windows of a dead
>>>>>>>>> cab, with someone pretending to drive it (presumably that part was posed
>>>>>>>>> for a publicity photo at some time).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if Alamy or Getty allow photoshopped images. This one is
>>>>>>>> available in fairly high res, so any tampering would probably be evident.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know about Getty, which has its name on this image, but some of
>>>>>>> the stock photo libraries collect many of their images from free sources
>>>>>>> such as Wikimedia Commons, simply adding a description and a price tag.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think Alamy does that. For one thing, it names the photographer,
>>>>>> Monty Rakusen, and provides the date and (possibly suspect) location of the
>>>>>> shot. It's a 60MB (uncompressed), 21mp file, so definitely not one that you
>>>>>> could harvest on the web. It has strict quality controls, and one of its
>>>>>> many reasons for image rejection is 'Noticeable retouching'. Getty also
>>>>>> bans heavy retouching of submitted images.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.alamy.com/contributors/alamy-how-to-pass-qc.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not match a Class 91 cab shown in this photo:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/83791520@N00/31941954446
>>>>>
>>>>> May just be a specific design for the simulator.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It matches the class 92 cab interior posted elsewhere in the thread.
>>>>
>>>> Also don't forget that the two cabs of the class 91 aren't identical; I
>>>> don't know how much difference there is inside them.
>>>
>>> In the original BBC/Getty/whoever photo it was the sloping windscreen and
>>> the quarterlight that caught my eye and make me think of the pointy end of
>>> a 91 or a DVT. The 92 is less pointy, but still pointier than the blunt
>>> end of a 91.
>>
>> In the third post of the thread I identified it as a class 92 cab, later
>> confirmed in another post.
>
> Yes, and thank you for that.

I also checked out the class 60, which is almost the 92's sister. It's
amazing just how different the cabs are; I'd expected them to be
near-identical, apart from the diesel stuff.

I have the impression, perhaps wrongly, that US loco cabs and controls are
much more standardised. Probably true in other countries, too.

Incidentally, if you search Getty Images for 'Crewe locomotive', this is
what you get:
<https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/search/2/image?family=creative&phrase=Crewe%20locomotive&sort=best&mediatype=photography>

Drilling down, I think I may have identified 'our' 92, with some pretty
good clues to why the brake pipe pressure was zero and why Rakusen felt the
need to Photoshop the external scene. It's 92041 Vaughan Williams:
<https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/locomotive-being-refurbished-in-train-engineering-royalty-free-image/973531338?adppopup=true>

So, between us, we've identified the actual loco, exact location of the cab
shot in Crewe, and exact location of the exterior shot in York. We also
have a fair idea of the two lens focal lengths he used, and what
post-processing software he used.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 14/07/2022 22:12, Recliner wrote:
>> That can cause some hilarious gaffes in the eyes of
>> rail enthusiasts:
>
> Does it matter?
>
> I am sure there are films and programmes that you watch and enjoy but
> someone with knowledge of the area or some specialist knowledge will see
> glaring errors.

Yes, I'm sure you're right. I pick up most transport errors, but would fail
to spot most errors in contemporary fashion, furnishings, phraseology,
menus, etc.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 22:55:21 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 14/07/2022 22:12, Recliner wrote:
>>> That can cause some hilarious gaffes in the eyes of
>>> rail enthusiasts:
>>
>> Does it matter?
>>
>> I am sure there are films and programmes that you watch and enjoy but
>> someone with knowledge of the area or some specialist knowledge will see
>> glaring errors.
>
>Yes, I'm sure you're right. I pick up most transport errors, but would fail
>to spot most errors in contemporary fashion, furnishings, phraseology,
>menus, etc.
>
Some errors are glaring to more than just enthusiasts such as e.g. a
US-made film with a scene supposedly in London but with the rear
entrances on the (previously converted) buses facing the centre of the
road; another version being a similar filming with left-right reversal
of a RH-drive road including more buses but with adverts and shopsigns
clearly the wrong way round.

