|
Post by atd on Oct 26, 2006 18:06:34 GMT -5
I see two pictures of Paul McCartney.. proportionally identical. As the angle of the head to the camera changes the nose and ears change position properly. (Apparent foreshortening) Please feel free to post questionable pictures here..or not. I read the forum regularly..
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 26, 2006 20:10:12 GMT -5
Ya, they both probably are JPM, but at the same time, I can also see why lilli had questions about her pic. Somethin' about it seems a little different.
|
|
|
Post by atd on Oct 26, 2006 21:06:08 GMT -5
Hey, no problemo EB. Sorry 'bout the dress and high heels thing from the other thread. That was supposed to be just for McIII..
Based on the large amount of time I've spent analyzing JPM's face, I've determined that he did not have a drooping left eye..instead, his left eye was set deeper into his head. Depending on the angle to the camera his left eye would most often be lower than his right , but also could be level with the right( and at extreme angles higher than the right). Since photographs are a 2 dimensional representation of three dimensional objects, I believe this accounts for Paul's somewhat variable appearance. Darkhorse has stated that video is a better way to become aware of the the differences between JPM and his replacement, and that is probably correct. However, still photography, if properly understood and interpreted is equally effective IMO, it just takes a bit more time.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bearer on Oct 26, 2006 23:20:33 GMT -5
Keep in mind that one of those pictures in the gif is a drawing.
Also keep in mind that, for publicity shots in particular, there is usually some touching up as a matter of course.
|
|
|
Post by atd on Oct 26, 2006 23:35:28 GMT -5
Keep in mind that one of those pictures in the gif is a drawing. Also keep in mind that, for publicity shots in particular, there is usually some touching up as a matter of course. I could be wrong, but I don't see any drawings in that gif.. You're right though about the photo retouching of publicity shots. Very common practice, though I've seen more blatant examples of it in black and white shots of the Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Oct 27, 2006 0:30:17 GMT -5
Hey, no problemo EB. Sorry 'bout the dress and high heels thing from the other thread. That was supposed to be just for McIII.. Based on the large amount of time I've spent analyzing JPM's face, I've determined that he did not have a drooping left eye..instead, his left eye was set deeper into his head. Depending on the angle to the camera his left eye would most often be lower than his right , but also could be level with the right( and at extreme angles higher than the right). Since photographs are a 2 dimensional representation of three dimensional objects, I believe this accounts for Paul's somewhat variable appearance. Darkhorse has stated that video is a better way to become aware of the the differences between JPM and his replacement, and that is probably correct. However, still photography, if properly understood and interpreted is equally effective IMO, it just takes a bit more time. An interesting article on portrait photography: tips.romanzolin.com/articles/article018.shtml
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 27, 2006 7:17:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 27, 2006 7:22:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beatlies on Oct 27, 2006 7:32:20 GMT -5
hahahahaha I'm flattered, McThird, but nein, you are in error on the matter of identity yet again ..........
|
|
|
Post by atd on Oct 27, 2006 13:58:40 GMT -5
Speaking of perspective distortion.. Cranial impaction of the sigmoid is a serious health concern McIII and most likely accounts for your brown tinted vision.. Go see a Doctor, quick!
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 27, 2006 15:44:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by atd on Oct 27, 2006 16:28:12 GMT -5
OK Felch-meister, what does a minor picture dating error by lili have to do with this thread? Oh I forgot, you're the guy whose job it is to fill guest threads with off topic cack..
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 27, 2006 16:59:00 GMT -5
OK Felch-meister, what does a minor picture dating error by lili have to do with this thread? Oh I forgot, you're the guy whose job it is to fill guest threads with off topic cack.. You got the same obsesion with the cack (cacca) like SunKing Beatlies, sorry atd
|
|
|
Post by atd on Oct 27, 2006 17:18:49 GMT -5
Please go away.
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 27, 2006 17:38:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 27, 2006 17:45:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by atd on Oct 27, 2006 19:26:09 GMT -5
Finally you get back to the topic.. Well, McIII, you've made the same mistake as usual.. Trying to convince people that the Olympia pic of Paul is vertically compressed is stupid as you can plainly see that it is not.. Another stupid thing is trying to convince yourself that these are two pictures of the same man. Faces do not distort like this if they are of the same person. Period. I've already dealt with the pepper gatefold picture, as have others, repeatedly. Pull your head out, there's still time.
|
|
|
Post by atd on Oct 27, 2006 19:28:00 GMT -5
...and give us a real animated compare next time instead of those lazy 50% overlays.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Oct 27, 2006 21:44:21 GMT -5
Hey, no problemo EB. Sorry 'bout the dress and high heels thing from the other thread. That was supposed to be just for McIII... Ya, nothin' quite like findin' yerself wearin' somebody else's dress & high heels.... I just hate it when that happens! ;D
|
|
|
Post by FP on Oct 27, 2006 22:23:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Oct 27, 2006 22:39:43 GMT -5
Close enough FP.
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Oct 28, 2006 1:38:10 GMT -5
Anything changing where the eyes are concerned?
|
|
|
Post by atd on Oct 28, 2006 3:05:07 GMT -5
[/img] And you know that matches up better than the fade on the top of this page. [/quote] Good one, however, I'm one step ahead of you.. Why does this happen when I do this? Hmm? or this? How 'bout this? I already know the answer, but I'll wait for ya.. This here's what I call corroborative evidence.. Anyone know why? (hint.. Apparent Foreshortening) Here's another, just for laffs..
|
|
|
Post by That Latvian Guy on Oct 28, 2006 3:19:42 GMT -5
[/img] And you know that matches up better than the fade on the top of this page. [/quote] You know, it would all be nice, but LOOK AT THE EARS!
|
|
|
Post by McCartneyIII on Oct 28, 2006 8:49:56 GMT -5
Good one, however, I'm one step ahead of you.. Why does this happen when I do this? Hmm? or this? How 'bout this? I already know the answer, but I'll wait for ya.. This here's what I call corroborative evidence.. Anyone know why? (hint.. Apparent Foreshortening) Here's another, just for laffs.. On July 11 Larry C wrote ...I think when we use the more recent pics of Paul it leaves too many "aging" issues that people who know no better will cite as anomolies to prove he's a fake. And, I hesitate to suggest this but I don't believe it would really be out of line as a lot of celebs do this in their more senior years, I think it is very possible that he HAS had some forms of manipulative surgeries in an attempt to keep a somewhat youthful appearance. Not neccessarily in recent times but perhaps at some point between the ages of 50 and 60.
The absolute best comparisons would have to be the ones which compare the timeframe of the so-called death and replacement scenario.
|
|