http://i31.tinypic.com/15r0h36.jpg
http://www.hoteliermiddleeast.com/article-5178-dubai_to_host_indian_travel_agent_conference/

i wonder hows Dubai looks like on the next 5 years..??

Probably the same as it does now, but with less cranes. :)

They have documentaries of the construction of the Petronas Towers, Taipei 101 and the Burj Al Arab, so why not the Burj Dubai? :cheers:

because its made by arabs. They might not want to show the world that arabs are fully capable of constructing better and taller buildings than americans...

That sounds like a resonable explanation!Ok, I'll stop now!:lol:

The floors at the top what will they be used for?

because its made by arabs. They might not want to show the world that arabs are fully capable of constructing better and taller buildings than americans...

That sounds like a resonable explanation!Ok, I'll stop now!:lol:

This post is pretty hilarious considering the Burj was designed by an American architectural firm and built by east-asian immigrants. :lol:

This post is pretty hilarious considering the Burj was designed by an American architectural firm and built by east-asian immigrants. :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The floors at the top what will they be used for?

communication, etc.

communication, etc.

thanks:)

Well, at least the Emiratis are bold enough to approve a tower like this.

02/Aug/09

http://i32.tinypic.com/2yphffn.jpg

thank you for a new thread.. I asked for this couple of months ago but was shot down.

Thank you :master:

Oh no a threat with the pics unavailable ,too ,
hat that ,:bash:

http://i25.tinypic.com/2eqf6mg.jpg

Thunderbirds are go...!!

sorry if this has already been posted!

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/5206188.article

02/Aug/09

http://i32.tinypic.com/2yphffn.jpg


It's unbeliveble pic !!!!!! one of the greatest of BD, great shot I cant stop looking at it :)

02/Aug/09

http://i32.tinypic.com/2yphffn.jpg

Nice Dissolve

;)

^^ From the dust, in this photo i cannot see really anything; those "heavy" sandstorms are so often in Dubai?

well, it is a desert country

http://xrenovinsk.myminicity.com/

I wish this picture had lights on the building...then it would be really cool!
BTW, does anyone have more shots of the inside?

without a glass of vodka I would not climb on this tower))))

During the sunset...:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2569/3784613738_52e9683db7_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/serzz/3784613738/

nvrm

Despite all the supertalls in Dubai I believe Burj Dubai will be the only one to rise above the pollution.

During the sunset...:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2569/3784613738_52e9683db7_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/serzz/3784613738/

Nice pic :)

That last picture reminds me of the movie; "Alice in Wonderland"

That last picture reminds me of the movie; "Alice in Wonderland"

That last picture reminds me of the videogame; "Half Life 2" with the citadel

if aliens landed on earth and wanted to see our tallest building, i would be proud to show them burj Dubai.
i dont think i would be happy a few years ago to show taipei101 or petronas.
they would look at burj dubai and say. now thats a skyscraper. you live.we wont eradicate your species for now.

That last picture reminds me of the videogame; "Half Life 2" with the citadel

hahaha.....for some reason i started thinking the same thing when i glimpsed over it.

if aliens landed on earth and wanted to see our tallest building, i would be proud to show them burj Dubai.
i dont think i would be happy a few years ago to show taipei101 or petronas.
they would look at burj dubai and say. now thats a skyscraper. you live.we wont eradicate your species for now.

:lol: But Burj Dubai is only ONE. I have a feeling they wouldn't spare our ass for only one supertall building! :runaway:

You would point at the tower and then they would fire their lasers! :lol: Remember "Independence Day"? :lol: We need many such buildings to impress the aliens! Otherwise ---> :master::master::master:


:D

http://i26.tinypic.com/w1uuzs.jpg

OOh its almost cladded! Cheers Burj!

IMO the real thing looks much much much better than that what we could expect from the renders.

Working at those heights how do they do it.:bash::bash:

very carefully I guess.

How do they get those final pieces of cladding to the top of the spire without a crane at those hights?

^^^ they get used to it. its addictive...

New photo:
Burj Dubai HDR
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2450/3787418805_98ca469912_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alipolat0/3787418805/

very carefully I guess.

How do they get those final pieces of cladding to the top of the spire without a crane at those hights?

with the BMU's crane

a natural version of Burj Dubai...LOOOL

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm220/ahmednewkirk/DSC01004.jpg

At certain angles, it really does look like that building in Halflife2. I gonna go back and play that game again! :D

New photo:
Burj Dubai HDR
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2450/3787418805_98ca469912_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alipolat0/3787418805/

spooky picture....:cheers: Dark side castle.....

That is one strange looking shot alright...

Soon enough Burj Dubai will finally be complete! And it will look a millions times better than any render that's for sure! :banana:

Hi all.

The shot above looks to be a render to me.

Level 10 looks much higher than the rest in tier 0 - it isn't on the real structure. Also where are the annexes ? - shopped out I guess.

I presume we will be seeing the crane disassembly proceedure continue soon.

The cladding is progressing although it seems - slowly.

We need some shots of the landscaping so we can see some progress there.

Looks like Emaar won't let any general public site visits so after completion ( soft opening in Dec - ?) I'm hoping for a flood of interior shots.

:cheers:

Hi all.

The shot above looks to be a render to me.

Level 10 looks much higher than the rest in tier 0 - it isn't on the real structure. Also where are the annexes ? - shopped out I guess.

I presume we will be seeing the crane disassembly proceedure continue soon.

The cladding is progressing although it seems - slowly.

We need some shots of the landscaping so we can see some progress there.

Looks like Emaar won't let any general public site visits so after completion ( soft opening in Dec - ?) I'm hoping for a flood of interior shots.

:cheers:

Amen! We need some interior shots real bad!!!!!

if aliens landed on earth and wanted to see our tallest building, i would be proud to show them burj Dubai.
i dont think i would be happy a few years ago to show taipei101 or petronas.
they would look at burj dubai and say. now thats a skyscraper. you live.we wont eradicate your species for now.
I'm too embarrassed to look at Taipei 101 myself.

spooky picture....:cheers: Dark side castle.....

That is one strange looking shot alright...

As i said in my post the photo its HDR type ;)

http://www.siue.edu/babel/Babel%20Tower%202.jpg
Almost... :happy:

Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.(Gen 11:4)

Sounds a hell lot like Dubai!


and no I'm not a religious guy ;)

^^ Correct, you're just a annoyance

and that is why?

Is that you speaking as a religious guy, as forum troll, or just to show of your 'cool' moderator status vs new poster(who has been watching the forums for more than 2 years)?
Really, I expect more from a moderator like you, how can expect anything good to come from a reaction like this?

Now if you could point out why you think Im an annoyance, I could respect that ...
My post is not against the forum rules, it's more relevant that half of the posts in this topic, and since its my first post in this topic it could hardly be annoying.

Oh and if you have anything like that to say in the near future, be an example and PM me instead, your post is annoying too.

New photo:
Burj Dubai HDR
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2450/3787418805_98ca469912_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alipolat0/3787418805/

Brilliant, they've made a photo of the building look like a render of the building.

It is a render :nuts:

of course its a render.its too silver.

stewie at base of burj dubai
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/6508/upsidedown5vu20xr.gif

wonder if this will be seen as an 'annoyance' too...

of course its a render.its too silver.

Not to mention the disappearance of all surroundings. lol

only way for that render to be real is if the cladding are mirrors, and reflects all the lights.

As i said in my post the photo its HDR type ;)

Yes, I know! :D


Soon enough Burj Dubai will finally be complete! And it will look a millions times better than any render that's for sure! :banana:

^^ ;)

No surroundings/construction in sight at all, it's too silver/metalic looking and the top end looks all distorted to me. :cheers:

To me, the bulk of it looks like a physical (architectural) model then photoshopped against a different background. The top segment looks like it was taken from someplace else and the base doesn't look like a model but from a different picture/rendering.

My two cents.

Wonder if they'll use a chopper to get the last of the crane pieces down.

Wonder if they'll use a chopper to get the last of the crane pieces down.

They should just throw them down for the lolz :banana:

Hi all.

As I posted earlier the "HDR" shot looks like a render to me. Level 10 is higher than the rest of tier 0 levels. In reality 9 to 15 are all the same at 3.2 m.

The cranes disassembly proceedure is well laid out and they have followed it so far. The last / smallest crane will be taken down in pieces in an elevator.

