Exclusive All Things Scoot

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Propagandist said:
ln1snamkz3nb1.jpg

Oh hell yeah.
Click to expand...

Either Simons grew or Scoot shrunk.
 
julius said:
Was there?
Click to expand...
No.
I stated that Scoot is actually 6' 2.5" barefoot as stated by Joe Cronin, which would be more than Simons' 6' 2.25" measured at the combine.

There wasn't any mention of Simons growing since the combine of 2018.

Simons does look taller, but it's hard to say for sure from the photograph. Neither is standing upright.
 
Can this ridiculous, endless offseason end finally?

So ready for the next version of this team and for some actual . . . basketball!
 
Blazers rookie Scoot Henderson gives back with 'Scoot's Suits' charity event

Portland Trail Blazers rookie Scoot Henderson hosted his first charity event in Portland at Indochino. The event was dubbed "Scoot's Suits." Henderson provided custom suits to local teens and young adults with big dreams. During the event, Henderson spoke about why he gives back, his relationship with Blazers star Damian Lillard, his thoughts on Portland and his rookie-season goals.

 
Last edited:
julius said:
Either Simons grew or Scoot shrunk.
Click to expand...

This photo is misleading. The focal plane is not perpendicular to the floor. Not even close. If you examine the image closely, it is obvious that it is heavily tilted with respect to the camera sensor. In a perfectly level shot, you would not see the floor at all - it would appear as a horizontal line. In addition, If Ant and Scoot were both standing same distance from the photographer, said tilt would not invalidate the height comparison. But Scoot is closer (making him appear shorter than he really is) and Ant is farther (making him appear taller than he really is). Furthermore, Ant's hairstyle gives him unfair advantage. Moreover, Ant is standing upright while Scoot is slightly hunched. Therefore, I conclude, Scoot should start over Ant.
 
inconceivable said:
This photo is misleading. The focal plane is not perpendicular to the floor. Not even close. If you examine the image closely, it is obvious that it is heavily tilted with respect to the camera sensor. In a perfectly level shot, you would not see the floor at all - it would appear as a horizontal line. In addition, If Ant and Scoot were both standing same distance from the photographer, said tilt would not invalidate the height comparison. But Scoot is closer (making him appear shorter than he really is) and Ant is farther (making him appear taller than he really is). Furthermore, Ant's hairstyle gives him unfair advantage. Moreover, Ant is standing upright while Scoot is slightly hunched. Therefore, I conclude, Scoot should start over Ant.
Click to expand...

200w.gif
 
Glad to see Simons has grown. He is now qualified (according to our front office) to play PF/C.
 
Scoot needs to work on his delts and tri's
 
inconceivable said:
This photo is misleading. The focal plane is not perpendicular to the floor. Not even close. If you examine the image closely, it is obvious that it is heavily tilted with respect to the camera sensor. In a perfectly level shot, you would not see the floor at all - it would appear as a horizontal line. In addition, If Ant and Scoot were both standing same distance from the photographer, said tilt would not invalidate the height comparison. But Scoot is closer (making him appear shorter than he really is) and Ant is farther (making him appear taller than he really is). Furthermore, Ant's hairstyle gives him unfair advantage. Moreover, Ant is standing upright while Scoot is slightly hunched. Therefore, I conclude, Scoot should start over Ant.
Click to expand...
Complete crap here.
You obviously did not do very well in geometry or physics.

Scoot being closer would make him appear BIGGER & Ant being further away would make him appear SMALLER.

It's why solar eclipses are a thing. The moon being much smaller is closer to Earth. It appears the same size as the sun even though the sun is 50x bigger.
 
CJ_is_Gone said:
Complete crap here.
You obviously did not do very well in geometry or physics.

Scoot being closer would make him appear BIGGER & Ant being further away would make him appear SMALLER.

It's why solar eclipses are a thing. The moon being much smaller is closer to Earth. It appears the same size as the sun even though the sun is 50x bigger.
Click to expand...

Never let facts get in the way of a good story.
 
CJ_is_Gone said:
Complete crap here.
You obviously did not do very well in geometry or physics.

Scoot being closer would make him appear BIGGER & Ant being further away would make him appear SMALLER.

It's why solar eclipses are a thing. The moon being much smaller is closer to Earth. It appears the same size as the sun even though the sun is 50x bigger.
Click to expand...
With a direct or perpendicular view, you would be correct. But when the angle of the picture is taken into account, that has a larger impact on the end perspective. This is also basic geometry.

upload_2023-9-13_6-26-46.png

Even if the closer figure is slightly taller (as is the case with my crude drawing), the farther figure's head will appear higher from the perspective of an elevated viewer.
 
CJ_is_Gone said:
Complete crap here.
You obviously did not do very well in geometry or physics.

Scoot being closer would make him appear BIGGER & Ant being further away would make him appear SMALLER.

It's why solar eclipses are a thing. The moon being much smaller is closer to Earth. It appears the same size as the sun even though the sun is 50x bigger.
Click to expand...
20230913_064747~2.jpg
 
You have to be very careful looking at that. If you look closely Ant is clearly taller, his head is above Scoots and Scoot is behind Ant. So we can be certain Ant is over 9 inches taller than Scoot.

....




Yes I used to think the statue of liberty was huge but its actually smaller than average sized tourists.

17156078_905.jpg
 
inconceivable said:
This photo is misleading. The focal plane is not perpendicular to the floor. Not even close. If you examine the image closely, it is obvious that it is heavily tilted with respect to the camera sensor. In a perfectly level shot, you would not see the floor at all - it would appear as a horizontal line. In addition, If Ant and Scoot were both standing same distance from the photographer, said tilt would not invalidate the height comparison. But Scoot is closer (making him appear shorter than he really is) and Ant is farther (making him appear taller than he really is). Furthermore, Ant's hairstyle gives him unfair advantage. Moreover, Ant is standing upright while Scoot is slightly hunched. Therefore, I conclude, Scoot should start over Ant.
Click to expand...

If the camera was perfectly level in respect to the floor you would still see the floor since there is a height difference in the camera and thus there would be an angle of view from the camera down to the floor.

You would only not see the floor in a level shot if the camera was yes also #1 level, but also #2 perfectly at the exact same height as the floor. It finally has to #3 be a transparent floor as well so the light can pass through to the lens. Finally #4 the camera has to be in a different molecular phase as the floor so it can pass through each other and occupy the identical space at a concurrent time.

So just four issues from minor to defying the laws of physics are needed and your statement is correct.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
If the camera was perfectly level in respect to the floor you would still see the floor since there is a height difference in the camera and thus there would be an angle of view from the camera down to the floor.

You would only not see the floor in a level shot if the camera was yes also #1 level, but also #2 perfectly at the exact same height as the floor. It finally has to #3 be a transparent floor as well so the light can pass through to the lens. Finally #4 the camera has to be in a different molecular phase as the floor so it can pass through each other and occupy the identical space at a concurrent time.

So just four issues from minor to defying the laws of physics are needed and your statement is correct.
Click to expand...
Actually @inconceivable nailed it in this description. It is basic geometry.
 
you guys have been yakking about geometry and POV, but haven't compared haircuts
 
PtldPlatypus said:
With a direct or perpendicular view, you would be correct. But when the angle of the picture is taken into account, that has a larger impact on the end perspective. This is also basic geometry.

View attachment 57404

Even if the closer figure is slightly taller (as is the case with my crude drawing), the farther figure's head will appear higher from the perspective of an elevated viewer.
Click to expand...
The photo wasn't taken from someone 15-ft tall.
It was taken at a height of ~5-6 feet. Most likely it was taken from Casey Holdahl (who is maybe ~5'-7").
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top