/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10291451
It is important to understand the behaviour of geometry in wide-angle imagery in order to interpret what you see correctly. It is necessary to know where the center of the photograph is (cropping can shift that around). When using wide-angle lenses, only lines *radiating from the center* show their true linear geometry. If a horizon passes under the center, it will bend upward at the edges. If above, then downward. Pic related. The closer a line passes the center, the less the distortion.
That said, flattards aren't allowed to use photography per their own claim that all imagery is CGI, therefore untrustworthy.

>>9987376
>>9987381
>>9988492
It is really necessary to understand the behaviour of geometry in wide-angle imagery to be able to interpret what you see correctly. It is necessary to know where the center of the photograph is (cropping can shift that around). When using wide-angle lenses, only lines *radiating from the center* show their true linear geometry. If a horizon passes under the center, it will bend upward at the edges. If above, then downward. Pic related. The closer a line passes the center, the less the distortion. When you see a round Earth and the curvature is convex, you know it has to be convex. When it's concave near the edge, it's exaggerated.

Aside from all that, flattards aren't allowed to use photography, per their own claim that all imagery is CGI, therefore untrustworthy.

>>9933814
Cool.
Ah yes, the balloon footage. So...
It is really necessary to understand the behaviour of geometry in wide-angle imnagery to be able to interpret what you see correctly. It is necessary to know where the center of the photograph is (cropping can shift that around). When using wide-angle lenses, only lines *radiating from the center* show their true linear geometry. If a horizon passes under the center, it will bend upward at the edges. If above, then downward. Pic related. The closer a line passes the center, the less the distortion. When you see a round Earth and the curvature is convex, you know it has to be convex. When it's concave near the edge, it's exaggerated.

In your image, the horizon is shown below the center, so there is a concave bias that, because of its serendipitous position (or perhaps that's why you chose that particular clip from the whole video), the curve of the horizon is neatly canceled by the curve of the lens.

Nice job of selecting your data to force your point.

>>9657639
>>9657653
>>9657681
>>9657689
It is really necessary to understand the behaviour of geometry in wide-angle imnagery to be able to interpret what you see correctly. It is necessary to know where the center of the photograph is (cropping can shift that around). When using wide-angle lenses, only lines *radiating from the center* show their true linear geometry. If a horizon passes under the center, it will bend upward at the edges. If above, then downward. Pic related. The closer a line passes the center, the less the distortion. When you see a round Earth and the curvature is convex, you know it has to be convex. When it's concave near the edge, it's exaggerated.

>>8970653
As a man of science, I will concede that wide-angle photography can be misleading. It is necessary to know what the focal length of the lens and the sensor size of the camera were, and where the center of the photograph is. Only lines radiating from the center show their true geometry. If a horizon passes under the center, it will bend upward at the edges. If above, then downward. Pic related. If indeed this image was posted on a site attempting to use it as evidence of curvature, they were misleading.

An idiotic science post does not negate an otherwise verifiable model though.