Wow, Bush is tall!

HyperionX · Post by **HyperionX** » 2004-10-01 09:51pm

Almost as tall as Kerry here.

Not quite as tall as Kerry here:

Even a conspiracy?

That's... unusual to say the least.

Mitth`raw`nuruodo · Post by **Mitth`raw`nuruodo** » 2004-10-01 09:54pm

Differing camera angles, I suppose.

(Is this really a N&P thing?)

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-01 09:57pm

A lot of it's camera angles. The AP photo appears to be at an angle that's much higher, whereas the Fox New photo is on a more even angle. That'll produce a fair amount of natural foreshortening, as you can see in the handshake and in the positioning of the background. It's an entirely natural thing.

And unless there's more of an actualy point this will be locked. (I'll keep it open for now).

HyperionX · Post by **HyperionX** » 2004-10-01 09:58pm

Stormbringer wrote:A lot of it's camera angles. The AP photo appears to be at an angle that's much higher, whereas the Fox New photo is on a more even angle. That'll produce a fair amount of natural foreshortening, as you can see in the handshake and in the positioning of the background. It's an entirely natural thing.

And unless there's more of an actualy point this will be locked. (I'll keep it open for now).

The problem is that Bush is about 5 inches shorter than Kerry. He shouldn't be coming close.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-01 10:05pm

HyperionX wrote:The problem is that Bush is about 5 inches shorter than Kerry. He shouldn't be coming close.

You do know that five inches isn't that much you idiot. It's not like it's Vern Troyer and Kareem Abdul Jabar here. (To give you and idea of how big fives inches is, it's narrower than the post reply box here on a 1024 resolution.) The last picture is actually closer to accurate; the previous photo actually distorts it thanks to the foreshortening caused be the angle.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-01 10:10pm

Stormbringer wrote:You do know that five inches isn't that much you idiot. It's not like it's Vern Troyer and Kareem Abdul Jabar here. (To give you and idea of how big fives inches is, it's narrower than the post reply box here on a 1024 resolution.) The last picture is actually closer to accurate; the previous photo actually distorts it thanks to the foreshortening caused be the angle.

Problem with that is that their eyes are nearly on the same level with each other and it's not a low enough camera angle to artifically make them look like a more even height. If Bush is five inches shorter, he should appear to be a bit shorter than he does there.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-01 10:10pm

The first photo actually looks more accurate for five inches.

HyperionX · Post by **HyperionX** » 2004-10-01 10:13pm

Stormbringer wrote:
HyperionX wrote:The problem is that Bush is about 5 inches shorter than Kerry. He shouldn't be coming close.
You do know that five inches isn't that much you idiot. It's not like it's Vern Troyer and Kareem Abdul Jabar here. (To give you and idea of how big fives inches is, it's narrower than the post reply box here on a 1024 resolution.) The last picture is actually closer to accurate; the previous photo actually distorts it thanks to the foreshortening caused be the angle.

Well, he looked a lot shorter we he was behind the podium

.

Anyways, as Gil said his eyelevel are almost equal to Kerry's in one shot, as well as the fact that they're right next to each other. I don't see how foreshortening can affect things that much.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-01 10:16pm

Or Kerry could be scrunched on one leg. I know it makes me a bit uncomfrtable looking down to someone I'm talking to, so I slouch a little.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-01 10:19pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Problem with that is that their eyes are nearly on the same level with each other and it's not a low enough camera angle to artifically make them look like a more even height. If Bush is five inches shorter, he should appear to be a bit shorter than he does there.

Actually, you'd be suprised how little angle it takes when you're taking it with a telephoto lens/zoom. And with the one actually being taken from above and the other slightly below you will get that result; exactly what happened. Much as you tin foil hatters would like to believe it, the difference in height is damned insignificant; especially since both men are in a bit of relaxed

For all you claiming that it's something more than perspective I'd love to see more than, "well he's five inches shorter."

_____________________________________________________

That is five inches at 1024x768, not alot.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-01 10:24pm

Stormbringer wrote:Actually, you'd be suprised how little angle it takes when you're taking it with a telephoto lens/zoom. And with the one actually being taken from above and the other slightly below you will get that result; exactly what happened. Much as you tin foil hatters would like to believe it, the difference in height is damned insignificant; especially since both men are in a bit of relaxed

For all you claiming that it's something more than perspective I'd love to see more than, "well he's five inches shorter."

_____________________________________________________

That is five inches at 1024x768, not alot.

No I wouldn't, since I'm pretty experienced with operating a camera. However, in the first shot, Kerry's shoulder is clearly well above Bush's and is even close enough for Bush's shoulder to cast a shadow on Kerry. In the second photo, they are about even.

I acknowledge that they weren't taken at the same time, but that big a jump in perspective is really queer without some funny optics going on.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-01 10:25pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:The first photo actually looks more accurate for five inches.

Probably because it is a lot closer.

HyperionX wrote:Well, he looked a lot shorter we he was behind the podium .

As I hear it he was slouching and generally not at attention. He probably was.

HyperionX wrote:Anyways, as Gil said his eyelevel are almost equal to Kerry's in one shot, as well as the fact that they're right next to each other. I don't see how foreshortening can affect things that much.

You'd be really suprised. They used foreshorting in a number of shots in Lord of the Rings to make the hobbits appear as midget sized (ref the cart ride in the opening to FotR) and this was far, far less dramatic. The difference between the AP and Fox News photos can easily be explained by natural foreshortening, trust me on that.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-01 10:31pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:No I wouldn't, since I'm pretty experienced with operating a camera.

In what respect? I've done a course in photography and have had plenty more visual communications classes. I've done entire lessons on perspectives, it's very, very easy to achieve the tiny sort of change necessary to add or remove five inches.

Gil Hamilton wrote:However, in the first shot, Kerry's shoulder is clearly well above Bush's and is even close enough for Bush's shoulder to cast a shadow on Kerry. In the second photo, they are about even.

I acknowledge that they weren't taken at the same time, but that big a jump in perspective is really queer without some funny optics going on.

Again, it doesn't take funny optics at all. Even if they were taken at the exact same moment with the exact same zoom, the fact that the Fox News reporters is obviously a few rows closers and further down is enough to alter the perspectives enough to shave five inches.

Now do you have anything to back this fruit cake accusation or not?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-10-01 10:46pm

"First, Kerry is about the same height as Bush. Then, he's a few inches taller. Can't he pick a height and stay with it?"

That will probably be one of the attacks the Republicans make at least once before the election.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-10-02 12:31am

In the very first picture, Bush is obviously standing on his tiptoes because he thinks he can see the White House from there...

Honestly, I've been paying attention to presidential elections since Carter-Reagan (although I was far too young to appreciate the nuances of that one) and this one is the most ridiculous yet.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-02 01:27pm

Stormbringer wrote:In what respect? I've done a course in photography and have had plenty more visual communications classes. I've done entire lessons on perspectives, it's very, very easy to achieve the tiny sort of change necessary to add or remove five inches.

So have I, actually.

Again, it doesn't take funny optics at all. Even if they were taken at the exact same moment with the exact same zoom, the fact that the Fox News reporters is obviously a few rows closers and further down is enough to alter the perspectives enough to shave five inches.

Now do you have anything to back this fruit cake accusation or not?

It's clear what is going on just by looking at it. If you look carefully, you can practically see where the media department of FOXNews resized George Bush in order make him appear taller next to Kerry. This has political reasons, since appearance is everything in these things. If Bush appears looking like a little little man, it will hurt him in post-debate polls. It's the Jack Kenndy/Richard Nixon effect. Since FOXNews has vested interest in making Bush look good, they have no choice. It's not like it's even all that uncommon. Magazines and news shows "sweeten" photos all the time. I remember hearing about how on group moved the Pyramids of Giza close together in the photo to make the composition better.

Really, I think your political bias is showing here, Stormbringer. For shame.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-02 10:00pm

It's clear what is going on just by looking at it. If you look carefully, you can practically see where the media department of FOXNews resized George Bush in order make him appear taller next to Kerry.

Care to show that evidence?

Because quite frankly unless you're accusing PBS of doing similar that photo they have then the charge that it seems moronic to arge that Fox that did yet PBS didn't. Those two pictures are clearly taken at a close angle and show more or less the same thing. Was it doctored too?

Really, I think your political bias is showing here, Stormbringer. For shame.

I could easily say the same of you.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-10-02 10:11pm

Funny, they show about the same thing.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-03 11:07am

I think one aspect of my posts hasn't quite registered in your brain yet, Stormie.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-03 12:49pm

Stormbringer wrote:http://www.stardestroyer.net/Armour/Pic ... _10-01.jpg

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Armour/Pic ... toshop.jpg

Funny, they show about the same thing.

identical photos showing the same thing? bizarr.