3 ms·
I extended many of the assumed parallel lines in the photo, and they all tend to converge just below and to the right of the nose of the plane. And using the k
by gmiller123456 4y ago
I extended many of the assumed parallel lines in the photo, and they all tend to converge just below and to the right of the nose of the plane. And using the known distance between two of the stars to estimate the degrees per pixel, I get a margin of error of about 4 degrees vertically estimating where the horizon is.
- gmiller123456 4y agoFor what it's worth, I measured the pixels between Kochab and Pherkad and got .0161 degress per pixel. Then measured from Polaris to my visual guestimate of where the horizon should be and got 34.14 deg, about half a degree off of the real location. I'd be interested to see what others get. For those not familiar with the stars, Polaris is just a few pixels from the top edge, nearly dead center (it's close enough to the top that you can just use the top edge of the photo as a reference). If you start with a photo the same size I did (4096x2731), you can just crop the photo from top down to where you think the horizon is, then look at the size of the resulting image, multiply the vertical pixels by .0161, and post the answer below.
- comboy 4y agoWide angle lens distortion?
- gmiller123456 4y agoI thought lens distortion would be a problem too, but there's really not much distortion. The lines on the buildings and runway are all pretty straight, even near the corners of the photo where distortion would be at it's maximum. I'm willing to bet the photographer has a lot of experience photographic large planes and knew what steps to take to avoid it coming out all contorted.