British 19-Year-Old takes Earth Pictures Using a £30 Camera

Do you have a point?

That's either one of the least curved pictures of curvature I have ever seen, or an FEer using a rather new tack. Given the website you're plugging in your sig I doubt you're a FEer.

Does it matter if they are a flat Earther or not?

And, like you said, you can see the curvature.

Do you have a point?

That's either one of the least curved pictures of curvature I have ever seen, or an FEer using a rather new tack. Given the website you're plugging in your sig I doubt you're a FEer.

Wow, you worked out I'm not a FEer and you agreed the photograph taken by a kid with a balloon and a £30 Camera shows the curvature of the Earth.

Do you have a point?

Does it matter if they are a flat Earther or not?

No, but it'd help to know because that post is woefully vague.

And, like you said, you can see the curvature.

...That is the exact opposite of what I said.

you agreed the photograph taken by a kid with a balloon and a £30 Camera shows the curvature of the Earth.

No, try again. Even opening it in paint and drawing a straight line from one edge to another, what little there is bulging past it (I get maybe six pixels in something with overall dimensions closer to a thousand), it's seriously hard to say with any degree of certainty that it's not just clouds. As far as the naked eye goes, with people just looking at the photo, you come across as a FEer saying there isn't any curvature.

It does seem round Earth believers when pondering its shape will many times go up, up, and away into the sky to attempt proving their claim.

Well, that ventures into the land of light bending, atmoplanic anomalies and the like.  It brings us to the point where science meets reality and the REers searching unsuccessfully for answers within that realm.

The flat Earth is very much provable without going on the RE fantastical journeys.  Bottom line is the OP (...and welcome) visual claim has nothing to do with proving Earth shape.

Quote from: rvlvr on February 25, 2018, 06:52:32 AM

Does it matter if they are a flat Earther or not?

No, but it'd help to know because that post is woefully vague.

Quote

And, like you said, you can see the curvature.

...That is the exact opposite of what I said.

So you do not see a curve. Fair enough.

LOL at trying to make a curve through a dutch tilt effect!

Quote from: rvlvr on February 25, 2018, 06:52:32 AM

Does it matter if they are a flat Earther or not?

No, but it'd help to know because that post is woefully vague.

Quote

And, like you said, you can see the curvature.

...That is the exact opposite of what I said.

Quote from: Randall on February 25, 2018, 07:18:22 AM

you agreed the photograph taken by a kid with a balloon and a £30 Camera shows the curvature of the Earth.

No, try again. Even opening it in paint and drawing a straight line from one edge to another, what little there is bulging past it (I get maybe six pixels in something with overall dimensions closer to a thousand), it's seriously hard to say with any degree of certainty that it's not just clouds. As far as the naked eye goes, with people just looking at the photo, you come across as a FEer saying there isn't any curvature.

Interesting because in paint I can see a clear curve.  It is subtle but clear and certainly much more than "six pixels". 

LOL at trying to make a curve through a dutch tilt effect!

Please desist your in your LOL for a couple of minutes!

I haven't heard of this "dutch tilt effect". I thought dutchy tried his hardest to deny curvature and closed his eyes in case he accidentally saw some.

If you bothered to read a little of the reference, you might learn that:

• The camera used was a "standard Canon A570 camera", presumably set to the widest FoV, with a 35 mm equivalent focal lens.
  
  
• While that is a low priced camera, it's lens has very little barrel distortion, even at the widest FoV. Here is the test chart:
  
  Canon A570 Barrel Distortion at 35 mm

Lenses with barrel distortion curve straight lines away from the optical centre, so show reduced or even concave curvature in a case like this.
Also, the tilt will have virtually no effect on the apparent curvature. All that matters is where the horizon passes in relation to the optical centre of the image and here the horizon clearly passes below the optical centre.

You might look up the site Waltis Blog - english, Flat-Earth: Finding the curvature of the Earth which can similate the expected curvature for various altitudes and camera lenses.
Here is his simulation for a 35 mm lens at an altitude of 33,592 m.
At that altitude, with that lens, there is very little curve to be seen - the earth is huge, I had assumed that you had seen that in your astral journeys .

You may now resume LOL!
And we can't have that - it's not a pretty sight, just look a Sceppy and JR!

Quote from: Shifter on February 25, 2018, 01:33:55 PM

LOL at trying to make a curve through a dutch tilt effect!

Please desist your in your LOL for a couple of minutes!

I haven't heard of this "dutch tilt effect". I thought dutchy tried his hardest to deny curvature and closed his eyes in case he accidentally saw some.

It's a thing. Your ignorance on the subject doesn't make in untrue

http://ruleofthirdsphotography.com/dutch-angle-photography/

Quote from: Jane on February 25, 2018, 07:38:06 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on February 25, 2018, 06:52:32 AM

Does it matter if they are a flat Earther or not?

No, but it'd help to know because that post is woefully vague.

Quote

And, like you said, you can see the curvature.

...That is the exact opposite of what I said.

