explanation needed for optical illusion in digital photo

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Eigenvector, Jul 29, 2003.

  1. Eigenvector

    Eigenvector Guest

    This may or may not be the best place for this question, but it came to me
    as I was trying to photograph the moon. I got the shot okay, nice and clear
    and properly lighted but it looked so small!

    Can anyone give me a good solid explanation for why objects in my digital
    camera appear so small compared to what I see with my eye? I (no pun
    intended) was expecting to have my shots turn out to be identical to what I
    was seeing but when the camera displayed them it was like I took the shot
    from 50 miles away. Why do cameras in general display the objects in
    question so much smaller that what the photographer sees when he takes the
    shot.

    http://photos.imageevent.com/eigenvector/blethemlake/large/P7160643.jpg

    That is a representative shot - full 8x zoom, in reality that mountain is
    huge from that spot, but in the shot it looked dinky.

    http://photos.imageevent.com/eigenvector/blethemlake/large/P7160644.jpg

    Here is the unzoomed version.
     
    Eigenvector, Jul 29, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Eigenvector

    gr Guest

    "Eigenvector" <> wrote
    > This may or may not be the best place for this question, but it came to me
    > as I was trying to photograph the moon. I got the shot okay, nice and

    clear
    > and properly lighted but it looked so small!
    >
    > Can anyone give me a good solid explanation for why objects in my digital
    > camera appear so small compared to what I see with my eye?


    The brain likes to play tricks with distant objects like the moon (and
    mountains, etc.), especially when it's close to the horizon or there's some
    other reference to view it against. The brain makes them look bigger than
    they really are. The moon is about 0.5 degrees in diameter (give or take a
    smidge), no matter where it is in the sky... high or low. But when it's low,
    we see it as bigger than it really is. Our brain says that any distant
    object visible must be really big, so we see it that way.

    Here's a way to partially "untrick" your brain. Bend right over and put your
    head upside down and between your legs. Then, look at the full moon as it
    rises over the horizon. Note that it doesn't look so big any more, because
    your brain doesn't have a good reference to place it against. (At least I
    hope you don't normally go around bent over with your head between your
    legs...)
     
    gr, Jul 29, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Eigenvector

    Charlie D Guest

    "gr" <> wrote:

    > Bend right over and put your
    > head upside down and between your legs.


    Anyone watching you would see the moon too. ;)

    --
    Charlie Dilks
    Newark, DE USA
     
    Charlie D, Jul 29, 2003
    #3
  4. Eigenvector

    gr Guest

    "Charlie D" <> wrote
    > "gr" <> wrote:
    >
    > > Bend right over and put your
    > > head upside down and between your legs.

    >
    > Anyone watching you would see the moon too. ;)


    :) Yeah, it's best not to do it in a public park.
     
    gr, Jul 29, 2003
    #4
  5. On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:58:00 -0700, "Eigenvector"
    <> wrote:

    >This may or may not be the best place for this question, but it came to me
    >as I was trying to photograph the moon. I got the shot okay, nice and clear
    >and properly lighted but it looked so small!
    >
    >Can anyone give me a good solid explanation for why objects in my digital
    >camera appear so small compared to what I see with my eye? I (no pun
    >intended) was expecting to have my shots turn out to be identical to what I
    >was seeing but when the camera displayed them it was like I took the shot
    >from 50 miles away. Why do cameras in general display the objects in
    >question so much smaller that what the photographer sees when he takes the
    >shot.


    You got closer than 50 miles from the moon?

    Sorry, I couldn't resist.



    Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a


    "In this house we _obey_ the laws of thermodynamics." --Homer Simpson
     
    Rodney Myrvaagnes, Jul 29, 2003
    #5
  6. Eigenvector

    Don Stauffer Guest

    These 'illusions' have been much discussed in the professional
    (psycho-physics) literature, and I have never seen a good explanation.

    However, keep in mind that what the brain perceives is not at all what
    is on the back of the retina. Much of the effect you mention appears to
    be an 'attention' related effect.

    Eye is highly distorting, brain remaps. Brain sees different estimate
    of horizontal angles than vertical ones. Retinal image is sharp only in
    center degree or less of angle, very fuzzy at edges, but brain makes it
    appear that resolution at edges is same as center. A full list of these
    effects is very long.

    I would say it is only the way our visual cortex is 'programmed.' There
    is no physics explanation.

