Drone Research Team

Drones Research Team - General => Raj/Campbell investigation => : 10538 December 11, 2008, 02:53:34 AM

: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 December 11, 2008, 02:53:34 AM
Had some debate with Marvin and that caused OTF and I to rethink some of our Raj drone shadow analysis.  We are not through working out all the details but so for this is it.  We were trying figure out how the shadow at the top of the pole was made by the crossbar.

OTF did this:
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/onthefence55/poleandnub.jpg)

I liked it and took it a step further, tied it to Pict16 and made this gif:
(http://home.comcast.net/~dl1027/files/object/RajSunAngle2.gif)

This re-opens the missing large arm shadow debate.  Could it be on the top side of the torus?  How about the side appendage?  Why does it look darker than in pict17?  Is it due to less sun reflection because of the angle?


: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 December 12, 2008, 01:16:20 AM
No thoughts?   ???  Anybody?  Don't be bashful.  If you don't like it, please step up and post why.  No hard feelings, promise.  ;)
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: elevenaugust December 12, 2008, 02:29:15 AM
I agree 100% with this.
There's also Kris' model that is not correct:
(http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3994/raj16issue1krisbb0ab0.gif)

(http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/8499/kris1uv3.png)

OTF was the only one who was able to reproduce perfectly the shadow on this small fin arm.

I don't know how to conciliate these two examples.

Are you ready to fight against the morons on UCB???
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 December 12, 2008, 02:43:11 AM
No I don't really feel like arguing over there.  A little back and forth with Marvin is all I was doing but now those who were banned from OMF have moved over along with 1111.  I actually don't mind going around with Marvin because he helps me to think.  Just a little diversion.

Yes I'm trying hard to figure out how the small fin shadow fits into this latest sun angle theory.  That and the large arm shadow.  I have some ideas but it's too early to post them.

: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 December 19, 2008, 06:34:00 PM
I'm surprised nobody else has chimed in about this yet.

Nekitamo, Spf, HPO, Arkangels and Endzone.  Please comment.  Do you see this angle as feasible?  If not, why?
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: HPO December 19, 2008, 07:37:08 PM
Hi 10538,

Well to be honest I'm puzzled about what you think is new in this situation, I thought we all agreed that this is the angle on the pole all along.
And this is also why the dark spot (shadow) on the "item15" is strange amongst other shadow issues.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 December 19, 2008, 08:19:32 PM
Hi HPO,

Thanks for replying.

Well, I guess maybe it's only new to me.  But what we have done is to apply that same agreed sun angle from the pole to the drone and then determine if there are any problems with it.

The 3D naysayers are complaining that the agreed pole sun angle does not match the other drone sun angle.  I'm questioning the popular drone sun angle.  I think the correct drone sun angle may be the same as the agreed pole sun angle.  Look at my gif file.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 December 19, 2008, 08:39:19 PM
Here's the different drone sun angle possibilities.  The old on top and the new below.

(http://home.comcast.net/~dl1027/files/object/Rajnoturned1.JPG)

(http://home.comcast.net/~dl1027/files/object/sun1.jpg)
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 December 19, 2008, 08:48:52 PM
And this is also why the dark spot (shadow) on the "item15" is strange amongst other shadow issues.

Do you mean this part?

(http://home.comcast.net/~dl1027/files/object/appendage.jpg)
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: HPO December 19, 2008, 09:23:08 PM
Yes, that's the part I meant,..I'm still puzzled about the difference between pict 17 and pict 16 when you take the angle on the pole into account, It still looks like a shadow to me.
And it is very dark, I didn't manage to get such a dark shadow on my real model on that part when I looked into the theory that it could be the shadow of the tip of the long arm.
It's there on the photo below but you can hardly see it.

(http://i329.photobucket.com/albums/l380/HPO_2008/Firsttest01_small.jpg) (http://i329.photobucket.com/albums/l380/HPO_2008/Firsttest01.jpg)
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 December 19, 2008, 09:44:55 PM
I'm open to the idea that the dark area on the side of the appendage may not be a shadow. 

BTW,  I think your model drone in the pic needs to be rotated about 10 degrees counter clockwise.  Then try the light though the other fin.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: HPO December 19, 2008, 10:16:46 PM
I'm open to the idea that the dark area on the side of the appendage may not be a shadow. 

BTW,  I think your model drone in the pic needs to be rotated about 10 degrees counter clockwise.  Then try the light though the other fin.

Well yes, it could be something else, but I can't figure out what that may be, you don't see it in pict17, but you do see a shadow in pict15.

I agree the model needs to be rotated, but what I tried in this picture, was to get all the objects with their shadows as close as possible at the same time, I had to compromise a lot on all the objects and shadows to get to this result.
And an important thing is,...the light was a point light with a cone shaped projection, not the parallel light rays of the sun.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: onthefence December 19, 2008, 11:15:06 PM
Wow HPO, that is very close in all respects to the shadows seen in PICT16.  Since we are now dealing with the tiny spaces that let light through, the model precision must be almost exactly like the drone, any inaccuracies will throw that off. Also, any slight tilt will make the light angles appear to be coming from two different places.

You probably already know this, but I did it for myself yesterday, an example of a Sun source of light appearing to come from two locations when one object is tilted. I have tilted the objects similar to my expectations of PICT16. You can see in the bottom right that the light appears to be sourced from two locations!
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/onthefence55/dualsunsource.jpg)
As for 10538 and the light all coming from one angle, I think he is right, it may all come from that one angle as you have in your photo, and it is possible that slight angular changes in the drone or other objects along with zooming (which would create perspective exaggerations) could account for the rest of the inconsistencies.

While I am here, I will now admit that my cardboard model mistakenly describes the small fin light. I noticed models again displayed at UFOCasebook (Nekitamo) that show this light coming from the slight crack between the next right fin and the torus:
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/onthefence55/modelcomparison.jpg)
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: elevenaugust December 21, 2008, 12:30:14 PM
Wow HPO, that is very close in all respects to the shadows seen in PICT16.  Since we are now dealing with the tiny spaces that let light through, the model precision must be almost exactly like the drone, any inaccuracies will throw that off. Also, any slight tilt will make the light angles appear to be coming from two different places.

You probably already know this, but I did it for myself yesterday, an example of a Sun source of light appearing to come from two locations when one object is tilted. I have tilted the objects similar to my expectations of PICT16. You can see in the bottom right that the light appears to be sourced from two locations!
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/onthefence55/dualsunsource.jpg)
As for 10538 and the light all coming from one angle, I think he is right, it may all come from that one angle as you have in your photo, and it is possible that slight angular changes in the drone or other objects along with zooming (which would create perspective exaggerations) could account for the rest of the inconsistencies.

Forgive my ignorance, but is it possible to have apparent such dual source light in photography??
So if I understand it correctly, the apparent dual source is sort of optical illusion? If so, what could be the cause of it?

 :)

: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: onthefence December 21, 2008, 02:50:28 PM
... is it possible to have apparent such dual source light in photography??
So if I understand it correctly, the apparent dual source is sort of optical illusion? If so, what could be the cause of it?
I'm quite sure the same effect is available with a camera since I tried that with a paper and stick and saw the same effect with my eyes. To be more clear I have made a better compilation showing the actual shadow cast direction (grey lines from bulbs) and the apparent light source(s) for each pole. The key to this effect is that one of the planes is titled.

(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/onthefence55/dualsunsource2.jpg)

I think the same effect is the cause of concern about one of the Moon landing photos. Notice that the shadow lines seem to converge to a point in the middle of the photo. The cause is a tilted surface for one astronaut.
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/onthefence55/14ov.jpg)

This next picture only shows the effect of perspective on a flat surface. It is hard to determine the shadow converging lines, but you can clearly see that the sun angle appears to be coming from different parallel lines. This is only due to perspective, and does not fully account for the converging shadow lines that appear in PICT16:
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/onthefence55/girlshadows.jpg)

My conclusion is that I personally need a lot more time to understand all the factors at play in PICT16 before drawing a conclusion.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: elevenaugust December 22, 2008, 02:46:13 PM
If I understand you correctly, then the key of the "dual source" is on the relative position of the subject/photographer/sun??

(http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9375/girlshadows2hx9.jpg)
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: onthefence December 22, 2008, 04:29:41 PM
If I understand you correctly, then the key of the "dual source" is on the relative position of the subject/photographer/sun??
In the case of the cheerleaders, I think one light source can be identified because the exact point causing the shadow can be traced to an exact point that the shadow is cast. Also the fact that the surface ground is flat. but if you just go by the cast shadow on the ground and some possible part of their body then that path looks like it comes from multiple sources.

