LTI 20/20 strikes again -- at me
Discussion
Here are two images I've received from Norfolk Constabulary. The mobile camera was on the A1065 just north of Brandon at Weeting. I don't recall seeing the van at all, and nor did my wife who was in the car at the time. It's so annoying, not having any points at present and falling victim to what must have been a camera van on a great -- and safe -- piece of road in this way.
As I'm wondering about fighting this for 3 reasons, I'd value your advice:
1. 745.4m away?!?!?! Is this a valid hit?
2. Is it possible that the signs and other traffic could affect the reading?
3. Does my SUV look like it's coming round the corner at 77mph?
Now I'm happy to acknowledge that I'm the driver, unlike a few years ago when I think my registration had been cloned. However, I'm not convinced that I was doing 77mph on this occasion. I'd like to fight this, but I'm also very well aware that this will cost time and money and I'm likely to fail simply because the camera never lies, so I do want to be sure it's worth the risk.
BTW I've read the Pepipoo letter re PACE and that might be worth trying, but my main point here is the distance and accuracy of the hit.
Thanks, people!
As I'm wondering about fighting this for 3 reasons, I'd value your advice:
1. 745.4m away?!?!?! Is this a valid hit?
2. Is it possible that the signs and other traffic could affect the reading?
3. Does my SUV look like it's coming round the corner at 77mph?
Now I'm happy to acknowledge that I'm the driver, unlike a few years ago when I think my registration had been cloned. However, I'm not convinced that I was doing 77mph on this occasion. I'd like to fight this, but I'm also very well aware that this will cost time and money and I'm likely to fail simply because the camera never lies, so I do want to be sure it's worth the risk.
BTW I've read the Pepipoo letter re PACE and that might be worth trying, but my main point here is the distance and accuracy of the hit.
Thanks, people!
Thanks, PHers, for your considered opinions. I appreciate your time to think through the position for me.
The roads north of Brandon are pretty straight but with some bends between the straights. The straights have excellent visibility. That particular bend also has good visibility and is why I was over the centre-line of the bend to straighten out the corner -- I could see there was nothing close coming the other way. I do remember that.
I don't think I was doing 77mph at that time. The bend is wide and open but that I don't recall taking that bend at 77mph. But I couldn't state that I wasn't over 60 at the time.
The comments about speed vs. distance are interesting. I don't recall slowing down between that bend and the position of the van (which I didn't see) but that doesn't mean that I didn't. I certainly couldn't prove that I didn't.
So it looks like I would need a copy of the video in order to prove sufficient to get me off this. At the bottom of the sheet containing the 2 photos (no, I don't know what happened to NR02 either!), it says "In LTI 20/20 cases the images are reproduced from the original evidential video recording. They are NOT produced as prima facie evidence".
I guess therefore that I have to ask for a copy of the video. I presume I will have to respond to the NIP, receive the conditional offer, and then reply Not Guilty to get it?
The problem is I'm very busy at work and at home at present, and I'm not sure I have the time/energy to fight. If it were for my 6th or 9th points it would be different, but everyone has 3 points now don't they? Perhaps it's just too much trouble. I'll think about it.
Thanks again for your help. It's nice to have friends.
The roads north of Brandon are pretty straight but with some bends between the straights. The straights have excellent visibility. That particular bend also has good visibility and is why I was over the centre-line of the bend to straighten out the corner -- I could see there was nothing close coming the other way. I do remember that.
I don't think I was doing 77mph at that time. The bend is wide and open but that I don't recall taking that bend at 77mph. But I couldn't state that I wasn't over 60 at the time.
The comments about speed vs. distance are interesting. I don't recall slowing down between that bend and the position of the van (which I didn't see) but that doesn't mean that I didn't. I certainly couldn't prove that I didn't.
So it looks like I would need a copy of the video in order to prove sufficient to get me off this. At the bottom of the sheet containing the 2 photos (no, I don't know what happened to NR02 either!), it says "In LTI 20/20 cases the images are reproduced from the original evidential video recording. They are NOT produced as prima facie evidence".
I guess therefore that I have to ask for a copy of the video. I presume I will have to respond to the NIP, receive the conditional offer, and then reply Not Guilty to get it?
The problem is I'm very busy at work and at home at present, and I'm not sure I have the time/energy to fight. If it were for my 6th or 9th points it would be different, but everyone has 3 points now don't they? Perhaps it's just too much trouble. I'll think about it.
