'Nuff said. Can't get shit done with his constant bullshit spouting.

"Automobile magazines take pictures of cars from as far away as practical, so that the part of the car closer to the camera doesn't look substantially larger than the part of the car further from the lens."

Funny, most car magazines I have use forced perspective to make that front end look a lot bigger. That's everything from Auto Trader to Motorsports Magazine.

Yea. You're trying to argue with someone that deals with optics for a living (specifically, LED lighting and concentrating lenses.)

You can bring your insults around all you want. You're an amateur in the face of a global professional. This is why I've been on the BBC for making plants grow WITHOUT LIGHT AT ALL. I know light better than most anybody here on this site.

No, he didn't show shit. He posted nonsense without any backing links. He deliberately went off-topic to keep talking.

He's not going to be talking for much longer. People he's pissed off have his info, I have it now.

Do I dox or do I take care of business myself?

You annihilated nobody.

By the way, I know your address. Expect a few 'well-being' check ups, if not a visit from myself, personally, with the white coats in tow.

So 'secure' in your HOSTS that you forget that your personal info, which can do a lot more damage, is already out on the net thanks to people you've pissed off.

Zoom and telephoto are one and the same, just one is adjustable. Who's the one that needs to do their homework?

Oh, and go to Edmund Optics so you can get kits to MAKE YOUR OWN. You can get a 10mm-1000mm focal length kit for around $300.

Back to school for you. I've been at this for 17 years, since high school photography elective.

Hi, welcome to the world of 10mm-1000mm focal length telephoto lenses. You know, the ones so large you need to have an additional bipod minimum to support the lens while the tripod holds the camera. *shakes head* Seriously? How the hell do you think amateur astronomers get decent pictures of Jupiter and Saturn without a telescope? Lenses with a HUGE adjustable focal length, that are almost the size of the telescope itself. Might as well be a telescope at that point. Nice large aperture, too. AND THEN for shits and giggles you can throw a 5x Vivitar telezoom lens between that lens and the camera (assuming you have lenses using the same mount style.)

You must be confused with the DSLR world, thinking typical DSLR lenses. Plenty of HUGE lenses from back in the 60s even that have adapters to work with cameras of today.

Hey, look, someone else that OBVIOUSLY knows what they're talking about, opposed to the dozen or so other idiots on here that can't be bothered to DO THE RESEARCH THEMSELVES and come to the exact same conclusion.

Betting 10:1 Kyosuke, Graphius, etc are Apple fans talking absolute nonsense Especially graphius, who has never heard of anything with a possible 30X optical.

"Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to hide something using perspective from across a room."

You wouldn't for large objects, no. You would for small objects, as at smaller sizes and greater distances detail drops. It's like you failed some of that basic geometry, yourself. Do you even raster render or 3D model?

You very obviously have zero respect for the scientific process, which includes testing every angle, variable, or possibility.

So no, you're the one doing things wrong. Meanwhile, I've run through every available option and come to the conclusion that this is indeed photographic manipulation.

What've you done, again?

" I am not aware of a zoom lens with a range greater than 16x"

>never heard of mount adapters to use manual lenses from much older 35mm SLR cameras

"He spent all that money on photography gear and still doesn't understand perspective..."

I understand perspective just fine, which is why I've always been the photographer and graphic designer for the websites I've run or managed. I also understand parallax just fine. And I also understand that up close or far away, the bump still shows up, unless you're BLIND. Funnily enough, I have macular degeneration in my natural cameras, and I can still see the bump, either up-close to my face, or far away, same flat edge-on viewing angle.

And that's WITHOUT my glasses.

"Mine" being my fiance's (he has the iPhone, I have a ZTE Score.)

Still in my hands.

I know very well what I'm doing. I think you're missing some inherent and unimplied context. Given there's a hand in the picture, the FOV and assumable distance pretty much makes it impossible to hide the bump. Given the lack of detail, one would have likely taken the picture from further away to reduce the pixel detail levels, as you stated, and then likely just used a line tool to wipe a clean horizontal edge. That's assuming this is an actual photograph. It really looks more like a CG rendering given it's doing pixel-perfect horizontal lines, hard-clipped. Either CG or photoshopped.