Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2039 times:
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.
I look forward to hearing what anyone else has to say on this one.
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 54 Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1993 times:
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!!!
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1980 times:
Forget the credentials Fergul. With hindsight I think I only said that to try to protect myself against looking a complete idiot!
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.
Jan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1968 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.
AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1949 times:
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.
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.
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?
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1932 times:
I am so pleased that you have posted this - surely noone can disagree now.
All the best.
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.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1911 times:
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?
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 54 Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1902 times:
Thank you for adding me to resp list, I have done the same in return
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
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 !!
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1838 times:
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.
Cboyes From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 128 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 1820 times:
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.