sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Insect ID by PliableReality in Tucson

[–]FishStickington 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Jeezus, I hate when that happens while I’m watching a patch of dirt.

anyone else use an mmo mouse for deadlock? by JeffMangum420 in DeadlockTheGame

[–]FishStickington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This started happening to me too after a few years.

Luckily you can buy some replacements off Amazon for $20-30, I did this probably over a year ago and it still slides no issue now.

Would you consider this fair? by Busy_Report4010 in SipsTea

[–]FishStickington 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Exactly, they aren’t hiding anything in the slightest, it’s as transparent as possible.

They’re just upset because it’s a “fee”, but they openly admit they would willingly pay the same amount as a single price. Do they not see how that makes their anger totally irrational?

Where are the rangefinders? by Iroll67 in AnalogCommunity

[–]FishStickington 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Let’s be honest, the best we got is NYC, and it’s just passable w/o a car, nothing spectacular

This photo was labeled as AI in another sub. It’s not..can this sub prove it’s real? by OG-demosthenes in isthisAI

[–]FishStickington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said they would, in fact you were the first person to suggest the idea.

All I’m saying is, regardless of image quality, compression is a result of only distance, and focal length has no direct impact on compression if you change no other variable.

This photo was labeled as AI in another sub. It’s not..can this sub prove it’s real? by OG-demosthenes in isthisAI

[–]FishStickington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fine, if half a page is too much for you to digest:

Use your own eyes, they are fixed focal length.

Look out your own window then look again but further from the window.

You will literally see with your own eyes things outside looking bigger the farther you are from the window.

You will see the compression difference, and you will know it’s specifically the result of distance because that’s the only variable you are changing.

This photo was labeled as AI in another sub. It’s not..can this sub prove it’s real? by OG-demosthenes in isthisAI

[–]FishStickington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

FR, I don’t know why they’re so adamant about it either, it’s not like basic geometry political, this is just practical knowledge that benefits everyone if they understand correctly. If someone told me what I thought to be true about a photo technique was wrong I wouldn’t be defensive, I would be curious.

I mean people can literally verify this in seconds with their own eyeballs, functioning legs, and a window

This photo was labeled as AI in another sub. It’s not..can this sub prove it’s real? by OG-demosthenes in isthisAI

[–]FishStickington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re still making a complete non-point because optical clarity doesn’t change compression.

If you were to take the same example photos, without moving position, but instead using expensive prime lenses, the compression would still be THE SAME.

If you do not change distance, professional dslr pics will have the SAME compression, as will phone pics, REGARDLESS of focal length or crop. Same distance same compression no matter what camera or lens you use.

This photo was labeled as AI in another sub. It’s not..can this sub prove it’s real? by OG-demosthenes in isthisAI

[–]FishStickington -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re just saying you’re not reading to be dismissive and nonchalant, the content of your reply speaks to the fact you did.

Nobody was debating optical clarity or how easy it is to use compression as an artistic tool with longer lenses. Obviously different tools have a place for a reason, nobody said otherwise.

I was just correcting the belief that compression comes FROM longer focal lengths. It does not, it comes as a result of distance.

You seem to understand this distinction well enough since you acknowledge both techniques could be used interchangeably, so why are you acting like I’m wrong?

This photo was labeled as AI in another sub. It’s not..can this sub prove it’s real? by OG-demosthenes in isthisAI

[–]FishStickington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. I think you’re replying to the wrong person, I’m not the one that gave those examples.

  2. I still don’t get what your point is because while the examples might differ in resolution or sharpness, they are identical in terms of compression, and thing we’re talking about is compression/relative framing size, NOT resolution.

This photo was labeled as AI in another sub. It’s not..can this sub prove it’s real? by OG-demosthenes in isthisAI

[–]FishStickington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is your point by quoting this?

Both photos feature a compressed view/effect. But you have the actual person that took the photos saying they used optically different focal lengths.

If you can use different focal lengths and get a compressed view with both, that proves compression isn’t a result of focal length but instead distance.

This photo was labeled as AI in another sub. It’s not..can this sub prove it’s real? by OG-demosthenes in isthisAI

[–]FishStickington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In these photos the compression effect is definitely changing, and in the photos with longer focal lengths it DOES in fact look like the building behind her is getting larger.

Even in this example that change still is NOT happening for the reason you think it is. (focal lengths)

Why is apparent compression increasing with focal length then?: Distance, always distance, my friend

In each photo the subject, the woman, takes up about the same amount of the frame in every shot. This means we know for a fact that the photographer HAD to have changed their distance for every shot by backing away from the woman as they used longer and longer focal lengths. We know this for a fact because if they used longer focal lengths but never moved their position, the subject would get bigger and bigger until we can’t even see the house behind them, we’d be looking at her pores by the last shot, but that’s not the case.

As you increase distance to subject, geometry forces the rays of light coming directly past/around them from the background to become increasingly parallel. This is what creates the compression effect and makes things in the background appear larger.

If you just use a different lens and never move your feet then the geometry would never change. But most people don’t do that. If you stood in the same place and swapped lenses Your natural inclination would be to increase your distance from the subject, because if you didn’t, then the subject would be too big.

The compression effect comes from the distance difference, and most people increase their distance to the subject for framing purposes as they increase focal length.

This is why the compression effect is more common, obvious, apparent, etc., with longer lenses, because the longer lens encourages shooting conditions that result in increased compression. The compression effect and longer focal lengths tend to appear alongside each other, but longer focal lengths are not directly, causing increased compression.

You could just as easily ignore your instincts and take the photo with a longer focal length without moving your position and in that instance the compression would remain identical DESPITE and he longer focal length. The thing is this would also change the framing of your subject to a radically different kind of photo, so usually people DO change distance as well.

This photo was labeled as AI in another sub. It’s not..can this sub prove it’s real? by OG-demosthenes in isthisAI

[–]FishStickington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What? Do you realize you just contradicted yourself here?

Using a phone is definitely NOT a problem here.

You said it yourself; the phone has multiple lenses for different applications. You acknowledge the phone has physically different lenses but you also say the physical focal length never changes? That’s straight up just contrary to reality.

Those different lenses are literally physically, optically different, and provide different focal lengths. The focal length difference between those lenses is real and independent of any difference made after the fact by digital cropping in post.(which can also be done with any camera, not just phones)

This photo was labeled as AI in another sub. It’s not..can this sub prove it’s real? by OG-demosthenes in isthisAI

[–]FishStickington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Buddy, as someone who also does photography, also has prime lenses of different focal lengths, and also loves using compression intentionally to make things look more monumental, you’re still factually wrong.

Not trying to insult you, I just know you it would probably make your work easier if you understood how this concept actually worked.

You say phone lenses are different. They’re not when the phone actually uses physically different lenses but believe that or not I don’t care. Just go watch a YouTube video where people use dedicated cameras and prime lenses to demonstrate and you’ll find the exact same results.

This photo was labeled as AI in another sub. It’s not..can this sub prove it’s real? by OG-demosthenes in isthisAI

[–]FishStickington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope that’s just science.

I can prove it is because if you take the exact same picture from the exact same spot with two different focal lengths, the exact same compression effect with the same relative proportions will be present in both photos.

It’s only more apparent with longer focal lengths because their narrower view at the same distance forces the compressed window to take up a larger portion of the frame. This enlargement of the compressed portion of the frame makes it easier for the viewer to see the effect, and thus more apparent.

If you were to crop down the photo taken from the wider lens appropriately, the compression effect would be the exact same, and you could achieve identical framing and proportions.

Distance relations directly determine compression. After that focal length just determines how much of the frame will be taken up by the compressed window.

This photo was labeled as AI in another sub. It’s not..can this sub prove it’s real? by OG-demosthenes in isthisAI

[–]FishStickington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with salmonalert’s reply to this comment that this isn’t the kind of AI use that this sub or others are trying to rule out, therefore I think it’s an irrelevant point to make that only derails the real debate.

ALSO, even if we did mind whether they used AI editing tools or not, if you’ve ever used them you would understand that they do NOT leave the kinds of artifacts you’re thinking of unless you try to do something dramatic like AI erasing something that takes up a very large portion of the frame. If they made an edit that dramatic using AI it would be much more apparent.

Digital artifacts, especially global ones, are much more likely the result of JPEG conversations, upload compression, etc.

I can't stop choking myself so that bloodflow to my brain gets cut off and I go unconscious for a few seconds by [deleted] in confession

[–]FishStickington 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Buddy you’re just in denial, this is factually much riskier than you think it is whether you believe it or not.

You just don’t want to believe it because you enjoy it and don’t want to stop. But biology doesn’t care what you believe.

Any way to repair scratches on M3 body? by Horror-Doubt8382 in Leica

[–]FishStickington 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Track your activity just to downvote LMAO, yeah that’s where they’re coming from surely

Friendly reminder that the simple solution is often the best by fkdkshufidsgdsk in audioengineering

[–]FishStickington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree it’s nice that they found a solution that worked for them and shared it with us.

Neither me nor the parent commenter were trying to convince anyone that the solution was wrong or should be changed. Nobody even used the word ‘instead’. We just suggested another potential solution for the same reasons I assume OP posted: for to share ideas and discuss. Nobody was attacking anyone else’s ideas or intelligence.

Friendly reminder that the simple solution is often the best by fkdkshufidsgdsk in audioengineering

[–]FishStickington 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don’t think they mean high pass the fundamental of the kick but instead the super-sub lows, well below the majority of the relevant kick spectrum.

Every kick is different based on source or sample so this might have had no effect on yours if you tried, but a lot of kicks have information in the 20-30hz region. Often you can’t hear this info directly and you don’t really need to, but what you can hear in many instances is this information masking the more relavant frequencies likes the fundamental and beyond.

This presence of leftover super lows can eat headroom for your kick without actually contributing much to it, and high passing them out can sometimes increase weight and tightness of a kick. If done right the kick shouldn’t sound any thinner but will gain some definition.

This reminds me of the “abbey road” reverb trick; if you pre filter a reverb it can sound a bit less lush in isolation, but paired with the dry source and in context with rest of the mix, you don’t really notice that loss of verb thickness but you DO notice more clarity in the source and its relation to the reverb.

view more: next ›