NavList:

   

Reply

Norm, your reasoning is fine.  When I first posted this photo, I had
made a similar estimate of about 2 or 3 miles based upon the beam of
the ship and the size of the moon.

But a contradicting inconsistency is the apparent relative heights of
the fore and main masts in the photo.  In a square-rigged ship, the
main mast and its yards are always as least as tall as the foremast
and its yards, and usually even loftier.  If this photo had been taken
from miles away with a telephoto lens, these relative heights would
have been preserved.  But instead, in the photo the foremast appears
to be the taller, and if you pick out the individual yards, each of
those on the foremast are higher than their counterparts on the main
mast. This is due to perspective, with the camera located low down and
at most a few hundred feet from the ship.

Don Seltzer

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Norm Goldblatt
 wrote:
> My reasoning was different. I assumed a mast height of about 110 ft. You
> must be a distance of roughly 2.3 mi for the mast to subtend angle of 1/2
> degree and hence look roughly the 'size' of the moon.
>
> I could imagine photographer and helmsman being in communication to orient
> both boats properly for a quick shot, no?
>
> 

   

Reply