captjetblast
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2001 5:59 am

How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 12:42 am


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bailey



If it was taken from another plane, as I think it was, it would be a "separation conflict" on a radar screen!
 
ahlfors
Posts: 1281
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 1:44 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:10 am

Well, there's always zoom lenses, so it could be taken from another plane further away. However, the comment says the plane is at 36000 feet. Considering the angle of that photo, how high is the photographer?
 
meister808
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2000 11:45 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:40 am

In my opinion, that pic looks fake.... the clouds are wrong for looking at them from 36000 feet... it looks more like the clouds are from the ground, looking up. Just my call, though.

-Meister
Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation
 
jhooper
Posts: 5560
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:44 am

Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:45 am

Oceanic separation rules are a little different, not to worry. I'll let one of the more experienced guys explain it.


They're flying over water (hence the bluish-gray), looks also like they're flying over some lower-level clouds

Get over yourselves, guys. The pic is real.
I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
 
InnocuousFox
Posts: 2556
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 1:30 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:45 am

I initially thought the same things about the clouds... but then I "reversed my eyes" like you have to do with those brain-teaser combination pictures and it looked OK.

As for the separation conflict, remember that 1000' is REALLY not that much a distance.
Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2549
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:45 am

Also...when i see these air to air shots the plane being photgraphed is usually flying parallel to the plane the photographer is in. That way you would have anough time to take camera out and get it ready etc....But if this plane is flying perpendicular how exactly did he shoot it in time and at that exact position and not get any part of the wing or anything. Looks weird.
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:50 am

Sovietjet,

He probably knew where to look for it...marvelous invention, that TCAS  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
 
InnocuousFox
Posts: 2556
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 1:30 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 3:03 am

Since it is coming towards the aircraft that is shooting the pic, he would have seen it coming.
Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
 
aa61hvy
Posts: 13021
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 9:21 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 3:18 am

The pic is real, he can see the plane on radar and knew to get ready to shoot it.
Go big or go home
 
cbphoto
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:23 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 3:23 am

How exactly would he get the registration number on it. there is no doubt in my mind it is real, but is there a way for him to see the reg number in the cockpit, or did he guess on what it was on the ground???
ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
 
MEA310
Posts: 633
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 8:52 pm

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 3:33 am

This is a great photo,my desktop wallpaper for now!
Bailey must've been real quick on taking this shot since the plane is head to head with the plane he's in & is coming real fast  Wow!

MEA310
M5 Fastest Sedan On Earth
 
Airplanepics
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 4:12 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 3:40 am

In my opinion, that pic looks fake.... the clouds are wrong for looking at them from 36000 feet... it looks more like the clouds are from the ground, looking up. Just my call, though.

Do you even know what you are talking about?

The photographer in question is a pilot for Singapore Airlines flying the 777. If you care to take a look at his other photos before jumping to quick descisions you will see that it is not fake.

Sorry guys for the snap - but it gets me down when people question whether a decent picture such as this is fake or not.

With Regards,

Simon
Simon - London-Aviation.com
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 3:41 am

There is an Aviation Photography forum which is where this really should have been posted. Most of the photographers are there and they love to shred guys who call pictures like this fakes.

It is a good picture and I'd be proud to have taken it, but the subjects (sky and airplane) are very ordinary. Now why would someone go to all the trouble in Photoshop to fake a picture when the result is nothing but an airplane and a sky. No! Faked photos show us airplanes flying down the aisles at Walmart or give us open-cockpit jumbo jets and things like that.

Guys, if something in the appearance of this picture surprises you it is only because you lack experience in looking at airplanes at high altitude from other planes at high altitude. The occasional two-second glimpse from passenger cabin windows does not qualify. The picture looks dead-on what I would expect and I believe that those of us who have our altimeters up to 29.92 (or even know what I mean by that) agree - it looks just about right.

If I had to guess I'd say the photographer was at FL370 in RVSM airspace, saw a target on the TCAS that was a thousand feet lower and converging. He grabbed his camera and pointed. I'd guess it was a good camera, probably an SLR and maybe a 120-200mm or so telephoto also of good quality.

Someone even posted that it looked like the plane was going straight down! Well the plane is passing under our POV. To go under us it has to be below us. So at some point between the horizon and passing under us it has to be traversing down in our field of view. Test this! Stand where a plane will fly over your head. See if it doesn't fly UP in your field of view even if it is not climbing. A mountain on the horizon does not look as "high" as it does when it is right next to you. Did you ever notice that?

And lastly, this site really does not like photographers uploading fakes. Any of the regular contributors are well aware of that and they would just not do it.




Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
AMM744
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:23 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:10 am

As a photographer, albeit landscape I don't doubt the authenticity of this shot but I'd still love to know how he did it.

It's not from the cockpit, that's just not possible unless he was flying upside down at 37000 ft!!!.

The sky and clouds look good and the aircraft doesn't look like it was planted in Photoshop, you can tell if you know the program well.

It's real alright but it must have been taken from a downward rear facing window or maybe he attached his camera to the underside of the fuselage and triggered the shot via remote, ha ha - just kidding.

I'm very intrigued by this shot though.
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:33 am

He leaned way forward from the captain's seat, until his camera's telescope-sized lens touched the cockpit's window and pressed the shutter. That simple.

And I wonder:

WHY NOBODY HAS ASKED THE PHOTOGRAPHER!!!!!!!!!!!????????>:-(
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:52 am

Definatly taken out the cockpit window at an oncoming plane. Only other option is if the photorapher were in a tanker and took it out the back. A side shot out a pax window like that would be impossible.
This Website Censors Me
 
AMM744
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:23 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 5:06 am

Sorry, don't agree with you about the cockpit, it just wouldn't be possible to get that angle.

Any other ideas ?
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 5:08 am

How is it not possible to get that angle? You just lean forward. And, if the plane is a mile or 2 ahead, you don't need much of a down angle.
This Website Censors Me
 
airbusfanyyz
Posts: 1410
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 1:01 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 5:17 am

Pic is definitely real, as I have seen this type of view as a LH 343 pass below my flight at 90 degrees over the North Atlantic. My $0.02.

Cheers,
Kaz
 
AMM744
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:23 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 5:18 am

Yeah, your'e right in theory but we're talking two aircraft crossing each others path at a combined speed of approx 1000mph !!!

He'd have to be pretty damn quick, plus he'd have to make sure that shutter speed was fast enough, zoom angle in the right place, composition, lighting etc etc, all this in a flash.

Perhaps we should ask Bailey.
 
MIA777
Posts: 1110
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 10:47 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 5:36 am

Bailey is an active member of this forum. Do not e-mail him asking if that picture is real or not. It is totally genuine and that would be downright rude and insulting. He is an excellent photographer. I believe he uses a Canon D60 and a 100-400/4-5.6L IS. With a long telephoto lens and a 1.6 crop factor, getting close to the planes is easy (I won't speak for him but I am photgrapher as well), however nailing the shot (sharp, correct exosure) is not. If you would like to know more about his work, e-mail him asking about how he took the shot, etc, etc. As someone mentioned above, he is a Singapore 777 driver. Here he is landing his big boy
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wietse de Graaf

.

Ryan Kaskel - MIA
MIA777
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 5:51 am

AMM744

Clearly you don't have any idea what you are talking about. Why then are you so adamant about it.

Leaning toward the cockpit windows of a typical jetliner you can see from more than 90o above to maybe 70o below horizontal. The lateral field-of-view is slightly greater. This plane was 1000' below and still a couple thousand feet laterally from his plane. (Remember telephoto.)

Because the forward windshield slopes back so much the slant-range distance through it when shooting down gives us maybe three inches or more of glass, with heating elements to shoot through. Then there is the nose of the airplane to deal with. For that reason most of us shoot through the window just outboard of our seat, the sliding, or "clearview" window. I would bet money this was shot through that, at an angle of roughly 60-90o off the nose.

This means that the relative speed of passage is nowhere near double the airspeed of the two planes. You can play with the math on that question on your own time.

The significant factor is the rate-of-change of the subject plane's position and size. At the distance shown, not that great. From about this point on the rate-of-change increases dramatically until the actual passage is just a blur. But at this distance and angle - no problem whatever for any exposure of 1/100 of a second or faster.

Again, those of us with thousands of hours looking out these windows and having watched hundred, even thousand of such passing airplanes - none of us has any difficulty at all recognizing what this is. A good photograph of a routine passing airliner out a cockpit window.

There is no need to make it complicated. The simple answer is the correct one.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
AMM744
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:23 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 5:57 am

Yeah, but come on 1000ft below, give me a break.
 
timz
Posts: 6114
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 7:00 am

"no problem whatever for any exposure of 1/100 of a second or faster"

Suspect it wasn't that easy. Assuming they were 1000 feet below the camera they had to be 3000 ft away, or more (based on the fuselage length on the image, vs the wingspan). So he was apparently shooting fairly long-- likely the equivalent of 400 mm on full-frame 35 mm film. Not going to be that easy just to hold the camera steady, even if he rests it against the window.

And at 1/100 he would have to pan slightly, since each aircraft would cover 8 feet in that time.

It's strange how guys get indignant when somebody wonders whether a picture is real, like it's some sort of mortal insult. It isn't.
 
AMM744
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:23 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 7:09 am

No it's not a mortal insult just pure photographic physics.

There is NO way that he could have shot at 1/100th of a second using the 400mm end of a zoom plus panning it and got an image this sharp.

The speed would have to above 1/250th.

It's a very admirable photo but I'd still like to know how he did it.
 
DC10type
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:57 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 7:10 am


I've personally taken dozens of photos very similar to this - Most from the back of a tanker, but several out the clearview windows. Nice shot.
 
bobb
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:15 pm

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 8:04 am

Alright you photo experts, apparently you don't know what a 36LB canon lens can do (not your hobbyst lens). And, YES, Photoshop is being used ALOT for after touch-ups (yes, there are several sharpening tools for your newbies). But really, you guys are going ga-ga for a ho-hum pix. Come on, I wouldn't put up the expense to take this shot, ho-hum plane, ho-hum background, plenty of samples to cut and page from the web alone.
 
Av8rDAL
Posts: 356
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 1:41 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 8:15 am

I'll bet Bailey is just sitting back, reading this thread, and laughing uncontrollably.

It would be nice of him to chime in at some point  Big grin.
Maintain thine airspeed, lest the Earth rise up and smite thee.
 
nudelhirsch
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:20 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 8:54 am

I have seen loads of Bailey's pics, and he sure did a good job to improve the quality of the uploaded pics, by uploading his!

Then, we're living in the digital age, nothing is impossible...take good light, my sigma 500 and my D100 You will have a 750...no prob...

regarding the awesome light conditions over the clouds, a shutter speed of 350 and less is sure possible.

Some of my best shots inlude my 2 nieces, were taken inside, at 100 wothout flashlight...

Things happen today

There's just no way to discuss this pic, it is just unbelievable!
Putana da Seatbeltz!
 
APP
Posts: 502
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 7:11 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 8:57 am

Also bear in mind that even as good a photographer as Bailey clearly is, he may have had dozens of attempts at this type of photo before he actually nailed the one he was happy with.
Bailey has the seat, the equipment, the patience and the ability... accusations of fakery are something of an insult, however I would take it as a compliment ...big time!
It's a beautiful picture Bailey.....I wish it were mine!
APP.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 9:01 am

When you guys think of the speed of the subject airplane consider the vector - the actual angle on which it traverses his field of view. If the plane was at the same altitude it would have collided with, or nearly collided with the photographers plane - ergo ZERO angle or no change of relative position. In other words it would not be moving, it would only be growing.

This plane was 1000' below (and of course it was - these guys are neither fools nor daredevils with paying passengers aboard. Otherwise you don't ever buy an airline ticket again because you can't trust the pilots.) The rate of change of the airplane (as projected on the window if that helps) was nearly zero until just about the time this was snapped. Then it began to accelerate down and aft.

I have taken pictures at the Reno Air Races with planes going past my fixed position at over 400 mph and used shutter speeds as low as 1/60 with a wide lens and 1/125 or more commonly 1/250 and never had any problem with blurring.

This picture is just what it appears to be.

And the only people who get angry when a photo is called a fake is likely the photographer himself. The rest of us just sort of shake our heads and say "here we go again."

It is also disappointing when, for the 1000th time, a person who has never been there argues with a dozen people who LIVE there. Your comments have been read by many people who have taken similar photos under similar circumstances and gotten similar results. (though this one is pretty darn good) Most of them do not deign to correct you. It is a little like having a child with a learning disability.

So again, sorry for my rudeness but the picture is exactly what we said it is, another plane passing by a thousand feet below, as photographed through the cockpit windows.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
AMM744
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:23 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 9:11 am

"Alright you photo experts, apparently you don't know what a 36LB canon lens can do (not your hobbyst lens"

Certainly do my friend, what it can't do is match my Nikkors.

Go Figure.
 
timz
Posts: 6114
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: Blurring

Fri Feb 06, 2004 9:35 am

"I have taken pictures at the Reno Air Races with planes going past my fixed position at over 400 mph and used shutter speeds as low as 1/60 with a wide lens and 1/125 or more commonly 1/250 and never had any problem with blurring."

400 mph = 587 feet per second. So if you got no blur you apparently panned.

FWIW, do we all agree the 777 was 3000+ feet away?
 
AMM744
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:23 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 9:45 am

With a wide lens you would be able to get away with 1/60th or even 1/30th depending on how wide.

With a 400mm or higher - NO WAY.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 9:59 am

Timz

No. I wrote it that way to prove a point. You guys are all still thinking of a subject moving past you tangentially from left to right. When you shoot something moving almost straight toward, or away from you the change of position is minimal. It is having a depth of field sufficient to using focus at infinity that is more important. Again, if the plane had been coming straight at him, it would not have been moving, just growing.

and AMM74

No, wish I had a 400mm. I don't even recall what is the longest lens I have for my old Minoltas but something less than that. Think I might buy one of those 500-1000 reflectors I see on ebay. Know anything about them?
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
n949wp
Posts: 1398
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2000 3:45 pm

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:33 pm

What is so impossible about nailing sharp pics at slower shutter speeds using telephotos? Ever heard of "vibration-reduction" or "image-stablization" systems?

I doubt if the naysayers have any experience at all in shooting from the flight deck under those circumstances, and as such, they are not even remotely qualified to claim that photo as fake.

'949
 
bobb
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:15 pm

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:55 pm

I personally like that fake taken from the NY observation tower of a tourist's snapshot showing the plane straight coming to him. Sickening, but good fake.

Hey, nothing wrong with fakes, don't you guys know all the big magazine's pictures are touched-up? Psh... she's fatter in real life!
 
Goose
Posts: 1771
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 3:40 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 5:09 pm

How exactly would he get the registration number on it. there is no doubt in my mind it is real, but is there a way for him to see the reg number in the cockpit, or did he guess on what it was on the ground???

See? Maybe not. But since Bailey has been mentioned to be an SIA 777 driver, and this is also another SIA ship, my guess would be either he's quite in-tune to which tails are doing which legs at which time, he asked Dispatch or Operations via radio or ACARS, or he simply asked the Captain of that plane himself on the company frequency; and yes, there is worthless chatter between Captains on the company frequency from time to time.
"Talk to me, Goose..."
 
EZYAirbus
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 4:57 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 5:47 pm

Hey you people, whats all the arguing for? I know its real, Bailey done well to take a super pic like this one!

Bailiey - Great Pic!

Glenn
http://www.glenneldridgeaviation.com
 
User avatar
Navigator
Posts: 866
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2001 2:31 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:08 pm

This looks perfect to me. Anyone with experience from traveling in cockpits at high altitudes knows that this is the way it may look. If you are not used to it, it may look unreal  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

The photographer is obviously a pilot. He heard the plane on radio and saw it on TCAS. It should be no trouble for him to point his lens in the right direction and take the photo.

And the photographer may well be at an altitude like FL 410 - 430 or something.

Common really !!! Good picture !!!
747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
 
Pacific
Posts: 1043
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2000 2:46 pm

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:18 pm

How exactly would he get the registration number on it. there is no doubt in my mind it is real, but is there a way for him to see the reg number in the cockpit, or did he guess on what it was on the ground???


The rego in that pic is 9V-SY*, yes an ASTERIX if anyone's noticed, meaning that Bailey did not know the EXACT rego. However, it's pretty easy to identify the plane as a 777 and I presume SQ uses the prefix 9V-SY in all of their 777s just as Dragonair uses B-HY for their A330s.

I'm also intrigued by the assumption of head-to-head. Could the photographer have taken it from his cockpit side windows? Maybe the plane in question was crossing his flight path, maybe at a 90 degree angle from him just at the right moment. I've seen a 737 passing underneath my pax window at a 90 degree angle.

Alititude? Back to my 737. Bailey could have picked up the 777 approaching him on his flight instruments and taken this picture. With plenty of zoom, an angle like this is indeed possible, as I remember how that 737 passing underneath looked like as it went further and further away.

Please use your common sense. I would like to and do believe that this shot is authentic (I'm an amateur but hey, even amateurs have common sense). Very nice shot!
 
wietse
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:49 am

RE: How Was This Photo Taken?

Sun Feb 15, 2004 5:49 am

like it's some sort of mortal insult. It isn't.

It isnt? Example: Dont know if your still in school or working or whatever, I dont care. But what if you worked on a project for a week, you are very proud of it. Then you file it, and you supervisor calls you for a meeting, because he suspects that you have copied every line of it. Thats not insulting?

Certainly do my friend, what it can't do is match my Nikkors.

Considering your ignorance on modern photography techniques, you dont really use that good Nikkor Lenses... The lens Bailey used, and which I use as well, will probably rip your apart.

With a wide lens you would be able to get away with 1/60th or even 1/30th depending on how wide.

With a 400mm or higher - NO WAY.


IS - (Image Stabilizer)


just pure photographic physics

yeah sure, look at photography as physics. Sure takes away all the skill and creativity doesnt it?


Guys, face it. its as real as can be and its kinda sad that some of you refuse to accept works of art.

- Wietse
Wietse de Graaf
 
timz
Posts: 6114
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: Insults

Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:19 am

The original statement was "It's strange how guys get indignant when somebody wonders whether a picture is real, like it's some sort of mortal insult. It isn't."

Guys also seem to confuse "wondering whether it's real" with "saying it's fake". Wondering is always allowed.

In any case, if I took a pic and somebody said it was obviously a fake, why should I give a hoot? He can think what he likes. Apparently I could always count on lots of guys insisting that it was real.

As for the image stabilization: I asked about this in the photo forum, and near as I can make out you can't expect stabilization to help you when you're panning simultaneously in the vertical and horizontal planes. The only reason the question arose is that somebody thought such a shot could easily be taken at 1/100 of a second, which I doubt. There's always luck, but my guess is it was shot at at least 1/500.