matt sterbator
Pro
Hiding in the bushes
Posts: 1367
|
posted August 28, 2005 07:47 PM
quote:
Matt........I do believe you have been called out in the street. I would say it's put up or shut up time. If you're so sure of yourself Trenace is offering 200 bucks for you. Come on out and get it. Are YA CHICKEN???????? IF ya can't make the ante just put your head down and walk away from the table 
Nope, I'm not playing the whole internet bet bullshit. I've stated my position, money won't make it more true.
I'll walk away from the table when Kawasaki releases the real pics. If they're the same pics as posted above, I'll eat my words. However, without that official press release, we're both just gambling, HOPING that either one of us is correct.
I've said why I thought they're fake, the only thing the believers have to go on are pictures linked on a personal website. 
   
|
gunner
Needs a life
Posts: 5778
|
posted August 29, 2005 02:08 AM
Well, something is up for sure or Kawasaki wouldn't be offering money on them to get rid of the left over stock. Whatever the changes are they must be big enough that KHI feels that the current model won't sell once the new one is released.
Just a guess from an old and stupid man
____________
There's no such thing as a motor with no more power to give only people with no more intelligence to get it
|
Hitman12
Novice Class
Posts: 89
|
posted August 29, 2005 04:01 AM
Gunner your right on point when ever you see large rebates on a current model that means the next year there a major changes to the bike and want to help the dealers clear that stock so they will order more of the new bike!
____________
Move over and let the fatman in!
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted August 29, 2005 06:05 PM
Okay... okay.... some more comments from someone else that uses Adobe Photoshop for a living (and has dabbled in studio photography for 20 years or so)....
These are "created" images. Plain and simple. Are they an accurate rendition of what the '06 will look like is not for me say, because I do not have a clue. Yet, they are not "untouched" actual photographs by any stretch of the imagination. After close examination, there are way too many "give aways" that can not be explained away by "studio lighting", "internet reproduction" and such. The picture that makes the fact that they were "created" most obvious is the very first one. Here are a few examples why...
1. The configuration and appearance of the swingarm and even the chain guard are VERY SIMILAR to the '05 Yamaha R1.
I find it strange that since KHI has found success with their current configuration of having the bracing above the chain on both the 6R/636 and 10R models, that they would switch to an obvious "knock off" that looks almost identical to that of another manufacturer's design. Yes, it might have a lower CG, but one would think that KHI would change the appearance a little more that just adding a "cut out" on the chain guard to make it "kinda" look like the older version. To not think the KHI's R&D isn't capable of designing a swingarm that accomplishes the same purpose and not at least put out a little effort to make it look different is silly.
2. The perspective of the exhaust/license plate bracket does not match the tail light or the rest of the tail section.
The is one of the bigger mistakes this "artist" made. If one was able to see the plate and reflector at this angle, to continue on with this perspective, the tail light would also be visible at the similar angle. It is not, even at this POV. The whole "exhaust/plate/fender" assembly is cocked just a little too much to the left/forward and has a slight upward angle towards the left. The plate bracket and reflector leaves no discernable shadow on the rear tire in the first pic, but does have a slight one in the third. No matter how it was lit, there would be some sort of shadow of at least the reflector.
It is also visible in the third picture. If it was "taken" at a true 90 degree angle to bike, why can you see the back of the license plate as much as you do more so than say the front part of the rear seat? If it were a "type of lens used" issue, it would also be have a similar perspective on the inside of the front wheel.
3. The exhaust end caps.
This is the other big mistake. In the first picture, not only are they not shaped the same on the outside, but the indentation around the outlet is also off. Lighting would not give the left end cap a more "rounded" look while the right end cap had far more pronounced angles. Also, the right canister should not be as far back as it is from this POV.
4. The side cover under the seat in the second picture.
Here is were he (or she) got a little lazy. The shadows of the indentation are incorrect for the lighting angles. It should be far more pronounced if it was to match the configuration shown in the other two pics. As a matter of fact, the shadowing for the whole pic is kinda off and they went a little overboard on the saturation. The lines separating the various body parts, seat and so on seem a little more "averaged" than they are in the other two pics. There's a lot of averaging done on all three pics.
