Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'After Hours Lounge (Off Topic)' started by Mike Wladyka, Feb 28, 2005.
Does anybody know if there is any science behind this?
I always thought that it was one of those myths. I figured it is because, perceptionwise, people tend to see themselves as thinner than they actually are when they look in a mirror.
"So how many cameras are actually on you?" - Chandler Bing
Depends on the camera, or more specifically, it depends on the lens. Older wide-angle lenses are notorious for "barrel" style distortion that makes objects in the centre of the lens fatter. And actually, it's not just older lenses, but cheaper lenses, too. And hell, the Leica lens in my Lumix digital camera has hideous barrel distortion when it's zoomed all the way to wide, and that's a brand new, not cheap design. I have lenses for other cameras that are as wide or wider than that Leica lens and don't show any barrel distortion at all, but they all cost more than the whole Lumix camera. So, it depends on the lens, but that kind of distortion is almost entirely limited to wide angle lenses.
I thought video added those pounds, as opposed to film? -- H
I don't think that anything in the medium itself has that effect. Video may have (or had) cheaper lenses because it doesn't (didn't) require the same kind of resolving power that film does.
The reason that the camera (film or video) appears to make people heavier than they look in real life, has to do with representing three dimension in only two. Things like barrel distortion (and other lens defects) and lens focal length are separate issues. The longer the lens, the flatter the image (of course)—but the apparent added poundage occurs in ‘normal’ 50-55mm (on a 35mm camera) length lenses.
I don't remember where I heard this, but it was once suggested that this illusion occurs because a person has two eyes, set side-by-side, and can therefore see "around" an object slightly more than he can in an image recorded with only one camera. Because we see less of what's behind the person, we are tricked into thinking that the person is bigger.
This was exactly my initial thinking, but I didn't know what the technical explanation behind it would be. I don't see how eliminating the depth would cause an object to look fatter.
I never actually thought that was true. Does it have to do with the allusion of the way pictures are viewed and the objects in the picture that are actually in perspective?
With video, it's a depth perception issue. Video puts everything in focus, but the image is very flat.
Good lighting that models the subject well wouldn't have the added weight effect. Point and shoot flash photography, for instance, might have it because natural shadows are eliminated and the subject therefore looks more filled out. All bets are off if there is lens distortion, of course. Only in the hands of an amateur.
I thought it might have to do with the aspect ratio. 4:3 isn't exactly a square. It is a litter wider than taller. That is how I saw it.
I always thought this was an excuse that those among us use who suffer from an "overactive fork."
maybe the camera is accurate, its just that people just believe they're 10 pounds lighter than they really are..
Not sure what you're talking about...I'm 190 and feelin' fine.....
It is not really video as opposed to film. The reason video has more in focus has to do with the size of the chip on which the image is focused and the focal length of the lens used to focus the image.. For example, 16mm has more depth of field than does 35mm. The professional HD video like Sony and Panasonic has about the same depth of field as 16mm. Not surprisingly, the chip size of these cameras is about the same size as 16mm film.
What Jeff Gatie said!
Ack! Thanks Alf, now i have to wash my brain out with a salad.