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.
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