    Eigenvector wrote:
    >
    > This may or may not be the best place for this question, but it came to me
    > as I was trying to photograph the moon. I got the shot okay, nice and clear
    > and properly lighted but it looked so small!
    >
    > Can anyone give me a good solid explanation for why objects in my digital
    > camera appear so small compared to what I see with my eye? I (no pun
    > intended) was expecting to have my shots turn out to be identical to what I
    > was seeing but when the camera displayed them it was like I took the shot
    > from 50 miles away. Why do cameras in general display the objects in
    > question so much smaller that what the photographer sees when he takes the
    > shot.
    >
    > http://photos.imageevent.com/eigenvector/blethemlake/large/P7160643.jpg
    >
    > That is a representative shot - full 8x zoom, in reality that mountain is
    > huge from that spot, but in the shot it looked dinky.
    >
    > http://photos.imageevent.com/eigenvector/blethemlake/large/P7160644.jpg
    >
    > Here is the unzoomed version.


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Jul 29, 2003
    #6
  7. Eigenvector

    Dave Balcom Guest

    On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:59:40 GMT, "ralford" <>
    wrote:

    }It is a mental illusion, more than an optical illusion.

    I vaguely remember from school that the reason the moon appears
    larger/orangish at the horizon is because the atmosphere is thicker
    (between the moon and the observer). The added air means added
    refraction. BTW, the sun shows the same effect at sunset/sunrise and
    is for all practical matters the same apparent size as the moon...
     
    Dave Balcom, Jul 29, 2003
    #7
  8. Eigenvector

    gr Guest

    "George Kerby" <> wrote
    > >
    > > The brain likes to play tricks with distant objects like the moon (and
    > > mountains, etc.), especially when it's close to the horizon or there's

    some
    > > other reference to view it against. The brain makes them look bigger

    than
    > > they really are. The moon is about 0.5 degrees in diameter (give or take

    a
    > > smidge), no matter where it is in the sky... high or low. But when it's

    low,
    > > we see it as bigger than it really is. Our brain says that any distant
    > > object visible must be really big, so we see it that way.

    > BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!!
    > WRONG!
    > The moon appears larger on the horizon because we are watching it through

    a
    > lot more atmosphere (Troposphere) than when it directly above. What makes

    up
    > the Earth's Troposphere besides the various gases, boys and girls? That's
    > right? H2O! Ever notice how thing appear closer underwater? That's right,
    > water has a magnification factor somewhere around 1.4X. So the water in

    the
    > Troposphere near earth tends to magnify what we see. As the moon "rises",
    > less water. Ergo, less magnification.


    I suggest you get out a telescope and measure the angular size of the moon
    yourself, both near the horizon and overhead. (Do it the same night, so as
    not to get minor size differences due to the moon's proximity to Earth.)
    You'll find the size difference imperceptible. So, as you like to say,
    BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!!
    WRONG!
     
    gr, Jul 29, 2003
    #8
  9. Eigenvector

    George Kerby Guest

    On 7/29/03 10:24 AM, in article bg63ln$lj0s7$-berlin.de,
    "gr" <> wrote:

    > "George Kerby" <> wrote
    >>>
    >>> The brain likes to play tricks with distant objects like the moon (and
    >>> mountains, etc.), especially when it's close to the horizon or there's

    > some
    >>> other reference to view it against. The brain makes them look bigger

    > than
    >>> they really are. The moon is about 0.5 degrees in diameter (give or take

    > a
    >>> smidge), no matter where it is in the sky... high or low. But when it's

    > low,
    >>> we see it as bigger than it really is. Our brain says that any distant
    >>> object visible must be really big, so we see it that way.

    >> BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!!
    >> WRONG!
    >> The moon appears larger on the horizon because we are watching it through

    > a
    >> lot more atmosphere (Troposphere) than when it directly above. What makes

    > up
    >> the Earth's Troposphere besides the various gases, boys and girls? That's
    >> right? H2O! Ever notice how thing appear closer underwater? That's right,
    >> water has a magnification factor somewhere around 1.4X. So the water in

    > the
    >> Troposphere near earth tends to magnify what we see. As the moon "rises",
    >> less water. Ergo, less magnification.

