●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byMachineShedFred ( 621896 ) writes:
You always see the button side of the phone. The camera is on the opposite side. 1mm is likely to be obscured simply by the positioning in the photo.
If they cared so much about it to doctor the photos in a completely obvious way, why wouldn't they just make the case 1mm thicker instead of risking the lawsuits?
This whole article is troll bait.
byKhyber ( 864651 ) writes:
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.
byiluvcapra ( 782887 ) writes:
Parallax isn't going to hide something like that on a device of that size.
This is a function of focal length and subject distance.
byKhyber ( 864651 ) writes:
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.
bymsauve ( 701917 ) writes:
You're doing it wrong. The closer you are, the easier it is to hide.
byKhyber ( 864651 ) writes:
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.
bymsauve ( 701917 ) writes:
Straightedge across phone's camera and edge. Another across the front of the phone. The two straightedges will form a wedge - a lens inside that wedge will see only the side of the phone (no camera, no front). It's not clear why you were playing around with taking pictures from across the room, I doubt the wedge extends nearly that far.
byKhyber ( 864651 ) writes:
"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.
bymsauve ( 701917 ) writes:
"Smaller things further away are easier to hide than close-up."
Not if the resulting images are adjusted so the pictured object is the same size. Unless you're reducing a detail to the single pixel range, that is. Additionally, the phone's lens would be more out of focus (when focused on the edge of the phone) when taken from a closer position - depth of field can be used to de-accentuate a feature. Finally, parallax would make the phone's camera appear smaller in proportion when photographed from a closer
bygraphius ( 907855 ) writes:
But... but... he has a 26X Optical Zoom on his DSLR Whatever the fuck that means.
If he really has a DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) I am not aware of a zoom lens with a range greater than 16x (18-300) You do know that the multiplication factor means the longest focal length divided by the shortest.
Or maybe he meant 26x magnification at the sensor plane, in that case, he must be using a crop frame sensor with an 850 mm lens (approximately) or more likely, a 500mm (mirror) lens with a 1.4x converter
He spent all that money on photography gear and still doesn't understand perspective...
Parent
twitter
facebook
bygraphius ( 907855 ) writes:
never heard of mount adapters to use manual lenses from much older 35mm SLR cameras
Yes, and I have still never heard of a zoom lens with a range greater than 16 times. Most film zoom lenses maxed out at 4X
I understand perspective just fine,
I meant to say parallax, but you don't really understand either. Read farther down on the example of a chimney on a house.
Try this. Use a very wide lens, say 20mm on a full frame camera.
Bring the phone close to the camera so it fills the frame.
shooting edge on, and with the screen on top, tilt the phone up until you just see the screen.
You will not see the bump on the bottom.
or m
byK. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) writes:
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.
You've just publicly proven that you're a moron. Does that make you happy?
bygraphius ( 907855 ) writes:
Hi, welcome to the world of 10mm-1000mm focal length telephoto lenses. ...
There are 10mm lenses and 1000mm lenses, I would love to be proven wrong about a zoom lens from 10mm to 1000mm for a decently large sensor. And apertures for astronomical telescopes usually work out to fairly sedate f10. This lens [blogspot.ca] has an extremely fast f5.6.
PS a 10 mm eyepiece is NOT the same as a 1000mm focal length lens
for "shits and giggles" Angeneux won an academy award for the unprecedented 12-120mm lens with an unheard of 10x range.
Sorry, do your homework and learn the difference between a zoom le
bymsauve ( 701917 ) writes:
While it's apparent that he doesn't understand the difference between a zoom and prime lens, there are some pretty wide range zooms these days. Mostly on point-and-shoots. The newly announced Canon PowerShot SX60 HS has a 65x (21 â" 1365 mm equivalent) zoom. Yes, that's the optical zoom. I can't imagine how bad the chroma or distortion is at the extremes.
bygraphius ( 907855 ) writes:
yes, a zoom lens is much easier to design for a small sensor. I really wonder how sharp an image you can get with a slow 1200 or so mm equivalent handheld.
byKhyber ( 864651 ) writes:
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.
byKhyber ( 864651 ) writes:
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.
●eath your current threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...