5. Rear foot peg shadows.
To create a shadow that hard would have also had a similar effect on other neighboring areas if not on the whole picture.
6. The raised "tear drop" part of the upper headlight.
The reflection of the lighting and the shadowing does not match. Not to mention the expense of manufacturing such a headlight assembly or what it's superior benefit is over "more conventional" designs would be had for me to accept as being reasonable. It would be far easier to create unique lighting configurations on the "inside" of the housing (reflectors, shrouds, etc.) than having a bezel that disrupts the aerodynamic flow.
I will also say that I do not believe the relationship between the canisters and the rear wheel travel is of any issue. I might question the canister design from a "volume/flow" perspective (a little much, even if they did have integrated catalytic converters), but it appears that they went beyond what would be necessary for clearance purposes. WAAAAY beyond. More to the point of impracticably wide.
After studying all three pics for a while, there are many other aspects that do not question, but prove beyond any doubt that these photographs have been altered. Trenace, you can keep your $200, because again, I am NOT saying that this is not what the '06 ZX-10R will look like (or at least something similar to it). I will make no such claims concerning the accuracy of these rendering... but never the less, they ARE renderings. I'm just saying that the original photographs used did not start out looking like what we see here. I'm also not slamming the Photoshop abilities of the creator of these images... because he (or she) is good. Damn good.
All the same, it does not change the fact that there are too many "engineering" as well as "artistic" issues here that make it impossible to claim that these are not altered... substantially altered, from what the original images were. One thing is obvious. The creator is far more of an artist than an engineer.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted August 29, 2005 06:59 PM
 Edited By: trenace on 29 Aug 2005 20:14
Now that is exactly what I was asking for: a rational basis for expecting these to be photoshops rather than a fairly absurd assertion (that the wheel would hit the cans, when the spacing is clearly more than great enough for the tire) combined with an attitude of things are photoshops until proven otherwise, rather than status is questionable either way until provenance is shown.
That is why I did not offer beyond 2:1 odds on it.
Your reasons are entirely rational.
I don't see them myself, and my expectation still is that the diffuse studio lighting can easily fool one. This makes points 3-6 inconclusive. Point 1, similarity to R1, is not conclusive either.
Which leaves pretty much point 2. I don't understand it frankly. You may be correct, I simply fail to understand it.
But this is what I was talking about, a rational basis to say that this appears a photoshop rather than real.
As you have noted, created photographs of complex objects will almost always (unless a great deal of money is spent) have artifacts or inconsistencies that give reason to say something appears fake.
Given a complex object and a picture which appears to lack such flaws, a person who has a good eye and good track record in discerning chops from real (I have a good record at it, you definitely have a sharp eye) is entirely reasonable in saying that something appears to most probably or even very most probably be one or the other, real or fake. But to proclaim it fake, there should be some significant arguments to go on. Which you have provided, though the great majority are artifacts of lighting in my opinion, but that's a realm for reasonable differences in opinion.
Unfortunately, the method of lighting Kawasaki has used before in similar photos and what appears to be the case here, is rather strange and very unnatural lighting indeed. It can make the real appear fake: you've probably noticed this on various Kawasaki stock photos against similar backgrounds with similar lighting, I definitely have.
Ultimately -- in a matter of a week or two -- the determination of whether these pics are one or the other should really come down to whether each part that can be found appears to be the same part or not. If each part in fact appears the same, it will not be reasonable to claim these as being photoshops; contrariwise, if significant parts are different (for example different tires would not count as significant) then it would be fair to call these pics photoshops.
Frankly, I can't see why anyone would have gone to this degree of bother. As you've stated, if photoshops, they're damn good, and could not have been done fast. Since there's no commercial benefit to them, their existence would be a real puzzler, if so.
