Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2011 08:12:50 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> 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.
> > 
> >   How is zooming towards the horizon "composited or put together"?

> If it were done optically, there'd be some kind of artifact.  You 
> wouldn't get that from just a standard zoom setting on a camera - not 
> with that extent of exaggeration in the moon without having the sun also 
> exaggerated.

  Perhaps you should read again what I wrote? Nowhere did I say that you
could get the image referenced in the original post with zooming. (On the
contrary, I explicitly said that if you get an enlarged moon by zooming,
the sun would also be equally enlarged.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message