In message <taq0sd$2qhq7$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:12:45 on Thu, 14 Jul
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>Lots of British TV dramas involve railways, and they mostly have to be shot
>on preserved lines as access is rarely available to NR track and stations
>using current trains. That can cause some hilarious gaffes in the eyes of
>rail enthusiasts:

I'm currently watching a Neflix series set in Madrid in the 30's.
Several scenes (as characters come and go in the plotline) keep being
shot in "the railway station", but it's clearly a train museum.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tapcuv$2oe84$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:32:47 on Thu, 14 Jul
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>The drivers' strike will be three days later than the RMT strike, making
>the whole week pretty much a write-off for most rail passengers.
>
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62166276

Train drivers at eight rail companies will strike on Saturday,
30 July in a dispute over pay, union Aslef has said.

Mick Whelan, general secretary of Aslef, which represents train
drivers, said ... we believe in building trust in the railways
in Britain
erm.

The date of action on 30 July ... is also the the opening day of
the new season for most English Football League clubs.

Back in the day it was often said tongue in cheek that train strikes
were designed to co-incide with things like staff wanting to stay home
to watch the Cup Final, or go Christmas Shopping on a December Saturday.

It is understood the action could have a knock-on effect on
services running on the Sunday.

Normally strikes like this have a wind-down phase from perhaps 6pm the
previous day (inconvenient for passengers too). And there's no reason
they can't end up with the trains in the right spots to facilitate the
(also much later) start on Sunday.

Mr Shapps said: ... "it's clear union bosses are determined to
cause as much misery as possible and derail an event the whole
country is looking forward to."

Not just headline writers who can't resist puns.

Aslef has already held strike days on Greater Anglia services
and another is scheduled for Saturday 23 July. Drivers at Hull
Trains are also due to strike on 16 and 23 July.

The GA strikes have gone relatively un-noticed, apart from perhaps
increasing the fog in the press about whether the RMT strikes involved
very many drivers.

Aslef's Mr Whelan said wage rises were not "exacerbating
inflation", saying "excess profiteering is".

He's not noticed the extra costs of Covid recovery, Brexit (supply
chains), Brexit (cheap EU labour being replaced by higher paid local
labour - wasn't that what people voted for), energy prices, and the
many wage increases in other sectors (an unprecedented 4.2% average)?
--
Roland Perry

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/07/2022 11:33, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/07/2022 09:31, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62121258
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To go off at a slight tangent, does anyone recognise the train whose cab is
>>>>>>>>>>> shown in the photo, and whether it’s a real train or a simulator? The
>>>>>>>>>>> windows look like a class 91 or a Mk4 DVT approaching the Holgate Road
>>>>>>>>>>> bridge southbound at York, and the signal, Y228, seems to be at the south
>>>>>>>>>>> end of platform 5, but the dials look odd: the rotary dial in the middle
>>>>>>>>>>> looks to be pegged at max which it couldn’t be if it’s a speedo at that
>>>>>>>>>>> location, and I don’t know if the ones on the left hand pillar ought to be
>>>>>>>>>>> pointing down like that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The view out of the window of a simulator wouldn't look that good from the
>>>>>>>>>> 'wrong' angle (ie from not looking forwards from the driver's seat), and
>>>>>>>>>> the graphics are never that realistic either!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The big gauge in the middle of the desk is a brake pipe pressure gauge
>>>>>>>>>> reading zero; the duplex gauges on the window pillar are bogie brake
>>>>>>>>>> cylinder pressure and main reservoir/main reservoir pipe gauges, also all
>>>>>>>>>> reading zero - which would be consistent with a loco which has been shut
>>>>>>>>>> down for long enough for all the air to leak out - several hours at the
>>>>>>>>>> very least.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The track in front of the train looks too far to the left for the cab we're
>>>>>>>>>> in to be on that line; comparing OTT maps and Google Maps, I realise I
>>>>>>>>>> don't know York well enough to tell whether it might be stabled on the bay
>>>>>>>>>> platform roads, with the tracks hidden behind the windscreen pillar, or
>>>>>>>>>> whether those are the tracks on the right; in which case it seems that
>>>>>>>>>> someone's photoshopped a platform-end photograph into the windows of a dead
>>>>>>>>>> cab, with someone pretending to drive it (presumably that part was posed
>>>>>>>>>> for a publicity photo at some time).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if Alamy or Getty allow photoshopped images. This one is
>>>>>>>>> available in fairly high res, so any tampering would probably be evident.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know about Getty, which has its name on this image, but some of
>>>>>>>> the stock photo libraries collect many of their images from free sources
>>>>>>>> such as Wikimedia Commons, simply adding a description and a price tag.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think Alamy does that. For one thing, it names the photographer,
>>>>>>> Monty Rakusen, and provides the date and (possibly suspect) location of the
>>>>>>> shot. It's a 60MB (uncompressed), 21mp file, so definitely not one that you
>>>>>>> could harvest on the web. It has strict quality controls, and one of its
>>>>>>> many reasons for image rejection is 'Noticeable retouching'. Getty also
>>>>>>> bans heavy retouching of submitted images.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.alamy.com/contributors/alamy-how-to-pass-qc.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does not match a Class 91 cab shown in this photo:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/83791520@N00/31941954446
>>>>>>
>>>>>> May just be a specific design for the simulator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It matches the class 92 cab interior posted elsewhere in the thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also don't forget that the two cabs of the class 91 aren't identical; I
>>>>> don't know how much difference there is inside them.
>>>>
>>>> In the original BBC/Getty/whoever photo it was the sloping windscreen and
>>>> the quarterlight that caught my eye and make me think of the pointy end of
>>>> a 91 or a DVT. The 92 is less pointy, but still pointier than the blunt
>>>> end of a 91.
>>>
>>> In the third post of the thread I identified it as a class 92 cab, later
>>> confirmed in another post.
>>
>> Yes, and thank you for that.
>
> I also checked out the class 60, which is almost the 92's sister. It's
> amazing just how different the cabs are; I'd expected them to be
> near-identical, apart from the diesel stuff.
>
> I have the impression, perhaps wrongly, that US loco cabs and controls are
> much more standardised. Probably true in other countries, too.
>
> Incidentally, if you search Getty Images for 'Crewe locomotive', this is
> what you get:
> <https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/search/2/image?family=creative&phrase=Crewe%20locomotive&sort=best&mediatype=photography>
>
> Drilling down, I think I may have identified 'our' 92, with some pretty
> good clues to why the brake pipe pressure was zero and why Rakusen felt the
> need to Photoshop the external scene. It's 92041 Vaughan Williams:
> <https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/locomotive-being-refurbished-in-train-engineering-royalty-free-image/973531338?adppopup=true>

