next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Hi Derek et al., With their own eyes, surely 'yes', because most of us have good stereoscopic vision and so see the world three-dimensionally (3D): the several available depth cues can easily reveal the difference between a domestic cat and a much larger cougar because we automatically calibrate for object distance. In a still photograph, not necessarily so, because the photo contains only a flat (2D) projection of the world. Unless there are good secondary depth cues in the photo, like the sizes of trees or other familiar objects, apparent size can be ambiguous. The legend of the cat-cougar confound showed up a few years ago when it turned out that a photograph purporting showing a cougar in the middle distance really pictured a large ginger tom not that far away from the camera. Talking of sasquatches, the same photographic distance ambiguity was used to fake one of the most famous images of the 'Loch Ness Monster'. This had the monster sticking its neck out of the water somewhere near the middle of the loch amid largish waves, and was widely accepted as being real and unfakeable for decades. If memory serves, it was actually constructed by the faker from a toy submarine under water with a rubber extension fixed on top, and photographed just a few feet from the water's edge that was stirred with a stick to make a few ripples. As always, the legend is more appealing than the explanation. Steve ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quoting D W Bridgehouse <d.bridgehouse@ns.sympatico.ca> > It may be a naive of me - but - wishful thinking that most people would > surely recognize the difference between a "house" cat and a "cougar" ? ? ? > DB
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects