Upload
Login or register

anonmynous

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:12/18/2012
Last Login:9/11/2016
Stats
Content Thumbs: 449 total,  555 ,  106
Comment Thumbs: 9635 total,  10706 ,  1071
Content Level Progress: 10% (1/10)
Level 41 Content: Sammich eater → Level 42 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 74% (74/100)
Level 283 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 284 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:0
Content Views:39173
Times Content Favorited:25 times
Total Comments Made:1917
FJ Points:8848
Favorite Tags: Futurama (2)

latest user's comments

#5 - The sequel wasn't bad. Would have been better if Willem dafoe …  [+] (1 reply) 01/12/2016 on TFW +15
#13 - deadfleshbuddy (01/12/2016) [-]
**deadfleshbuddy used "*roll picture*"**
**deadfleshbuddy rolled image**No Rocco no Love!
#3 - well are you offended? if so he has a point  [+] (1 reply) 01/11/2016 on Ow The Edge +2
User avatar
#4 - afaik (01/11/2016) [-]
Don't think I'm offended. I watched a few of his shows on youtube and frankly, not my cup of tea. He makes some decent points, but most of the time he just points out what most people already think.
#8 - But if cows eat veggies then cows are veggies. Eating meat is…  [+] (2 replies) 01/11/2016 on SO THAT'S HOW IT WORKS +17
#16 - dareus (01/11/2016) [-]
But if veggies are cows, then cows are veggies. Therefore, eating a panda is perfectly legal.
User avatar
#41 - holycrapimacupcake (01/11/2016) [-]
Wait what?
#29 - Ok this is my last post cause i got to go to bed and im gettin…  [+] (1 reply) 01/11/2016 on Tila Tequila can melt steel... -1
User avatar
#37 - OtisMcWonderful (01/11/2016) [-]
Come on, man. Your initial post states that there is no wide-angle "trickery" going on. There clearly is. It's just a byproduct of using a wide angle lense.
#25 - My point is that if the earth extended infinetly flat then the…  [+] (4 replies) 01/11/2016 on Tila Tequila can melt steel... -2
#28 - OtisMcWonderful (01/11/2016) [-]
Your reading comprehension is next to zero. I'm not arguing at all for a flat Earth. I stated this in my initial comment. All I'm saying is that lense distortion is a thing that is present on that image. It is not corrected and gives the impression that Earth is much smaller than it actually is due to the exaggerated curves.

I've even corrected the image for you as a visual aid because you clearly don't understand the concept of camera lense distortion.
User avatar
#27 - armwulf (01/11/2016) [-]
Right, but the larger you make the planet, the further away you need to move to see a noticable difference, yeah?
Like, hold a tiny marble in your hand. You can see that curve.
But look at it under a microscope and it might be a little difficult to notice a curve.
The earth is far too large to see the curve of the surface in the horizon, you even provided a video link that explains the effect of barrel distortion that causes that optical illusion.
#29 - anonmynous (01/11/2016) [-]
Ok this is my last post cause i got to go to bed and im getting thumbed to hell but i did enjoy our discussion. YES im aware of the illusion! Im not saying that you would be able to see 2 very tall buildings on either side of the photo tilted relative to one another. Im saying the illusion is a product of the fact that in the original photo our view of the horizon is limited to only 20 miles or so.
User avatar
#37 - OtisMcWonderful (01/11/2016) [-]
Come on, man. Your initial post states that there is no wide-angle "trickery" going on. There clearly is. It's just a byproduct of using a wide angle lense.
#22 - Ok so now that were on thesame page consider this: that same p…  [+] (8 replies) 01/11/2016 on Tila Tequila can melt steel... -2
#23 - OtisMcWonderful (01/11/2016) [-]
>would not show a curve in the horizon
No shit. That's because the horizon would essentially be at eye level for the camera. It won't appear bowed because of this. If you move the focal point higher, the lense distortion would produce a curve. Greater heights produce a more exaggerated effect, which must be corrected.

What the hell is even your point anymore?
User avatar
#32 - SuperSixONE (01/11/2016) [-]
Fellow photog?
User avatar
#35 - OtisMcWonderful (01/11/2016) [-]
Not really. Just someone with a shred of common sense.
#25 - anonmynous (01/11/2016) [-]
My point is that if the earth extended infinetly flat then the horizon would always be at eye level regardless of altitude. The fact that greater altitude produces greater distorition means that the original photo does in fact supply evidence that the horizon curves out of our field of view and therefore implying the earth is round.
#28 - OtisMcWonderful (01/11/2016) [-]
Your reading comprehension is next to zero. I'm not arguing at all for a flat Earth. I stated this in my initial comment. All I'm saying is that lense distortion is a thing that is present on that image. It is not corrected and gives the impression that Earth is much smaller than it actually is due to the exaggerated curves.

