Stupid Guest Tricks

Randy B wrote:That's easy to fix. Just hold the camera at a mid to low angle angled slightly up and with a bit of DOF background blurring to keep background objects from giving clues, you can easily look 6-8' tall. And if you get a good photog with a good editor program and a bit of skill, most anyone can be 7' tall while looking like one of those anorexic french models. Heck given enough time I could make Roseanne Barr look like a 70 lb whisp of a person (tho it may not be totally believable, as we all know what she is really like). :D:

Randy

She's NOT???? Man..I gotta get an HDTV!!!

Sarah Magdalene wrote: Once I get a regular schedule, I'd love to meet some of my well wishers who also work at WDW. Trust me, I'm not running away!

Hopefully we will get to meet while I am down there for the month. I always look for visitors at the Land. LOL!

Sarah Magdalene wrote: *Sigh* If I only were a supermodel! But what supermodel is 4'11"? Although I do confess that I am addicted to the show The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency on the Oxygen channel.

It's called forced perspective. Just find some people who are shorter than you to hang out with, I think the LP Convention might come to Orlando from time to time...

ktulu wrote:It's called forced perspective. Just find some people who are shorter than you to hang out with, I think the LP Convention might come to Orlando from time to time...

Conversely, do Umm "plump" persons find even plumper persons to hang with, it hopes of the aformentioned "Forced prespective?" THAT would explain a LOT....

Randy B wrote:Heck given enough time I could make Roseanne Barr look like a 70 lb whisp of a person (tho it may not be totally believable, as we all know what she is really like). :D:

:useless: !!!!!

Big Wallaby wrote: :useless: !!!!!

Soooo true, but then again, perhaps we might NOT want to see pics of SOME of the posters?

Big Wallaby wrote: :useless: !!!!!

Well, since I haven't had the time to post the ton of photos (including a large number of panorama photos) from my Oct WDW trip, the time to turn Roseann thin just to make a point isn't in the cards at the moment. But if I ever find myself with too much time on my hands and absolutely nothing to do, I'll give it a try.

Randy

Randy B wrote:Well, since I haven't had the time to post the ton of photos (including a large number of panorama photos) from my Oct WDW trip, the time to turn Roseann thin just to make a point isn't in the cards at the moment. But if I ever find myself with too much time on my hands and absolutely nothing to do, I'll give it a try.

Randy

Coool, do you do the overlaping shots and past together, or have the special camera?

GRUMPY PIRATE wrote:Coool, do you do the overlaping shots and past together, or have the special camera?

Individual photos. Some of the panos included upwards of 80 or more individual images. I do have a couple of programs that can automate the process to a point, but not all panos work on all programs and some don't work on any. The later case requires me to paste and blend them together manually (that can take months per pano). Even with automation many of the panos took 2 hours or more of computer time (with a duo processor computer) to put together.

But I do have some really nice panos. I still need to find out if my flickr account can handle these panos (some are absolutely HUGE). But I do hope to get them posted sometime soon. Maybe after the xmas crunch.

Randy

We bought a small inexpensive camera at a yard sale that takes panoramic photos with regular 35mm film, and when developed they are loooonnnnggg and about 5" tall. It's great for scenic shots. Got some great pictures of Mt St Helens from one of the ranger stations, the Oregon coastline (beautiful!) and other scenic areas. The quality is nothing like what a good quality camera will do, but hey, the camera only cost a coupld bucks so who's complaining?