:cheers:

New photos:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2624/3793433516_5c9bbfe442_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27503165@N04/3793433516/

August of 2008, last year:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3541/3793215648_5cbba87d1e_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7573331@N08/3793215648/

^^ Incredible. Almost too tall!

the "new photo" isnt that new. its a few weeks old atleast judging by the cladding.

the "new photo" isnt that new. its a few weeks old atleast judging by the cladding.

It's from 5 August, and you can't really see the cladding high up very good.

It's from 5 August, and you can't really see the cladding high up very good.

Nope, it was taken on July 19th.

And a reminder for those who think the Burj looks tall in photos like that, this is what it actually looks like -

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/SlcQGLR4RhI/AAAAAAAADxY/DLw370Azrxs/s800/IMG_2371_2.jpg

christos-greece you keep coming with 'new photos' which usually arent even close to be 2-week fresh, whats the point

Nope, it was taken on July 19th.

And a reminder for those who think the Burj looks tall in photos like that, this is what it actually looks like -

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/SlcQGLR4RhI/AAAAAAAADxY/DLw370Azrxs/s800/IMG_2371_2.jpg

i think this is the first pic i've seen of BD where it does look more then 600+ meters.

I agree with european, in all those other pictures, it looks like 600 feet, not 600+ meters

Has the top been stretched in that pic.... something just doesnt look right

Has the top been stretched in that pic.... something just doesnt look right

It doesn't look right because you're so used to seeing photographs of the Burj Dubai that have been taken with the camera pitched up. This causes converging verticals and the building to look like it's falling backwards.

It is however possibly the only perspectively correct photograph taken from that spot, and accurately represents how the building would look if you were standing there.

Apologies for the repost, but a picture paints a thousand words:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/Slcx3COp0HI/AAAAAAAADx4/R2d2z3kew4A/s800/Shiftcomparison.jpg

Last Of Burj Dubai's Glass Panels To Be Installed Soon


DUBAI, July 29 (Bernama) -- The last piece of glass cladding of the world's tallest building, Burj Dubai, is now ready and will be installed in the coming weeks.

The six-metre long glass, aluminium and steel piece -- panel number 24,348 -- will be placed at the bottom of Burj Dubai's spire, according to a statement from parties involved in the project.

Arabian Aluminium Company started work on the exterior cladding of Burj Dubai in April 2007.

Panels of more than 18 different strength specifications and over 200 sizes are being used for the building currently standing at over 800m.

Being developed by Emaar Properties, the tower is scheduled to open later this year.

-- BERNAMA

Will this actually be the last piece of cladding ? Going forward after the building opens, at some point, even years later, it will be necessary to replace cladding that gets damaged by large storms or whatever.

In an ordinary building, the owners can call any glass company to come in and do whatever work is needed - it's mainly a "one size fits all situation".

Not so with the BD. Given that this is not an ordinary building--the cladding is all custom designed and built, and supplied by a company some distance away in another country -- will there be an inventory of cladding spare parts to be kept in a secure place either on-site or at least in the city - to be available quickly if the need arises.

They said there's many different sizes, shapes and strengths of cladding panels on the building - and it all cost hundreds of millions U S dollars. They'd need a way to produce and install on demand, or have a stock if the need ever happened.

Also, how would they get cladding up high later on once the cranes are gone ? Could a combination of BMU's do the job from the ground, as some panels are too large for even the biggest elevators ?

Any comments from the experts ?

Thank you

Thanks gerald.d, its so weird looking at those 2 pics... looks like its taken form the same place.... but the first one makes the building look rubbish and the second makes it look Epic!

Thanks gerald.d, its so weird looking at those 2 pics... looks like its taken form the same place.... but the first one makes the building look rubbish and the second makes it look Epic!

Same camera, same lens, same location for both photos.

the lights! I want to see it with the lights on! At night will be fantastic!

08/August/2009

Burj Dubai

http://i27.tinypic.com/2lth4rt.jpg

http://i32.tinypic.com/j7spqb.jpg

http://i29.tinypic.com/dlmd6d.jpg

http://i28.tinypic.com/w16ue1.jpg

http://i26.tinypic.com/34r6suo.jpg

http://i29.tinypic.com/11912z6.jpg

http://i29.tinypic.com/24fwil0.jpg

http://i26.tinypic.com/243hts3.jpg

http://i32.tinypic.com/snmgyw.jpg

http://i30.tinypic.com/sqlh1z.jpg

more photos here: www.dubaiupdate.com ,

http://picasaweb.google.com/imresolt/BurjDubaiConstructionUpdate08August2009#

Will this actually be the last piece of cladding ? Going forward after the building opens, at some point, even years later, it will be necessary to replace cladding that gets damaged by large storms or whatever.

In an ordinary building, the owners can call any glass company to come in and do whatever work is needed - it's mainly a "one size fits all situation".

Not so with the BD. Given that this is not an ordinary building--the cladding is all custom designed and built, and supplied by a company some distance away in another country -- will there be an inventory of cladding spare parts to be kept in a secure place either on-site or at least in the city - to be available quickly if the need arises.

They said there's many different sizes, shapes and strengths of cladding panels on the building - and it all cost hundreds of millions U S dollars. They'd need a way to produce and install on demand, or have a stock if the need ever happened.

Also, how would they get cladding up high later on once the cranes are gone ? Could a combination of BMU's do the job from the ground, as some panels are too large for even the biggest elevators ?

Any comments from the experts ?

Thank you

Not an expert here but my perception has always been that the cladding panels they are installing now are all custom pre-fab units that contain, in addition to the window glass, the structural framework which makes up the exterior curtain wall of the building and that if a window were to break in the future that they wouldn't detach and re-install the entire cladding panel with its framework, etc but just re-glaze the panel with new window glass and that could be done using the BMU cranes, and some high altitude window glazers and some steady nerves.

Almost done:cheers:

what a journey

beautiful!!

but still they can build longer right?

^^ Great pictures, almost time for the last panels!
I'm surprised each time how good it looks! :)

It's almost done on top now! :) It's been a long road to get to this point...

wooow:happy::banana:,wow, a few meters to finish with the last glass panels:) , the tower shines like a diamond and looks fantastic and it still does not clean the glass

Oh mine, what a splendid sight!:banana::cheers:

so massive!

Beautiful!

nice, cladding is nearly finished :banana:
do we have some new photos from the other side where the large crane was?

whooooaaaaa..
cool
:nuts:
nice:dance2:

In an ordinary building, the owners can call any glass company to come in and do whatever work is needed - it's mainly a "one size fits all situation".

Not so with the BD. Given that this is not an ordinary building--the cladding is all custom designed and built, and supplied by a company some distance away in another country -- will there be an inventory of cladding spare parts to be kept in a secure place either on-site or at least in the city - to be available quickly if the need arises.



Thank you

that is what you get for watching too much cable stories from NG or Discovery channels..

the glass is not special like that used in aero space engg.. it is architectural glass made by guardian glass in italy.. it is processed by local company white aluminum then assembled by local company arabiam aluminium with JV from Hk company fareast.

normally there are 2% or at least 2 pcs of "attick stock".

only 1 month left and the Dubai Metro open :)

08/August/2009

Dubai Metro, Burj Dubai Metro Station

http://i28.tinypic.com/axfw1z.jpg

http://i32.tinypic.com/2ngesfs.jpg

Amazing pics & news...........

Imre, have you ever tried to make a Vertical Panorama? I Just saw it on some photoblog of a friend of mine,

i think if you split the building in 10 sections and make a foto of each part, then post them after each other on the forum, i looks like a Vertical Panorama.

Greets

^^ How about splitting it into 75 sections?

(link removed - I'm redoing the Zoomify at the moment as not really happy with it)

i hate to be a pain in the @ss, and post this old pic. but i think it's worth posting :lol:
http://www.talentbird.com/resources/dubai.jpg
notice the steel going in!

Wow I have been following the construction of this building since 2005, I cannot believe it is almost done and that the cladding will be finished this month. I hope to one day see this for myself, it does not matter how long it will take me to get to Dubai, this tower will still be the world's tallest when I see it.

that metro station...

:drool:

Great sky lin , i like the metro:):banana:

For Sparxter:

http://www.dxbae.com/IMG_1844b-Panorama.html

Burj Dubai is gorgeous!I think it will be the world's tallest building at least 10 years fron now on.

Thnx Gerald.d i like that panorama :)

I wish this picture had lights on the building...then it would be really cool!
BTW, does anyone have more shots of the inside?

I've found some pictures showing the rooms in BD. Possible it has already been shown here.

http://www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com/2009/insider/burj-dubai-insider.html

Example:

http://www.burjdubaiskyscraper.com/2009/insider/insider-10.jpg

Same camera, same lens, same location for both photos.

Sorry for being off-topic. Just one last question, gerald.d: did you mean the two pictures look so different because the camera was a bit tilted in one of the pictures?

Thank you.

Now thats what i call a kick ass metro station!

only 1 month left and the Dubai Metro open :)

08/August/2009

Dubai Metro, Burj Dubai Metro Station

http://i28.tinypic.com/axfw1z.jpg

http://i32.tinypic.com/2ngesfs.jpg

wow.. nice..
:crazy2:

Sorry for being off-topic. Just one last question, gerald.d: did you mean the two pictures look so different because the camera was a bit tilted in one of the pictures?

Thank you.

It looks to me like the right picture was taken from at least twice the distance with a higher power lens.

Sorry for being off-topic. Just one last question, gerald.d: did you mean the two pictures look so different because the camera was a bit tilted in one of the pictures?

Thank you.

Yup - in the picture on the left, the camera was tilted upwards. This changes the perspective and causes vertical lines in the image to converge, which makes the building look shorter than it really is, and as if it is toppling over backwards. It's a little extreme because it is a relatively wide angle lens (17mm on a full-frame DSLR).

In the picture on the right, the lens was shifted up, with the film plane remaining perpendicular to the horizontal - this provides the true perspective with verticals staying vertical.

(Nomadd22 - as mentioned, the same camera, same lens, and same location was used for both shots)

Yup - in the picture on the left, the camera was tilted upwards. This changes the perspective and causes vertical lines in the image to converge, which makes the building look shorter than it really is, and as if it is toppling over backwards. It's a little extreme because it is a relatively wide angle lens (17mm on a full-frame DSLR).

In the picture on the right, the lens was shifted up, with the film plane remaining perpendicular to the horizontal - this provides the true perspective with verticals staying vertical.

(Nomadd22 - as mentioned, the same camera, same lens, and same location was used for both shots)

In case anyone else is interested, maybe this will help. The black lines represent light falling on the film plane (or digital sensor) from the exact same angle. Normally to shoot something tall, you must tilt the lens back, but this causes the film plan to be out-of-parallel with the subject, so the subject appears to lean back. By contrast, a shift lens keeps the film plan parallel to the subject, but shifts the lens elements so that the entire thing can be captured:

http://www.uwgb.edu/moored/tilt-shift.gif

This is not an easy way to construct a lens. Congrats Gerald, that is one amazing thing you've got!

Gerald, lately I've been shooting with my 24mm too and of course at the widest angles there can be distortion. A normal 17mm would be crazy, hence why you have that awesome TS lens. Some programs like DPP can correct for distortion - do you think that would work for a semi-wide angle shot of the Burj? I still know what you mean though; even if you angled up to fit the burj in the shot and corrected for distortion, you'd still be off vertical on the film / sensor plane.

What I suppose I'm asking is if you think I could somewhat replicate your shot with the 24mm if I was far enough away to capture the entire burj in one frame, then corrected for distortion?

Granted, I'd love to have / rent that TS though heh... Nice explaination.

It's possible to correct for the perspective in programs such as Photoshop. The problem is though that you either lose, or have to interpolate, a LOT of pixels in the process, which significantly impacts the quality of the image.

Clearly in the photo on the right, there is detail towards the top of the building that simply doesn't exist in the photo on the left.

(more examples of photos taken with the lens here - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=909126 )

Thanks for the info Gerald. It really puts a new perspective on things :p

Even with a larger screen here, I faintly see what you mean when you have the two BD shots in the same large image side by side.

Could you do a crop of both tops by chance so I could see it more closely please? I'm not doubting there is more detail in the top of the TS shot, it's just hard for me to make out clearly.

im excited and confused at the same time. Is the opening date 9/9/09 or 12/2/09?

im excited and confused at the same time. Is the opening date 9/9/09 or 12/2/09?
9/9/9 was the intended date, but it's mission impossible now. Maybe the cladding will be complete by then.

Now... uh... I'm sorry to ask: 12/2 as in 12 February or as in December 2nd?

It's that in the Western world, only North Americans put month/day/year for dates (which makes as much sense as minutes/seconds/hours :tongue2:), but since there are many Americans here, I wondered. ;)

I think that Burj Dubai will be inaugurated by December, just in time for a great New Year's party with fireworks and stuff. They have not announced an official date yet, but that's my personal guess.

Works will only be fully concluded in 2010, now that's an official prediction they have assumed.

Don't make fun of our goofy standards, there's nothing we can do about it. :nuts:

9/9/9 was the intended date, but it's mission impossible now. Maybe the cladding will be complete by then.

Now... uh... I'm sorry to ask: 12/2 as in 12 February or as in December 2nd?

It's that in the Western world, only North Americans put month/day/year for dates (which makes as much sense as minutes/seconds/hours :tongue2:), but since there are many Americans here, I wondered. ;)

I think that Burj Dubai will be inaugurated by December, just in time for a great New Year's party with fireworks and stuff. They have not announced an official date yet, but that's my personal guess.

Works will only be fully concluded in 2010, now that's an official prediction they have assumed.

December 2nd im american lol

:cheers1:

Soft opening though, no way on earth this will be finished anytime soon! lol

Hi all.

Yes - 09 12 02 ( I use yr mo day - keeps pics in order) is the latest press release opening date. I too think this is the new date for the soft opening. As usual the general public is taken for a ride - the release said opening on that date - carefull not to mention full opening. Also not mentioning soft opening so everyone thinks the whole structure will be complete ... :ohno:

I think Imre said it best in another thread - Dec 2 of what year ?

I'm sure the completion of the whole of the works will be in the first quarter or half of '10. As I posted many pages ago - there will be one or more press releases saying full opening will be later than Dec.

:cheers:

Guys, since i am planning a trip to Dubai for february next year, i am keen on to know if the first openning will include the openning of the ob-deck? Or will this happen later?

12/August/2009

Burj Dubai

nice weather:)

http://i30.tinypic.com/2cereir.jpg

http://i31.tinypic.com/2gyactt.jpg

http://i30.tinypic.com/ic1her.jpg

http://i25.tinypic.com/dpiql1.jpg

http://i31.tinypic.com/qxm4g2.jpg

http://i27.tinypic.com/dfzq53.jpg

http://i31.tinypic.com/2zqa6ac.jpg

http://i26.tinypic.com/66j9md.jpg

http://i25.tinypic.com/30jr23r.jpg

http://i29.tinypic.com/fw0kya.jpg

http://i27.tinypic.com/o9ib8i.jpg

more pics here:

http://picasaweb.google.com/imresolt/BurjDubaiConstructionPhotos12August2009#

It doesn't look right because you're so used to seeing photographs of the Burj Dubai that have been taken with the camera pitched up. This causes converging verticals and the building to look like it's falling backwards.

It is however possibly the only perspectively correct photograph taken from that spot, and accurately represents how the building would look if you were standing there.

Apologies for the repost, but a picture paints a thousand words:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/Slcx3COp0HI/AAAAAAAADx4/R2d2z3kew4A/s800/Shiftcomparison.jpg

Sorry to say that but, it doesn't matter whichever expensive lens/camera you're using, the picture on the left is correct and the one on the right is distorted. I have been in that spot myself too, the building looks exactly like on the left picture. Anyone who has a a good eye or with a technical perspective drawing knowledge will see that.

What is wrong with vertical lines are not looking parallel on the picture? if your viewing angle is not parallel to the ground, of course you will have a 3 point perspective. seems like you want to live in a 2 dimensional world?

I'm not saying that you're pictures are bad or your lens is useless... But as with fish eye lenses, your lens shows the world distorted too. Saying that your pictures are the correct look of Burj Dubai is misleading the people who have never seen it before. There is no way you can retain the proportions correct, if your viewing angle is not perpendicular to the film surface. And that is more visible at the spire, which looks much taller than the real thing.


Edit: The picture on the left is also not 100% undistorted due to wide angle lens, but if you look at the building only, the proportions and perspective is exactly the same as you're looking at the tower from that point.

^^ I totally agree. I've never seen bd for my self so i keep my mouth shut, but it always looks unnatural for me. And now im sure Mithat is right. Notice that spaces between the mech floors on the right picture looks like they would have different longs. I think that the only way to shoot bd to look right, and not falling back is to shoot from long distance with zoom. Using that special lens is just litle cheat, that makes look building unnatural.

http://i30.tinypic.com/2cereir.jpg


Now i can imagine how the workers feel in the middle east region :uh:
A random european like me would not survive it thats for sure :lol:

127 degrees F? AND the A/C is on low? My A/C stays on high at anything over 95 degrees F (35C). Must be a dry heat!

http://i30.tinypic.com/2cereir.jpg

f*ck!! thats must be hell

:eek:

is it planned to build a penthouse on the roof right there?

http://i29.tinypic.com/fw0kya.jpg

Thanks for the info Gerald. It really puts a new perspective on things :p

Even with a larger screen here, I faintly see what you mean when you have the two BD shots in the same large image side by side.

Could you do a crop of both tops by chance so I could see it more closely please? I'm not doubting there is more detail in the top of the TS shot, it's just hard for me to make out clearly.

We're kind of getting off topic now, so I'll put the 1:1 crop comparison in this thread -

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=909126

Wow, awesome.:cool:

Sorry to say that but...Anyone who has a a good eye or with a technical perspective drawing knowledge will see that.

ORLY?

22mm roughly mimics the human eye. this pic is the distance to the Address. focus: middle of the concrete section.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2492/3814744461_56927e2198_o.png

Sorry to say that but, it doesn't matter whichever expensive lens/camera you're using, the picture on the left is correct and the one on the right is distorted.Quite true. Or perhaps, to be even more accurate, the picture on the left is less incorrect than the one on the right.

I'd been mulling over bringing this subject up myself. As a long-time lurker, I figured I'd leave it to regular posters... but why not, i'll jump in.

When standing at ground level close to a tall building, the higher floors appear to be shorter than the the lower floors. While the picture on the left is distorted to some degree, it more closely resembles the appearance of the building when viewed in person.

The photo on the right is more like the view seen from far away through binoculars. From far away, all floors will appear to be more similar in height because they are viewed at roughly the same angle from perpendicular.

This can be easily demonstrated by viewing a piece of paper from straight on. It appears to be wider/taller than the same piece of paper when viewed at an angle. The human field of view is roughly 180º. A flat surface will occupy more of that field of view when viewed perpendicular to the that surface.

The upper floors are being viewed from angle, and thus appear smaller. In other words, the upper floors occupy fewer degrees of our field of view than the lower floors. (When viewed from ground level and from a relatively close distance)

I do appreciate the pictures being posted though. Thank you! They are fascinating and really convey how mind bogglingly tall the structure is... despite not being what you would see if viewing the tower in person from the same spot that the pictures were taken from.

Edit: The picture on the left is also not 100% undistorted due to wide angle lens, but if you look at the building only, the proportions and perspective is exactly the same as you're looking at the tower from that point.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/Slcx3COp0HI/AAAAAAAADx4/R2d2z3kew4A/s800/Shiftcomparison.jpg

Looking at the bottom 1/4 of both pictures. Would you say that the tilt shift shot on the right is 100% accurate compared to what the human eye would see? I believe you could not replicate the shot on the right by standing further back and zooming in. If you did this the perspective would be more compressed and distant objects will appear larger (ie. the building in the front would be smaller?).

The left photo shows distortion due to the camera sensor plane not being parallel to the buildings and the exaggerated perspective distortion caused by wide angle lenses (distant objects appear smaller).

To take an accurate photo of the Burj you would need to:

a) find a distance vantage point, keep the camera level and use a focal length that duplicates what the human eye sees (30-50mm equivalent in full frame?)
b) use an ultra wide lens while keeping the camera level (would need to include more foreground).
c) get a higher vantage point so you won't have to tilt as much (eg. the view from the address hotel?)
d) use a tilt shift lens and use software to correct the stretched proportions at the top of the image?

Correct me if I am wrong about any of these points :)

Here are some links to threads on perspective and focal length (very interesting):

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=672913
http://www.hash.com/users/jsherwood/tutes/focal/focal.html

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/Slcx3COp0HI/AAAAAAAADx4/R2d2z3kew4A/s800/Shiftcomparison.jpg

Looking at the bottom 1/4 of both pictures. Would you say that the tilt shift shot on the right is 100% accurate compared to what the human eye would see? I believe you could not replicate the shot on the right by standing further back and zooming in. If you did this the perspective would be more compressed and distant objects will appear larger (ie. the building in the front would be smaller?).

The left photo shows distortion due to the camera sensor plane not being parallel to the buildings and the exaggerated perspective distortion caused by wide angle lenses (distant objects appear smaller).

I think the most accurate way to take a photo of the Burj would be to use a focal length that duplicates what the human eye sees (30-50mm equivalent in full frame?) and standing far away enough to take in the whole scene while keeping the camera level (not tilting up). Another technique would be to get higher up and use a wide angle lens so you won't have to tilt as much (eg. the view from the address hotel?)

Correct me if I am wrong about any of these points :)

Here are some links to threads on perspective and focal length (very interesting):

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=672913
http://www.hash.com/users/jsherwood/tutes/focal/focal.html

I am still a bit confused by some of the ideas.While the photo on the left is distorted, it is closer to what you would see if actually standing near where the photo was taken. The one on the right mimics what you would see from far away with binoculars. The one on the right makes the upper floors appear to be the same height as the lower floors. Neither is exactly what you would see in person.

Edit: If the photo were taken from higher up as you suggest, the top and the bottom of the tower would be shrunk while the middle would be larger. This is also true for viewing large scenes in person, not just for photography.

Sorry to say that but, it doesn't matter whichever expensive lens/camera you're using, the picture on the left is correct and the one on the right is distorted. I have been in that spot myself too, the building looks exactly like on the left picture. Anyone who has a a good eye or with a technical perspective drawing knowledge will see that.

What is wrong with vertical lines are not looking parallel on the picture? if your viewing angle is not parallel to the ground, of course you will have a 3 point perspective. seems like you want to live in a 2 dimensional world?

I'm not saying that you're pictures are bad or your lens is useless... But as with fish eye lenses, your lens shows the world distorted too. Saying that your pictures are the correct look of Burj Dubai is misleading the people who have never seen it before. There is no way you can retain the proportions correct, if your viewing angle is not perpendicular to the film surface. And that is more visible at the spire, which looks much taller than the real thing.


Edit: The picture on the left is also not 100% undistorted due to wide angle lens, but if you look at the building only, the proportions and perspective is exactly the same as you're looking at the tower from that point.

You need to get your eyes tested.

Doesn't matter what part of the Burj you look, you will NOT see the opposite sides of the building converging. In fact, doesn't matter where you look in the scene - every vertical line will look vertical with your eyes.

/edit

I should also add that the idea that all wide angle lenses distort is simply not true. Sure, there are many wide angle lenses that do distort, but this lens - like others available - is rectilinear. The following image demonstrates this:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/SlcNcWxSkaI/AAAAAAAADxA/hANifAG622s/s800/IMG_2419_2.jpg

(there is a very slight downward convergence on that one because it was hand-held, and I didn't quite get the camera straight)

MODS - suggest moving posts related to this side discussion to the specific thread about the lens since it is getting rather off topic?

^^
even in that picture, besides the fact that the camera was pointed slightly down, the lake hotel still looks a little funky to me.
is that how it looks like in real life?

but anyways, to truly eliminate all distortion, you need one of these. :P
http://thefutureofthings.com/upload/items_icons/A-Spherical-Camera-Sensor_large.jpg

now back on subject. lol

Hi all.

Nice update Imre - thanks.

Question - is the 53 degree reading somewhat elevated by the metal of the car or was it really 53 in the shade there ? Also what was the approx. relative humidity ?

Frick - I feel like I'm melting at 35 with low humidity ...

The cladding is looking good. Just a few of the top sections of each tier left to go.

Real wannabe. The terraces have structures that mitigate the wind. The curved metal structure is part of that.

:cheers:

...When standing at ground level close to a tall building, the higher floors appear to be shorter than the the lower floors. While the picture on the left is distorted to some degree, it more closely resembles the appearance of the building when viewed in person....

Yes, this is commonly referred to as 'forced perspective' when used on purpose. Ol' Walt Disney and the gang did this back when they built Main Street at the original Disneyland. Those phoney second story floors on all the buildings are shorter of scale than the usable first floors which have shops and rides,etc. Theatrical set designers also utilize a lot of similar tricks related to creating structural illusions but it is all based upon how our eyes and brains perceive REAL buildings when we look at them from ground level...So this monster is a place where that is naturally going to happen.

13/August/2009

Burj Dubai

http://i32.tinypic.com/14j3sq9.jpg

http://i32.tinypic.com/2rqbxaa.jpg

http://i28.tinypic.com/11sfep2.jpg

http://i30.tinypic.com/2jwao2.jpg

13/August/2009

Burj Dubai from the Business Bay

http://i32.tinypic.com/xbd1ew.jpg

http://i27.tinypic.com/ay0lxl.jpg

http://i25.tinypic.com/33w1s08.jpg

http://i32.tinypic.com/331do2h.jpg

http://i28.tinypic.com/5a3r0k.jpg

I think Dfiler gave the best answer you can imagine about the photo discussion. So let's get on topic now, or talk about it in another section, I don't know which one but the phototechnics like Gerald will know.

Went to TGI Fridays for dinner, here yet again some pics of the fountain. Also, security wasnt watching and we were able to walk up close to Burj Dubai.

http://www.quetschluft.de/dubai/300_1074.JPG

http://www.quetschluft.de/dubai/300_1092.JPG

http://www.quetschluft.de/dubai/300_1126.JPG

http://www.quetschluft.de/dubai/300_1134.JPG

http://www.quetschluft.de/dubai/300_1136.JPG

http://www.quetschluft.de/dubai/300_1160.JPG

http://www.quetschluft.de/dubai/300_1162.JPG

http://www.quetschluft.de/dubai/300_1164.JPG

The right photo is correct if you put your eye about 5cm horizontally away from the base of the tower. The left photo is correct if you tilt your monitor down and look up at it with your eye 5cm away from the centre of the tower.
So it totally depends on how you view the picture... no right or wrong photo.

p.s. has anyone figured out the reason for the floor with clear glass facade? A viewing floor perhaps?

http://www.quetschluft.de/dubai/300_1162.JPG

More floors are now lit up at night, but still surprisingly few for this late in the game.

:cheers:Amazings photos Dennis River, Slowly, they begin to illuminate the floors:), and there is still much work to do to complete the entry

great shots, diver. lol, is security usually this lenient?

fantastic picture....amazing...

ORLY?

22mm roughly mimics the human eye.




Huh? 22mm is wide angle. On FF DSLR (Canon 5d, Nikon D700, Sony A900) (or film camera), 50mm mimics the human eye. On APSC sized sensor (Nikon D90, Sony A700, Canon T1i), 33mm will mimic human eye.

^^Maybe you mean one eye and paul refers to both eyes? :popcorn:

great shots, diver. lol, is security usually this lenient?

Usually not. But yesterday there was no barrier coming from the Mall, probably for the workers to walk on and off the construction site. So we acted as if we were stupid tourists and just walked up close to BD as far as it seemed legitimate. Walking back to the Mall the security was back and looked a bit irritated.

The effective focal length of a SINGLE eye is 22.3mm.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

What is the focal length of the eye? I did a google search and found many "answers" ranging from 17mm to 50mm (50 is totally absurd).

Back on topic, WB DD :)

Friday is usually the best day for sneaking around the Burj as there are very few workers - if any - around, especially early in the morning.

Great annex cladding almost done too

I think it will get very boring once the cladding is completely finished... We need pics of the interior!

great pics!

I think it will get very boring once the cladding is completely finished... We need pics of the interior!

It won't get boring until many 800+ meter towers are constructed worldwide which will take a few decades at least. BD isn't very beautiful but it's sheer height makes it very impressive.

@dark_shadow1
I was just talking about this thread, not about other towers...

The effective focal length of a SINGLE eye is 22.3mm.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html


I will stick with what I said, it's 50mm for human eye. I can post links too

http://www.hash.com/users/jsherwood/tutes/focal/focal.html

50mm. see?I told you. That is, 50mm on FF DSLR .. which would be same as
33mm on APSC.

I have an APSC DSLR right here. 22mm would mean my focal length on APSC would have to be around 15mm .... NO WAY ON EARTH human eye is that wide angle. Also, there is a reason why 50mm (on FF) is called standard. Anything over 50 is telephoto, and anything under it is wide angle. 50mm (on FF) is the standard how human eye will see it.

Edit: More found on the link below. So regardless whether it's 17mm or 22mm, the part that the brain can precieve ends up only around 50mm. The brain cannot precieve the entire image. So my original answer was correct after all. Besides, I didn't have to google anything. I have several cameras and lenses. Anyone who claims that human can see as wide as 22mm (on FF -- which is equal to 15mm APSC) has never ownned a camera or used lenses. That answer is absurd to the limit!

Quote below...

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread106.htm

The image focal length of the human eye is approx. 22 mm, but drawing direct conclusions from this about the angle of view is more problematic because (i) the back of our eyes are curved, (ii) the sensing area (retina) is quite different than a digital camera and (iii) the resolution is not constant throughout (with greatest acuity at the center and gradually less towards the edges), amongst others. Each eye individually has anywhere from ~120-210 degrees angle of view. However, the dual eye overlap region is somewhere around 130 degrees-- corresponding to a a near fisheye lens focal length on a digital camera.

However, for evolutionary reasons the extreme perimeter of our vision is really only for sensing motion and large-scale objects (ie, the lion suddenly approaching you from the side). The central angle of view of say around 40-60 degrees or so is what most impacts our perception of a scene. Subjectively, this would roughly correspond with the angle over which you could recall objects from a scene if you had kept your eyes in the same position. Incidentally, this is pretty close to a 50 mm "normal" focal length lens on a 35 mm camera sensor (43 mm to be precise), or a 27 mm focal length on a camera with a 1.6X crop factor.

:popcorn:

Besides, I didn't have to google anything. I have several cameras and lenses. Anyone who claims that human can see as wide as 22mm (on FF -- which is equal to 15mm APSC) has never ownned a camera or used lenses.

Thats true. Best way to find that 50mm mimics human eye is to set your lens to 50mm and then with both eyes open look through the viewfinder. You will see with both eyes exactly the same. If you would set 22mm (no mather if its ff or not) its no way you will see the same.

How much longer will it take before the constriction's completely finished?...I can't wait until the premier opening ceremony of this grand skyscraper!

^^ 20 december 2009 :)

Help me out here and explain these two statements:

I have an APSC DSLR right here. 22mm would mean my focal length on APSC would have to be around 15mm .... NO WAY ON EARTH human eye is that wide angle.

<snip>

Each eye individually has anywhere from ~120-210 degrees angle of view. However, the dual eye overlap region is somewhere around 130 degrees-- corresponding to a a near fisheye lens focal length on a digital camera.

When you're done, I'm more than happy to meet you at the spot where I took those photos.

I'll bring my camera, a selection of lenses ranging from 12mm right up to 800mm, a plumb line, my eyes, and a pencil and paper to do some basic trig.

You bring whatever you want.

Thats true. Best way to find that 50mm mimics human eye is to set your lens to 50mm and then with both eyes open look through the viewfinder. You will see with both eyes exactly the same. If you would set 22mm (no mather if its ff or not) its no way you will see the same.
Try driving whilst looking through a camera with a 50mm lens mounted on it.

^^ wtf ??

Try driving whilst looking through a camera with a 50mm lens mounted on it.

Stop arguing the losing battle. See the link I posted above. ( http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread106.htm )

50mm (or 42mm to be more precice) is the right answer, since human brain can precieve/comprehend only the small portion of the image that it sees. Also, this is on FF. What camera do you use?

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/Slcx3COp0HI/AAAAAAAADx4/R2d2z3kew4A/s800/Shiftcomparison.jpg
Wow, Impressive!

^^ wtf ??

What I'm saying is, if you want to find out quite how closely a 50mm lens mimics the field of vision of a human eye, try carrying out a few simple tasks whilst experiencing the field of view that a 50mm lens gives you (40 degrees horizontal on a FF 35mm camera).

And see how long you last.

To Mr "zurichint", what's bizarre is not that you're attempting to support your argument by linking to posts on internet forums, but that you are attempting to support your argument by linking to posts on internet forums that actually disagree with what you are claiming.

The bottom line is this.

If you were to stand on the spot I was standing when taking those photos, and the scene, through your own eyes, looks like this:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/SlcQFBcX_VI/AAAAAAAADxU/ifrEsfhLtaI/s800/IMG_2370_2.jpg

then I'll gladly pay for your optometrist check-up myself.

I'll chip in and help pay that optometrist bill! I think it will be quite expensive! :cheers:

Wow, Impressive!

Tower on the left looks scaled down, this one on the right looks long-winded.
Especially hihger floors and the spire. So the both pictures are not fully real.

What I'm saying is, if you want to find out quite how closely a 50mm lens mimics the field of vision of a human eye, try carrying out a few simple tasks whilst experiencing the field of view that a 50mm lens gives you (40 degrees horizontal on a FF 35mm camera).


And thats what you dont understeand. 50mm dont mimics field of vision. It represent view from human eye. Try a simple task. Take picture with 50mm and 22mm, and then just held picture in your hand. If you will see exactly the same like helding empty frame, thats the one witch give you impression of view from human eye. I thing you should understeand it now.

All coming together nicely. It's going to be a close one though, getting it all finished this year.


and
p.s. Can we leave the “lens” measuring contest for another forum, guys!

And thats what you dont understeand. 50mm dont mimics field of vision. It represent view from human eye. Try a simple task. Take picture with 50mm and 22mm, and then just held picture in your hand. If you will see exactly the same like helding empty frame, thats the one witch give you impression of view from human eye. I thing you should understeand it now.

Right. And he never answered what camera he uses.

http://i29.tinypic.com/20tjzeu.jpg
http://www.xpress4me.com/photos/gallery.jsp?article=/channels/xpress4me_com/photos/xpress_photos/20014540.html&index=1

:eek2:

ill chip in as well... post the bill gerald...

im not camera expert as i always use PnS only. but gerald photos are so far the acurate like autocadd drawings. full deatils!!!

http://i29.tinypic.com/20tjzeu.jpg
http://www.xpress4me.com/photos/gallery.jsp?article=/channels/xpress4me_com/photos/xpress_photos/20014540.html&index=1

Nice Photo

small update;

The observation level is no longer called ''experience 124'' - it will now be called ''At the top''

:)

^^ I prefer "experience 124" instead of "At the top". The latter sounds faceless and is not even close to being true :)

Also, following Emaar's incredible creativity they should have called it "Dubai Observation deck" :lol:

Right. And he never answered what camera he uses.

It's somewhere in this thread, I remember he said nobody else in the UAE had it and it costed like 2400 dollars.

FAO patrykus and zurichint.

Everyone else, please feel free to ignore.

Guys. For the last time. You do NOT know what you are talking about, and it is becoming increasingly tedious having to respond to your nonsense.

This WILL be my last post on the subject, regardless of however you respond.

I'm going to show you 3 images. If you can't see what this is all about from the following images, then there really is no hope for you.

All 3 images were taken from exactly the same spot (the bridge between the Dubai Mall and Souk al Baha), using the same camera (a Canon 5D Mk II - which I have already mentioned if you could actually have been bothered to read), and using the same lens (a Canon 45mm TS-E F/2.8). The camera is a full-frame DSLR. The lens, by the way, is rectilinear. It does not show any geometric distortion worth speaking of - when used correctly.

I have specifically chosen to use this lens because of your insistence that it represents the same field of view (on a FF 35mm camera) as human vision, but for this exercise, I could have picked any lens in my bag.

Let's split this into two parts. Firstly, let's deal with that field of view.

For anyone who has ever stood on the spot these photos were taken from - and there are many who contribute to this thread who will have - it will be patently obvious that these images do not represent the view that one sees when using one's own eyes.

Image 1:

Shooting dead level to horizontal, from the bridge across to the Burj Dubai:

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/Sofnbq6cfdI/AAAAAAAAENg/-nY8BsBL7QY/s800/IMG_3344.jpg

As mentioned, anyone who has ever stood on that bridge can tell you that that images does NOT represent the field of view that your eyes give you. You can link to as many internet forums as you want to back up your argument, and I could respond with links to academic papers that quite clearly state that a 45mm lens does not give the you the same field of view that normal human vision does.

Personally, I think it is far more constructive to actually get out there and test this out for yourself. Which is why I've gone to the effort to make this post.

Go to your local optometrist. Get your peripheral vision checked. Because if your vision is similar to that in the above photo, then you need assistance, and in many countries would probably qualify for disability benefit.

Moving on.

The problem, from a subjective photographic point of view, with the image above is that the intended subject matter - the Burj Dubai - only comprises half the frame. Why? Because - as mentioned, the camera was aligned so that the lens>image sensor axis was exactly parallel to the horizontal.

This causes a problem - half the image is of the lake - which is rather boring at midday in 50 degree heat when the fountains aren't running.

It doesn't matter what lens you pick. I was using a 45mm lens, but it could equally have been a 50mm, 17mm or 12mm. If you want to take a photograph with the correct perspective, you HAVE to keep the plane of the sensor perpendicular to the horizontal.

But we have a compositional problem, in that half the photo is of the foreground - which we are not interested in.

Every single person you will ever see taking a photograph of the Burj Dubai from that bridge will do EXACTLY the same thing.

To fix the compositional problem, and to get as much of the building in frame as possible, they will pitch the camera up. This has the effect of removing the boring foreground from the shot, and filling the frame with the subject matter.

Which brings us onto image 2:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/SofqtDLhQnI/AAAAAAAAENo/sud06ZGSV50/s800/IMG_3346.jpg

Remember. Same spot. Same camera. Same lens.

For this image, I've done what everyone does. Because pretty much everyone else doesn't have a choice - if they want to get more of the building in the shot, then they have to pitch the camera up to remove the foreground.

Now, at first glance, you may think there isn't much wrong with this shot. In fact, because it is so similar to many photographs you've seen of the Burj Dubai in the past, you could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that it is a true representation of how it looks to the human eye (ignoring the field of view issue). In fact, it is so typical of pictures of buildings, that you probably don't even question what you're seeing, and assume that if you were physically there, it represents what you'd see with your own eyes.

But you'd be wrong. There is a LOT wrong with that photo, and it's all caused by the decision to pitch the camera up.

Ignoring the composition, compare it with the first image.

Look at the crane on the right hand side of the first image. It is perfectly vertical. Because of course, this is how it is in real life. If it wasn't, it would topple over. And if you were standing on that spot, and looked at the crane - whether directly, or peripherally, it would appear perfectly vertical to you too.

Now look at it in the second image. Something isn't right - it no longer appears to be vertical.

And the reason it appears this way has NOTHING to do with the focal length of the lens used. It would appear the same way whatever lens we use - and I could, if I could be arsed, provide you with many different examples at different focal lengths - if we pitch the camera up in order to remove the foreground.

Look at the buildings behind the Burj on the left of the second photo (these are two of the Loft towers). Has Dubai gone completely bonkers and decided to out-do the Leaning Tower of Pisa? No (well, at least, not with these buildings).

Like the crane, they too are angled inwards because of the camera being pitched up. Go back to the first image. Perfectly vertical. Like they are in real life. Like they are if you were to go there and look with your own eyes.

Now look at the sides of the Burj itself.

As you will now notice (and quite probably didn't before), they too are angled inwards. And the effect given is that it looks like the Burj is toppling backwards. It's a relatively subtle effect, but once it's been pointed out to you, you can't miss it.

And it's wrong.

Remember - same lens used for both photos. A lens with a focal length that you both insist gives the same image that you'd see with the human eye.

And yet, because of the way the lens has been used, the result is totally different.

Do you think you'd see things in both ways if you were physically there? No. Of course you wouldn't. You wouldn't see cranes toppling over, you wouldn't see the twin leaning towers of Dubai, and you wouldn't see the Burj falling over backwards.

What you'd see is what is shown in the first image. Vertical lines will be vertical. Wherever you look. End of discussion.

So - how can we combat this effect if we want to take a picture of the Burj Dubai that accurately represents how it would look if we were to be physically standing there?

We can use a wider angle lens, pitch it perfectly to the horizontal, and then crop out the lower half of the image. Problem is, for this particular building, you'd need a VERY wide angle lens in order to do that. And you'd be throwing away half your pixels.

But there is a better way.

The "TS" in the name of the lens that I've used for all these photos stands for "Tilt-Shift". A tilt-shift (or, in Nikon terms, Perspective Control) lens produces a much larger image circle than a standard lens, and the "shift" capability of the lens allows you to effectively move the part of the image that falls on the sensor.

This means that rather than pitching the camera up, you can keep it perfectly horizontal, and instead shift the lens so that the upper portion of what is within the image circle can be projected onto the sensor, rather than the middle portion.

In this third image, this is exactly what has been done. The lens has been shifted up 11mm in order to give (approximately - this was all done hand-held) a composition the same as that you would get if you were to pitch the camera up, but without the problem of converging verticals.

Image 3:

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/SofwlCOuYwI/AAAAAAAAEN4/AhBeq4dwRJc/s800/IMG_3345.jpg

This precisely replicates what the human eye would see - for that particular part of the field of vision - were you to physically be there.

You both claimed that this all came down to focal length. Look at the above images. They were all taken with exactly the same lens - not only that, but with a lens that you claim accurately represents the field of human vision.

The distortion between image 2 and 3, just like the distortion between the two images I posted earlier in the thread, has NOTHING to do with the focal length of the lens. It has NOTHING to do with any comparison between camera lenses and the human eye.

The only reason for the difference is down to the way the lens - in each case - has been used. If you move the lens>image sensor axis off the horizontal, then you will distort the image.

(full resolution images available here -
http://picasaweb.google.com/gerald.d/ShiftForDummies?feat=directlink
)

^^ The pictures show a view of Burj Dubai that you would have standing on the Souk al Bahar bridge and looking at the tower through a toilet paper roll. So I totally agree with you, gerald. However, I also think this topic should not be discussed here any further :)

^^

NO! Keep on fighting gerald.d(on quixote) for some wisdom in the SSC community! :lol:

^^ 20 december 2009 :)

The Grand Opening is December 2, 2009 :)

and you know whats the best thing abour gerald.d? not only do people outside of dubai get great photos of what they cannot see themselves, but also we get some extra photography lessons, from someone who has proven to know what he speaks about.

great job gerald, all the way =]

Thanks Gerald. I was about to jump back in here and say only that you have the Mark II (same as I do so I'd love to go over these TS examples with you first-hand someday maybe) :) The resulting lesson however, was incredibly insightful.

So basically if we want a shot of the burj without converging verticals and distortion, we'd need to be practically at The Address' side of the lake in order to capture the entire building in the shot?

Ok sorry about also being off topic about the photography - but at the same time it is great know learn how those of us who eventually visit this building may end up taking better photographs because of this thread. For those of us who do photography regularly, we don't want to visit the World's Tallest and end up with the World's Crummiest photos.

Hi all.

The Grand Opening is December 2, 2009 :)

Hi Dave.

That is the latest press release date we have but whether it will be the grand opening is suspect. To put it in better terms - whether the entire works will be completed by then is questionable. They may even call it the "grand opening" but I think it will actually be the "soft" opening for the hotel and its entrance. We may or may not get another press release stating this.

By the looks of Geralds shots for the photography debate (interesting stuff) the office entrance area (zone A) has a long way to go as far as landscaping is concerned. A month ago we had some shots of the podium areas and the hotel entrance side (zone C) landscaping was much further along than the other 2.

Cladding is coming along. The office annex looks to be 90 or 95 % completed. There is still some to go up top where the crane was and on the top sections of a few tiers.

I imagine the cranes on the office annex are nearly done. They will probably come down soon as well as the main structure cranes. We should see the small crane appear near the one on tier 17 terrace (level 159) soon. I'm thinking it will be the same one that was up on tier 7 terrace (level 76) in Dec '08.

Here is a shot (from Imre - of course) showing the crane to which I am referring to.

http://a.imagehost.org/0427/08_12_16_123.jpg (http://a.imagehost.org/view/0427/08_12_16_123)

That crane (R2) will lower R1 pieces from level 159 to level 99 where it will be lowered to the ground by M3 that has been there since Nov. '07. R2 will then be disassembled by hand and taken down to level 99 in an elevator where it will be set up. Then R2 will lower M3 in pieces to the ground. Lastly R2 will be once again disassembled by hand and taken down to the ground in an elevator. That is (was) the plan but M3 on level 99 was to be a different crane than what is there now. The crane on level 99 (M3) was one of the 3 that was on the top of the structure earlier. Because of that change they may have to set up and use R1 to lower M3, then use R2 to lower R1 to the ground. We shall see.

:cheers:

Gerald, thanks for the explanation of the TS lens :) I learned something new. Now stop explaining it any more and go and take more pics with it please!!

Hi guys more update on the ''at the top'' observation area;

There will be an outdoor terrace on the 124th floor!! - it is compeltly open to the heavens and the only things in place will be 3 meter glass around the side for safety.

There will be no roof so its all open, sounds amazing, its also 360 degree views as well (from inside not outside)

Thanks,

:)

We knew that a few yearsa go DXBQ =)

Ooh almost there! Have they got clients to fill the building?

Ooh almost there! Have they got clients to fill the building?

Well on the lower floors at night there are some lights on. So I guess it's a yes.

been a month since update
see diagram guys if you want to know info.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2550/3831342367_719138a260_o.jpg

it's amazing how much taller the Burj Dubai's roof is compared to the SWFC. great diagram as always CUL

here's a pic from Flickr, credit too cmakin
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3489/3829267537_b7882c3a3b_b.jpg

Hi all.

Your diagram is looking good Cul - great work.

I agree Helghast - the BD makes everything else look like short highrises.

:cheers:

thanks, i was looking at pyong jangs 330m hotel and used to think it was tall. but burj D would be nearly triple its height.

Even more amazing, is the fact that it's half a mile high.

I think it proves you can build much, much higher if you want to. Imagine a 3 mile high tower that could house an entire city. I say give back the forests & plains to farmers & nature, build ultra-talls in established metro centers such as manhattan, east bank of the Schuchill river in philly etc. Eradicate sprawl with some tall! :)

- A

^^ I like your way of thinking.

:cheers:

Gerald, I once heard you should never enter a battle of wits with an unarmed man [much less two]...that said, hats off to your explanation!

Does anyone know if the clading is done? and if so, does anyone have pics of the top? :P

There are lots of pictures just a few pages back and you can see how far they've come, just look for Imre photos. Nice diagriam...

theres photos and diagram to show you cladding progress.sheesh.

Even more amazing, is the fact that it's half a mile high.

I think it proves you can build much, much higher if you want to. Imagine a 3 mile high tower that could house an entire city. I say give back the forests & plains to farmers & nature, build ultra-talls in established metro centers such as manhattan, east bank of the Schuchill river in philly etc. Eradicate sprawl with some tall! :)

- A
If we are to evolve our cities and make them more sustainable, we will do so by identifying a better form for the 20-50 story highrise tenement, not for the iconic corporate supertall.

Hey AltinD, fame at 2.07 in the linked rant.:lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6t9UBrITLw

oic! Imre... yeah hes amazing. Ok my question tho is does anyone know WHEN it will be finished down to the last window pane.

^^

Emaar said in weeks time but no idea what does it mean:)

Great work .. really informative .. and thanks a lot for sharing ..
content outsourcing (http://globolstaff.com/)

Few new photos:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3583/3830876314_6a3e479d9b_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35004247@N05/3830876314/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/3820389384_3dab82c5f6_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bohameed92211/3820389384/

Few new photos:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3583/3830876314_6a3e479d9b_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35004247@N05/3830876314/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/3820389384_3dab82c5f6_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bohameed92211/3820389384/

Dam! Those are nice photos! Thanks for posting them!!

Why do people repost pictures that are just ONE post above theirs, they are currently writing? I dont get it? Doenst theese " ^^ " ones aren't enough to show that the pictures above are mentioned?

This morning..

l340jyqhdfY

Sorry for the shakey cam at the start, it is some distance away

Though if you view in HD, quality is clear when paused.

^^

Emaar said in weeks time but no idea what does it mean:)

Well thanks man. Atleast I have an idea of when its comming :)

shame you had to put the most annoying "music" in the world to that video lol. oh well, i guess it suited the shakeyness at the start.

shame you had to put the most annoying "music" in the world to that video lol. oh well, i guess it suited the shakeyness at the start.

aphex twin?

I dont know what it was but it was very annoying lol

I think its a very good choice for the video, fits the shaking perfectly :) :cheers:

Sometimes it looks like the tower of Babel.

Sometimes it looks like the tower of Babel.

How looks the Tower of Babel ? Where is it ?

the music is audio swap by youtube. The video is a dirrect rip from my camera, if I re-encode you lose quality. I will change it to some easy listen selecton.. Tom jones anyone....

Thought it would be fun to have a look inside...

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/SorzxCFUfcI/AAAAAAAAEOw/xnuDMgg03r0/s800/IMG_3541.JPG

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/Sorz6yQnwEI/AAAAAAAAEO4/yEWBI1aev9k/s800/IMG_3439.jpg

Full res available at http://picasaweb.google.com/gerald.d/August18thEvening?feat=directlink

Loads more to come, and I finally got to complete my set of fountain videos. :banana:

But right now I'm off for some beers. :cheers:

the music is audio swap by youtube. The video is a dirrect rip from my camera, if I re-encode you lose quality. I will change it to some easy listen selecton.. Tom jones anyone....
No way! Perfect as it is! :) Good video and good music choice.

As long as the cranes are up, they are using the Zone A on the ground, and landscaping cannot go on at the Concourse area outdoors, as long as crane operations are taking the ground space. Also, there is the risk of falling objects doing damage.

Also, we won't see any convincing evidence of opening preparations or announcements - hotel bookings, etc. until the cranes are gone. We won't feel that the opening dates announced are going to happen

Does anyone know what is still going on ? It's not just cladding, because most of that is up above the cranes.

Thank you

sometimes cranes lift up things that cant go in normal lift. maybe services or cleaning bmu,s. also alot easier with stuffing around with taking the palet load in via lift.

Hi all.

Also I think the Dec 02 '09 date is the soft opening for the hotel. Since the hotel entrance opens to zone C (facing North) and that zone is much farther ahead of the other 2 in regards to landscaping The date looks to be reasonable. I'm sure the crane diassembly proceedure will be completed long before then anyway. Completion of the whole of the works in the first quarter or half of '10 ?

I'm not saying Dec date for the full opening is impossible but that it seems a little unreasonable. I'm expecting yet another press release that will actually be close to the truth for the first time ...:lol:

:cheers:

its amazing how far off the 1st prediction was 4 the finish date lol.. over a year. I dont blame them tho due to the fact that it was because they were upgrading the design of the interior.

OTR that was one of the funniest videos I saw lately. I'm looking for that temp. thread now. :lol:

^^
I laughed my nuts off at the statement "smash it into a million pieces with AltinD's skull"

Comn Altin you must have a comment for this one?:lol:

^^
I laughed my nuts off at the statement "smash it into a million pieces with AltinD's skull"

Comn Altin you must have a comment for this one?:lol:

PM me Grbac if you find the temperature thread please.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/SourexycEcI/AAAAAAAAEP4/GcxnLZPAyek/s800/IMG_3454_2.jpg

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/SoutiusEz2I/AAAAAAAAEQI/iRvVLj3EcJA/s800/IMG_3513_2.jpg

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/SouuIZMzVFI/AAAAAAAAEQQ/pVHXr1K2fxQ/s800/IMG_3523_2.jpg

Complete set of fountain videos:

http://www.youtube.com/user/bristolg#play/user/640EF1DF7FB89DF3

I'm bored of it now... BUILD SOMETHING TALLER!

I'm bored of it now... BUILD SOMETHING TALLER!

Yeah, start again as Im fed up looking out my apartment window at nothing happening:bash:

Thought it would be fun to have a look inside...
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/SorzxCFUfcI/AAAAAAAAEOw/xnuDMgg03r0/s800/IMG_3541.JPG

First: which floors are those? Low floors?
Second: from the photo those apartments looking 100% complete

First: which floors are those? Low floors?
Second: from the photo those apartments looking 100% complete

These are the floors immediately above the first mech level (see 2nd photo in earlier post - you can clearly see the section with all the lights on)

They don't look quite so complete when you zoom in though...

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_hOl2e0230VA/SovLYzE6tHI/AAAAAAAAER4/waLSB3MptDE/s800/IMG_3540-1.JPG

Vertical lines will be vertical. Wherever you look. End of discussion.

Actually that's not true, unless you are standing just opposite to the line you are looking at.

For example if you stand in front of a building and look upward you will see its sides converging.

19/August/2009

Burj Dubai

http://i30.tinypic.com/348sumg.jpg

http://i29.tinypic.com/mm31mw.jpg

http://i25.tinypic.com/35k5yzl.jpg

http://i28.tinypic.com/24vmp9y.jpg

http://i28.tinypic.com/jfhpjr.jpg

http://i27.tinypic.com/2z8ayhx.jpg

http://i28.tinypic.com/ddyglj.jpg

http://i32.tinypic.com/2hrcqyh.jpg

19/August/2009

Burj Dubai

http://i27.tinypic.com/20sy7p4.jpg

http://i25.tinypic.com/2i70kcw.jpg

http://i26.tinypic.com/ht72bt.jpg

http://i27.tinypic.com/juclyr.jpg

HAH the last panel could be as well put in the upcoming week! Now the top of the building is really adorable, just erase those cranes. And clean it up! :cheers:

Dubai is simply one of the coolest cities on the planet architecturally speaking.

http://i28.tinypic.com/25jxs86.jpg
http://www.gulfnews.com/readers_photos/galleries/10341612.html

Wow thats a rely nice shot, very different from all the rest Ive seen, not to say that the rest arnt gr8 aswell :), cheers forall the recent pics! Is there still a fair bit of cladding to go up yet then?

Hi all.

Nice updates Gerald and Imre - and nice pic PG.

We can see section 23B is only 3 panels away from being fully clad now. That "last cladding panel" was labelled for that section. It is one of the 14 panels on the larger wing. So the "last cladding panel" will be installed before many others below it. :) I know ... - they meant the last to be manufactured, not installed. :lol:

When I say many others it is just a figure of speech. There is only part of level 158, part of section 20B, part of level 155 to section 19B where the crane was, and the odd panel here and there. Level 158 may have to wait untill the crane on 159 terrace is removed.

Cladding is almost complete.

:cheers:

Ok. As i see it, Dubai seems like the archetects of the world's playground or sandlot. Its amazingly fast growth reminds me of what was one of my favorite games: sim city :)

this tower is AWESOME!

great updates imre
gee alot of cladding here to be placed
http://i27.tinypic.com/2z8ayhx.jpg

I wonder what it will look like when all the lights inside are on at night :)

These are the floors immediately above the first mech level (see 2nd photo in earlier post - you can clearly see the section with all the lights on)

They don't look quite so complete when you zoom in though...

In the previous photo of that post few of those apartments looks completed.

gee alot of cladding here to be placed
From previous weeks, days are less now...

I mean :dance:

20/August/2009

Burj Dubai

3 iconic towers:)

http://i32.tinypic.com/2lurour.jpg

http://i31.tinypic.com/14nfc7s.jpg

http://i30.tinypic.com/14v4395.jpg

http://i26.tinypic.com/mcw2mu.jpg

http://i29.tinypic.com/674fp2.jpg

19/August/2009
http://i30.tinypic.com/348sumg.jpg
http://i25.tinypic.com/35k5yzl.jpg


Speechless. :omg:

p.s This building just can't stop to amaze me. It almost looks surreal. Like its not actually there, but it is.

is that video of man on top of BD's spire on youtube deleted?? can't find it.

^^ Apparently.... this was the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf0DyaZrhfw

what if the tower just decides to ....., due to the extreme weight. Imagine that!:lol:
Just kidding!It's looking great, finally its almost done after 4 great years!:)

Fantastic tower:)

http://i30.tinypic.com/2vs3u37.jpg
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125064323001941927.html