Photo of the Day, Boston Style - Part Deux

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact that I had to stop for a moment and figure out whether that photo is in color or not is a very cool touch. As is the composition. Kudos.

As for the Intercontinental, I'll eat my hat and say I feel the same way as Merper. There are angles of it and details which are cool, and I might even shrug off the massing, but the whole composition of planes is too fussy and illegible,


justin
 
bigboybuilder said:
Wow I really like this facade of the Intercontinental.
Is it true that the building to the right of the Intercontinental (Brick & Green Glazing) was condemned as a result of faulty pilings?
Click to expand...

I think that was actually the building from which that photo was taken from.
 
Ooo geez, that was from a while ago, and went with about 5 other pictures. Like, in that one, we were assuming that the 302 feet down the right field line was accurate, and from another, we assumed that from home plate to the pitcher's mound was exactly 60 feet and 6 inches, etc, etc.

I think I averaged my monster prediction based on the (1) right field line, (2) home-first base, (3) home-3rd base, and (4) home-pitcher's mound

I think the numbers were fairly close, and averaged out to about 306 feet area
 
we used ratios (which were based on pixels per foot). So, in that example, 828 pixels = 302 feet (assuming the right field line is accurate).

so,

828/302 = 838/x

x=305.6 feet
 
On Google Earth's measuring tool, you can set the length measurements to feet, and just check it that way. You could also see how many meters or smoots it is.
 
Back%20Bay%20Sunset%20Final.jpg
 
On Google Earth's measuring tool, you can set the length measurements to feet, and just check it that way. You could also see how many meters or smoots it is.

****

I wouldn't trust that when trying to be accurate to the inch
 
I would assume that google used the same "x pixels per foot" idea that you did. I used the google earth tool and got 305.7 feet, which is only a little more than an inch more than you had.
 
But I was using photoshop to zoom in hundreds of times on the photo and place the first pixel exactly on what I deemed to be "home plate," and using professional pixel counting software (that sounds funny) to count.

They might use the same technology, but without zooming in as far as I was, the margin of error makes the statistics useless. if I place that pixel 1 pixel off, it throws off my numbers a ton.

What it comes down to, is that I just don't trust what THEY consider a foot. Of course, you had a very close number from the Google Earth tool as I did. But the satellite moves up and down, back and forth, and there are millions of pictures taken across the globe. I'm pretty sure there isn't a guy measuring a known distance (like the 60'6" from home plate to the pitcher's mound) on every picture to calibrate accurateness.
 
As it is, I was assuming that there is no angle from which the satellite photo was taken. Technically, there could be 1-3 pixels of "warning-track field" hidden behind the Green Monster if the picture was taken at a slight angle from the sky. We, who were figuring this out, all agreed that the warning track looked slightly shorter in on the left field line and agree that there probably is some measure of error because of that.
 
jass said:
Wow.
Click to expand...
I was riding on the Red Line returning from a pilgrimage to Henry's Root Beer Stand in No. Quincy at about the time that the above pic was taken, looking out the train window at the sky over Dot and thinking about the same thing. It was a stunningly beautiful late afternoon.
 
A day much like today:
snow0061.JPG

snow0064.JPG

snow0068.JPG


No, I wasn't driving...
 
wow. i've been really sarcastic lately, i should stop. Nahh.

I'll make up for it with a picture I guess.

DSC_0017copy.jpg
 
Memories of Valentine's Day 2007..






Yes, that's a hot pink ape running for cover
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top