 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message
news:web.49d02f243c1bb33e88b6cd970@news.povray.org...
> Things like this always make me want to write excessively large posts
about
> every tiny detail in them - but what good would it do? Who of those "Moon
> Hoaxers" would read even a single line? After all, to them it would
probably be
> just propaganda. They don't even seem to bother reading the information
> available out there for anyone to read (except the pamphlets of other
"Moon
> Hoaxers").
haha ... talked with a fellow who cited "Capricorn 1" as enough proof that
it didn't (moon landing) didn't happen. He's one of those diehard conspiracy
theorists.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:49C### [at] hotmailcom...
> Then you are lucky. even with clear sky here I see only the brightest
> stars. I have e.g. never seen the milky way in my life. Apart from the
> times I visited the planetarium in Amsterdam. :(
I'm out in the countryside .... very low light pollution from cities/towns.
during the summer I can clearly see the milky way
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> "Do these shadows seem parallel to you? NASA supporters claim the cameras had
> "wide angle lenses" that distorted the shadows. Why didn't NASA give them
> cameras that provide accurate images?"
I find this one the most hilarious of all (not that they aren't all
hilarious).
First he asks why the shadows are not parallel, and then he indirectly
admits that wide angle lenses make parallel things look non-parallel. So
he himself refuted one of his own claims, probably without even noticing.
Moreover, how could you get parallel shadows in a photograph no matter
what you do? The concept of *perspective* should be rather clear to
everybody. If you photograph a pair of train tracks, aiming at the horizon,
the tracks will seem to converge at the horizon, ie. they will not be
parallel in the image even though they are in reality. Every single person
with an IQ larger than 50 and with the minimal amount of education knows
this.
The only way you can keep parallel lines parallel in a photo is to
either align the camera to be completely perpendicular to the lines
(in this case aim it directly towards the ground), or use a really large
zoom, to minimize perspective. Neither option is, rather obviously, not
very practical in this situation. Nor would there be any reason for it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Yeah, and look at this detail: You can tell from the look of the tripod thing
> that the shot is *definitely* raytraced. Someone forgot to put a more realistic
> texture here.
Though the blooming and chromatic aberrations betray the photo that it is.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> > Yeah, and look at this detail: You can tell from the look of the tripod thing
> > that the shot is *definitely* raytraced. Someone forgot to put a more realistic
> > texture here.
> Though the blooming and chromatic aberrations betray the photo that it is.
Maybe it's just a very advanced raytracer?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Every single person
> with an IQ larger than 50 and with the minimal amount of education knows
> this.
I read of an aborigine tribe that was found where everyone had lived in the
middle of the dense rain forest for generations. They couldn't see far
enough that perspective ever became noticeable. When the researchers took
them out onto the plains, they wondered how you can make a cow only as big
as a fly.
I remember it being presented as a true story in a magazine that was
supposed to be about science, but I don't remember anything more than that.
It could be BS of course. It was a looong time ago I read it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> Though the blooming and chromatic aberrations betray the photo that it is.
>
> Maybe it's just a very advanced raytracer?
>
Why emulate a substandard lens? :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Every single person
>> with an IQ larger than 50 and with the minimal amount of education knows
>> this.
>
> I read of an aborigine tribe that was found where everyone had lived in
> the middle of the dense rain forest for generations. They couldn't see
> far enough that perspective ever became noticeable. When the researchers
> took them out onto the plains, they wondered how you can make a cow only
> as big as a fly.
I think I read the same thing... I definitely appears plausible. They
have no reference than distances more than a couple dozen feet at most.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback wrote:
> I'm out in the countryside .... very low light pollution from cities/towns.
> during the summer I can clearly see the milky way
I'm jealous. Where I am, on a very clear night, I can see only a couple
stars (Mostly planets) because of the horrid light pollution
We should have a national night of darkness, where all outdoor lighting
is extinguished and people are encouraged to stargaze.
(While hooligans go around stealing hood ornaments...) 0.001pts for
reference.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> The only way you can keep parallel lines parallel in a photo is to
> either align the camera to be completely perpendicular to the lines
> (in this case aim it directly towards the ground), or use a really large
> zoom, to minimize perspective.
Or you can get fancy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt-shift_photography
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