BTW, Redelk, would it be OK with you if I reposted your analysis on the ZRXOA board, noting that it is by you? I think it would be best, having presented the pics, to provide the alternate view on their authenticity in rebuttal to the pics now that a well-reasoned one has been written.
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted August 29, 2005 08:30 PM
quote:
I don't see them myself, and my expectation still is that the diffuse studio lighting can easily fool one. This makes points 3-6 inconclusive. Point 1, similarity to R1, is not conclusive either.
Which leaves pretty much point 2. I don't understand it frankly. You may be correct, I simply fail to understand it.
Since we are dealing with an electronic medium here, how it appears to each viewer can vary widely and for an equally wide variety of reasons. Be it "hardware" (equipment) or "software" (the person viewing).
quote:
Frankly, I can't see why anyone would have gone to this degree of bother. As you've stated, if photoshops, they're damn good, and could not have been done fast. Since there's no commercial benefit to them, their existence would be a real puzzler, if so.
"Conceptual Drawings" and "Artist Rendering" have been used by print publications of all stripes to discuss "Things of the Future" just about as long as there has been ink and paper. Getting the "scoop" on what these "things" might look like is also an equally old way of promoting and more importantly, selling such publications. In other words, there is a commercial benefit for the source. Just because the images are now so widely distributed that we are not aware of who or what that source may be, does not change that fact.
Though almost all of such illustrations come from some sort of publication (electronic or print), in rare cases, manufacturers themselves have been known to "leak" misinformation. Be it "technical" or "illustrated". This is not normally aimed at the consumer as it is their competition. It likely will not throw them off track per se, but it will keep them guessing on how much is accurate and how mush is BS. One could safely assume that neither of us are responsible for the creation of these images. With this being the case, any discussion or debate over their authenticity is purely a "subjective guess" at best.
quote:
BTW, Redelk, would it be OK with you if I reposted your analysis on the ZRXOA board, noting that it is by you? I think it would be best, having presented the pics, to provide the alternate view on their authenticity in rebuttal to the pics now that a well-reasoned one has been written.
I am both honored and appreciative of your wanting to repost my comments elsewhere as a possible "rebuttal".
There are three very specific requests I have in allowing you to repost my original reply on another website. I will not track the post down to see if you followed them. I will simply trust you in that if you wish to repost it elsewhere, you will honor these simple requests I ask of you.
1. That you acknowledge where it was originally posted (Bikeland.org's ZX-10R Zone forum). If you wish to also mention the author (me), that is fine, but no big deal.
2. I would prefer that you post the entire original reply intact and not edit any part of it or place "commentary" in between my statements. As for the comments made in this reply, you are free to delete the "requests" portion. I am not trying to be "arrogant" here, but just wishing the post(s) to remain as a linear series of thoughts (which is debatable in itself) from a single individual.
You may preface or conclude either or both posts with any opinions or comments as you may feel to be appropriate. Be them favorable or not does not matter to me.
3. That you remind the forum's members that these two posts might be from someone who has Photoshop and studio photography experience (after all, who really knows, right?), but it is still simply an OPINION. Nothing more and nothing less.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted August 29, 2005 08:40 PM
BTW - Hitman does have some good sources. VERY GOOD sources. Of course, if those sources happen to follow my reasoning concerning "non-publication" outlets "leaking" information, who's to say that the "illustrations" are totally accurate, right? Just playin' Devil's Advocate. 
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted August 29, 2005 08:48 PM
Edited By: trenace on 29 Aug 2005 22:02
Will do exactly, and that is what I would have done in any case. Thank you! I think it is best to provide thoughtful balance which you have done.
UPDATE: Posted with the following preface, then your post in its entirety, with your text ending the post.
quote:
I have read a counterpoint opinion on the apparent most-likely provenance of these pics which, while myself having a differing opinion regarding the lighting (which to me appears to potentially easily account for all points except number 1 which appears inconclusive to me, and number 2 which I myself don't see and can't understand but that may be my own failing) and differing in the ultimate most-likely conclusion, I find a very thoughtful analysis which in all fairness I think should be presented, so that each can make their own decision benefitting from the thought that has been put into this, agreeing or not according to their own judgment.
