What about a telescope aimed at the horizon?

Novice,
I'm glad to see you have the ability to understand the truth.  It is so frustrating trying to get it into these people's heads.  It's as if they are mentally INCAPABLE of comprehending it.  I find that very strange.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 09:06:43 AM

Says the photographer that uses throwaway Walmart camera's as proof of a globe. 

Nope.  I think we have different definitions of "point and shoot".  Actually I'm looking at lower end DSLRs at the moment.  Something I can get different lenses and filters for, and have RAW and 'bulb' capability.  You probably don't even understand those last two terms anyway.

Anyway, your post is funny considering you have never taken and posted a picture on this site in support of anything (if you did I guess I missed it), and also considering you don't seem to understand even the basics of camera operation (video or still) or imagery analysis.

I have camera equipment costing tens of thousands of pounds, I am a professional and I have all the equipment needed. Ask me any questions and I may help you out.

No?! But at 25s in the hull has vanished. And by the end of the video, the whole ship has gone.

farther away.  Same with sunrise as it moves closer to you.  I don't notice it occurring any faster than would be expected when it goes from thinner atmosphere to thicker.  Can you provide some evidence for that?

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 09:49:16 AM

I have camera equipment costing tens of thousands of pounds, I am a professional and I have all the equipment needed. Ask me any questions and I may help you out.

Can you please explain, in a couple of sentences, the importance of hyperfocal distance when photographing ships or other objects near to the horizon and/or near your standing position?

Thanks.  I ask this because I notice a lot of images posted here (both from FEs and Res) have very blurry foregrounds if the distant objects are in sharp focus—and vice versa.  Is it not possible to get both sharply focussed; say like the waves at the shoreline and the distant ship?  This would help give a better feeling of a "true life" view, as our eyes really see it.

Only N..A.S.A and the likes would really know the truth, because they hold all the real scopes for this.
What they want to show the gullible, is another question.

Thanks.  I ask this because I notice a lot of images posted here (both from FEs and Res) have very blurry foregrounds if the distant objects are in sharp focus—and vice versa.  Is it not possible to get both sharply focussed; say like the waves at the shoreline and the distant ship?  This would help give a better feeling of a "true life" view, as our eyes really see it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 29, 2014, 10:20:05 AM

Only N..A.S.A and the likes would really know the truth, because they hold all the real scopes for this.
What they want to show the gullible, is another question.

That is why I want to see for myself if they will show me the sunset from their observatory.  I want to compare what I see in real time with a friend watching it unaided, on the bridge part of the observatory, using a cell phone to verify the account as it unfolds.

Kinda like what this guy says regarding hyperfocal distance, including examples.

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 29, 2014, 10:15:29 AM

Thanks.  I ask this because I notice a lot of images posted here (both from FEs and Res) have very blurry foregrounds if the distant objects are in sharp focus—and vice versa.  Is it not possible to get both sharply focussed; say like the waves at the shoreline and the distant ship?  This would help give a better feeling of a "true life" view, as our eyes really see it.

Kinda like what this guy says regarding hyperfocal distance, including examples.  http://icelandaurora.com/blog/2009/10/27/photography-techniques-hyperfocal-distance/

Hyperfocal distance is the art in photography of achieving as much sharpness as possible throughout the image. In other words, it involves careful focusing adjustments to ensure that objects close to the camera and objects in the distance all have the same sharp focus, but more accurately, the hyperfocal distance is that point of focus where things are in focus from a point half way between you and the focal point all the way onward to infinity. Hyper-focal distance is more of a landscape photographer’s concept. When shooting landscapes, I never use auto-focus.

How is it sceptimatic that, as a self-described professional photographer, (that is, doing it as an income-earning job) you found it necessary to plagiarise somebody else's work—and not include any citation?  I could've simply Googled it if I wanted a 2nd-hand answer.

Quote

Hyperfocal distance is the art in photography of achieving as much sharpness as possible throughout the image. In other words, it involves careful focusing adjustments to ensure that objects close to the camera and objects in the distance all have the same sharp focus, but more accurately, the hyperfocal distance is that point of focus where things are in focus from a point half way between you and the focal point all the way onward to infinity. Hyper-focal distance is more of a landscape photographer’s concept. When shooting landscapes, I never use auto-focus.

If you're gonna suggest that people ask you questions about photography—as a professional—then you need to do much better than simply cutting and pasting from other professional's web sites.

Can I also ask you what brand(s) of cameras you favour as a professional, and also what lenses you prefer for specific subjects?  Do you agree that the best lens for portraits is 85mm, or as some pros claim, 105mm?  Do you use any cadiotropic lenses for distant landscape shots—such as ships at sea, or shots of the moon phases—or do you prefer a long prime?

Whoa.....

That's a $7K, body only, in Australia.

Ouch!   

Quote from: Novice on January 29, 2014, 09:36:23 AM

No?! But at 25s in the hull has vanished. And by the end of the video, the whole ship has gone.

Just a quick question... are you talking about the closer ship with the side view that the camera starts out on, and is visible throughout the entire video, or the tiny speck on the horizon to the right of the first ship, that isn't even in frame until about 17 seconds, and disappears well before the end of the video?

I Have 12 cameras for various work. My most expensive one is this one is a Canon EOS 1D X.

dephelis:
In your images, you see planets and what not with no stars visible and yet you have pictures of stars in pictures just of stars. Why no stars when you look at Jupiter and Saturn with it's fancy ringlets?

Poodles.

Quote from: Spank86 on January 29, 2014, 09:27:24 AM

Quote from: Novice on January 29, 2014, 09:21:07 AM

Question 1: Does the ship disappear, hull first? Yes or no, please.

no.

No?! But at 25s in the hull has vanished. And by the end of the video, the whole ship has gone.

Quote from: Spank86 on January 29, 2014, 09:27:24 AM

It disappears from all angles at once, because it gets too small for the camera to represent it. It does at first instance appear to vanish hull up but if you view it on a decent size screen you can clearly see it getting smaller in all directions.

Added to that you can clearly see both in the non zoomed in AND fully zoomed in sections that it's not over the horizon (until such time as you can no longer see it at all of course).

I'm not claiming that it doesn't get smaller in each direction, only that the hull has disappeared before the top of the ship - this is the whole point of the main rotundity 'proof', that the disappearing hull is caused by the alleged wall of water.

get your eyes tested or watch it on a bigger screen. Its pixellated but on a decent screen at the end you can see a long black shape just in front of the horizon... Long as in sideways long, something that isn't possible if the hull had vanished.

Quote from: Spank86 on January 29, 2014, 01:50:40 PM

get your eyes tested or watch it on a bigger screen. Its pixellated but on a decent screen at the end you can see a long black shape just in front of the horizon... Long as in sideways long, something that isn't possible if the hull had vanished.

The ship's hull, using large video size and the highest available definition, disappears at 27s:



And note that the ship or rig on the right has also gone.

It's not really wise to rush to judgment based on a 360p overcompressed MPEG video. Our current technology allows much, much more.

that was my thought, although if you magnify it enough you can clearly see a line of dark pixels even at the end of the video, a line that runs lengthways indicating that the hull of the boat is still just about visible.

You both miss the point. By increasing the resolution, you have brought the ship back into sight.

It was always in sight, that's not the question (whether you can see with your human eyes or not is irrelevant). The question is about the part obscured by the curvature of the Earth, and you won't bring it back by any means.

I repeat for the umpteenth time: instead of chasing highly compressed videos on the net that were never made for this purpose, use a decent camera with zoom and go to the shore to see a distant ship. You'll never see in reality what you expect to see based on the FE hypothesis. Never.