    >
    > I suggest you get out a telescope and measure the angular size of the moon
    > yourself, both near the horizon and overhead. (Do it the same night, so as
    > not to get minor size differences due to the moon's proximity to Earth.)
    > You'll find the size difference imperceptible. So, as you like to say,
    > BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!!
    > WRONG!
    >
    >

    DAMN!
    I'm going to find my high school science instructor and kick his old
    shrivvled-up ass!
    I stand corrected, but it sounded reasonable.
    DING_DING_DING: A WINNER!
    http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/exmoon.htm
    And for those of us who need visual stimuli:
    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020130.html

    It seems that this phenomenon is widely debatable, but water doesn't figure
    in the equation.


    ______________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Jul 29, 2003
    #9
  10. Eigenvector

    John M Guest

    "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
    news:BB4BF97E.107AE%...
    > On 7/28/03 9:24 PM, in article bg4lvv$kv92f$-berlin.de,
    > "gr" <> wrote:
    >
    > > "Eigenvector" <> wrote
    > >> This may or may not be the best place for this question, but it came to

    me
    > >> as I was trying to photograph the moon. I got the shot okay, nice and

    > > clear
    > >> and properly lighted but it looked so small!
    > >>
    > >> Can anyone give me a good solid explanation for why objects in my

    digital
    > >> camera appear so small compared to what I see with my eye?

    > >
    > > The brain likes to play tricks with distant objects like the moon (and
    > > mountains, etc.), especially when it's close to the horizon or there's

    some
    > > other reference to view it against. The brain makes them look bigger

    than
    > > they really are. The moon is about 0.5 degrees in diameter (give or take

    a
    > > smidge), no matter where it is in the sky... high or low. But when it's

    low,
    > > we see it as bigger than it really is. Our brain says that any distant
    > > object visible must be really big, so we see it that way.

    > BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!!
    > WRONG!
    > The moon appears larger on the horizon because we are watching it through

    a
    > lot more atmosphere (Troposphere) than when it directly above. What makes

    up
    > the Earth's Troposphere besides the various gases, boys and girls? That's
    > right? H2O! Ever notice how thing appear closer underwater? That's right,
    > water has a magnification factor somewhere around 1.4X. So the water in

    the
    > Troposphere near earth tends to magnify what we see. As the moon "rises",
    > less water. Ergo, less magnification.
    > Maybe you've been looking at things too long in your suggested position, I
    > don't know...
    > LOL!
    > ;-)


    LOL I just love it when people are so convinced they know what they are
    talking about, when they actually have no clue... Water has a magnification
    factor of 1.4X?? Where in the hell did you hear that one?
     
    John M, Jul 29, 2003
    #10
  11. Eigenvector

    ralford Guest

    you will also remember from school that the refracted apparent size would
    also manifest itself on film/ccd. It doesn't.

    refraction doesn't explain the illusion.

    cheers,

    rma

    "Dave Balcom" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:59:40 GMT, "ralford" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > }It is a mental illusion, more than an optical illusion.
    >
    > I vaguely remember from school that the reason the moon appears
    > larger/orangish at the horizon is because the atmosphere is thicker
    > (between the moon and the observer). The added air means added
    > refraction. BTW, the sun shows the same effect at sunset/sunrise and
    > is for all practical matters the same apparent size as the moon...
    >
     
    ralford, Jul 29, 2003
    #11
  12. Eigenvector

    Mxsmanic Guest

    George Kerby writes:

    > The moon appears larger on the horizon because we are watching it through a
    > lot more atmosphere (Troposphere) than when it directly above. [...]
    > So the water in the Troposphere near earth tends to magnify what we see.


    This is incorrect. Measure the size of the moon in both positions
    through a telescope or other optical device with a measurement grid, and
    you'll see. It is always the same size.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 29, 2003
    #12
  13. Eigenvector

    Eigenvector Guest

    "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > Eigenvector writes:
    >
    > > Can anyone give me a good solid explanation for why objects
    > > in my digital camera appear so small compared to what I
    > > see with my eye?

    >
    > It all depends on the lens and viewfinder of the camera.
    >
    > The perspective you see in person is identical to that seen by the
    > camera; that is, the relative sizes of different parts of the scene will
    > be identical in both the photograph and as seen by your naked eye.
    >
    > However, the overall area covered by the photo will influence the size
    > of individual elements. For example, a photo shot with a wide-angle
    > lens will cover a very large viewing angle (as in the second of the
    > photos you give as an example); as a result, individual elements in the
    > photo will appear small. A photo shot with a telephoto or narrow-angle
    > lens ("zoomed," as in your first show) will show less of the
    > surroundings in the scene, but individual elements in the image will be
    > larger. Note that the size of elements in each photo _relative to each
    > other_ does not change.
    >
    > > Why do cameras in general display the objects in question
    > > so much smaller that what the photographer sees when he takes the
    > > shot.

