Actually Tesla3, ran some numbers that showed exactly this. He dismissed it as "inconclusive".
I measured the width and the height of the oil rig in the two photos.
I attributed an error to all of my measutrements of +/- one pixel.
Within experimental error the height:width ratio was the same in both pictures (see below).
So from a proper, scientific viewpoint there was no recovery of height with magnification.
If anyone wants to ignore the experimental error, please go ahead.
But that would be un-scientific, anti-scientific or pseudo-scientific.
----------------------------------
Zoomed out Height (H1) = (30 +/- 1) mm (where 1 mm is the width of one pixel)
Width (W1) = (58 +/- 1) mm
Fractional error in H1 = 1/30 = 3.33%
Fractional error in W1 = 1/58 = 1.72%
H1/W1 = 0.517
Fractional error in H1/W1 (FE1) = 3.33% + 1.72% = 5.06%
Zoomed inHeight (H2) = (83 +/- 1) mm
Width (W2) = (155 +/- 1) mm
Fractional error in H2 = 1/83 = 1.20%
Fractional error in W2 = 1/155 = 0.65%
H2/W2 = 0.535
Fractional error in H2/W2 (FE2) = 1.20% + 0.65% = 1.85%
Comparing the two pictures(H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = 0.535 / 0.517 = 1.0353
Fractional error in (H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = FE1 + FE2 = 5.06% + 1.85% = 6.91%
Actual error in (H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = 6.91% x 1.035 = 0.0715
ConclusionThe shape of the rig in the two images is the same within experimental error.
(Given that: 1.0353 - 0.0715 = 0.9638; and 0.9638 < 1.0000)