From: cpd@cat.pan.net   
      
   "David Milligan"  wrote in message   
   news:hk40aa$v8k$1@news.eternal-september.org...   
   >   
   > ""Chris ®""  wrote in message   
   > news:16939-4B647B81-238@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...   
   >> >For that matter, the lens size of the   
   >>>camera makes a difference too... if we   
   >>>assume a telephoto lens, the moon   
   >>>appears larger against a foreground object   
   >>>than with a wide-angle lens.   
   >>   
   >> The moon in the evening sky on Caprica was a good 20 times the size as   
   >> our moon and it filled half the sky. I don't think there is any way it   
   >> can physically NOT have a much more significant gravitational force upon   
   >> Caprica itself.   
   >>   
   >> -   
   >> "Sometimes, there just aren't enough rocks" - Forrest Gump   
   >>   
   >   
   >            Maybe it's a gas moon - lots of volume, little mass.   
      
   Maybe it's a paper moon.   
      
   Maybe it's a CGI effect.   
      
   Or maybe, just maybe, the virtual "shot" is being framed with a "virtual   
   telephoto lens" from a virtually long distance for effect.  You can make the   
   moon any arbitrarily large size you want by using an arbitrarily powerful   
   zoom lens, and you can make the foreground objects arbitrarily small against   
   the sky by filming from an arbitrarily far distance.  The further away and   
   the more powerful the zoom, the more the foreground objects will be made to   
   shrink into the background.   
      
   Come on guys, you can easily confirm this by staging your own camera shots   
   with our own moon with various lenses.  It is the most fundamental special   
   effect there is in all of photography.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)