4 ms·
The problem isn't taking the photo, but that the size you are viewing the photo at is simply too small and flat. Human field of view is somewhere around 200x130
by grumbel 5y ago
The problem isn't taking the photo, but that the size you are viewing the photo at is simply too small and flat. Human field of view is somewhere around 200x130°, you are not going to capture that on a tiny flat bit of paper which might just be 40x30°. Reaching the 200° isn't even possible with a flat photo. You can try to make it aesthetically pleasing, but you can't make it accurate without making it bigger and curved.
When you enlarge the photo and display it at the field of view it was captured at, as you can do in VR, the whole problem disappears and the photo just looks like the real world. Use two cameras and it'll even be in 3D.
- roywiggins 5y agoIf you drop the requirement that you have a reasonably-sized flat image, you can get a perfect representation... as long as you stand in exactly one spot to view it (or throw it into VR). If you intentionally use a nonlinear perspective like the Turner painting in the article, you can get an image that looks great flat, and still produces a wide angle of view and "natural" dense of depth with low perceived distortion, and will look fine from across the room or up close. It probably does a better job of recreating what it is like to be there than a mechanical linear perspective photograph. The only problem is you can't get images like that out of a camera.