I am not seeing how this can help explain PICT16 though, it is just an interesting perspective trick.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: elevenaugust December 23, 2008, 01:11:16 AM
The ideal thing would be to find a photo with the same configuration as in Raj's picture.
I made some research in database, and the only that I found is this one:

(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/55/2755252240ce29e786b7owk1.jpg)

Dunno if it could be useful....
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: nekitamo December 23, 2008, 09:19:19 AM
If ErrorLevelAnalyzer is to be trusted, this image is composite (plane was added):

(http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/2518/compositejl4.jpg)

But even without this tool, there's also problem with sharpness - note that closer wires are sharper than those further away, which places focal point in front of the pole? The airplane should be even more blurred, but it's obviously very clear and sharp (in the sunlight on a cloudy day?).
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: elevenaugust December 23, 2008, 11:09:28 AM
Hi Neki!

Did you try ELA on the drones pictures; at the same threshold?

This picture, taken with a Canon EOS Digital Rebel Xti, is from Flickr's user CygnusX1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cygnus_x1/collections/72157606941789436/), in the collection "transportation" and "Crop Duster" file.
Exiftool didn't show any trace of tampering with any soft, while JPEGSnoop said image is processed/edited... ???

I'm searching for a 'real' picture at approximately the same configuration as in Raj's pictures and showing useful shadows; i-e that can show apparent dual sun source.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: nekitamo December 23, 2008, 05:20:05 PM
Hi Neki!

Did you try ELA on the drones pictures; at the same threshold?


Sure, I tried every treshold setting available, step by step... especially with pic16. ELA is not a conclusive method (even by far), but the result was always negative: w/o significant differences in error levels for any of the objects.

Also, there may be a second explanation for blur in your example image... perhaps it is a motion blur due to the photographer's matching of plane's motion with his camera at the moment of exposition? Hard to tell, as it is resized (resolution is not supported by the camera) and quality-degraded...
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: elevenaugust December 23, 2008, 06:16:43 PM
I tried it too, exactly with the same process as yours, and no apparently JPEG errors so far.....

About my example, did you try the test with the original ones?? (The largest size)

I have found some other examples that I'll post in 2 hours when I'll be back home.

-----------------------------------
Another thing:
But there's something special about the DRT forum that is not so common elsewhere: it is a great place to do research, a place where you're treated with respect, a place where nobody is forcing you to think this way or that, despite what some may think. And let me assure you: there's no such thing some often refer to as "the DRT forum opinion" or "the DRT forum angle" or however they put it - everyone is allowed to think for themself over there. 
 

I forgot to thank you for these kind words that you posted last week on UCB.
Good to know we are among friends. :D
 
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: elevenaugust December 23, 2008, 08:56:44 PM
(http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/434/271037099170d40b218oca8.jpg)

http://www.divshare.com/download/6166984-67c

(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5422/22766451963c7e437c1foxf2.jpg)

http://www.divshare.com/download/6166987-350
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: nekitamo December 24, 2008, 09:45:54 AM
I forgot to thank you for these kind words that you posted last week on UCB.
Good to know we are among friends. :D

You're most welcome. And I really do feel like it here. :)

What I don't understand is the motivation behind some people's constant tries to prevent further research into this case by creating endless, meaningless (off-topic!) arguments and forcing others into accepting their conclusions by using whatever explanation seems handy at the moment. I mean, if they've concluded it is a hoax and not worth wasting time, why still discuss it? They seem desperate sometimes, resolving to insults, false accusations, character-smear campaigns and what not, just to achieve their goal. Why?

IMO, forums should work like this: you present the facts as you see them and let others draw their own conclusions about the subject - as simple as that. But when someone constantly revises his "facts" and pushes people around into accepting his conclusions - the only right thing to do is to ignore him. I believe exclusion of such people right from the start is another thing that makes this forum great - there's simply no other way to deal with them. But now I'm being off-topic... :)


I've checked your latest example images and also some of the others by the same author on flickr in ELA and can't find anything conclusively wrong about them - only the first example seems "fishy", but it could be a fluke. Now, back to shadow analysis...
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: onthefence December 24, 2008, 02:14:43 PM
HPO, I'm not sure if you already tried this, but I see that nekitamo has put forth the point light source idea a few months ago. Can you (or did you) try placing a tiny bright lamp in the position shown below and photograph your model?

(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/onthefence55/pointsource.jpg)

I am sorry it took me this long to catch up to all the analysis. I am now at the point where I can use a 3D program to experiment with simple shapes for myself, and I am having the same problems getting shadows to align as those before me.

