 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 23 May 2011 15:15:15 -0400, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 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.
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.
Of course to get the ground details and the Moon on the same photo with
such a strong zoom the Moon has to be very close to the horizon, and the
ground details very far away from the photographer. If the Moon is higher
on the sky then it becomes impossible (because you can zoom either to the
Moon or to the horizon, not both).
And of course if the Sun were visible as well, that would look much
bigger as well (about the same size as the Moon), for the same reason.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 May 2011 12:32:03 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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.
> Of course to get the ground details and the Moon on the same photo
> with
> such a strong zoom the Moon has to be very close to the horizon, and the
> ground details very far away from the photographer. If the Moon is
> higher on the sky then it becomes impossible (because you can zoom
> either to the Moon or to the horizon, not both).
>
> And of course if the Sun were visible as well, that would look much
> bigger as well (about the same size as the Moon), for the same reason.
Exactly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
Is the image shown by a microscope "faked"? How about an image taken by
Hubble? Is that "faked" as well? What's the difference?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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"?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2011 11:23:20 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Perhaps you should read again what I wrote?
I understood what you wrote; you didn't understand what I wrote,
apparently, and I've been trying to explain it. Apparently not well
enough. Oh well.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
