- Messages
- 11,442
- Name
- Matt
So, after the discussion in the G60 5-Series thread, I thought I'd take 3 minutes (literally), to illustrate the points being made about photographs and overhangs on cars...
Quick and dirty example:
160mm is where longer lenses might start, for spy shots taken in the wild, it's likely that some degree of zoom/telephoto will be used... 160 is not a lot (300mm-500mm is, I'm sure, commonly used), but it's significantly "more" than the human eye.
50mm is roughly comparable to the human eye, and supposedly provides a reasonable analogue of what we may see with the naked eye.
10mm is wide angle... some might class it as fisheye.
If you stare at the gif for a few minutes, you start to see how much certain elements change - not just the overhangs - but the perception of the surfacing too. It's fair to say some cars look better in the flesh, and personally I think a lot of that is to do with how cars are presented in photographs, versus how we see them. I think it's also fair to say that opportunistic spy photo's may typically be at the longer end of the spectrum, where official shots will more likely be engineered to give whatever look the manufacturer wants, but normally something shorter.
This shot it a very simple profile shot, but the same principle is true for any aspect. The proportions of a car can be significantly 'bent' depending on the lens being used.
Quick and dirty example:
160mm is where longer lenses might start, for spy shots taken in the wild, it's likely that some degree of zoom/telephoto will be used... 160 is not a lot (300mm-500mm is, I'm sure, commonly used), but it's significantly "more" than the human eye.
50mm is roughly comparable to the human eye, and supposedly provides a reasonable analogue of what we may see with the naked eye.
10mm is wide angle... some might class it as fisheye.
If you stare at the gif for a few minutes, you start to see how much certain elements change - not just the overhangs - but the perception of the surfacing too. It's fair to say some cars look better in the flesh, and personally I think a lot of that is to do with how cars are presented in photographs, versus how we see them. I think it's also fair to say that opportunistic spy photo's may typically be at the longer end of the spectrum, where official shots will more likely be engineered to give whatever look the manufacturer wants, but normally something shorter.
This shot it a very simple profile shot, but the same principle is true for any aspect. The proportions of a car can be significantly 'bent' depending on the lens being used.