Thanks again for your help. It's nice to have friends.
blueyes said:
Had a similar problem with an accusation of speeding for my neice.
They provided a distant and close up photo. The distant one showed the car and speed but NO plate. The close up showed the drivers face and car plate but NO speed (just TIMEOUT in the bottom corner)
I wrote back and asked them for a photo showing BOTH of the following: car plate and speed.
Case dropped.
Worth a try.
That does appear to be just too easy. With an unbroken video of the event you would expect that they would simply run it from start to finish to show that the car remains the same and that as it gets closer the reg plate becomes readable. However yes, it does seem worth a try....
Peter Ward said:
Quick update: I have written to the Partnership to ask for a single photo that has both the reg no and speed visible. I am hoping that they will be able to provide this as I assume that it is required as evidence in court.
No response as yet. I have another week and a bit before the 28 days is up. I feel I should be chasing them in a week just to make sure that they give me enough time to respond. Your thoughts?
Right, I'm back from another week in Norfolk. I went along this road this morning and:
1. I guess the camera van was parked on the wide verge on the "wrong" side of the road. There are loads of trees and bushes, and the verge slopes down away from the road, all of which would help to obscure a van. In addition, as can be seen from the photo, traffic driving away from the van could possibly hide the van completely
2. That car couldn't have been doing 77mph at the time it was snapped. I came round the corner this morning in a similarly laden state (wife, daughter and luggage) and 60 was enough -- and I was deliberately trying to see whether I could go faster than that. It's quite a sharp corner, not one you take in a loaded Forester at 77mph.
I was expecting to have received further communication from the Partnership but I have no response to my request (sent 15/5) for a picture that shows both the speed and the registration number. All I have stil are the 2 at the head of this thread -- a distant dot claimed to be doing 77mph and a car that's obviously mine but with no speed recorded against it.
Can such a distant dot with no registration number actually be used for prosecution? I am trying to decide whether to ask again for a suitable picture and hope they don't have one, or just plead not guilty and argue my case. The trouble is, I'm not sure whether a magistrate will believe me when I say that my car couldn't have been going round that corner at 77mph -- the camera never lies, etc, etc.
1. I guess the camera van was parked on the wide verge on the "wrong" side of the road. There are loads of trees and bushes, and the verge slopes down away from the road, all of which would help to obscure a van. In addition, as can be seen from the photo, traffic driving away from the van could possibly hide the van completely
2. That car couldn't have been doing 77mph at the time it was snapped. I came round the corner this morning in a similarly laden state (wife, daughter and luggage) and 60 was enough -- and I was deliberately trying to see whether I could go faster than that. It's quite a sharp corner, not one you take in a loaded Forester at 77mph.
I was expecting to have received further communication from the Partnership but I have no response to my request (sent 15/5) for a picture that shows both the speed and the registration number. All I have stil are the 2 at the head of this thread -- a distant dot claimed to be doing 77mph and a car that's obviously mine but with no speed recorded against it.
Can such a distant dot with no registration number actually be used for prosecution? I am trying to decide whether to ask again for a suitable picture and hope they don't have one, or just plead not guilty and argue my case. The trouble is, I'm not sure whether a magistrate will believe me when I say that my car couldn't have been going round that corner at 77mph -- the camera never lies, etc, etc.
I spent several hours last night reading Pepipoo. If I write the "PACE" response letter rather than filling in the NIP, it looks like I'll be badgered into filling it in, then the next thing that happens is that they invite me to court.
At that point I would be saying several things:
1. The distance is greater than the ACPO guidelines
2. I don't believe I was doing more than the speed limit so the reading is wrong
3. There were cars, signs and other things close to the line of sight that could affect the reading.
Realistically, reading over Pepipoo stories, none of these things is likely to be considered relevant by a magistrate. Even really clear cases where guidelines have been flouted are still found guilty by the magistrates, so it would end up being my word against the video. Of course the CPS might get their case wrong, but that's not justice that's luck.
So despite my certainty I can't see much point or hope in fighting this. I'll call the Partnership tomorrow to see if they can provide a picture with both registration number and speed on it, but I presume the answer will be "no, we don't need to, it's all on the video". At that point I'll decide what to do.
Thanks for all your pointers and comments to date, and for the PMs. I appreciate your assistance.