Yes, and that shot pretty much shows why the exterior view is faked - the
original would have had a nice view of the hoist tower holding the loco up.

> So, between us, we've identified the actual loco, exact location of the cab
> shot in Crewe, and exact location of the exterior shot in York. We also
> have a fair idea of the two lens focal lengths he used, and what
> post-processing software he used.

Well done us! :-)

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> Lots of British TV dramas involve railways, and they mostly have to be shot
>> on preserved lines as access is rarely available to NR track and stations
>> using current trains. That can cause some hilarious gaffes in the eyes of
>> rail enthusiasts
>
> TV - and movies - are just as bad at planes as they are trains...
> Not at all unexpected for the plane to be a 737 on the runway, an
> A320 once it's in the air, and a twin-aisle widebody in all the
> interior shots. Except the cockpit, which is from a
> steam-powered 707.
>
> I watched a few episodes of a (terrible - don't bother) show on
> Netflix recently called Manifest IIRC, in which the plane
> constantly switches between a 737-NG and a 737-200 from scene to
> scene - which may seem minor (it is!) but given the series
> revolves entirely around this plane it's incredibly annoying.
> (Albeit not the worst thing about the series - that would be the
> "I can't believe I'm not in church" endless evangelical
> god-bothering. I assume it was originally made for America's
> Heartland Daytime TV.)
>

Yes, aircraft continuity errors are even worse than trains, because they
rely so much on library clips or images. Clips of plane take-offs with the
undercarriage retracting usually seem to be of 747s, because the
choreography of four four-wheel main gears folding is so much more
impressive than the simple, spindly 737 (etc) underpinnings.

And, as you say, they favour 747s for interior shots. I assume the major
studios have 747 interior mock-ups, possibly already fitted with camera
tracks. Until recently, they often used to feature the old 747-200 nose,
complete with spiral staircase, which Boeing stopped making about 35 years
ago. This applied even to short-haul flights that never had 747s.

The clips are also usually dated: many Heathrow shots illustrating current
news stories still feature 747s from airlines that no longer operate them,
such as BA and Virgin.