Obviously a point light source in that same location does not make sense for each of Raj's images.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: nekitamo December 24, 2008, 04:55:33 PM
Here's another speculation: what if this point light source is sun, just outside of image frame? What happens with pole shadows in that case, do they still fit?

Note how image background brightens from left to right, could this be it? I still didn't finish this line of research...
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: HPO December 24, 2008, 05:14:16 PM
HPO, I'm not sure if you already tried this, but I see that nekitamo has put forth the point light source idea a few months ago. Can you (or did you) try placing a tiny bright lamp in the position shown below and photograph your model?

(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/onthefence55/pointsource.jpg)

I am sorry it took me this long to catch up to all the analysis. I am now at the point where I can use a 3D program to experiment with simple shapes for myself, and I am having the same problems getting shadows to align as those before me.

Obviously a point light source in that same location does not make sense for each of Raj's images.

Hi onthefence,

Yes I did try that, the picture I showed on page 1 has a point light.

(http://i329.photobucket.com/albums/l380/HPO_2008/Firsttest01b_small.jpg) (http://i329.photobucket.com/albums/l380/HPO_2008/Firsttest01b.jpg)

This is the setup I used for that picture, and this is also the reason I think, why I can get this close to PICT016.
And yes your right, a point light doesn't make sense.

Cheers, and have a merry Christmas all  :)
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 December 24, 2008, 05:16:11 PM
I mean, if they've concluded it is a hoax and not worth wasting time, why still discuss it? They seem desperate sometimes, resolving to insults, false accusations, character-smear campaigns and what not, just to achieve their goal. Why?

Yep.  They do seem desparate.  I also wonder why.  Is it simply an ego thing?  To be right?
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: elevenaugust December 24, 2008, 06:13:18 PM

Cheers, and have a merry Christmas all  :)
Thanks, HPO.
Merry Christmas too and all of you.

Cheers
Tonio
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 December 24, 2008, 06:56:35 PM
This is the setup I used for that picture, and this is also the reason I think, why I can get this close to PICT016.
And yes your right, a point light doesn't make sense.

Cheers, and have a merry Christmas all  :)

Move the light as far away from the subjects as possible.  That would more closely simulate the sun.

Merry Christmas
(http://home.comcast.net/~dl1027/files/object/Ho_He_Ha.jpg)
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: onthefence December 24, 2008, 07:35:51 PM
Here's another speculation: what if this point light source is sun, just outside of image frame? What happens with pole shadows in that case, do they still fit?

Do you think that point can be moved outside the frame? The source of shadows that you pointed out earlier seems to indicate it cannot, especially piece 15.

Possibly only a trick of perspective is making it appear inside the frame. But I suspect that it will not resolve because there is a plane that the camera face lies on. For the Sun to appear behind that plane (and within the frame), the plane of light onto the pole would never intersect at close range:

This is my description of that plane, but it is not accurate, that plane might actually be tilted more and allow an intersection with the Sun angle much sooner.
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/onthefence55/camerafaceplane.jpg)

If the camera face plane is tilted more than the Sun angle, then maybe at some high elevation, the Sun will be behind that plane, this would dictate that the drone must also be at a very high elevation. Has there been a limit to the hugeness or elevation of the drone?

My 3D skills involve much mindless fiddling right now, but I am learning slowly.

Yes I did try that, the picture I showed on page 1 has a point light.

I was thinking more of an experiment with the light within the frame of the picture. Of course it would have to be a tiny bulb so that it is more of a point source. Especially to resolve the piece 15 shadow which appears to be missing from your photo.


I am trying really hard to refrain from thinking of alternative theories, but here are some points that should probably go into the speculation thread:
Could the drones actually be a projection?
A projection consists of light and dark areas to make it look real, could the projector be trying to simulate real Sun position?
I know that is too easy of an explanation, but if we throw out that idea, then I think that the CARET description of 3D projection would also have to be thrown out. Sort of like an all or nothing scenario.

: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: Arkhangels December 28, 2008, 06:22:33 AM
HPO, I don't know if it can help you but here's one gif:

(http://i42.tinypic.com/qoyp0z.gif)

It shows that the drone tilts in the Y axis between both images, so maybe it explains why that part shines in one and is dark in another picture.
Another option is that the part could moves between the shots in a way that it is more exposed to the sun in one of them and more hidden in the other.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 January 02, 2009, 07:53:25 AM
It shows that the drone tilts in the Y axis between both images, so maybe it explains why that part shines in one and is dark in another picture.

This is exactly what I was saying.

Also this:  (http://home.comcast.net/~dl1027/files/object/part15.jpg)
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: HPO January 02, 2009, 08:40:53 PM
It shows that the drone tilts in the Y axis between both images, so maybe it explains why that part shines in one and is dark in another picture.

This is exactly what I was saying.

Also this:  (http://home.comcast.net/~dl1027/files/object/part15.jpg)


Hm, I don't know, this part keeps me puzzled, when I look at pict015 they don't seem to be angled.
But you just answered another question I had about that picture, It always looked to me that the upper "white area" was missing in that picture.
but you just pointed it out for me LOL, how could I have been missing that one  ::)
This also means I have to correct my model because of this, very interesting, also shadow wise.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: elevenaugust January 02, 2009, 09:51:02 PM
It shows that the drone tilts in the Y axis between both images, so maybe it explains why that part shines in one and is dark in another picture.

This is exactly what I was saying.

Also this:  (http://home.comcast.net/~dl1027/files/object/part15.jpg)

I think some parts are moving, like an aileron flaps, maybe for some airflow purpose:
(http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2811/part151sx9.jpg)
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: onthefence January 03, 2009, 03:00:02 PM
Since the actual pole is tilted (http://droneteam.com/history/raj/location/ThePoleFound009.jpg) and the crossbeam appears tilted, I think this new information leads to the shadow on the pole being slightly longer and in the favour of drone=real. I'm not sure if it is enough to prove true though.

(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/onthefence55/poletilt.jpg)

PS. I had much difficulty getting the ends of the crossbeam to look correct in my 3D experiments, I was always assuming that the pole and crossbeam where perfectly square to the ground.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 January 03, 2009, 05:32:04 PM
Here is the sun angle chart for next Wednesday.  Is there a preferred time to take pictures of it?  We can't get anywhere near the 274° azimuth.  Maybe another trip in May, huh?


Astronomical Applications Dept.                                               
U.S. Naval Observatory                                                       
Washington, DC 20392-5420
                                                   
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA                                                         
   o  ,    o  ,                                                               
W121 58, N37 17
                                                             
Altitude and Azimuth of the Sun                                               
Jan 7, 2009                                                                   
Pacific Standard Time
                                                       
          Altitude    Azimuth                                                 
                      (E of N)
                                               
 h  m         o           o                                                   
06:30      -10.3       110.2
06:40       -8.5       111.6
06:50       -6.6       113.1
07:00       -4.8       114.5
07:10       -3.0       115.9
07:20       -1.2       117.4
07:30        0.9       118.9
07:40        2.5       120.5
07:50        4.1       122.0
08:00        5.8       123.6
08:10        7.4       125.3
08:20        9.0       127.0
08:30       10.5       128.7
08:40       12.0       130.4
08:50       13.5       132.3
09:00       15.0       134.1
09:10       16.4       136.0
09:20       17.7       138.0
09:30       19.0       140.0
09:40       20.3       142.1
09:50       21.5       144.2
10:00       22.6       146.3
10:10       23.7       148.6
10:20       24.7       150.9
10:30       25.6       153.2
10:40       26.5       155.6
10:50       27.2       158.0
11:00       28.0       160.5
11:10       28.6       163.0
11:20       29.1       165.6
11:30       29.6       168.2
11:40       29.9       170.8
11:50       30.2       173.5
12:00       30.4       176.2
12:10       30.5       178.8
12:20       30.5       181.5
12:30       30.4       184.2
12:40       30.2       186.9
12:50       29.9       189.5
13:00       29.5       192.1
13:10       29.1       194.7
13:20       28.5       197.3
13:30       27.9       199.8
13:40       27.2       202.3
13:50       26.4       204.7
14:00       25.5       207.1
14:10       24.6       209.5
14:20       23.6       211.7
14:30       22.5       214.0
14:40       21.3       216.1
14:50       20.1       218.2
15:00       18.9       220.3
15:10       17.6       222.3
15:20       16.2       224.3
15:30       14.8       226.2
15:40       13.4       228.0
15:50       11.9       229.8
16:00       10.4       231.6
16:10        8.8       233.3
16:20        7.2       235.0
16:30        5.6       236.6
16:40        4.0       238.2
16:50        2.3       239.8
17:00        0.8       241.3
17:10       -1.4       242.8
17:20       -3.2       244.3
17:30       -5.0       245.7
17:40       -6.8       247.2
17:50       -8.7       248.6
18:00      -10.5       250.0
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: elevenaugust January 03, 2009, 06:14:45 PM
Maybe another trip in May, huh?
Yeah! Cool!!! ;D ;D
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: elevenaugust January 04, 2009, 10:41:14 PM
Since the actual pole is tilted (http://droneteam.com/history/raj/location/ThePoleFound009.jpg) and the crossbeam appears tilted, I think this new information leads to the shadow on the pole being slightly longer and in the favour of drone=real. I'm not sure if it is enough to prove true though.

