1. I'll take your money.
2. Since now perhaps?
3. If they can build a video camera into a cricket stump, which they
do, and it survives a 95mph hit by a hard ball which fractures the
wood....
4. It's clearly a very small, extreme wide angle lens - almost fisheye
- hence the depth of field.
5. The quality isn't that good - superior surveillance grade.
6. Why would anyone bother to fake it? And if they did, why build in
the faults of a micro-cam?
Andrew Fildes (Who finds ice hockey deeply annoying).
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 22/02/2010, at 9:24 AM, John Hudson wrote:
> I'd put money on image #13 being a fake.
>
> Since when are cameras found at the back of and inside the goal
> netting at
> an ice hockey game?
>
> Was it this game or a previous Canada game when a host of players
> ended up
> inside the netting and the goal was moved across the ice ...... this
> or a
> direct hit with a puck would send a camera right down to John
> Hermanson for
> its last rites.
>
> My take ........... a fancy bit of Photoshopping.
>
> Also, the photo is just too perfect .......... consider the depth of
> field
> from the logo on the puck to the far end boards
>
> jh
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|