I think this is a good solution although in this case there would be no
landmarks since the towers are planned for somewhere in a big lake (50 miles
wide) - but I think this could be worked out on a map knowing the angle of view
of the camera and its location on shore.
I was also thinking that since one knows turbine height and distance and the
lens focal length one can determine the size of the image of the turbine on the
sensor. This size then would bear a relationship to the height of the sensor and
this then could be maintained in any final "seascape" illustration.
But if the distance is over 3 miles or so then the curvature of the Earth may
play a part as well as to how much of the towers reaches above the horizon. If
the towers are more than about 12 miles out they would be invisible from eye
level on the shoreline.
and Emily:
>Are these anti-turbine people? If so, are you sure you want to help
>them? I'd consider the ethics of this before going any further.
I don't know - the person who asked is a reporter for a local newspaper.
Andy
James Schenken wrote:
The straightforward approach is the take the image of the site and carefully
measure the actual width on the ground from edge of the frame to the edge of
the frame.
For example, suppose the site being pictured is 1/4 mile wide ( 1760 feet ).
A wind turbine sited there will be about 1/4 (400/1760) of the width of the
scene. If the print is 8" by 12" ( assuming a 35mm frame proportions in the
original image ) then the turbine images will be the same ratio in height,
or just under 3 inches high when placed in the image.
Then you can scale the image to whatever final size is needed.
Cheers,
James
