Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bad Camera Angle.Feedback,please?  
User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1300 posts, RR: 25
Posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3429 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

Hi Guys

While some (perhaps the majority) of bad camera angles are obvious,some are quite subjective .
I used the control tower (close to center of picture as the object to be straight)...Is this off or not?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=DSC00798a.jpg

thanks,




World Wide Aerospace Photography
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3415 times:

0.5 CW rotation will do the job, I think the landscape will be lvld then ...

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3344 times:

It needs some CW rotation alright, can't say how much but it deffinatly looks unlevel to me

Hope that helps

Fergul  Big thumbs up

Nice shot though



Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3320 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Suresh,

Mmm. I have had a seriously close look at this as bad camera angle is a pet topic of mine. I had it open so large that the individual pixels were clearly visible and I feel confident in saying that, whatever vertical you use as the reference, that image is completely level.

The side of the control tower needs 0 degree rotation, and any of the skyscrapers in the background you choose to look at closely on the left hand side need 0 degree rotation.

Now I think this is an optical illusion - and I know a little bit about what I am talking about here as I am a psychologist. The taxiway looks like it is going uphill from the background to the foreground. But in fact in the 2 dimensional photo it is going down from centre/mid left in the photo to mid/lower right. As a result your brain 'thinks' that the Delta is also going uphill and so its nose should be higher than its tail. In fact, the nose is lower in the picture than the tail. That is one of the main reasons for the background verticals appearing to be leaning slightly to the left (and so require a CW rotation to level them), when in fact the are perfectly vertical.

That Delta plane is messing with our brains! Now I could be wrong about this - but I don't think I am. Smile

I look forward to hearing what anyone else has to say on this one.

All the best.

Paul


User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3274 times:

Paul

I would have to disagree with you a bit on this one. I don't think the taxiway is going up or down, its level! However I don't doubt your credentials one bit but I do agree with you that there is an optical illusion alright. But I feel that its from the window glass of the plane that the photo has been taken through. Thats if it has been taken from another plane. I say this because I have fitted a few of theses windows myself on the 747's and they're not the greatest in terms of flatness. Also, was this taken with a very wide angle lens? That too can distort the photo a small bit. Only Suresh can tell us what he used and how!

Thats my theory on it. I like this shot, its very good and a pity it didn't make it in. But in order to get it in it may have to be rotated a small bit. Screeners want them level!!!  Laugh out loud

Fergul  Big thumbs up



Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3261 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Forget the credentials Fergul. With hindsight I think I only said that to try to protect myself against looking a complete idiot! Smile

You may very well be right that the taxiway is in reality flat. But when your brain sees that picture it 'translates' the taxiway into one that goes uphill. So, to compensate for the fact that then the nose of the Delta is lower (i.e. looking 'as if' it were going downhill) your brain does the equivalent of tipping the nose up to compensate. In so doing the effect is to shift everything slightly CCW. I think that is why you, me and Robin so far - as well as the screener I assume - look at the picture and instinctively see that everything is slightly tipping over to the left. But I still stand by my belief that those verticals are exactly vertical.

If you expand the picture greatly and isolate those vertical structures from the rest of the image (which is often how you can break down an optical illusion - as it relies on different aspects of the image interacting visually with each other) you can see that the individual pixels are stacked on top of each other in a perfect vertical, without the slightest deviation.

A very enjoyable topic to explore - unless you are Suresh and feel aggrieved that you photo was rejected.

All the best.

Paul


User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3249 times:

>But I still stand by my belief that those verticals are exactly vertical.

If you expand the picture greatly and isolate those vertical structures from the rest of the image (which is often how you can break down an optical illusion - as it relies on different aspects of the image interacting visually with each other) you can see that the individual pixels are stacked on top of each other in a perfect vertical, without the slightest deviation.<
----------

When I do what you describe above I see it needs CW rotation.

/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3230 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Jan,

This fascinates me. According to my picture on the screen when blown up to, say, 800%, the pixels of the side of one of those vertical structures are stacked upon each other exactly vertically. Also, if you use the measure tool and draw a vertical line, it confirms 0 degree rotation.

I can't work out how you could see anything else, but I'd be fascinated to know. Unfortunately I cannot post a picture of my image in Photoshop to show what I mean. Maybe someone else has the ability to do this.

Paul


User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1300 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3218 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

Thanks Paul and Fergul for the insightful and helpful comments. Welcome to my respected list  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

In my post processing i verified all my verticals and was satisfied with the picture. However, the screener (s) felt otherwise. I


Closup of Tower to show it is VERTICAL ...however..i will try an rotate more.





and here are the building on the left:




The taxiway (Delta) at the 27 Hold short line was where this taken. Vicinity of D-1 and D-2. Field elevation 15' at that location.
According to below:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco/online/airportdiagrams/00058AD.PDF



The elevation of the area on the right (front of Delta nose) seems to be 19' (according to FAA) and the the area on the left of the picture which is the 4R/4L threshold is approx 17'..so this can contribute to illusion that the horizon is crooked while in reality it is a differerence in elevation.

THAT SAID:

I thought that the VERTICALS are the gold standard and once those line up the picture is straight.

Is there something wrong with my line of thinking?

Thanks again Guys....



World Wide Aerospace Photography
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3213 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Suresh,

I am so pleased that you have posted this - surely noone can disagree now. Big grin

All the best.