At that point I would be saying several things:
1. The distance is greater than the ACPO guidelines
2. I don't believe I was doing more than the speed limit so the reading is wrong
3. There were cars, signs and other things close to the line of sight that could affect the reading.
Realistically, reading over Pepipoo stories, none of these things is likely to be considered relevant by a magistrate. Even really clear cases where guidelines have been flouted are still found guilty by the magistrates, so it would end up being my word against the video. Of course the CPS might get their case wrong, but that's not justice that's luck.
So despite my certainty I can't see much point or hope in fighting this. I'll call the Partnership tomorrow to see if they can provide a picture with both registration number and speed on it, but I presume the answer will be "no, we don't need to, it's all on the video". At that point I'll decide what to do.
Thanks for all your pointers and comments to date, and for the PMs. I appreciate your assistance.
I spoke to the Enforcement Office this morning. They cannot provide a picture showing both the speed and the registration number, but assure me that the video proves that the car in both pictures is the same. They offered me the chance to see the video for myself in Norwich, but I declined for the present.
However, they did say that if I wrote in to say that I have driven the same road again and do not believe the recorded speed is accurate then they will take another look at it. They have also given me an extra 10 days to return the NIP.
I have therefore written the letter to say that I don't believe I was doing 77mph based on my second journey along the same road, and asking them to take another look. I have also said that if the case goes ahead I will be pleading not guilty.
I guess that's all I can do for now. I hope sense will prevail but if not then I will be following up the idea of getting an independent witness onboard for a trip round that corner, and will naturally be investigating the video itself.
I have to say that the Enforcement Office people are friendly, helpful and polite.
However, they did say that if I wrote in to say that I have driven the same road again and do not believe the recorded speed is accurate then they will take another look at it. They have also given me an extra 10 days to return the NIP.
I have therefore written the letter to say that I don't believe I was doing 77mph based on my second journey along the same road, and asking them to take another look. I have also said that if the case goes ahead I will be pleading not guilty.
I guess that's all I can do for now. I hope sense will prevail but if not then I will be following up the idea of getting an independent witness onboard for a trip round that corner, and will naturally be investigating the video itself.
I have to say that the Enforcement Office people are friendly, helpful and polite.
Today i received the letter from the Enforcement Office that I was promised when I spoke to them on Monday. This was sent by a different person to the one I have been dealing with. I was very interested in both the content and attitude:
I acknowledge receipt of your recent communication.... I apologise for the delay in replying, but this is due to the current workload in the office.
I would advise you that the photographs enclosed with our letter... are the ones which are presented as evidence to the courts and therefore meet their criteria....
Therefore please ensure you act within 10 days of the date of this letter....if you fail to comply... I reserve the right to consider proceedings under Section 172....
So...
1. High workload in the office. Must be a lot of naughty people out on the roads of Norfolk
2. The photographs will be presented as evidence, and not the video. But even though the photo with the speed on it does not have a registration visible, and vice versa, they "meet the criteria" of the courts. Really?
I still hope that my initial contact at the Enforcement Office will take another look at the case and decide that I'm telling the truth when I say that I could not have been doing 77mph. However, if not, and if the photos are presented as evidence rather than the video then I can't see how I could contest the case in court. I do realise that I have the right to ask for the video, but it sounds to me like they would rather just convict on stills if they can. Not nice.
Enforcement Office letter said:
I acknowledge receipt of your recent communication.... I apologise for the delay in replying, but this is due to the current workload in the office.
I would advise you that the photographs enclosed with our letter... are the ones which are presented as evidence to the courts and therefore meet their criteria....
Therefore please ensure you act within 10 days of the date of this letter....if you fail to comply... I reserve the right to consider proceedings under Section 172....
So...
1. High workload in the office. Must be a lot of naughty people out on the roads of Norfolk
2. The photographs will be presented as evidence, and not the video. But even though the photo with the speed on it does not have a registration visible, and vice versa, they "meet the criteria" of the courts. Really?
I still hope that my initial contact at the Enforcement Office will take another look at the case and decide that I'm telling the truth when I say that I could not have been doing 77mph. However, if not, and if the photos are presented as evidence rather than the video then I can't see how I could contest the case in court. I do realise that I have the right to ask for the video, but it sounds to me like they would rather just convict on stills if they can. Not nice.
Well perhaps I don't have too long to wait until I find out whether I have to do all this. I'm still hopeful that they will drop the case based on my letter to them on Monday, but if not then it looks like a long and slow process to get to a judgement. I can clearly see why for most people it's easier to accept the £60/3pts.
