 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> I'm not sure you would get water like that at the North Pole either...
Yeah. Global warming is pretty bad, but I don't think it's yet *that*
bad. (Although in a few decades, who knows...)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> photoshop
Since when has Terragen been called "photoshop"?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Was anybody else's first reaction "does the JPEG have an EXIF tag?"?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > photoshop
>
> Since when has Terragen been called "photoshop"?
didn't look like Terragen, just an edited photo.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 22 May 2011 15:14:33 -0400, nemesis wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> > photoshop
>>
>> Since when has Terragen been called "photoshop"?
>
> didn't look like Terragen, just an edited photo.
Doesn't look anything like a photo to me, as others pointed out, apart
from the sizes being completely wrong no matter where you are in the
world, there are other significant issues with the image that make it a
physical impossibility.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/21/11 20:49, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> Why does this look so much like a render? The moon looks so huge and the
> sun so small...
It would be nice if someone could take a photo of the moon and venus in
this constellation…
Lars R.
PS: I don't know the angular size of venus by mind, who does?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/05/2011 13:59, Loki Doki wrote:
> PS: I don't know the angular size of venus by mind, who does?
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Venus+angular+size
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2011 15:14:33 -0400, nemesis wrote:
>
> > Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> > photoshop
> >>
> >> Since when has Terragen been called "photoshop"?
> >
> > didn't look like Terragen, just an edited photo.
>
> Doesn't look anything like a photo to me, as others pointed out, apart
> from the sizes being completely wrong no matter where you are in the
> world, there are other significant issues with the image that make it a
> physical impossibility.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/northpole.asp
amusing. You search for "north pole sunset" in both google and flickr and
several copies of that image come up.
I don't see any particular "significant issues with the image that make it a
physical impossibility" with it though, apart from the sizes, which could be
edited. Specially in the face of HDR photography making photos look like CG,
like this one with 3 min exposure:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelpixcomau/5452674118/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 23 May 2011 15:15:15 -0400, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 May 2011 15:14:33 -0400, nemesis wrote:
>>
>> > Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> >> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> >> > photoshop
>> >>
>> >> Since when has Terragen been called "photoshop"?
>> >
>> > didn't look like Terragen, just an edited photo.
>>
>> Doesn't look anything like a photo to me, as others pointed out, apart
>> from the sizes being completely wrong no matter where you are in the
>> world, there are other significant issues with the image that make it a
>> physical impossibility.
>
> http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/northpole.asp
>
> amusing. You search for "north pole sunset" in both google and flickr
> and several copies of that image come up.
Yeah, amazing that Google pulls up results that are not just photographs,
isn't it? ;)
> I don't see any particular "significant issues with the image that make
> it a physical impossibility" with it though, apart from the sizes, which
> could be edited. Specially in the face of HDR photography making photos
> look like CG, like this one with 3 min exposure:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelpixcomau/5452674118/
That one looks real to me.
Now in terms of the OP, the size of the moon in the image is physically
impossible compared to the size of the sun. There is no place on the
Earth that the moon will photograph as that large without some sort of
photo trickery. None - absolutely NONE.
There are times the moon *looks* larger than it really is due to
atmospheric distortions, but never on such a huge scale.
Then there's the position of the crescent itself - as Stephen pointed
out. The only place it would orient that way relative to the horizon is
at the equator, not at the north pole.
Then there's the water, as Warp said, even with global warming, there's
just far too much water for it to be really at the north pole.
Everything about that image screams "fake" to me. There's something
about the way the horizon is lit that doesn't look right to me, either.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 May 2011 15:14:33 -0400, nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>>> nemesis<nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>>> photoshop
>>>>
>>>> Since when has Terragen been called "photoshop"?
>>>
>>> didn't look like Terragen, just an edited photo.
>>
>> Doesn't look anything like a photo to me, as others pointed out, apart
>> from the sizes being completely wrong no matter where you are in the
>> world, there are other significant issues with the image that make it a
>> physical impossibility.
>
> http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/northpole.asp
>
> amusing. You search for "north pole sunset" in both google and flickr and
> several copies of that image come up.
>
> I don't see any particular "significant issues with the image that make it a
> physical impossibility" with it though, apart from the sizes, which could be
> edited.
The Moon's crescent is supposed to be perpendicular to Earth's orbit
(the contribution of the angle of the Moon's own orbital plane being
negligible). If this were real, it would have to be combination of two
pictures: one picture of the Moon taken near the equator, and one
picture of the snowy mountains and water taken near the North or South
pole, for a sufficiently large value of "near".
(Besides, someon else already pointed out the author's massive gallery
of Terragen-made images)
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