(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/onthefence55/poletilt.jpg)

PS. I had much difficulty getting the ends of the crossbeam to look correct in my 3D experiments, I was always assuming that the pole and crossbeam where perfectly square to the ground.

Back to work for now after my little trip to UCB... ;D

OTF (or maybe spf33?), did you try to recreate the whole scene with these new datas?
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: HPO January 06, 2009, 11:41:08 PM
It shows that the drone tilts in the Y axis between both images, so maybe it explains why that part shines in one and is dark in another picture.

This is exactly what I was saying.

Also this:  (http://home.comcast.net/~dl1027/files/object/part15.jpg)

I think some parts are moving, like an aileron flaps, maybe for some airflow purpose:
(http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2811/part151sx9.jpg)

Hi,

I've put your ideas together, and my new thoughts about PICT016 and made a revision on the Item15.
I think this might be very close at what we are seeing, I don't have the time at the moment to make a render at work for a new shadow study. But what do you think?

-click for bigger-

(http://i329.photobucket.com/albums/l380/HPO_2008/item15_rev02a_small.jpg) (http://i329.photobucket.com/albums/l380/HPO_2008/item15_rev02a.jpg)

(http://i329.photobucket.com/albums/l380/HPO_2008/item15_rev02b_small.jpg) (http://i329.photobucket.com/albums/l380/HPO_2008/item15_rev02b.jpg)
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 January 07, 2009, 02:35:59 AM
Looks good to me, HPO.  That would explain some things.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: HPO January 09, 2009, 11:08:37 PM
Today I received the DimageX Nemo send me, but can it still be of any use after Neki found the real pole?, and I think it's proven now that the camera wasn't a DimageX.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: Nemo492 January 09, 2009, 11:12:48 PM
Ahah ! Good to hear that. It was posted 2 days earlier,
with the 2 CDs in a separate package.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: HPO January 09, 2009, 11:16:39 PM
Ahah ! Good to hear that. It was posted 2 days earlier,
with the 2 CDs in a separate package.


Oh really,...I didn't get the CDs yet, BTW,... you like bonbons do you  ;D 
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: Nemo492 January 09, 2009, 11:19:50 PM
Sorry I had to finish the chocolates before I could parcel the camera.  :)
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: onthefence January 10, 2009, 12:08:30 AM
Today I received the DimageX Nemo send me, but can it still be of any use after Neki found the real pole?, and I think it's proven now that the camera wasn't a DimageX.

Did we exhaust the ideas of vignetting and pinkish imaging in the DimageX.

Now that we have these cameras, can more tests be done by HPO and numbers?

Also, have all the ideas of PICT16 being faked been exhausted, I realize that no one has reproduced the shadows in a 3D program, but is there still some testing that can prove this fake with your model and the real camera?

Edit to add: that the vignetting issue was, no vignetting in Raj's pictures, but PICT13 does show vignetting, and I am wondering if zooming the camera in would alter that result.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 January 10, 2009, 12:36:59 AM
OTF,

I saw on a camera review site this about the DimageX:

This is something I didn't pick up on in my pre-production review but became very apparent when browsing thumbnails of DiMAGE X images. When an image is reduced in size the vignetting effect (darkened corners) tends to be more visible. This appeared to occur at focal lengths between full wide angle and mid-zoom. In the sample below you can clearly see vignetting in the thumbnail image on the left, to make it more visible I've increased the contrast of the image, now it's really quite visible.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimagex/page9.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimagex/page9.asp)

: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: onthefence January 10, 2009, 12:48:37 AM
OTF,

I saw on a camera review site this about the DimageX:

This is something I didn't pick up on in my pre-production review but became very apparent when browsing thumbnails of DiMAGE X images. When an image is reduced in size the vignetting effect (darkened corners) tends to be more visible. This appeared to occur at focal lengths between full wide angle and mid-zoom. In the sample below you can clearly see vignetting in the thumbnail image on the left, to make it more visible I've increased the contrast of the image, now it's really quite visible.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimagex/page9.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimagex/page9.asp)

By that logic, a fully zoomed-in image (narrow FOV) would exhibit less vignetting (like some of the "Raj" images).
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: nekitamo January 10, 2009, 01:13:43 AM
IMO, impossible FoV angle is much bigger problem than vignetting, especially after spf33 confirmed he's also using 55° FoV for pic #13/#14/#16 reconstructions in 3D. Like I already explained, this problem can't be defeated by moving the (narow-FoV) camera further away, you simply have to have exact same FoV camera at the exact same place to make the same image.

Perhaps we should demonstrate this with 3D software?
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 January 10, 2009, 01:25:57 AM
Perhaps we should demonstrate this with 3D software?

I would really appreciate it.  I have to admit to not completely understanding the issue.  I know what you mean about FoV but have not noticed the descrepancy between the pics.



: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: onthefence January 10, 2009, 01:52:31 AM
IMO, impossible FoV angle is much bigger problem ...

I think I understand that you are saying that to get the desired FoV, there will be massive vignetting.

Because it appears to me that the camera does have the required FoV for PICT16, it is just that numbers was not standing in the right position so I rotated and moved the image, here they are both overlaid and it close enough to me:

(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/onthefence55/camerafovcompare.jpg)

Taken from 09010739.JPG
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 January 10, 2009, 02:12:21 AM
Here's my side.  I believe I was standing in the correct positions, this I was able to do with my eyes But I was having problems seeing the view screen on the cameras.  I did not have enough time to set up the tripod and that may not have helped any way.  I took multiple shots of each pic because I knew I could not get the framing and zoom perfect.  I hoped at least one of the multiples would suffice.  Either that or I would let the analysts pick the best of the bunch.  The zoom on the Dimage is a touchy thing and it was near impossible to get it correct.  Sorry.

Edit to add.  The later series I did not focus so much of exact placement.  Look at the earlier ones.  The first four are for pic 16 and a bunch after for pict17.

: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 January 10, 2009, 02:54:33 AM
And then, numbers mentioned to me that there are a few "pink" images interspersed with his photos. I think that these two images show distinct colouration   

Here's three pics taken in succession that clearly illustrate the odd behavoir.
One bluish, then reddish, then gray.

(http://droneteam.com/history/raj/location/DimageX_2009_0107/09010735.JPG)
(http://droneteam.com/history/raj/location/DimageX_2009_0107/09010736.JPG)
(http://droneteam.com/history/raj/location/DimageX_2009_0107/09010737.JPG)
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: nekitamo January 11, 2009, 11:35:15 AM
Here are some quick measurements I did to correct my 3D model of the pole, just in case somebody else needs them (approximate values, not very precise):

(http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2472/dimensionsdp3.jpg)
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: HPO January 11, 2009, 02:37:34 PM
Here are some quick measurements I did to correct my 3D model of the pole, just in case somebody else needs them (approximate values, not very precise):

Thanks nekitamo for sharing !

Today I received the DimageX Nemo send me, but can it still be of any use after Neki found the real pole?, and I think it's proven now that the camera wasn't a DimageX.

Did we exhaust the ideas of vignetting and pinkish imaging in the DimageX.
  • I've seen some discussion on camera forums about vignetting being exaggerated by various zoom settings. It is clear that there is very strong vignetting in some of numbers most recent images, like this one http://droneteam.com/history/raj/location/DimageX_2009_0107/09010748.JPG (http://droneteam.com/history/raj/location/DimageX_2009_0107/09010748.JPG)
  • And then, numbers mentioned to me that there are a few "pink" images interspersed with his photos. I think that these two images show distinct colouration   http://droneteam.com/history/raj/location/DimageX_2009_0107/09010748.JPG (http://droneteam.com/history/raj/location/DimageX_2009_0107/09010748.JPG) http://droneteam.com/history/raj/location/DimageX_2009_0107/09010747.JPG (http://droneteam.com/history/raj/location/DimageX_2009_0107/09010747.JPG) even though they where only shot seconds apart and with slightly different shutter speeds. From my conversation with numbers, there seems to be a flaw in the camera where seemingly random photos appear pinkish.

Now that we have these cameras, can more tests be done by HPO and numbers?

Also, have all the ideas of PICT16 being faked been exhausted, I realize that no one has reproduced the shadows in a 3D program, but is there still some testing that can prove this fake with your model and the real camera?

Edit to add: that the vignetting issue was, no vignetting in Raj's pictures, but PICT13 does show vignetting, and I am wondering if zooming the camera in would alter that result.

