Walter. I'm wondering how to respond to your categorical rebuttal of my "answer". In part it's almost as if you didn't read it before jumping in. To put the meat first: I've constructed a third image showing what the image should have looked like had the camera really been moved away from the church along the line of the viewpoint(VP)/look-at point (LAP) axis with no elevation. http://website.lineone.net/~wildimages/PF/perspective2.jpg The two frames on the left have merely had a "+" added centrally to indicate the position of the LAP. In the frame on the right I have scaled the background (mountains) and forground (everything else) elements by the factors to account for focal length first and moving back - keeping the same LAP. Note1: there is no evidence of convergence in the tower or gable end of the church so I've assumed the camera was held horizontal. Note2: in reality not all of the "forground" elements would have been at the same distance. The tower in fact is clearly eclipsed by the roof for instance. Anyway: compare the right and centre frames and at least you can see how what was presented compared to what I would have expected to see!!!! Now to deal with the apparent rebuttal********* <<No lies, no enlargements, no untruths, no flaws in the question-just straight photos.>> Well, that sounds like a rebuttal to me!!!! > Think of the two images as 4 x 5 contact prints. The question certainly said 4 x 5. The question certainly said uncropped. So exacly how do you explain why the aspect ratio of the two "photos" in the question were nowhere near 1:1.25? Can you really not see any discrepancy? If not, I guess there's no point in trying to convince you otherwise. Note: this didn't take me a lot of thought: it just jumped out as wrong when reading the blurb. <<Moving back from an image will always make the background appear to Be higher in the frame without any elevation of the camera's position.>> You used the word "always" not me: frankly that is patent nonsense. Any part of the background that lies below the line between the camera and the "look-at point" will actually appear to be lower. Indeed, without zooming in (using a longer focal length) moving back will make all parts of the original image move in towards the centre of the frame, the amount they move in being inversely proportional to the distance from the camera. <<<The height of the building is now less as compared to the mountains in The background>>> Well, that of course is true - but it still does not justify your rebuttal for the reasons I will explain below. <<<Been there done that!>>> So have I, I've also thought about it a lot and played with 3D models ... <<<But I haven't a clue as what the longer focal lenght is or how far back the camera was moved.>>> I had a feeling for the answer even before I did the calculations. Perhaps I should get out more. This was only supposed to be a bit of fun. Bob __________________________________________________________________ Get Tiscali Broadband From £15:99 http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband
