How do you think they took this photograph?

[ham]

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/...iversary-photo

It's clear a lot of post-processing went into this, either a ridiculously well straightened wide-angle shot, or several small angle shots all "panorama"d together.

The stars present are insistent that they were all there and that "it is not photoshopped".

I'd argue it simply has to have been "photoshopped" to get all the lines straight (especially without distorting any people), right?

[Joel Eade]

Could have been a large format camera and/or a tilt-shift lens.

[Sean Setters]

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/...iversary-photo

It's clear a lot of post-processing went into this, either a ridiculously well straightened wide-angle shot, or several small angle shots all "panorama"d together.

The stars present are insistent that they were all there and that "it is not photoshopped".

I'd argue it simply has to have been "photoshopped" to get all the lines straight (especially without distorting any people), right?

No, the shot doesn't necessarily have to have been photoshopped. Movie studios have huge studio spaces at their disposal. In those studios, they have massive lighting rigs. In order to get the resolution, they probably shot it with a medium/large format camera capable of producing a very high resolution image. They may, however, have individually photoshopped the subjects to make them look their best, but overall, the shot looks well choreographed. Paramount Pictures may be one of only a handful of organizations with enough clout to have pulled this off.

[jrw]

There are a number of primes with very low distortion. Not necessarily a wide angle lens used. To have that kind of DOF it would be easier to move back in order to maintain a reasonable aperture and shutter speed with a longer lens that is nearly distortion free. Given the apparent height of the camera I'd say that the photo was taken from a distance, not close up.

Edit: Should point out that Art Streiber, who took the shot, is a photographer.

[ham]

So do we think this actually one shot and not a composite? I just think it has a very odd feel to it.

To clarify, I don't think there's anything wrong with it being a composite (I'm ignoring facial composites to ensure no blinking, I mean composites in the angle-of-view sense).

[Steve U]

I think a great photoshopped composite image. I think even Paramount could not have got all those people together on the same day.

[Sean Setters]

Watch the video on the page with the picture. They were all there at the same time. It really is extraordinary.

[Richard Lane]

I vote for a composite, vertical and horizontal panorama with a tilt-shift lens, but that's a guess.

That's probably hard with people though, if someone moves.

Cool Shot though!

[ham]

Sean, I'm not denying that they're all there at the same time, just how he's got the picture looking as it does.

I'm tempted to think the same as Richard.

[HDNitehawk]

I would think Paramount Pictures would have the tools and the technology to take such a picture. They have also been editing pictures before "Photoshop" was even invented. They probably invented many of the techniques used for editing.

But really we are impressed by the technical aspects of the picture?
If all of this talent was really on one stage at one time together, that is the true miracle of this picture.

Personally I doubt they were all there at one time. After all ... It’s Hollywood ...