|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 15, 2012 0:12:19 GMT
There are several phases along the lines that things may not be what they appear to be, or alternatively that what you see is what is real.
I was wondering if this phrase could be the basis for a themed episode, maybe a mini-myth episode.
Of course I promptly ran out of ideas as to what sort of myths could be included in this list after recalling the following;
Gravity Hill; There are various places around the world where it appears objects are rolling uphill due to an optical illusion. MB could visit one of these places to make sure gravity is working as it is meant to, and then build their own small scale version in the shop to explain what is going on.
Any other ideas?
|
|
|
|
Post by PK on Nov 15, 2012 0:36:43 GMT
I assume you're thinking more than just optical illusions, like Gravity Hills (or giants chained to underwater temples), right?
Seems like a pretty broad topic that would include the Mission Impossible mask myth they already did (it could be said that there's an entire industry based on "don't believe what you see", but of course advertising is off-limits).
I can think of a few, but they aren't what I'd consider to be myths: things like roller-coasters that are designed to feel faster than they really are, carnival games that seem easy, or how a road grade always feels steeper than it actually is (which, now that I think of it, could be incorporated into why Gravity Hills "work").
|
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Nov 15, 2012 0:48:08 GMT
The Slanted House: The ceiling and floor angle towards each other to create the appearance the person inside is shrinking as they walk.
|
|
|
|
Post by PK on Nov 15, 2012 0:53:27 GMT
A PTD from Disco that would fall into this category would be the Mystery Spot, just south of them in Santa Cruz. It's filled with illusions like the slanted house.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Nov 15, 2012 0:58:40 GMT
There's a lot of forced perspective and other illusions at the Exploratorium in San Francisco, including the room that seems to make you grow or shrink depending on where you are in the room.
They're very cool but I'm honestly struggling to get a good TV show out of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 15, 2012 2:38:49 GMT
How about Photoshop? One of the big things with the internet now is people altering photos for various reasons. As part of it, people frequently argue as to whether or not specific images have, indeed, been altered. This leads to some people who claim that they *inherently* know whether or not an image has been altered. So as a mini-myth, the team could get someone who's experienced with photo editing software and have them put together a portfolio of "incredible" images. Some of the images will, indeed, be shopped, while other images will be actual photos caught at incredible moments. For example, these images of 3D sketches created using chalk.Participants will be tasked with guessing whether or not individual images have, indeed, been altered. |
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Nov 15, 2012 3:06:40 GMT
Perhaps the team can build some forced perspective models like this one. Or perhaps construct static optical illusions such as this one.  |
|
|
|
Post by blazerrose on Nov 15, 2012 3:08:08 GMT
I would so love to be a volunteer for that episode! Kinda don't think Beyond would want to foot my airfare to the Bay Area, though.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Nov 15, 2012 4:47:09 GMT
Another angle is making the art of MC Escher into reality. Can it be done?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 15, 2012 6:12:44 GMT
How about Photoshop? One of the big things with the internet now is people altering photos for various reasons. As part of it, people frequently argue as to whether or not specific images have, indeed, been altered. This leads to some people who claim that they *inherently* know whether or not an image has been altered. So as a mini-myth, the team could get someone who's experienced with photo editing software and have them put together a portfolio of "incredible" images. Some of the images will, indeed, be shopped, while other images will be actual photos caught at incredible moments. For example, these images of 3D sketches created using chalk.Participants will be tasked with guessing whether or not individual images have, indeed, been altered. I like that idea, a version of 'the camera never lies'. They could also do something similar with conventional film. I mean, they ARE special effects experts after all.... |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Nov 15, 2012 16:27:19 GMT
A possible angle with that would be to show an observer a "natural" picture of a model for an amount of time & a "photoshopped" picture for the same duration. (In either order; randomizing the order of display between observers may make the results more valid.)
Objective One: Are the observers able to notice the difference(s)?
Objective Two: Can the observers accurately point out any/all of the differences?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 15, 2012 16:57:45 GMT
I guess they would also test/show what effect preconceptions have on how we view things. For example getting volunteers to fill in a questionnaire that has questions such as 'do you believe in UFO's?'
Then they can take an even number of people who answered 'yes' and 'no' and show them pictures of something 'strange' in the sky and see what they think the picture is of. They could mix 'genuine' UFO pictures with versions MB mock up themselves and pictures where the object has been identified. They *should* find that those people who believe in UFO's will identify more of the pictures as being UFO's due to their preconceptions.
It might be interesting to have a group of people looking at the pictures who are normally considered 'good' observers - such as pilots and police officers - as well to see if they really are better at observation than the general public.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 16, 2012 0:56:59 GMT
How about Photoshop? One of the big things with the internet now is people altering photos for various reasons. As part of it, people frequently argue as to whether or not specific images have, indeed, been altered. This leads to some people who claim that they *inherently* know whether or not an image has been altered. So as a mini-myth, the team could get someone who's experienced with photo editing software and have them put together a portfolio of "incredible" images. Some of the images will, indeed, be shopped, while other images will be actual photos caught at incredible moments. For example, these images of 3D sketches created using chalk.Participants will be tasked with guessing whether or not individual images have, indeed, been altered. I like that idea, a version of 'the camera never lies'. They could also do something similar with conventional film. I mean, they ARE special effects experts after all.... I had an idea as to how they can do this. The volunteers would be shown 20 images. Two of the images will be controls. One will be a basic stock photograph that the average American citizen would be reasonably expected to recognize as real, such as an unaltered photo of Pres. Obama or an unaltered photo of a famous actor. The other will be an absurdly obvious Shop job, like Jamie's head on a walrus or Grant's face on C-3PO. The other eighteen will be an even mix (nine and nine) of basic stock photographs and photographs that have been manipulated. The volunteers will look at each photo individually, and then will have a few seconds to explain their response. Once all 20 are viewed and a yay-or-nay decision made on each one, the team will explain to them one at a time what was and wasn't real. Not only will this reduce the prospect of the volunteers second-guessing themselves, it'll allow the team to gather what people are looking at and why. It can also help them determine if any pictures other than the controls are flagged any which way more often than not. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 16, 2012 1:21:51 GMT
Sitting down and explaining which pictures were doctored to each and every volunteer would take hours. A better idea might be to reveal which of the pictures were faked to the group as a whole, the footage could them be used to tell the viewers which of the pictures was faked as well.
