or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Belligero

Ha, I can't believe they used Times New Roman on those subdials. What is it with modern Patek and default commodity-box fonts? While I don't have the same level of objection on principle with TNR as I do with Arial (since it's at least not a fee-dodging knockoff), I'd expect better than something that almost as strongly evokes office drudgery and is about as ubiquitous due to Windows.That sort of lazy typeface selection was one of the things that bugged me about my Reverso...
Maybe if I use the form of a haiku?perception ain't truthbrain must constantly alteror you'd go insane
Nah, that seems perfectly normal to me — I thought it was a perfect demonstration of subjective constancy. You're bypassing your natural cognition to a certain extent when switching to analytical mode with images, and this a useful thing to be aware of if you're into photography.One's brain has plenty of other tricks up its figurative sleeve, too; it naturally synchronizes sights and sounds that arrive at different times, for example.
Good points all around, though personally wouldn't pay Rolex money for an ETA IWC.(Though to be fair, there are very few watches from any manufacturer that I'd be willing to buy at dealer price.)If they still made the 3227, it could be a viable alternative as a bigger bracelet watch for someone who doesn't mind lugging around over 200 grams of steel.
Yes, that was what I was trying to demonstrate when he asked if his eyes were playing tricks; things seem similar enough in both photos at a casual glance, but the size relationship between foreground and background objects has changed significantly in the image. This is due to a phenomenon within sensory processing known as perceptual constancy.In this case, a visual-interpretation mechanism called size constancy causes perceptual adjustments when viewing familiar objects...
Why not try on a Daytona while you're at it? It's a bit sportier than a DJ but I think it's equally versatile, and maybe more so than the "II" version.But yes, ain't nothing wrong with the look or function of that little magnifier.
Yep, it's all about camera position and focal length. To get the same proportions as when you look at your wrist, the camera has to be as far away from it as your eyes are. For a watch to fill the frame from this distance, you need to increase focal length or do a fair bit of cropping (which has the same effect).Hold on, I'll superimpose them shits...It might not appear to be much of a change at first glance (largely because it's a familiar object and your mind tends to...
Not at all. Most watch photos are taken with a phone camera these days, and those are invariably fitted with a wide lens. To fill the frame with a small object like a watch, you have to hold it pretty damn close. If you stick your face a few inches away from your wrist, it'll look about the same as it does in that photo.Here's an example of the difference that focal length makes.More wide (20 mm):image credit: philip greenspunLess wide (35 mm):image credit: philip...
My pleasure, glad you liked it!Here are another few tidbits if you're into this stuff:watchmakingblog.com on Rolex's special gasketVelociphile on balance wheelsIt's regrettable that the latter blog is no longer being updated; a bit of detail on how stuff is made is a welcome break from the usual sales-pitches-disguised-as-reviews.
New Posts  All Forums: