David Josephs Wrote:Mr. Doyle -
This has gone on long enough.
Quote:Where we are in this discussion is David used exaggerated reasoning to falsely claim no judgments of distance relationships could be made in Darnell. This is not correct as the reasoning I offered
As explained before - while you were covering every orifice making sure nothing got in - eyeballing a frame or photo to determine distances cannot be done.
It truly is not our fault that you remain stubborn and stupid when the concepts have been explained and there is an entire internet available for you to learn how wrong you remain.
Will you now argue that the baby's head is larger than Lovelady when you still do not know the distances involved, the lens involved or anything about the properties of light, depth and perspective.
If you knew the size of the baby's head, you believe you can determine the size of Lovelady's head using your eyeballing process of comparisons and guessing?
Forgot this example as well?
How much taller is the can in the front, in the 24mm image, than the can in the back Doyle? at 70mm? 135mm? & 300mm?
Are they using 4 different sets of different sized cans or one set Doyle?
At 300mm, how far to the left and back is the can on the left compared to the front and middle can? at 24mm? at 70mm? 135mm?
If you only saw the 300mm image - would you then spend 20 pages arguing that the cans are all next to each other?
Is the can in the 24mm image farther away from the front can than in the 135mm image? if so, by how much?
And finally - simply because you know the size of the cans does not mean you can measure distance unless you employ one of a number of photogrammetry algorithms.
FYI - the can in the 24mm image is just under 2" in this image... how much shorter is the can in the back? and in the 135mm image?
answer the questions in bold... show off that big brain of yours Doyle and extrapolate your expertise at measuring distance from the PM images to the one above.
You get this right and maybe we make it into an after school special ::thumbsup::
Like Mr. Cross, here again comes, Mr. Josephs, simply asking Mr. Doyle to exercise some consideration for the dynamics of photography. A simple request, worthy of genuine consideration... yet try as they may, the only response is total avoidance. Why?
It's plain to see why...
A jackarse, a billy goat and a stubborn mule wagered a bet to see who could win the Stubborn Award, given annually to the most stubborn of all. Putting their petty stubbornness aside momentarily to agree upon a contest to crown a winner, they decided that the last one to answer nature's call after drinking an equal amount of designated water would reign and hoist the Stubborn Award.
Twelve hours later all three were holding steady, and shooting steely daggar eyes at each other. An additional twelve hours creeped by, and the trio held firm. 48hrs later, Farmer 1, pointing over at the jackarse, billy goat and mule, says to Farmer A, What's that all about?
Farmer A says, they made a bet that the last one to answer nature's call would reign supreme as the Stubborn Champ of all time. To which Farmer 1, pointing to the urine and feces all about them, said, Don't they realize the contest is over? To which Farmer A replied, hel* what do they know, jarkarse and mule are so stubborn they even deny they are one and the same; and though all of them are full of smit, they are too darn stubborn to admit it anyway.
Now, all humour aside. Mr. Oswald told us where he was. Officialdom promptly hid his airtight alibi from public view/consumption for decades. Why? Just one honest, with honest being the operative word here, look at the following photo and we all know why ---->
*Credit: Prayer-Man Website
*Credit: Mr. Murphy (Sean)