    >
    > Many point-and-shoot cameras use fairly wide-angle lenses, since these
    > tend to be the most useful for everyday photos, such as family and
    > travel shots. These cameras will make things look further away than
    > they did in real life.
    >
    > Even so, what you see in the viewfinder of the camera while taking the
    > picture should correspond closely to what appears in the final photo, so
    > be sure to look closely at that when you are taking the picture.
    >
    > --
    > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.


    Thank you all for the replies. I didn't want this thread to turn into an
    argument over why the moon appears larger than it is. I've seen those
    arguments and have come to the conclusion that we simply don't know yet.
    But back to the original question which was really on why photographs make
    objects appear so small. I appreciate your answers, thank you mxsmanic for
    clarifying the notion around wide angle and narrow angle lenses. I guess
    the better question would be to go to an optometrist group and ask them what
    is it my eye/brain does to the incoming light image.
     
    Eigenvector, Jul 30, 2003
    #13
  14. Eigenvector

    Charlie D Guest

    Charlie D, Jul 30, 2003
    #14
  15. In article <_kkVa.570$>,
    says...
    >
    >This may or may not be the best place for this question, but it came to me
    >as I was trying to photograph the moon. I got the shot okay, nice and clear
    >and properly lighted but it looked so small!
    >
    >Can anyone give me a good solid explanation for why objects in my digital
    >camera appear so small compared to what I see with my eye? I (no pun
    >intended) was expecting to have my shots turn out to be identical to what I
    >was seeing but when the camera displayed them it was like I took the shot
    >from 50 miles away. Why do cameras in general display the objects in
    >question so much smaller that what the photographer sees when he takes the
    >shot.


    A perfect exampe of this is a street in my community which terminates at a
    harbor. The distance across is about 5 miles. When you make the final turn
    down the street you see a straightaway which ends with a view of the water
    framed by houses along both sides, very similar to your example. With just
    water is looks quite normal but if there happens to be a ship in the view, as
    you make the turn from about 3/4 mile from the water, the ship looks like it's
    anchored alongside the waterfront! But by the time you get to the end of the
    street the ships has "shrunk" and you can see that it is really about 4 miles
    out.

    It's all about relative sizes and distances fooling your perception. Sme
    reason the settign sun/moon look so large.

    Glenn
     
    Glenn Woodell, Jul 30, 2003
    #15
  16. In article <WJEVa.120$>,
    says...
    >
    >
    >But back to the original question which was really on why photographs make
    >objects appear so small. I appreciate your answers, thank you mxsmanic for
    >clarifying the notion around wide angle and narrow angle lenses. I guess
    >the better question would be to go to an optometrist group and ask them what
    >is it my eye/brain does to the incoming light image.


    It places more emphasis on the central area of your vision. You still see the
    periphery just as you do the central part but you don't pay as much attention
    to it. When you create a 2D image and look at it you generally scan over the
    entire image rather than scan with the viewfinder which changes your framed
    view as you move.

    Glenn
     
    Glenn Woodell, Jul 30, 2003
    #16
  17. Eigenvector

    ralford Guest

    There are a couple of classic optical illusion examples that demonstrate
    this phenomenon. One is the two partial thick quarter circles that appear
    different sizes when placed one above the other - most older than 30 will
    have seen this? Another example, closely related to this discussion, is
    found at http://www.eyetricks.com/0502.htm

    cheers,
    rma

    >
    > Thank you all for the replies. I didn't want this thread to turn into an
    > argument over why the moon appears larger than it is. I've seen those
    > arguments and have come to the conclusion that we simply don't know yet.
    > But back to the original question which was really on why photographs make
    > objects appear so small. I appreciate your answers, thank you mxsmanic

    for
    > clarifying the notion around wide angle and narrow angle lenses. I guess
    > the better question would be to go to an optometrist group and ask them

    what
    > is it my eye/brain does to the incoming light image.
    >
    >
     
    ralford, Jul 30, 2003
    #17
  18. Eigenvector

    Browntimdc Guest

    Here's a thought to ponder: If it were true that some atmospheric effect
    made the moon look bigger near the horizon then the wedge shaped slice of
    air would make the moon look elliptical, not just larger.

