File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
what about some ghetto?
>> Anonymous
what about some fucking resizing and lens distortion correction?
>> Anonymous
A photo like this is no good unless something interesting is in the windows.

I would have been okay if all windows had dish.

try again later.
>> Anonymous
>>244542
how do I "lens distortion correction"?
>> Anonymous
>>244542
that's not distortion, genius. The camera was tilted.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
     File :-(, x)
>>244547
super straight lines
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>244549
>that's not distortion, genius. The camera was tilted.
Actually, it is distortion, fucktard - see>>244550
>> Anonymous
What should I do?
>> Anonymous
>>244551
Martin YOU FAGGOT - since you like to insult people
I printed the mans image and calculated the distortion. From that I can tell
1) the image has almost certainly been cropped
2) that the geometric distortion is not really that high - about as high as a lesser Nikon lens WA lens - about 3-4%
3) Lastly you sack of mule shit - you cannot judge distortion with a jagged line as in the image you reference - you fairy, you company man, you imbecile
It's amazing how uneducated morons like you are the most militant in their uninformed views

I'd recommend a first course in optics FUCKTARD
>> Martin !iZn5BCIpug
>>244554
ur gay
>> Anonymous
>>244554
so theres nothing wrong with my picture?
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>244554
>2) that the geometric distortion is not really that high - about as high as a lesser Nikon lens WA lens - about 3-4%
> that the geometric distortion is not really that high
> geometric distortion is not really that high
> geometric distortion
Your point proved nothing, OP is still distorted.
>> Anonymous
>>244570
ALL lenses have distortion to some degree.
Do you even know how that lense works?

The picture is the result of a tilted camera at a strange angle. If you draw a grid on the photo you will see the referrences in the picture uniformly vary greater from right to left.

This is not caused by distortion of lense.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
     File :-(, x)
>>244571
>ALL lenses have distortion to some degree.
Thats why the lovely people at adobe created the Lens Correction tool!
>> Anonymous
>>244573
Camera tilt =/= lense distortion.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>244573
>the referrences in the picture uniformly vary greater from right to left.

This is not lense distortion.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:08:28 16:23:32Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width968Image Height644
>> Anonymous
>>244555
yeah you'd like that.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>244578
this original discussion was about GEOMECTRIC DISTORTION not Lens.

>>244579
Lurk more; its sexy Meese, and not myself.
>> Anonymous
I took the picture holding the camera with only one hand, so it could be that the camera tilted..
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
If you account for the elevation of the focal point in the OP's picture this explains why the referrence lines vary from a drawn grid.

Your camera is fine. The picture is the result of a simple optical illusion.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:08:28 16:33:42Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width495Image Height393
>> Anonymous
>>244541

Do you have any more?
>> Anonymous
>>244549
Yes it is you stupid tit.

>>244566
Yes there is, see my first post.>>244542

>>244573
Exactly!

>>244582
No it wasn't. That's what you mught have thought. But you are wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>244637
* might
>> Anonymous
>>244637
read
>>244587


thread is over newfag.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
La Verneda, Barcelona city
>> Anonymous
>>244649

Do I disagree with that? No. Newfag.
But there is some lens distortion as well. Newfag.
>> Anonymous
lol dat cud b nice for a MINDFUCK pic