Ladies and Gents,
I'm really sorry that I haven't responded to you recently. Both home life and work are manic at present (quarter end, daughter announcing engagement, etc, etc, etc). I do appreciate your support and especially your offers of help.
I spoke to my Partnership contact lady on Monday. I asked if they had yet "taken another look" at my case. Apparently not. I said I was concerned because their letter of last week only gave me a 10-day extension. However, she said that my response date was now suspended pending their review of the case and that they would write to me later to tell me the outcome. My guess is that this could be some time given the high workload in the department.
So it drags on, but I hope that the delay is good. I don't expect it to extend to 6 months -- that would be too good to be true -- but perhaps the longer it goes on, the more likely they are to drop it? They already know that I will be pleading NG if they do take it forward.
I'm really sorry that I haven't responded to you recently. Both home life and work are manic at present (quarter end, daughter announcing engagement, etc, etc, etc). I do appreciate your support and especially your offers of help.
I spoke to my Partnership contact lady on Monday. I asked if they had yet "taken another look" at my case. Apparently not. I said I was concerned because their letter of last week only gave me a 10-day extension. However, she said that my response date was now suspended pending their review of the case and that they would write to me later to tell me the outcome. My guess is that this could be some time given the high workload in the department.
So it drags on, but I hope that the delay is good. I don't expect it to extend to 6 months -- that would be too good to be true -- but perhaps the longer it goes on, the more likely they are to drop it? They already know that I will be pleading NG if they do take it forward.
Hmmm, sooner than expected I have today received another letter from the Partnership. It looks quite standard to me, but I think it means I now need to respond to the NIP and prepare for battle....
I think therefore that I must now return the NIP, await the prosecution letter, and then respond NG. Is that right?
letter said:
Where the driver contests the evidence or has any concern that the offence cannot be proved then the matter should be presented to a court and the evidence examined and questioned.
In this case, we are satisfied that the evidence is available to prove the offence.
Therefore, if your concerns about the evidence remain you should now elect, in writing, for the matter to be heard before the Magistrates Court.
In this case, we are satisfied that the evidence is available to prove the offence.
Therefore, if your concerns about the evidence remain you should now elect, in writing, for the matter to be heard before the Magistrates Court.
I think therefore that I must now return the NIP, await the prosecution letter, and then respond NG. Is that right?
Today I posted via recorded delivery my PACE letter and attached NIP. The relevant paragraph in my letter, modified from the pepipoo version, says:
I don't expect they will take much notice of the distinction between my comments on the 2 photos, but at least I hope it will give them something to consider. I guess I now await the court summons, at which point I can plead NG in order to obtain the complete video as evidence, and then we can get to work analysing it.
If the video proves I am guilty as charged I will of course plead guilty. I'm not trying to get out of any offence that I am proven to have committed. However, I still don't believe I am guilty, which is why I'm contesting it.
my letter said:
Further to the above Notice of Intended Prosecution.
I am in receipt of an image showing the alleged offence, and another intended to identify the vehicle. I acknowledge that I am the driver shown in the picture with timestamp 10:16:15. I am unable to identify either the driver of the car, or the car itself, shown in the picture with the alleged speed which is timestamped 10:15:51. This is because of the extreme range of the photograph. I cannot therefore honestly confirm who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence. However, I can confirm that the following individual was driving the above-registered vehicle pictured at the later time: blah blah blah
As this statement is provided under threat..... etc.
I am in receipt of an image showing the alleged offence, and another intended to identify the vehicle. I acknowledge that I am the driver shown in the picture with timestamp 10:16:15. I am unable to identify either the driver of the car, or the car itself, shown in the picture with the alleged speed which is timestamped 10:15:51. This is because of the extreme range of the photograph. I cannot therefore honestly confirm who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence. However, I can confirm that the following individual was driving the above-registered vehicle pictured at the later time: blah blah blah
As this statement is provided under threat..... etc.
I don't expect they will take much notice of the distinction between my comments on the 2 photos, but at least I hope it will give them something to consider. I guess I now await the court summons, at which point I can plead NG in order to obtain the complete video as evidence, and then we can get to work analysing it.
If the video proves I am guilty as charged I will of course plead guilty. I'm not trying to get out of any offence that I am proven to have committed. However, I still don't believe I am guilty, which is why I'm contesting it.
Today I received a conditional offer for 3 points and £60.
I guess that means that they accepted my reponse by letter, which I guess is good because it means they can't later claim that I didn't fill in the form. However, I wasn't expecting this. I thought that it would go straight to court. Perhaps they're giving me 1 more chance?
It's interesting that the COFP states "the driver... committed the offence...". No more are they alleging that an offence was committed -- they're saying it definitely was. I find that strange.
The COFP states that I have 28 days in which to respond, "but failure to respond to this notice within that period will lead to Court Proceedings". It also says "if you wish to contest this matter you may do so by writing to the address above, within 28 days of this notice, asking for the matter to be dealt with in court".
My question is, are the "Court Proceedings" and "dealt with in court" going to be for the same thing? I don't see why I would want to respond in 28 days if it's going to amount to the same thing anyway. So do I write back immediately or leave it till they contact me in a month's time?
One more thing. I notice that I have "28 days from the date of this notice" to respond. I would have thought, in the spirit of the parking notices as so expertly covered by Neil Herron elsewhere, that it should be "from the date of delivery of this notice". I wonder if that means that the COFP is not valid and has therefore not been correctly served?
I guess that means that they accepted my reponse by letter, which I guess is good because it means they can't later claim that I didn't fill in the form. However, I wasn't expecting this. I thought that it would go straight to court. Perhaps they're giving me 1 more chance?
It's interesting that the COFP states "the driver... committed the offence...". No more are they alleging that an offence was committed -- they're saying it definitely was. I find that strange.
The COFP states that I have 28 days in which to respond, "but failure to respond to this notice within that period will lead to Court Proceedings". It also says "if you wish to contest this matter you may do so by writing to the address above, within 28 days of this notice, asking for the matter to be dealt with in court".
My question is, are the "Court Proceedings" and "dealt with in court" going to be for the same thing? I don't see why I would want to respond in 28 days if it's going to amount to the same thing anyway. So do I write back immediately or leave it till they contact me in a month's time?
One more thing. I notice that I have "28 days from the date of this notice" to respond. I would have thought, in the spirit of the parking notices as so expertly covered by Neil Herron elsewhere, that it should be "from the date of delivery of this notice". I wonder if that means that the COFP is not valid and has therefore not been correctly served?
On Friday I received my new TomTom ONE from Amazon. After yet another struggle to find somewhere even with A-Z in my hand I decided I need to fix this!
So what? Well, on top of everything else they also indicate your speed (sorry to those who already know all this). I thought I'd see what a real 77mph looks like on my speedo -- for research purposes of course. Hmmm, a true 77mph is 84mph on my speedo. Much higher than I would expect. So the camera reckoned I was doing an indicated 84mph coming round that corner. I couldn't believe 77, but I find an indicated 84 just ludicrous. So I will fight on.
BTW, it seems to me that the thing to do now is to wait for the 28 days to expire and await the court summons. No point in chasing them, just in case they forget
.
So what? Well, on top of everything else they also indicate your speed (sorry to those who already know all this). I thought I'd see what a real 77mph looks like on my speedo -- for research purposes of course. Hmmm, a true 77mph is 84mph on my speedo. Much higher than I would expect. So the camera reckoned I was doing an indicated 84mph coming round that corner. I couldn't believe 77, but I find an indicated 84 just ludicrous. So I will fight on.
BTW, it seems to me that the thing to do now is to wait for the 28 days to expire and await the court summons. No point in chasing them, just in case they forget
.Jith, thanks as always.
No, I'm not thinking of entering a plea of mitigation. I will do what is necessary to get a copy of the video. If an analysis of the video demonstrates that I'm speeding (davidra has offered to look at this for me, for which I am extremely grateful), then I will plead guilty. If not, I will use this to prove that I'm not.
I have no mitigation, but I believe I'm innocent of the charge of driving at 77mph.
No, I'm not thinking of entering a plea of mitigation. I will do what is necessary to get a copy of the video. If an analysis of the video demonstrates that I'm speeding (davidra has offered to look at this for me, for which I am extremely grateful), then I will plead guilty. If not, I will use this to prove that I'm not.
I have no mitigation, but I believe I'm innocent of the charge of driving at 77mph.
cooperman said:
Peter, one thing you could do is to write to the CPS telling that you are shortly moving to live in Spain and if they wish to issue a summons, to which you will be pleading 'not guilty' could they please arrange for it to be received before, say, 20th July and include the full video plus any other material evidence they intend to rely on. Mention that after you have moved abroad they will need to contact you via your solicitor whose name and address you will submit in due course and before your move abroad.
After all, you can always say that the move fell through, if necessary.
After all, you can always say that the move fell through, if necessary.
I appreciate your thoughts, but I'm not trying to wriggle out of this by lying. I couldn't do that. Sorry.
My summons arrived last week when I was on holiday.
Basically what I have been sent are:
1. hmcs summons
Date of hearing: 20/11/06, 14:00, Kings Lynn.
There is a typed statement saying much the same thing as the NIP, plus new "evidence" stating that it was an "LTI 20/20 TS/M Speedscope" being used, and that they will apply for £35 costs. The statement does not indicate who is making it, but I presume it was the camera van operator
2. bundle of paper stapled together with "URN: KP/16830/06" at the top
This is headed "Section 20 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988". It then states that the following evidence is included:
- Section 20 certificate. This is a printed form with blanks filled in relating to the alleged offence. It states the "facts" and says that a completed S172 form was returned by me -- this is not actually true. It is signed by an Adrian Lupson and dated 1/9/06 (about 21 days prior to me receiving it)
- a sheet showing the two photos that I received when I asked for photographic evidence back in April
- a copy of the NIP
- a copy of my witness statement (as per pepipoo) stamped to say it was received on 22 June
3. two leaflets: MC100 "make sure you can pay your fine" and "Attending at the Adult Court"
----------------
I want to obtain a copy of the video so that David can investigate as he kindly offered previously. I would also like to confirm that the operator who "formed a prior opinion" of my speeding was a police officer.
My questions:
1. who do I ask for these, and how?
2. do I need to, or should I, indicate at this time the nature of my defence?
Any other comments, advice, guidance?
BTW, the last time I passed the site I stopped and took some photos. I found flattened grass commensurate with cars/vans having driven to a particular site off the road, partially behind a tree, and of course almost half a mile from the bend. From this point the bend looks like this:
Thanks as always for your help
Peter
Basically what I have been sent are:
1. hmcs summons
Date of hearing: 20/11/06, 14:00, Kings Lynn.
There is a typed statement saying much the same thing as the NIP, plus new "evidence" stating that it was an "LTI 20/20 TS/M Speedscope" being used, and that they will apply for £35 costs. The statement does not indicate who is making it, but I presume it was the camera van operator
2. bundle of paper stapled together with "URN: KP/16830/06" at the top
This is headed "Section 20 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988". It then states that the following evidence is included:
- Section 20 certificate. This is a printed form with blanks filled in relating to the alleged offence. It states the "facts" and says that a completed S172 form was returned by me -- this is not actually true. It is signed by an Adrian Lupson and dated 1/9/06 (about 21 days prior to me receiving it)
- a sheet showing the two photos that I received when I asked for photographic evidence back in April
- a copy of the NIP
- a copy of my witness statement (as per pepipoo) stamped to say it was received on 22 June
3. two leaflets: MC100 "make sure you can pay your fine" and "Attending at the Adult Court"
----------------
I want to obtain a copy of the video so that David can investigate as he kindly offered previously. I would also like to confirm that the operator who "formed a prior opinion" of my speeding was a police officer.
My questions:
1. who do I ask for these, and how?
2. do I need to, or should I, indicate at this time the nature of my defence?
Any other comments, advice, guidance?
BTW, the last time I passed the site I stopped and took some photos. I found flattened grass commensurate with cars/vans having driven to a particular site off the road, partially behind a tree, and of course almost half a mile from the bend. From this point the bend looks like this:
Thanks as always for your help
Peter
vim fuego said:
it was with a 50mm lens??
as that's about what the eye sees at
all EIA photos are taken at that, helps with perspective
if taken with another lens and you used it they would claim distortion
for obvious reasons
(sorry if i'm telling you something you know)
as that's about what the eye sees at
all EIA photos are taken at that, helps with perspective
if taken with another lens and you used it they would claim distortion
for obvious reasons
(sorry if i'm telling you something you know)
No, I didn't know that. All info is welcome! I used a small camera. I think it has the ability to simulate a 50mm lens at some point in its zoom range but I don't know where it would be. I accept that cameras can distort perspective and distance.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff