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