Dear scientist:

The faraway object would move. But remember, you are ALSO far away from the towers taking the shot.

PROPORTIONS of distances.
The damn server just ate my lengthy reply. Fuck it, the proportions are irrelevant, closer objects being tracked show less percent movement than far objects not being tracked, my video proved that. The distance from the chopper to the towers is not quantifiable with the evidence available and is irrelevant. Admit you were wrong.

Nope, Astronut.

It is not irrelevant.

No matter where the chopper is, it can be deduced from the movement.


But what you'll find is you can deduce EITHER the tower movement's viewpoint OR deduce the bridge movement's viewpoint.

But you have to do a PROPORTIONAL DISTANCE test of the objects, to find the VIEWPOINT(S) and the movement(s). There are two sets of viewpoint and two movements. It's layers.

How so?

First set up proportionally distanced objects representing: two (towers), to see overlap, and a bridge at proper distance, and a building or two in front to test their overlap with the towers.

Next, derive derive the viewpoint for the movement seen in the foreground (tower-other NYC buildings).

If we test usig proportional distances of objects, ONLY, we can find that viewpoint.

And then test for the bridge.

Or you could test for the bridge movement relative to PROPORTIONALLY PLACED towers to find: the bridge viewpoint.

Once your viewpoints are derived by amount of movement, compare. What you will find is: the two don't match each other.

Why?

The viewpoint has to be far away, if the tower (near-non) movement is correct. Whereas, the viewpoint has to be nearer (or a massive distance travelled) if the bridge movement is correct.

This is knowable only if you place objects in real proportional distance. Just any objects at any distance won't do to derive viewpoint.

Once the viewpoint(s) on the proportionally placed objects are separately derived, compare. Each is on a layer of view.

Thus each was a separate (flat) layer of render.

Do the experiment.

.............................

Or you could think about it only. What would happen if little movement in foreground and lots in background?

So: if we are far away: the tower and other building movements are our reference. (We could figure out where our viewpoint is from the towers and oher buildings.) They are our movement reference then. To get such movement in the proportinally even much farther-away bridge would also require large distance travelled -- and you'd see more change in the towers and other buildings.

Just as if you are nearer.

So: if we are nearer (as if we travelled a long way from afar and zoomed in): the bridge movement is our reference for viewpoint. But then the towers and other buildings show not enough change.

This is why proportional distance is important: you would see one set of movements overall for any one condition (derived from viewpoint on one item) and another movement correct for the any other viewpoint derived.

(The bridge is also not correct in these images for its size, for lens distortion would distort all comparable points from the centre, not just thet bridge area.)

There was sloppy fakery -- but to prove it you have to think very patiently and hypothetically: realize what EACH aspect requires if separated -- even if they turn out to be fine, you have to parse the image and ask about all its aspects.

I have done so.