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.

You mean besides the fact the NSA practically has a camera up our asses anyways? :D

"It's not clear why you were playing around with taking pictures from across the room"

Because every possible distance gets tested when dealing with an edge-on view at a fixed FOV to determine the viability of hiding features. Smaller things further away are easier to hide than close-up.

And with the obvious FOV on those images, it's obvious you couldn't get close enough to hide it without pretty much having the edge directly against the camera lens. You'd have better luck trying fro further away to minimize its detail.

Along with a few other mathematical things yes; but as it stands, unless they were taking those pictures from dozens of meters away, parallax isn't going to hide that from a dead-level perspective. I'm trying right now with my 26x optical zoom DSLR across the apartment, I can't get that tiny bump to stay hidden without showing more of the front of the phone.

Parallax isn't going to hide something like that on a device of that size. I'm holding mine exactly like that right now. I sure as hell see the camera bump, even being way on the other side of the phone from my vantage point.

Plus, take the images and invert the colors. You can clearly see editing work. Basic Photoshop detection 101. Even more fun when you have a shitty TFT screen that makes every glaring error even more obvious.

Wrong. Raised cosine filters are not harmonic filters.

LC filters are harmonic filters.

Go home and come back when you can design radar guidance systems. Maybe then you'll have half a clue just how dead wrong you have always been.

Well, the fact you use Bing already shows just how wrong you are.

"(I used to install these "back in the day" long ago stupid)."

No you didn't, because we didn't use harmonic filters 'back then.' We used a cosine shaping filter 'back then' on analog cable modems. Ya, I used to work for Stream as a Time Warner technician, you nitwit.

Still wrong, as always!

Uh, yea. Charter.

Magic trick? Get different services that require different boxes (cablecard/net, phone/net, super-speed net.) Then swap out boxes with your own (excepting phone/net modems.) Then cancel in a specific order, leaving only the internet up. All boxes have internet access. Dual 100mbit and a 60 mbit line, for the price of 60 mbit plus phone.

You're so useless it's funny. What're you gonna do, threaten to sue me for libel when your sorry ass has no leg to stand on being proven time and time again that your outdated shit is exactly that, outdated and useless?