    Tim
     
    Browntimdc, Jul 30, 2003
    #18
  19. Eigenvector

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Glenn Woodell writes:

    > With just water is looks quite normal but if there happens
    > to be a ship in the view, as you make the turn from about 3/4
    > mile from the water, the ship looks like it's anchored alongside
    > the waterfront! But by the time you get to the end of the
    > street the ships has "shrunk" and you can see that it is really
    > about 4 miles out.


    Photographers use this trick all the time; that's the purpose behind
    wide-angle and telephoto lenses. I'm surprised that they need it
    explained to them.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Jul 30, 2003
    #19
  20. Eigenvector

    Eigenvector Guest

    "Larry Caldwell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > (Eigenvector) writes:
    > >
    > > Thank you all for the replies. I didn't want this thread to turn into

    an
    > > argument over why the moon appears larger than it is. I've seen those
    > > arguments and have come to the conclusion that we simply don't know yet.
    > > But back to the original question which was really on why photographs

    make
    > > objects appear so small. I appreciate your answers, thank you mxsmanic

    for
    > > clarifying the notion around wide angle and narrow angle lenses. I

    guess
    > > the better question would be to go to an optometrist group and ask them

    what
    > > is it my eye/brain does to the incoming light image.

    >
    > OK, here comes the minority report.
    >
    > The appearance of a photo has as much or more to do with the display as
    > it does with the camera. The mountain looks small in the image because
    > the image is small. Hook your camera to a 52" TV screen and see if it
    > still looks as small to you.
    >
    > To reproduce the original scene, the eye should be placed in front of the
    > print at a distance equal to the focal length of the taking lens times
    > the magnification of the print (or display, for digital purposes). The
    > correct viewing distance for your 800x600 wide angle photo on a typical
    > .25 dpi monitor would be about 7" from the screen, or less than the width
    > of the print. If you displayed the same thing on a 32" TV screen, the
    > correct viewing distance would be about 2 feet. As you can see, wide
    > angle photography requires some pretty large enlargements, or a good set
    > of reading glasses, to get the impact of the original scene.
    >
    > Now, let's talk about your telephoto shot. Using the focal length times
    > enlargement rule, the correct viewing distance for the display (about 6"
    > x 9" on my monitor) is about 48". I'm guessing here, so give or take a
    > foot, but that's about it. You probably think that is absurd, since the
    > mountain was bigger than that. However, if you take a 6x9 print of the
    > shot to the original location and hold it up about 4' in front of you,
    > the mountain in the print and the mountain on the ground will be just
    > about the same size. When you hold it at normal viewing distance, about
    > 18", you are seeing about a 2x magnification of the original scene.
    > Instead of looking like it was 5 miles away, the mountain looks like it
    > was 2.5 miles away. If you want it to look closer, you can either get a
    > longer telephoto lens or display it larger.
    >
    > So, what does this mean to you? You need to figure out how to do life
    > size magnification on your monitor. Start by photographing a ruler at
    > wide angle and telephoto settings, then display them at your default
    > resolution and measure the display with the original ruler. Do you need
    > to display them larger or smaller? Once you know what a 1:1 display
    > ratio is, you can start calculating magnifications and viewing distance.
    > If you photograph the ruler from 3' and it is only 6" long in the
    > display, you know that the magnification of the display is 0.5 and the
    > correct viewing distance is 18" (half of 3') to duplicate the original
    > scene, or 9" for a 2x magnification.
    >
    > Just a comment, if you add a polarizing filter in front of the lens, it
    > will cut some of the atmospheric haze and turn the sky a darker blue.
    > This will substantially increase the contrast and saturation of your
    > photo without resorting to digital manipulation.
    >
    > --
    > http://home.teleport.com/~larryc


    I'd always wondered how haze was filtered out of photographs. That's a huge
    problem with most of my outdoor shots, the haze is a serious problem. That
    was another part of my basic question, but I hesitated to ask. Why doesn't
    my eye see the haze, yet the camera is almost obscured with it. Sounds like
    the camera needs to have the incoming light filtered.
     
    Eigenvector, Jul 31, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. James
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    461
    Kline Sphere
    Dec 5, 2005
  2. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    689
    DVD Verdict
    Jun 4, 2004
  3. newcamz.blogspot.com

    Create the illusion of depth in landscape photography

    newcamz.blogspot.com, Aug 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    427
    bmoag
    Aug 16, 2006
  4. optical illusion photography

    , Jun 19, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    340
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,427
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page