I’m amazed they got it to render legible text (or maybe they photoshopped that in), but apparently no one stopped to notice that woman is either three feet tall, or that door frame is fifteen feet tall.
Here’s the wall in question. Even accounting for a high angle, this appears to have been manipulated. But it’s Portland, so a very small woman could have absolutely been holding an ironic sign as masses of people just out of frame protest.
Yeah I was thinking she’s either a little person or that door is really oversized. From your image it looks like a normal door. So she’s a little person or AI/photo-shopped.
If you zoom in on it you can see she’s gripping it with her thumb in front and her fingers in back to stabilize it. Picture holding a sign and a pinch grip between your thumb and fingers as you walk. Then raise your hand and hold it up. Your thumb will be facing out and your fingers will be facing the same direction as your back. That’s what she’s doing here.
That’s pretty easily explained by the photo being taken from several stories up.
*As a rule I usually don’t comment about downvotes, but for those blindly dismissing counterarguments without a thought, consider that the full danger of generated content isn’t only in making up things that didn’t happen, but also in providing an excuse to dismiss and delegitimize things that did happen. If we as a society are to have any hope of handling this growing era of disinformation, we need to remain vigilant against both sides of this. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s ok to claim “ai did it” and move on. You might as well stick your head in the sand if that’s your approach.
The fact about your downvotes is that your assessment is wrong. Whatever elevation this would have been taken from has no bearing on the disproportionality between the height of the person and the height of the door as depicted. (FWIW I didn’t downvote you, though.)
It does, but there’s also her stance and distance from the wall. People are commenting like she’s depicted as miniature when she’s maybe 1 ft shorter than the door, so probably around 5 ft all herself.
As another example, there’s the viral photo of Noem’s “stare down” targets from the other day (https://files.catbox.moe/f1e52i.png). Would you argue the woman behind the chicken man is twice his height? Or that the sign on the right is towering over the group? No, because we know that a change in vantage distorts the perception of size. Why this is just ignored here is either willful ignorance or a brash lack of knowledge.
There’s barely any difference in proportion between those people and certainly none due to height of the vantage point, only a couple of feet worth of distance from the camera.
I can’t believe we have to have this argument. People have functioning eyeballs, right? You’ve been looking at objects at various distances your entire life? That’s not how perspective works.
So when you eliminate the distance exacerbated by the height, the difference is negligible. Interesting. Wonder what that looks like in the OP photo: https://files.catbox.moe/g9vyzb.png
You aren’t wrong that a high altitude could cause an effect like that, but if that were the case, then neither of them should appear that large in the photo (and especially not that wide). And if it was taken from close enough that they should look that big, then the shape of the door should be warped more or the distance between the person and the door should look smaller. Basically, all of the proportions can’t exist together in the photo as they are; something would have to change, whether the distance from the person to the door, the shape/angle of the door, the height/angle of the person, etc… You can’t just compare the raw heights and say they’re the same without factoring in anything else.
You’re throwing out a lot of unconfirmable factors as if that “proves” it’s generated when they could equally prove it’s real. You say it “can’t exist” as is without providing any actual evidence supporting that claim. All your comment does is demonstrate that we don’t know enough from one photo alone.
You can’t just compare the raw heights and say they’re the same without factoring in anything else.
That is literally what the user I responded to did.
The more I think about it the more I’m beginning to believe it’s zoomed in. Like when you take a picture of the moon and you zoom in the moon gets bigger compared to your surroundings (streets, hills, whatever). But I’m lacking the experience, that door might be way too close for that effect.
There isn’t enough distance between them for that to be a factor, and even so the door would already have to be enormous to produce that effect. In short, you can’t make an object behind another object appear larger than an object in front of it via any kind of optical trickery. That’s not how distance works. You can make your foreground object appear larger relative to the background object by playing with foreshortening, which is exactly the opposite of what’s being proposed here.
You can do the thing with the moon at terrestrial scales and distances because it’s the size of the moon, and very far away. Since the apparent diminishing in size of an object is roughly geometric in relationship to its distance from you, how far away you are from a terrestrial subject (say, a person) will influence the apparent size of that subject much more than it will the apparent size of the moon, which unless you own a rocketship will always be basically the same distance away from you proportionally speaking.
Given that other posters have found the physical location and it more or less jives with the background, I’m leaning towards someone doing a cut-and-paste job to doctor a photograph. Your theory could also be valid.
I don’t think that is how zoom works (without severe lensing afferents) - the size of the moon compared to everything else stays the same, its our perception of the pic that changes.
Eg - the moon is still the same width compared to the hill in both views:
And while we’re at it, the moon only appears big when it’s close to the horizon because then it’s adjacent to other objects to give us a frame of reference. The width of the moon always covers 31 arc minutes or basically half of one degree in the sky, regardless of how high or low it is. (Yes, with extremely minor variation over time due to the eccentricity of its orbit, but these are so small that they’re not even remotely visible to the naked eye.)
Yeah they could’ve been on a neighboring building and zoomed in to take a picture of a single person holding a sign.
Or they could’ve just generated an image.
With the blurring and weird repainted wall way and way the text is all lined up nicely almost makes it look like a classic photoshop but I’m no expert either.
I’m amazed they got it to render legible text (or maybe they photoshopped that in), but apparently no one stopped to notice that woman is either three feet tall, or that door frame is fifteen feet tall.
Here’s the wall in question. Even accounting for a high angle, this appears to have been manipulated. But it’s Portland, so a very small woman could have absolutely been holding an ironic sign as masses of people just out of frame protest.
Yeah I was thinking she’s either a little person or that door is really oversized. From your image it looks like a normal door. So she’s a little person or AI/photo-shopped.
Hobbits for Trump!
The current models are very good at text.
And holding up an enormous sign above her head by only her middle finger and thumb.
Her hand was the first thing I noticed.
If you zoom in on it you can see she’s gripping it with her thumb in front and her fingers in back to stabilize it. Picture holding a sign and a pinch grip between your thumb and fingers as you walk. Then raise your hand and hold it up. Your thumb will be facing out and your fingers will be facing the same direction as your back. That’s what she’s doing here.
That’s pretty easily explained by the photo being taken from several stories up.
*As a rule I usually don’t comment about downvotes, but for those blindly dismissing counterarguments without a thought, consider that the full danger of generated content isn’t only in making up things that didn’t happen, but also in providing an excuse to dismiss and delegitimize things that did happen. If we as a society are to have any hope of handling this growing era of disinformation, we need to remain vigilant against both sides of this. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s ok to claim “ai did it” and move on. You might as well stick your head in the sand if that’s your approach.
The fact about your downvotes is that your assessment is wrong. Whatever elevation this would have been taken from has no bearing on the disproportionality between the height of the person and the height of the door as depicted. (FWIW I didn’t downvote you, though.)
It does, but there’s also her stance and distance from the wall. People are commenting like she’s depicted as miniature when she’s maybe 1 ft shorter than the door, so probably around 5 ft all herself.
As another example, there’s the viral photo of Noem’s “stare down” targets from the other day (https://files.catbox.moe/f1e52i.png). Would you argue the woman behind the chicken man is twice his height? Or that the sign on the right is towering over the group? No, because we know that a change in vantage distorts the perception of size. Why this is just ignored here is either willful ignorance or a brash lack of knowledge.
Huh?
There’s barely any difference in proportion between those people and certainly none due to height of the vantage point, only a couple of feet worth of distance from the camera.
I can’t believe we have to have this argument. People have functioning eyeballs, right? You’ve been looking at objects at various distances your entire life? That’s not how perspective works.
So when you eliminate the distance exacerbated by the height, the difference is negligible. Interesting. Wonder what that looks like in the OP photo: https://files.catbox.moe/g9vyzb.png
You aren’t wrong that a high altitude could cause an effect like that, but if that were the case, then neither of them should appear that large in the photo (and especially not that wide). And if it was taken from close enough that they should look that big, then the shape of the door should be warped more or the distance between the person and the door should look smaller. Basically, all of the proportions can’t exist together in the photo as they are; something would have to change, whether the distance from the person to the door, the shape/angle of the door, the height/angle of the person, etc… You can’t just compare the raw heights and say they’re the same without factoring in anything else.
You’re throwing out a lot of unconfirmable factors as if that “proves” it’s generated when they could equally prove it’s real. You say it “can’t exist” as is without providing any actual evidence supporting that claim. All your comment does is demonstrate that we don’t know enough from one photo alone.
That is literally what the user I responded to did.
No, no, wait, you see - YOU can’t, because you’re going against the hive mind, and that’s not cool, man!
>:(
The more I think about it the more I’m beginning to believe it’s zoomed in. Like when you take a picture of the moon and you zoom in the moon gets bigger compared to your surroundings (streets, hills, whatever). But I’m lacking the experience, that door might be way too close for that effect.
There isn’t enough distance between them for that to be a factor, and even so the door would already have to be enormous to produce that effect. In short, you can’t make an object behind another object appear larger than an object in front of it via any kind of optical trickery. That’s not how distance works. You can make your foreground object appear larger relative to the background object by playing with foreshortening, which is exactly the opposite of what’s being proposed here.
You can do the thing with the moon at terrestrial scales and distances because it’s the size of the moon, and very far away. Since the apparent diminishing in size of an object is roughly geometric in relationship to its distance from you, how far away you are from a terrestrial subject (say, a person) will influence the apparent size of that subject much more than it will the apparent size of the moon, which unless you own a rocketship will always be basically the same distance away from you proportionally speaking.
Parallax depends on the focal length of the lens, and distance from the photographer. This looks real to me.
I’d wager it’s more likely staged with a wife of an ice agent and a photographer than AI.
Given that other posters have found the physical location and it more or less jives with the background, I’m leaning towards someone doing a cut-and-paste job to doctor a photograph. Your theory could also be valid.
I don’t think that is how zoom works (without severe lensing afferents) - the size of the moon compared to everything else stays the same, its our perception of the pic that changes.
Eg - the moon is still the same width compared to the hill in both views:
And while we’re at it, the moon only appears big when it’s close to the horizon because then it’s adjacent to other objects to give us a frame of reference. The width of the moon always covers 31 arc minutes or basically half of one degree in the sky, regardless of how high or low it is. (Yes, with extremely minor variation over time due to the eccentricity of its orbit, but these are so small that they’re not even remotely visible to the naked eye.)
That poor pupper.
Don’t worry, they recovered. But it was funny nontheless.
I was just showing how MoonMoon stays the same size too, regardless of the derp.
Yeah they could’ve been on a neighboring building and zoomed in to take a picture of a single person holding a sign.
Or they could’ve just generated an image.
With the blurring and weird repainted wall way and way the text is all lined up nicely almost makes it look like a classic photoshop but I’m no expert either.
JUST look at the shit behind her legs on the sidewalk, its so fucking wrong