|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on May 8, 2005 12:50:11 GMT
Source Canon website:   |
|
Skydeli
Contributor
food for thought
Posts: 43
|
Post by Skydeli on May 8, 2005 16:32:10 GMT
Okay BeatlePaul..Ive seen this in another thread. Then, what this means, depsite the different lens useage, if the eyes (or distance between the eyes) are the same in all, then it is positively the same person. Right?
|
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on May 8, 2005 16:47:04 GMT
Yeh, thats what i assume.
However as a general point, how can anyone know when eye distances are different or size of head for that matter) how close the camera was?
|
|
Skydeli
Contributor
food for thought
Posts: 43
|
Post by Skydeli on May 8, 2005 17:00:11 GMT
good point!
|
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on May 9, 2005 7:22:26 GMT
Yeh, thats what i assume. However as a general point, how can anyone know when eye distances are different or size of head for that matter) how close the camera was? Professional photographers uses always the same lenses (200mm). The others are for specific purpose (special effect, landscapes....) How close the camera is, you can valutate it by the number of people portrayed. |
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on May 9, 2005 7:24:52 GMT
Okay BeatlePaul..Ive seen this in another thread. Then, what this means, depsite the different lens useage, if the eyes (or distance between the eyes) are the same in all, then it is positively the same person. Right? Please notice that the smaller lenses make the face as a caricature and disappear ears too. |
|
|
|
Post by Moped on May 11, 2005 13:25:44 GMT
Professional photographers uses always the same lenses (200mm). The others are for specific purpose (special effect, landscapes....) How close the camera is, you can valutate it by the number of people portrayed. Agreed, although I think you meant 50mm (close to "true scale"). 200mm is a telescopic.  |
|
|
|
Post by cavendish on May 11, 2005 14:33:11 GMT
BP, I really like your new avatar ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Moped on May 18, 2005 14:01:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on May 19, 2005 0:04:12 GMT
Moped, That is a great example of how these things may not work as proof, ok so everything matches up but, to look at the two pictures separately, you would say john had a much rounder face than in that pic, he suddenly had a long looking face, was he replaced, no.
My point is, you can't always use differing photos as evidence or proof coz we do not know a number of contributing factors, such as a) distance from camera b) type of lens used, there are without doubt more factors but i am neither a photographer or facial examiner so i won't mention any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by TPIMaster on May 19, 2005 17:04:48 GMT
Moped, That is a great example of how these things may not work as proof, ok so everything matches up but, to look at the two pictures separately, you would say john had a much rounder face than in that pic, he suddenly had a long looking face, was he replaced, no. John was chubby in the beginning of The Beatles, but lost a lot of weight later on... If you're chubby, your face gets chubby too. |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on May 20, 2005 1:24:40 GMT
John was chubby in the beginning of The Beatles, but lost a lot of weight later on... If you're chubby, your face gets chubby too. I can personally testify to that. |
|
|
|
Post by cavendish on May 20, 2005 14:46:12 GMT
Even though John's face is thinner, his eyes, nose & chin all still line up. Incredible  |
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on May 22, 2005 1:22:37 GMT
Tip: if there is a severe lens distortion you just can't see the ears of the head.
But if you can see clearly the ears so there is a small or very small lens distortion.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Duke of Spiders on May 23, 2005 17:10:12 GMT
The eyes are going to stay the same distance apart, though -- that's based on the skull. It's not like if you gain weight your head swells up like a balloon, this isn't a cartoon.
|
|