Paul

P.S. Just to add - as you can tell from my previous discussion I don't think anyone can be blamed for thinking this is not level. Theory would predict such a conclusion. But as Suresh has thankfully illustrated, it is in fact perfectly level. I would hope that Suresh could reupload this photo and make reference to this thread in the full confidence that there would not be a problem with that. Is that a fair conclusion to draw? If so that would be a great vindication of this forum and the preparedness of all of us to accept mistakes and constructive arguments. I hope that is the case.

[Edited 2005-01-21 21:59:38]

User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3208 times:

During the time Suresh posted this I was checkin again and was astonished to say the least that I could not repeat my observation.
I was wrong. (Hate that...)

Cheers

/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3206 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Jan,

You posted your last whilst I was editing my last post.

What you have said supports my last statement and I am really heartened to read that. Good Man.  Big thumbs up

Paul


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9625 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3196 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Well, you can blow up this and grid that, but the photo is clearly not level.

Here is the same shot, rotated .8 CW



User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3192 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Royal,

Yep - I see what you mean. That does look level. But we know from the above that it is, in fact, not - objectively speaking.

But what are us poor photographers supposed to do? Check verticals or crop the photo so it 'looks straight'. I have followed this issue of bad camera angle closely over the last couple of months and I, like Suresh, believed that the verticals must be vertical. Clearly in his photo they are, and the fact that it then doesn't look level generally is because of the way the mind deals with the different angles and perspective of this particular photo - not because it really isn't level.

So - my question really is - is it the subjective reality or the objective reality that counts?

All the best.

Paul


User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3183 times:

Suresh!

Thank you for adding me to resp list, I have done the same in return  Big thumbs up

Leveling
I have this problem as well when I level my photos taken in Dublin. Do I go with the tower and then the fence looks skew or do I compromise and get them looking level to the eye. I know Dublin Airport and the runway is not perfectly flat and level. There are times I have leveled the runway and then I spot that the building is off slightly. So I have resorted to trying to get the photo level with the buildings first then I check other things such as light poles etc. So far I have been lucky in that since my first rejection of badcamera angel it hasn't come back to haunt me again.

Suresh this is a nice shot and I hope you reload it and it gets in.

Two questions you can answer, which I asked in my last post, what camera and . . . forget the camera, what lens did you use and from where, inside the plane or from the fence? I'd just like to know

Fergul Big grin

PS I stand corrected about the runway being level when it isn't!
On a personal note, I think that the screeners are becoming too strict here, this is a good shot and should have been accepted. Its level !!




Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3119 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi,

I still think it would be very helpful if we could get clarification on this issue, but there have been no additions for some time.

The issue is - if the verticals in a photo are vertical then can it still be bad camera angle? If the answer is 'no' then Suresh should be able to reupload this picture without a problem; if the answer is 'yes' then I am worried.

Not wishing to cause any difficulties - just to put this issue to rest.

Best wishes.

Paul


User currently offlineCboyes From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 3101 times:

Hi

Not meaning to stir the pot or anything, but aren't the verticals in this photo too short to be of any use in levelling the photo? If you rotated the image a little bit in either direction (say 0.1 or 0.2 degrees), my bet is those verticals would still appear absolutely vertical when measured with a grid. This is something I've noticed when trying to use short verticals to level my own photos, and it always leaves me scratching my head wondering what to do.

With an image like this I think you have to use the horizon. Maybe it isn't really level, but the majority of viewers aren't going to know that. In the absence of good verticals I think you have to aim to give the impression the photo is level (even if you know it isn't) or else plead your case in the 'Comments to screeners' box.

I agree with Paul though this whole issue is an interesting one.

CB


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Rejected For Bad Camera Angle, Please Help. posted Sun Jan 12 2003 07:33:38 by Alphazulu
Bad Camera Angle? posted Mon Jun 20 2005 01:16:25 by CallMeCapt
Bad Camera Angle posted Thu Jun 9 2005 14:11:24 by Viv
Bad Camera Angle, Where Is The Reference? posted Thu May 5 2005 22:14:16 by Fergulmcc
Bad Camera Angle? posted Tue Apr 19 2005 05:10:22 by AA173HEAVY
Bad Camera Angle Help Needed posted Sat Apr 16 2005 09:24:08 by Kukkudrill
Another Bad Camera Angle Topic.... posted Tue Mar 15 2005 21:36:12 by AGD
Bad Camera Angle Help posted Tue Mar 15 2005 18:14:20 by WakeTurbulence
"Bad Camera Angle"..help? posted Mon Jan 10 2005 15:03:22 by Eksath
I Thought I Understood 'Bad Camera Angle' posted Wed Nov 17 2004 09:50:45 by Psych
Bad Camera Angle? posted Tue Apr 19 2005 05:10:22 by AA173HEAVY
Bad Camera Angle Help Needed posted Sat Apr 16 2005 09:24:08 by Kukkudrill
Another Bad Camera Angle Topic.... posted Tue Mar 15 2005 21:36:12 by AGD
Bad Camera Angle Help posted Tue Mar 15 2005 18:14:20 by WakeTurbulence
"Bad Camera Angle"..help? posted Mon Jan 10 2005 15:03:22 by Eksath
I Thought I Understood 'Bad Camera Angle' posted Wed Nov 17 2004 09:50:45 by Psych