|
|
Post by fixingahole on Dec 31, 2003 8:44:53 GMT
A lot of emphasis has been put on Paul's round face vs. Faul's long face. That may be a valid comparison but facial shape is changed by the focal length of the lens.   I scanned both of these pics from the Beatles Unseen Archives (Daily Mail). Proportions were constrained (no stretching/squeezing). In the right picture his face looks rounder because it was shot with a wide angle lens. In fact, it's too round. That's why portraits are never taken with a wide lens. Faces get fat. The same effect is exaggerated in a funhouse mirror. The point is, facial shape is altered too much by the photography to use as "proof." Photography will not alter other identifying characteristics (eyebrows, facial lines, earlobes, noses) but it will change the shape of a face. You can argue that the photos have been altered but it's not believable that the Daily Mail would alter its photos to preserve an identity hoax. |
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Dec 31, 2003 9:30:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by fixingahole on Dec 31, 2003 10:00:41 GMT
I agree the Faul face is narrower than the Paul face in the spectrum. I don't see how facial expression and angle differences are relevant in this comparison. It is only showing the wide variation in image distortion caused by lenses. You could use 2 photos taken at the same time/angle with 2 different lenses and the effect would be the same. The wide angle face will always be rounder.
The chain of custody/illuminati argument I have trouble with because, if "they" need to alter pics, why make a book in the first place? You don't hush up the "Paul problem" by publishing hundreds of pictures of him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 31, 2003 11:03:13 GMT
Technically, yes; wide angle lens can equal funhouse mirror effect, to a greater or lesser degree.
May I point out, respectfully, that the wide angle shot of Paul above, his neck-tie top portion is, well, seemingly unaffected. Would his neck-tie be as thin as a ribbon with a more realistic lens?
And weren't there three Beatles?
Why isn't there a barrage of never before seen pix of Ringo, John, or George?
And I have just spent a few days observing a lady entertainer that I know having a video edited. In the process, I saw her shown in a variety of ratios, as they experimented a bit, and yes she always looks herself, stretched, or smooshed, maybe thinner. Granted, she looks like a wider or narrower her, but herself all the same.
If we look at a Mercatur(sp?) projection of North America, most of us recognize our home continent at sight. If we see another map ratio (there are many, yes?) we still recognize North America, don't we? And we say, well that's Cananda and the US too but see how stretched it is at the top etc. We still know whick continent it is. We don't say it is Greenland or Borneo. Or Asia or Arabia. Well, at least, most people have a decent level of skill with continental shapes. And humans have more intrinsic skill (most do) of recognizing faces. Yes, yes, there is a thing called 'face blindness' in Asperger's kids and others; these are the exceptions.
Why don't we not recognise Lennon, or Harrison? Why do we not question their appearances after '66? Don't tell me they had stand-ins, or manipulated pix, too? Am I missing that Lenoon on Sgt. Pepper is a temporary stand-in? I mean, it just looks like Lennon to me.........hungry and older...........
And, printing loads of pics, with some seeming vast divergencies as some feel exist between early and later Paul pix, could serve to at least establish this: the curiosity lies not with the subject, but rather with the vast body of photography associated with that person.The man himself is one entity; the behemoth "trunk" of PR photos is another. They become separate elements in the discussion. It puts the apparent "onus" (sp.?) on the COLLECTION itself, and the potential for there to be numerous, er, uh, "versions" of Paul. With so many different cameras, studios, photographic "clevernesses", photographers, styles, film stock, lights, shadows, and age of print, as well as presumed condition of negatives and originals, there is therefore an endless well of pictoral comparisons, that can take on credibility with little contest or argument, to support the authenticity of the subject; and to cast into disregard the validity of so many or certain photos in particular.
With this game in full swing, it is easy to discredit, one blow at a time, a convincing photo or two by producing conflicting BUT credited prints.
People are funny though, you can present the same "case" or "presentation" to a number of people and they will have a wide range of impressions. And that is a more difficult thing to predict or manipulate.
Just having the perception that a subtle manipulation is happening is enough to put some people on guard; and color or reverse their overall outlook on the topic du jour.
I usually go with what's on the menu, but I hear the chef is pretty creative. What's todays' soup special?
|
|
|
|
Post by fixingahole on Dec 31, 2003 11:20:17 GMT
All good points, Perplexed. I'm also here because suddenly Paul looked a lot more different than the others. My point in this thread was to show how the facial shape argument is weaker than other features because of this lens effect. It's an easy explanation for the shape difference, even if it isn't the right one.
Of course, he may have just had a big dinner before the right pic was taken. The soup special today is navy bean. Please remember that because 2004 is a leap year, starting in January all soups will be off by a day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Dec 31, 2003 23:07:53 GMT
.......wouldn't the shift come on March 1st?
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Dec 31, 2003 23:25:41 GMT
Lens have EXACT laws of distortion. Spherical, cylindrical, hyperboloid, ellissoid ALL UNIFORM LAWS. Lens can't change face features by a NON UNIFORM law. Following two examples about: ...animations loading...please wait...   Taken from this page |
|
|
|
Post by Fwings on Jan 1, 2004 5:22:30 GMT
Nice job, Sun King! I love that new animation of Bill with the image from the Strawberry Fields video. It really drives home the point that there is no way that man is James Paul McCartney.
|
|
