L.S. Dennis
Well-known member
Can someone explain to me how this was done? It sure looks real but not possible.
no, it can't be done.Can someone explain to me how this was done? It sure looks real but not possible.
He loses the gameBut, he looses the game because he did not call the pocket for the 8-ball !!
8 on break is never a loss. Well, maybe in some jackoff bikerbar situations.He loses the game
LOL I was correcting the post that had Looses instead of loses.8 on break is never a loss. Well, maybe in some jackoff bikerbar situations.
It most certainly does...photo shopped.Watch the 13 ball. You can see it and the 2 ball pass through each other like ghosts in the top right of the table.
8 ball either spots up or breaker can choose to rebreak, breakers choice.Problem is this is probably a foul, Most places 8 on the break is either a loss or it's spotted.
It's an expensive process called Schroedingal Time Lapse Mandellagramming.The question of this post was not really about the 8 on the break being a win or a loss, it was about how did they get all 15 balls in on the break shot. What kind of trick photography was used to do this?
Modern digital editing lets you do anything. More and more courts are dubious of photo evidence unless it can be verified because of this.The question of this post was not really about the 8 on the break being a win or a loss, it was about how did they get all 15 balls in on the break shot. What kind of trick photography was used to do this?
From my understanding watching Matlock years ago (well before digital), photographic evidence is only admissible in court if the photographer is there in person to testify, or, if it is from something like a video security system and the footage can be authenticated as original. I have no idea if this is true, or just made for MatlockModern digital editing lets you do anything. More and more courts are dubious of photo evidence unless it can be verified because of this.