The post is from Redelk on the ZX-10R Zone forum at the Bikeland.org site, copied here in its entirety. It was presented as opinion.
|
bovinespongiformencephalo
Pro
variant Kreutzfeldt-Jakob
Posts: 1060
|
posted August 29, 2005 09:03 PM
Fake pics, ugly bike. Next.
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted August 29, 2005 09:10 PM
Better than anything I could have written.
... not you, sponge bob. 
Thanks, trenace
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted August 29, 2005 09:16 PM
Thank you, Redelk!
|
Dino
Pro
Posts: 1422
|
posted August 29, 2005 10:20 PM
There are four very specific requests I have in allowing you to repost my original reply on another website. I will not track the post down to see if you followed them. I will simply trust you in that if you wish to repost it elsewhere, you will honor these simple requests I ask of you.
1. That you acknowledge where it was originally posted (Bikeland.org's ZX-10R Zone forum). If you wish to also mention the author (me), that is fine, but no big deal.
2. I would prefer that you post the entire original reply intact and not edit any part of it or place "commentary" in between my statements. As for the comments made in this reply, you are free to delete the "requests" portion. I am not trying to be "arrogant" here, but just wishing the post(s) to remain as a linear series of thoughts (which is debatable in itself) from a single individual.
You may preface or conclude either or both posts with any opinions or comments as you may feel to be appropriate. Be them favorable or not does not matter to me.
3. That you remind the forum's members that these two posts might be from someone who has Photoshop and studio photography experience (after all, who really knows, right?), but it is still simply an OPINION. Nothing more and nothing less.
4. That you then send me the sum of , oh... say,..... one MILLION dollarszzzzzz.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted August 29, 2005 10:36 PM
SHIT I read too fast and missed that last one!!!!!!!
|
k bryant
Needs a job
Sponsor
Posts: 2911
|
posted August 30, 2005 10:24 AM
If it was the dual cans on the green version above, I'd say I'll be very busy!
Not that I would have personal knowledge if it is or isn't the real thing.................................
|
kz2zx
Pro
Nobody in Particular
Posts: 1166
|
posted August 30, 2005 11:58 AM
Yeah, only the cool kids know. Sniff.
(I can wait, I'm not buying a literbike this year)
____________
ASMA 47
WERA 147
www.dhowellbooks.com
|
crip2nite
Zone Head
Posts: 820
|
posted August 30, 2005 03:34 PM
I'm so glad I got mine when I did! Can't stand the undertail or bellypan exhaust!
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted August 30, 2005 04:21 PM
Almost for sure, there is no way the D-model ( as I assume this will be named) will be anything like the difference from the C-model that it was from the ZX-9R or the Twelve, let alone the old B model (plain ZX-10, no R.)
This model was just a giant difference from any predecessor or Kawasaki contemportary.
How big an advance the D model will be, who knows, but most likely it will be a modest incremental improvement even if it is all-new parts (which it may or may not be.) Rather as the K5 Gixxer is not that drastically different than a K4 -- some elbow grease and bucks put into a given K4 will have it better than a stock or lightly modded K5 I would think, or a better rider on the K4 will wax a lesser rider on the K5; and the same could well be true here...
On the other hand a huge advance may not be impossible!
|
zeta xray
Expert Class
Posts: 416
|
posted August 30, 2005 06:12 PM
I am not a Photoshop artist and can barely do the basics. BUT, I think this (green bike) is going to be very close to what the '06 ZX10 will look like. I like the titanium bike better, but I never thought it was the real deal. I guess we will know in a couple of weeks.
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted August 31, 2005 03:31 PM
I am getting this very ugly, sinking feeling that I will be eating my words about the Photoshop aspect of the MCN pics. The number of folks and media outlets saying that it is, has been growing by the hour . Because of current/future Euro and CA emissions standards, the "Double Barreled/Semi-Undertail" could very well be a reality. Those pipes can be further explained away by the desire to "RAISE" the CG... not lower it. Other arguments over headlight size are moot when considering the "Projector Beam" possibility.
