|
|
Post by hal on Dec 21, 2011 17:50:16 GMT -4
Hi, hal. Welcome to the board. Thanks. Been lurking for years. |
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Dec 21, 2011 17:53:17 GMT -4
Do you have the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission? ;D Just kidding, welcome aboard.  |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 21, 2011 18:17:49 GMT -4
It's also instructive how many times a critic will say "That CGI looked really fake" in reference to a movie scene that included no CGI whatsoever. Or how many times they will miss the small but effective trickery that happens all the time in scenes that aren't rampaging dinosaurs or crashing spaceships. Such as mat extensions, or the digital removal of television aerials from rooftops in a period shot, and so on. But people sure notice when they don't remove those aerials! Personally, I have a lot of respect for well-done visual effects, and "well-done" doesn't always mean flashy. In fact, I think it seldom does. It mostly means "as seamless as possible." |
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Dec 21, 2011 18:58:36 GMT -4
Sure, there's a "tell". But the point was, there is no one "size" of the moon in a photograph. Different lenses, different angles,will make it look a different size. So, you can't just eyeball a photograph and say, the Earth is the "wrong size" in it. My favorite website demonstrating this (sadly only available now on the wayback machine) web.archive.org/web/20080702050328/http://www.kevinwilley.com/l3_topic04.htmThis gif from that site illustrates it well. The truck and barn never move, only the focal length changes.  |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 21, 2011 20:31:37 GMT -4
I forget the name of the camera technique for a moment but Hitch popularized it in the signature shot of his "Vertigo." It is also used (usually more subtly) in other feature films and even in some television dramas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Dec 21, 2011 21:30:26 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Dec 22, 2011 1:49:28 GMT -4
But the "tell" there would be the flattened field of the wall itself. Yes. That's why I qualified it with "assuming it's not a trick wall with forced perspective". I have a plaque on my wall that features a picture taken through a solar telescope. The setting sun fills the frame, and in front of it is a person on a ridge in silhouette. He appears smaller than the sun even though the sun's apparent size is only 1/2 degree. The telescope obviously has a very long focal length and the person was very far away. I'm told that this picture was taken almost by accident, and they've never been able to recreate it even when they tried. |
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Dec 22, 2011 6:45:31 GMT -4
I forget the name of the camera technique for a moment but Hitch popularized it in the signature shot of his "Vertigo." It is also used (usually more subtly) in other feature films and even in some television dramas. The technical name is a dolly zoom, but it may also be referred to as a Vertigo shot or trombone shot. |
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Dec 22, 2011 7:16:47 GMT -4
But the "tell" there would be the flattened field of the wall itself. Yes. That's why I qualified it with "assuming it's not a trick wall with forced perspective". I have a plaque on my wall that features a picture taken through a solar telescope. The setting sun fills the frame, and in front of it is a person on a ridge in silhouette. He appears smaller than the sun even though the sun's apparent size is only 1/2 degree. The telescope obviously has a very long focal length and the person was very far away. I'm told that this picture was taken almost by accident, and they've never been able to recreate it even when they tried. Similar to solar images with transits of the ISS passing in front of the disc, such as this example  Long focal lengths are the answer....for solar imaging (and planetary and Lunar imaging) amateur imagers often use x5 barlow lenses on f10 'scopes giving f50 (and focal lengths at 10metres) |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Dec 22, 2011 7:23:53 GMT -4
WOW! That space station must be hooooooge......
|
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Dec 22, 2011 8:11:20 GMT -4
WOW! That space station must be hooooooge...... Maybe it's a moon? |
|
|
|
Post by zakalwe on Dec 22, 2011 10:36:43 GMT -4
WOW! That space station must be hooooooge...... Waaay to big to be lifted into orbit by the Shuttle or Soyuz. based on this, I reckon that the STS program was all a gigantic con to swindle the US public of their tax dollars/a cover-up story by the CIA/an excuse to lay chemtrails in the sky....  |
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Dec 22, 2011 13:55:35 GMT -4
WOW! That space station must be hooooooge...... Maybe it's a moon? That's no moon... The relative sizes are simply scaled by their relative distances. The sun is about 150,000,000 km away while the ISS orbits at approximately 400 km. Both numbers vary. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 22, 2011 16:49:07 GMT -4
Yeah, I think all of us know that. If not the specific numbers, than the principle. Forced perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 22, 2011 17:49:29 GMT -4
I'd call it "flattened perspective."
To me, forced perspective is when scenery is built with non-square walls that make it look larger than it is.
|
|
