You are incorrect. To consider the photo you need to take into account all points that make up the photo. If you change one point its a different photo.
I might well be incorrect. I've never heard of anyone who wasn't incorrect on at least a few points. But I fail to see how I am incorrect on the basis that I haven't taken into account all the points that make up the photo.
My argument so far has consistently been that the reason the wider angle shot has a different perspective, and from really close-up an obviously distorted perspective, is because it is a different photo from another taken from the same shooting position and same angle, using a longer lens.
The wide angle shot has many more points and many more clues about spatial relationships than the narrow angle shot. One cannot get the 'big nose effect' with a long lens shot taken from the same close distance as a wide-angle shot.
Obviously one does get essentially the same picture of the nose, barring lens imperfections, but no clues as to the perspective of the nose in relation to other points which simply don't exist in the narrow angle shot.
If you arrange for those points (and clues to perspective) to exist, by stitching a number of shots, you are then very slightly changing the position of the sensor with each shot, which, according to you, represents a change in distance, however small that change may be.
Nevertheless, I'm not one for nitpicking. I accept that within reason it is possible to emulate a wide-angle lens with a narrow lens through stitching. And I accept also that much of the differences in my comparison image above, if not all, are due to lens imperfections.
My main thesis here is that the wide-angle shot can provide a different perspective because there are more objects or points in the scene for the eye and brain to construct a sense of spatial relationships. Cropping the wide-angle shot makes it a narrower angle shot.
And with this Im do not want to give any more education lessons of
subjects that should be obvious at ground school levels, and that the Greeks
mastered more than 2000 years ago (and probably other cultures before
The ancient Greeks! They weren't all that good at the scientific method, were they! Didn't they believe that we see, in part, because our eyes shine a light on the object we are looking at.
Didn't they tend to believe that the sun, and the entire observed universe, revolved around the earth?
Even Aristotle, one of the greatest of Greek thinkers, was confused about the number of teeth in a female human. He thought males had a greater number of teeth. Maybe his wife was abnormal, teeth-wise, or maybe he'd never bothered checking.
I can't help feeling compassion for all those countless individuals who, for over a thousand years, accepted everything that Aristotle wrote as being gospel, when we now know that most of what he wrote is sheer bunkum.
I'm reminded to some extent of the posters in this thread who blindly accept that focal length has nothing to do with perspective because certain renouned experts have said so.