One can not help but believe the KMC marketing folks are at the very least, disappointed by the opinions shared in most of the current ZX-10R, Suzuki, Yamaha and even Honda forums. I think that this comment made at the ZX-10R.org forum summed it up best...
"I guess that's what we get for making fun of the 05 gix 1k exhaust!!"
While others (including myself, to some degree) desperately cling to the hope that this is just a big misinformation campaign, it will take a lot more than claimed "reduced weight, better handling and more HP" to overcome the strong negative feelings towards undertail exhaust. Even something seemingly minor like leaving the tach basically unchanged (if it hasn't been changed), could create some degree of backlash by not only the owners, but the magazines as well.Doing something like displaying digits next to the speedo number won't cut it either. Just because 6RR/636 owner swallowed it does not translate into liter bike owners flocking to this "styling genius". The K5, and now the R6, has proven that a smaller "semi-under belly" design can be done.
If looks could kill, this model is not a killer, but more like it has been killed.
Oh yeah, and thanks fro the radial front brake master cylinder. It just confirms what I have been saying is that the '04-'05 system had room for "improvement".
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
guzmanx-zx10r
Expert Class
2005 zx10r
Posts: 236
|
posted August 31, 2005 04:56 PM
yep it is
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted August 31, 2005 05:17 PM
Edited By: trenace on 31 Aug 2005 18:18
Don't feel bad, Redelk... I made basically the EXACT SAME MISTAKE as you did when the C model came out. I was pretty convinced that some rather similar-looking pics were fake for rather similar reason to yours. The type of lighting used does not give the shadows one would expect and on top of this, I wouldn't be surprised if they do a little processing, e.g. edge blurring or something that acts like spherical aberration, to give a little "synthetic" unreal look to the leaked pics, just so as people will wonder, thus keeping suspense up.
I absolutely agree with your basic point you were stating that to the eye there was an unnatural look to the very first set of pics, it is just that having been bit myself, winding up later seeing the exact same damn pics with needle-sharp resolution in later versions, my standards for deeming "fake" got toughened up.
I agree it was a matter of opinion with the pics first posted, not absolutely clear-cut either way.
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted August 31, 2005 05:35 PM
Edited By: redelk on 31 Aug 2005 18:37
Quoted from ZX-10R.org:
its pretty obvious whats happening here... pre release media viral campaign from kawasaki. release all sorts of "genuine" pics of zx10s to get the controversy going and the hype up (we do it all the time in the tv industry) all those pics are real and actual concept bikes that were designed by kawa designers for the big wigs to decide which direction to go... thats why they look like such good photoshop chops. coz they are real. but it doesnt mean thats what we will be riding next year thank god.
No matter. It is now obvious that no matter how "nit picky" I got over questionably existent flaws... you were spot on right and I was way off wrong. Good thing I'm not a betting man or I wouldn't have the money to get race plastic (open track day use only) for my old POS C model. My Yamaha & Honda racing buddies have already suggested a "paint job" (obviously Photo CHOPPED!) for my slower, ill handling '04...
Gotta love those tassles. Not very "aerodynamic at track speed" though.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
fish_antlers
Administrator
The Truth is Out There
Posts: 21894
|
posted August 31, 2005 06:01 PM
http://www.bikeland.org/board/viewthread.php?FID=19&TID=18743
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted September 13, 2005 06:13 PM
While having nothing to say regarding bounties, prizes, etc., regardless of all that I would think the kudos go to guzmanx-zx10r for the first detailed, definitely-correct pics. He was first, and at this point it's clear he had it right.
Whether it will be argued that he deserves nothing because the pics were snapped by a Kawasaki photographer or because he posted it in the 10R Forum is for others to mull over or argue, if there's dispute at all, I certainly have no input on it.
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC