On Tue, 24 May 2011 14:39:39 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >   As I said in my post, it's perfectly possible to make a photo of
>> >   the
>> > Moon so that it looks enormous compared to the details on the ground.
>> > Just use a really strong zoom.
> 
>> There would be artifacts, stretching, or *something* that made it
>> obvious it was faked using optics.
> 
>   Faked? Faked compared to what? What is a "normal" zoom level?

Composited or put together using some sort of optical trickery.

>   Is the image shown by a microscope "faked"? How about an image taken
>   by
> Hubble? Is that "faked" as well? What's the difference?

No, because those images aren't trying to be "realistic".  (Arguably, 
some of the pictures from Hubble are 'fake' in that they show non-visible 
wavelengths using visible wavelengths, but they don't try to pass them 
off as being anything other than a composite with visual representations 
of things that you wouldn't actually 'see' with your eyes).

Jim

Post a reply to this message