Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Owwwoooooooooo!


We don't have any neighbors with dogs, so I have to assume that the howling at the moon last night was from werewolves. Err, wait... werewolves would be in human form under a full moon, right? Anyways, we'd seen some four-legged mammal tracks in the snow in our yard over the last few weeks, which I supposed was probably from a coyote or fox. I never bought the dubious reports of a mountain lion roaming Boxborough a few years ago.

This is a (poor) picture that I took last night without a tripod. Why does the moon always look smaller in pictures than in real life?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why does the moon always look smaller in pictures than in real life?

I just lost a bet with myself. I read this and thought, "I bet someone has answered this question in the comments. With science." But no! No answer! Brian and Edith, I'm disappointed in your readers.

elpf said...

Well, this article appears to explain it: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/downloads/space_articles/08_Dec/07_Dec_08.html The key: "The net result of all of this is that the diameter of the image of the Moon formed inside your camera is equal to the focal length of the camera lens divided by 114 (on average). The focal length is a length in millimetres inscribed on the front of the lens. A 50mm lens, therefore, will produce a lunar image a little less than half a millimetre."

Brian said...

@Sam: We have readers?

Adamooo said...

Brian - It's because of your brain!

Sam - the one that IS frequently discussed online is about the "harvest moon": "why does the moon look larger near the horizon?". (Not to be confused with the "forest moon".)

Edith - That sounds factual, but maybe not relevant? Isn't the real question "why does the moon look RELATIVELY smaller, compared to the other objects in the image?"

See also: http://photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00058A

This one might help: http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/howtophoto/index.htm (but remember you may have to adjust the size-equations 'cause your digital camera doesn't have a full-frame sensor compared to 35mm film, which he may be presuming.