Big clue here ...The further away, the less it moves.
But, just 'cos it's only got 2 layers doesn't mean that the 2nd layer moves 1/2 as far.
The 2nd layer in this case represents a distance 100's of times further from the viewer the the 1st layer, so it must move that much less (ie, hardly at all).
Conder making a 3rd layer at the (what looks like) water to differentiate the tree on the right from the far background.
Plus, the front layer has real depth and is close (so it should really be several layers - tricky with a face).
Also, faces are a bad thing to try to fake, there's too much brain evolution gone into spotting faces to get away with it like that.
(But, just 'cos it's only got 2 layers doesn't mean that the 2nd layer moves 1/2 as far.
The 2nd layer in this case represents a distance 100's of times further from the viewer the the 1st layer, so it must move that much less (ie, hardly at all).
Conder making a 3rd layer at the (what looks like) water to differentiate the tree on the right from the far background.
Plus, the front layer has real depth and is close (so it should really be several layers - tricky with a face).
Also, faces are a bad thing to try to fake, there's too much brain evolution gone into spotting faces to get away with it like that.
Hagbard ... it's been a long time.,
Tue 9 Mar 2004, 17:49,
archived)