Difference between revisions of "Talk:1719: Superzoom"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
m (typos fixes)
(Layout)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
Camera guy is an asshole. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.76}}
 
Camera guy is an asshole. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.76}}
 
+
:Didn't realise donkeys could fit in a guy!  
 
+
:Anyhow, does anyone know if those cameras are really that good?{{unsigned ip|108.162.219.69}}
    Didn't realise donkeys could fit in a guy!  
 
 
 
 
 
Anyhow, does anyone know if those cameras are really that good?{{unsigned ip|108.162.219.69}}
 
  
 
Alternatively, its possible he's borrowing this camera from beret guy. Too bad he didn't check to see if it dispenses soup; now we'll never know.
 
Alternatively, its possible he's borrowing this camera from beret guy. Too bad he didn't check to see if it dispenses soup; now we'll never know.

Revision as of 12:28, 13 August 2016


Camera guy is an asshole. 108.162.216.76 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Didn't realise donkeys could fit in a guy!
Anyhow, does anyone know if those cameras are really that good? 108.162.219.69 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Alternatively, its possible he's borrowing this camera from beret guy. Too bad he didn't check to see if it dispenses soup; now we'll never know. 172.68.35.81 15:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the comic mentioned anything about the price of the camera. 108.162.215.116 16:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he does; see the first panel. But I had to look twice after reading your comment.  :) 108.162.215.207 16:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this comic might be inspired by this video I recently saw [1] --Eluvatar (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a video of the Nikon P900 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-0X3xJf-kg which has 166x optical zoom 108.162.246.111 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

This feels like something Buttercup Festival would think up of. 173.245.54.44 19:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


I understand cruising altitudes vary, but I've been able to see airplane reg numbers using a 6MP APS-C dslr at 200mm and post-shot image review zoom. Has anyone done resolution math to fact check the assertion? 108.162.221.87 23:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing this comment to add: And the title text - note the stain shirt is after the click comment. Really sounds like zooming into the image - which at a high resolution, shows a lot. 108.162.221.87 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Never mind the distance factor. I'd be astonished if he can make out who's working in the store if there are any walls in the way. 141.101.98.48 08:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Andrew Williams

Have you heard of windows? ;-p Who says he is that far away. To me it seems that such a small camera as shown here can do all he claims except take pictures of the clouds of Jupiter, see links in the explanation. Also there is no indication of how far away either bird, plane or Kevin is, so it is not possible to say they are too far away to see anything. And of course they have to be visible from Cueball, it's not an "x-ray" camera with superman vision! The number on the birds band is probably nor readable from just one side, as it goes around the ring... But to make out the number turned his way may be possible. However as he is looking up indicating the bird is flying it would be difficult to get a great picture (especially handheld). But if the falcon is soaring it can stay very still even in the air. So apart from the handheld part it seems very likely that this is possible, and that is a bit scary. Any time you are standing in a spot where someone can see you from afar, then they can tell if you have forgotten to zip up your fly from a couple of miles away! ;-) --Kynde (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)