I've even corrected the image for you as a visual aid because you clearly don't understand the concept of camera lense distortion.
User avatar
#27 - armwulf (01/11/2016) [-]
Right, but the larger you make the planet, the further away you need to move to see a noticable difference, yeah?
Like, hold a tiny marble in your hand. You can see that curve.
But look at it under a microscope and it might be a little difficult to notice a curve.
The earth is far too large to see the curve of the surface in the horizon, you even provided a video link that explains the effect of barrel distortion that causes that optical illusion.
#29 - anonmynous (01/11/2016) [-]
Ok this is my last post cause i got to go to bed and im getting thumbed to hell but i did enjoy our discussion. YES im aware of the illusion! Im not saying that you would be able to see 2 very tall buildings on either side of the photo tilted relative to one another. Im saying the illusion is a product of the fact that in the original photo our view of the horizon is limited to only 20 miles or so.
User avatar
#37 - OtisMcWonderful (01/11/2016) [-]
Come on, man. Your initial post states that there is no wide-angle "trickery" going on. There clearly is. It's just a byproduct of using a wide angle lense.
#19 - I'm completely aware how big the earth is (physicist here). W…  [+] (10 replies) 01/11/2016 on Tila Tequila can melt steel... -4
#20 - OtisMcWonderful (01/11/2016) [-]
That video literally just explains lense distortion, which is exactly what I'm talking about.

And yes, our eyes are lenses. Images are curved and corrected by the brain. A camera doesn't have this luxury by default. As you said, it is telling the truth about what it sees, which is the distortion of the lense. Now, image processing either on the camera itself or on a PC through something like Photoshop can fix this. But again, the image, by default, will have distortion.

So to recap, there is distortion on the image. There's no way to argue against this. The sheer size of the Earth makes this physically impossible for an image taken at such a height.
#22 - anonmynous (01/11/2016) [-]
Ok so now that were on thesame page consider this: that same photo taken at ground level, no matter how wide-angled, would not show a curve in the horizon. His altitude, albeit small produces this effect.
#23 - OtisMcWonderful (01/11/2016) [-]
>would not show a curve in the horizon
No shit. That's because the horizon would essentially be at eye level for the camera. It won't appear bowed because of this. If you move the focal point higher, the lense distortion would produce a curve. Greater heights produce a more exaggerated effect, which must be corrected.

What the hell is even your point anymore?
User avatar
#32 - SuperSixONE (01/11/2016) [-]
Fellow photog?
User avatar
#35 - OtisMcWonderful (01/11/2016) [-]
Not really. Just someone with a shred of common sense.
#25 - anonmynous (01/11/2016) [-]
My point is that if the earth extended infinetly flat then the horizon would always be at eye level regardless of altitude. The fact that greater altitude produces greater distorition means that the original photo does in fact supply evidence that the horizon curves out of our field of view and therefore implying the earth is round.
#28 - OtisMcWonderful (01/11/2016) [-]
Your reading comprehension is next to zero. I'm not arguing at all for a flat Earth. I stated this in my initial comment. All I'm saying is that lense distortion is a thing that is present on that image. It is not corrected and gives the impression that Earth is much smaller than it actually is due to the exaggerated curves.

I've even corrected the image for you as a visual aid because you clearly don't understand the concept of camera lense distortion.
User avatar
#27 - armwulf (01/11/2016) [-]
Right, but the larger you make the planet, the further away you need to move to see a noticable difference, yeah?
Like, hold a tiny marble in your hand. You can see that curve.
But look at it under a microscope and it might be a little difficult to notice a curve.
The earth is far too large to see the curve of the surface in the horizon, you even provided a video link that explains the effect of barrel distortion that causes that optical illusion.
#29 - anonmynous (01/11/2016) [-]
Ok this is my last post cause i got to go to bed and im getting thumbed to hell but i did enjoy our discussion. YES im aware of the illusion! Im not saying that you would be able to see 2 very tall buildings on either side of the photo tilted relative to one another. Im saying the illusion is a product of the fact that in the original photo our view of the horizon is limited to only 20 miles or so.
User avatar
#37 - OtisMcWonderful (01/11/2016) [-]
Come on, man. Your initial post states that there is no wide-angle "trickery" going on. There clearly is. It's just a byproduct of using a wide angle lense.