Quote from: Randall on February 25, 2018, 07:18:22 AM

you agreed the photograph taken by a kid with a balloon and a £30 Camera shows the curvature of the Earth.

No, try again. Even opening it in paint and drawing a straight line from one edge to another, what little there is bulging past it (I get maybe six pixels in something with overall dimensions closer to a thousand), it's seriously hard to say with any degree of certainty that it's not just clouds. As far as the naked eye goes, with people just looking at the photo, you come across as a FEer saying there isn't any curvature.

Interesting because in paint I can see a clear curve.  It is subtle but clear and certainly much more than "six pixels".

She clearly meant it as an arbitrarily small amount. Could be lens distortion or unclear borders due to the non uniform nature of the atmoplane.

Interesting because in paint I can see a clear curve.  It is subtle but clear and certainly much more than "six pixels".

Best case scenario of a round Earth marked by the black line. Small black line diagonally with easily countable pixels giving the curve. And just for fun, a red line where it'd need to be for a flat Earth for you to have fun trying to see any clear border of the Earth between it and the black.

This isn't a good photo of curvature. It just isn't.

Quote from: MicroBeta on February 25, 2018, 02:07:14 PM

Interesting because in paint I can see a clear curve.  It is subtle but clear and certainly much more than "six pixels".

Best case scenario of a round Earth marked by the black line. Small black line diagonally with easily countable pixels giving the curve. And just for fun, a red line where it'd need to be for a flat Earth for you to have fun trying to see any clear border of the Earth between it and the black.

This isn't a good photo of curvature. It just isn't.

The dutch tilt gives the illusion of a greater curve in the image. If it was not tilted, I don't think the OP would have posted it as some kind of proof of a globe earth because even in this photo the earth looks flat LOL

This isn't a good photo of curvature. It just isn't.

And just how much curve do you expect to see from that altitude with a 35 mm lens exhibiting a little barrel distortion?

While you are at it, which of the following photos shows the "true curvature"?To the best of my knowledge, they are from the same ballon flight, with the same camera and lens and taken at near enough to the same altitude.

Barrel distortion can be a big problem, though that photo taken with the Canon A570 has little.

Quote from: Jane on February 25, 2018, 02:47:32 PM

Quote from: MicroBeta on February 25, 2018, 02:07:14 PM

Interesting because in paint I can see a clear curve.  It is subtle but clear and certainly much more than "six pixels".

Best case scenario of a round Earth marked by the black line. Small black line diagonally with easily countable pixels giving the curve. And just for fun, a red line where it'd need to be for a flat Earth for you to have fun trying to see any clear border of the Earth between it and the black.

This isn't a good photo of curvature. It just isn't.

The dutch tilt gives the illusion of a greater curve in the image. If it was not tilted, I don't think the OP would have posted it as some kind of proof of a globe earth because even in this photo the earth looks flat LOL

Curve still apparent and imo a little more so with parallel and perpendicular borders.

Quote from: MicroBeta on February 25, 2018, 02:07:14 PM

Interesting because in paint I can see a clear curve.  It is subtle but clear and certainly much more than "six pixels".

Best case scenario of a round Earth marked by the black line. Small black line diagonally with easily countable pixels giving the curve. And just for fun, a red line where it'd need to be for a flat Earth for you to have fun trying to see any clear border of the Earth between it and the black.

This isn't a good photo of curvature. It just isn't.

I could be wrong but it seems pretty clear to me.



Mike

Quote from: Jane on February 25, 2018, 02:47:32 PM

This isn't a good photo of curvature. It just isn't.

And just how much curve do you expect to see from that altitude with a 35 mm lens exhibiting a little barrel distortion?

Not much. So? It's what we'd expect to see under RET, I'm not contesting that, it's just a bad photo of curvature for that very reason.

I could be wrong but it seems pretty clear to me.



Mike

Can see pixels of probable land above each end of your line.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 25, 2018, 03:07:31 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 25, 2018, 02:47:32 PM

This isn't a good photo of curvature. It just isn't.

And just how much curve do you expect to see from that altitude with a 35 mm lens exhibiting a little barrel distortion?

Not much. So? It's what we'd expect to see under RET, I'm not contesting that, it's just a bad photo of curvature for that very reason.

So now it's a bad picture because it shows the true curvature? That's a new one! Hide the truth if it does not seem to prove your case.

Then does that make the left picture good evidence? It shows plenty of curvature !
The left screenshot shows excessive convex curvature,  but the right shows some concave curvature.
See

This is some very good footage of Earth from 120000 ft.

There is none of this curvature you Strange Heliocentric's speak of this is because they have not used a fish eye lense.

And it obviously did use a lens with excessive barrel distortion!
The title of that video on YouTube is
This is the sort of misleading "evidence" we have to contend with, and all you ever do is get in the way!

In my book, you show the true evidence and if as in this case it shows very little curvature, then just show how that fits with the Globe.

Quote from: MicroBeta on February 25, 2018, 02:07:14 PM

Interesting because in paint I can see a clear curve.  It is subtle but clear and certainly much more than "six pixels".

Best case scenario of a round Earth marked by the black line. Small black line diagonally with easily countable pixels giving the curve. And just for fun, a red line where it'd need to be for a flat Earth for you to have fun trying to see any clear border of the Earth between it and the black.

This isn't a good photo of curvature. It just isn't.

Well, I won't do it or someone might say that I tampered with it.
Instead of drawing lines, thy something more obvious:

Paste this image into graphic program, rotate it left for 12 degrees, and then compress horizontally to 10%, while keeping vertical size.
Result will be much more obvious than any lines.

I used old PaintShop Pro by JASC.
Who has Photoshop doesn't need anything else.

• The camera used was a "standard Canon A570 camera", presumably set to the widest FoV, with a 35 mm equivalent focal lens.
  

Indubitably.

Quote from: Jane on February 25, 2018, 02:47:32 PM

Quote from: MicroBeta on February 25, 2018, 02:07:14 PM

Interesting because in paint I can see a clear curve.  It is subtle but clear and certainly much more than "six pixels".

Best case scenario of a round Earth marked by the black line. Small black line diagonally with easily countable pixels giving the curve. And just for fun, a red line where it'd need to be for a flat Earth for you to have fun trying to see any clear border of the Earth between it and the black.

This isn't a good photo of curvature. It just isn't.

Well, I won't do it or someone might say that I tampered with it.
Instead of drawing lines, thy something more obvious:

Paste this image into graphic program, rotate it left for 12 degrees, and then compress horizontally to 10%, while keeping vertical size.
Result will be much more obvious than any lines.

I used old PaintShop Pro by JASC.
Who has Photoshop doesn't need anything else.

1.  Jane is just stroking her ego doing her job as self-appointed public defender of the FES by casting doubt on evidence.

2. Why let the possible comment of some delusional flatter, or their public defender,  stop you from demonstrating a legitimate method of illustrating that there is a curve in the image?

As long as you restrain the vertical size as you mentioned,  it's a great way to see if there is any curve.

Allow me









Combining both methods shows that a horizontal line is unaffected





Great idea and there is nothing nefarious about it.

There is no doubt that there is a curve in the image.

Cue defender of the truth to check for barrel  distortion.

Then again this topic is for naught, as photographic evidence is not recognized by flat Earthers.

But yes, the curve is there, for all that is worth.

Proof that space has concave curvature...

For more information, type "what is perspective"

what is perspective

Do not reply me, especially morons and/or NAZI round heads.



This helps you gotit:



There is numereous effect but I considered only one of them.

Especially when you forget that observer can turn their head left and right.
Are you trying to tell us that personal impression of the surface changes?
Shall we see h1 to be 10 km and h2 to be 13 km if we turn our head 45 degrees to the left?

LOL

So now it's a bad picture because it shows the true curvature? That's a new one! Hide the truth if it does not seem to prove your case.

What are you talking about? It was a bad photo of curvature, the same way a random photo out your window is going to be a bad photo of curvature. Sure, it's what we expect to see, but it's what we'd expect to see on a FE too. Hence, bad evidence for curvature. This shouldn't be such a hard point for you to grasp. Instead of throwing a fit at every little thing I say, make better arguments.



Look at this spectacular evidence for RET!
Shows the true curvature, by your logic that's enough.

Then does that make the left picture good evidence? It shows plenty of curvature !

...Amount of curvature is not the only factor, and if you think that's at all what I'm saying you are an idiot.

1.  Jane is just stroking her ego doing her job as self-appointed public defender of the FES by casting doubt on evidence.

No, just not letting you stroke your own egos by passing off bad evidence as though it's unquestionable.
The fact that there are good arguments for FET does not mean you have to defend every random thing that gets thrown out. I haven't even mentioned the issues most FEers have, from lens distortion to questioned sources, though the latter at least doesn't seem to be relevant in this case.

The curvature is six pixels worth of cloud. Compressing it isn't going to change that. All that does is give you more freedom with where you put your line with reference to the edges. Look at the right hand side of the compressed image; it's all cloud, no clear view of the Earth. And the left is pretty indistinct too. This is not a good photo of curvature.



Fod god's sake. There are good arguments out there. All you do when you spend all your energy defending nonsense like this is discredit us in the eyes of FEers.

It was just one more photograph with evidence of the curvature, which, of course matters none to flat Earthers. Not sure what got you so riled up about it.

You cannot see the curvature in it, but I think that places you in the minority.

It was just one more photograph with evidence of the curvature, which, of course matters none to flat Earthers. Not sure what got you so riled up about it.

You cannot see the curvature in it, but I think that places you in the minority.

I'm not riled up, I made one post about the curvature in it being minimal and hardly a reliable bit of evidence when there's as much potential error as there is when that many clouds etc are involved, and a one-pixel line can make it impossible to notice. Just, as ever, it gets blown out of all proportion by a select few round earthers who think even the bad arguments are sacrosanct.