In fact if they have a room full of volunteers they could even use the situation to run another test.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 16, 2012 9:32:42 GMT
Potatoeshop, ok, Photoshop, I can show you photo's that you will SWEAR are real, but have been manipulated "PP" Post Production.....
Want a building to disappear?... I can do that.
And I am not one of the best PP guys I know... I post sometimes on the board Pixalo, the things they can do there, such as HD photographs, are well beyond my abilities....
Photography is an Art Form,
I dont "believe" photographs any more, but I do enjoy them...
I just spent a week "Correcting" a set of holiday photographs for a friend who's camera went wrong and put a blue hue over EVERYTHING.... the ability to de-saturate the blue is beyond them, so I have done it...
You now wouldn't know there had been a problem.
Not every photo mistake is a fail.
|
|
bioLarzen
Demi-Minion
"I reject your avatars and substitute my own."
Posts: 86
|
Post by bioLarzen on Nov 20, 2012 22:59:40 GMT
How about the demonstration and explanation of the
moon-paradox (that it seems to be bigger near the horizon than high in the sky)?
bio
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 14, 2014 12:11:27 GMT
Sitting down and explaining which pictures were doctored to each and every volunteer would take hours. A better idea might be to reveal which of the pictures were faked to the group as a whole, the footage could them be used to tell the viewers which of the pictures was faked as well. In fact if they have a room full of volunteers they could even use the situation to run another test. Got to thinking about this a little further... and how it can be used to test multiple myths at once. Two groups of volunteers will be organized, under the premise of testing myths concerning testing. Both groups will be lead into a classroom-like set-up, and both groups will be shown the 20 images. One group, the control, will be run through as if it was a standardized test. They will find a machine-readable test form (such as a Scantron-brand sheet) and 2 #2 pencils at their seats. The team member running the test will give each person a set amount of time per picture (say, 60 - 90 seconds) to analyze the image and make a decision as to whether or not the image is real or fake. If it's real, they mark the letter "A" on the form; if it's fake, they mark the letter "B". Once the test is over, the test forms are gathered up by a second team member and run through the grading machine (thereby getting who said what). This gives the person who ran the test the opportunity to debrief the volunteers and get an explanation as to why they made the decisions they made. The second group, the variable group, will subject each image to a group discussion of, say, 2 minutes per image, at which point a vote will be taken and recorded. This will re-test the notion that peer pressure can cause people to change their answers in a group setting. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 15, 2014 0:48:05 GMT
Sitting down and explaining which pictures were doctored to each and every volunteer would take hours. A better idea might be to reveal which of the pictures were faked to the group as a whole, the footage could them be used to tell the viewers which of the pictures was faked as well. In fact if they have a room full of volunteers they could even use the situation to run another test. Got to thinking about this a little further... and how it can be used to test multiple myths at once. Two groups of volunteers will be organized, under the premise of testing myths concerning testing. Both groups will be lead into a classroom-like set-up, and both groups will be shown the 20 images. One group, the control, will be run through as if it was a standardized test. They will find a machine-readable test form (such as a Scantron-brand sheet) and 2 #2 pencils at their seats. The team member running the test will give each person a set amount of time per picture (say, 60 - 90 seconds) to analyze the image and make a decision as to whether or not the image is real or fake. If it's real, they mark the letter "A" on the form; if it's fake, they mark the letter "B". Once the test is over, the test forms are gathered up by a second team member and run through the grading machine (thereby getting who said what). This gives the person who ran the test the opportunity to debrief the volunteers and get an explanation as to why they made the decisions they made. The second group, the variable group, will subject each image to a group discussion of, say, 2 minutes per image, at which point a vote will be taken and recorded. This will re-test the notion that peer pressure can cause people to change their answers in a group setting. Although I think the notion that peer pressure can change minds has already been well documented over the years, another twist on it may be to take note of how many people were actually right on their first instinct but then changed it to the wrong answer because of peer pressure, effectively testing the myth that your first instinct is usually the right one. The challenge here is to get everyone to make their first instinct known without being affected by the others right away. That might be a bit tricky. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 15, 2014 11:14:39 GMT
I have an idea...
Get a "Jury" to watch a staged incident.
They will be asked to do an immediate report then be able to confer, and do a combined report.....
Or all do again individual reports, after they have talked to the others....
Take a look at how it has changed from the initial individual pre-conferring reports.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 15, 2014 11:16:33 GMT
Dont believe what you see.....
There is a MAD British inventor who has done a road legal Sofa.
Yes its a road legal Sofa, you saw that right....
Ok, so, drive something like that past a n "unsuspecting Crowd", and ask them what they saw, and how they think it may have been done.?... was it towed?... was it shoved down a hill on a trolley?.....
BTW, I have met the owner/inventor, he is totally sane, in fact, he is so sane, he has come out the other side, hence the Sofa, and a shed, and other things......
I like people like that.
They dont just think different, they actually get out and do it?....
|
|
