Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: definitive Princeton study on perspective etc.  (Read 1489 times)

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
definitive Princeton study on perspective etc.
« on: August 22, 2013, 09:29:59 pm »

This reminds of some of the protracted, recurring discussions in these forum on perspective: Ray, here is the scientific truth:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-people-far-away-from-you-not-actually-smalle,33594/

I await the Onion's explanation of depth of field and equivalence.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: definitive Princeton study on perspective etc.
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2013, 11:17:22 pm »

This reminds of some of the protracted, recurring discussions in these forum on perspective: Ray, here is the scientific truth:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-people-far-away-from-you-not-actually-smalle,33594/

I await the Onion's explanation of depth of field and equivalence.
But wait! How do they know that filming at 2500 frames per second is sufficient to prove their theory. I say much higher Chronic Resolution is needed before I'll be convinced.  :o  ???  ::)
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: definitive Princeton study on perspective etc.
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2013, 10:31:10 am »

Ray, here is the scientific truth:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-people-far-away-from-you-not-actually-smalle,33594/

Absolutely! The point is obvious. I tried to explain this many times, that pointing a camera at someone does not change the size or perspective of anything, whatever the focal length of lens on the camera. When Neil Armstrong went to the moon, his height was still 5' 11", the same as it was on Earth.

However, Neil Armstrong on a print is a different scenario. He could be 10 ft tall, or 2 inches tall, depending on the size of the print.  ;)
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: definitive Princeton study on perspective etc.
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2013, 05:15:22 pm »

Shit! You still haven't got it!

;-)

Rob C

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: definitive Princeton study on perspective etc.
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2013, 05:49:42 pm »

... tried to explain this many times, that pointing a camera at someone does not change the size or perspective of anything, whatever the focal length of lens on the camera...

Wait!?

Isn't it exactly what we were saying all along and you tried to prove us wrong!?

Harald L

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 856
Re: definitive Princeton study on perspective etc.
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2013, 07:33:24 pm »

Reminds me on an article which I've read ca. 30 years ago in Scientific American. That article described an comprehensive experiment which was done by an interdisciplinary team of researchers in order to find the matter which can store heat best. In the end it wasn't any metal, stone or unobtainium but the tomato-sauce of Joey's Pizza.

Harald
Logged
Glad to be an amateur

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: definitive Princeton study on perspective etc.
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2013, 07:58:41 pm »

Wait!?

Isn't it exactly what we were saying all along and you tried to prove us wrong!?

Absolutely not! My discussion was always about photographic images. I repeated this many times. However, it seems that certain people on this forum are so obsessed with photography, they seem to have reached the stage where they confuse realty with a photographic image.  ;D

It's only when one takes a photograph and produces a print, that the size and perspective of people and things represented on that print change as a result of distance from camera to subject, focal length of lens used, print size, degree of cropping, and viewing distance to the print. This is a scientifically sound principle.  ;)
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 08:09:39 pm by Ray »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up