I can of course do the tests to confirm the vignetting and pinkish imaging, but the FOV problem overrules these IMO.
Like nekitamo showed in this picture.

(http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4448/fovanalysistm0.jpg)

And can the FOV really be tested with a scale model and a scale pole?
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: onthefence January 11, 2009, 03:25:03 PM
I can of course do the tests to confirm the vignetting and pinkish imaging, but the FOV problem overrules these IMO.

And can the FOV really be tested with a scale model and a scale pole?

Thank you all, I don't think I need any more analysis, your point is made with me.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 January 11, 2009, 05:41:56 PM
I understand too.  Do you both come up with the same FoV values?

Edit to add:  I just checked it with my own crude method and came to the same conclusion.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: nekitamo January 11, 2009, 06:53:13 PM
Just noted your last posts, but already made this animation so here it is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYrLtS02rUU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYrLtS02rUU)

That ugly white thing on the bottom is angle meter "glued" below the camera, I marked 55° (green) and 49° (blue) FoV angles to be sure the camera is set properly.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 January 17, 2009, 10:51:50 PM
OTF has already brought up the possibility that Raj may be shorter than me.  I have noticed that when I compare shots of the pole I took in the morning with those taken in the afternoon (same focal length), the later (more light) shots appear to have more FoV.  Does aperture affect this?   Taking shots in the middle of May would yield much different aperture settings.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: nekitamo January 18, 2009, 12:20:16 AM
Perhaps you mean DoF = depth of field or range of sharpness?
Aperture affects depth of field in a way that smaller aperture means greater DoF due to longer exposition required for the same image brightness:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Jonquil_flowers_at_f32.jpg/230px-Jonquil_flowers_at_f32.jpg)

With bigger aperture the exposition can be shorter and you get smaller DoF:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Jonquil_flowers_at_f5.jpg/230px-Jonquil_flowers_at_f5.jpg)

Btw. small F numbers (i.e. F2.4) are used for big aperture sizes and big F numbers (i.e. F16) for small apertures.

As for the FoV (or more precisely - horizontal angle of view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view) in my calculations), it is only affected by focal length (assuming constant lens/sensor sizes) no matter how much (or little) light enters the lens.This is because the aperture mechanism is physically placed in such position that its "hole" size doesn't affect viewing angle, but total amount of light reaching the sensor - like some kind of "optical" valve.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: onthefence January 18, 2009, 01:32:42 AM
I think the point is that the distance away from the subject affects the amount in the viewscreen.

Here is an exaggeration using the same field of view at different distances from an imaginary pole above. While numbers is likely not as tall as this man, nor Raj likely as low to the ground as this man in his little car, I think this makes a point. It may not be enough explain what is going on though in numbers' image compared to Raj's image though:

(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/onthefence55/fov2.jpg)

Maybe Raj is a Shriner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shriners)  ;D
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: nekitamo January 18, 2009, 02:21:52 AM
I think the point is that the distance away from the subject affects the amount in the viewscreen.

Sure, with greater distance you can have full size of the same object on a viewscreen even using smaller angle of view camera.
Here's a geometrically correct illustration using 55° and 49° angles like in our case - note that red "object" will be of the same (full frame) size in both camera's viewscreens:

(http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1061/hfovav5.jpg)

However, also note that closer orange "objects" will have different size for each camera - thus, this greater distance trick works only for single distance point, any other closer or further away objects will have different angular size for each camera leading to misalignment of the photographs.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 January 18, 2009, 03:50:31 AM
Perhaps you mean DoF = depth of field or range of sharpness?

Nope,  I know how aperture affects DoF but that is not what I'm talking about.

This is what I'm talking about:
I have noticed that when I compare shots of the pole I took in the morning with those taken in the afternoon (same focal length), the later (more light) shots appear to have more FoV.
Check it for yourself to see if your results agree with mine.  Use dimageX photos with identical focal length.  I used photos with a default 6.0 focal length.

: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: nekitamo January 18, 2009, 09:04:42 AM
Is this what you mean, morning/afternoon difference:

(http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5558/16anglecn6.gif)

Apart from obviously different camera elevation angle, I can't see any noticeable viewing angle size difference between this two shots. Angular sizes of various pole parts also seem to feet nicely, so you probably used very similar position for both versions. I used afternoon version for my analysis because it is inside Raj's image margins and better illustrates my point. Anyway, your observation shouldn't be hard to test... a few photographs of a ruler or bathroom tiles with various light levels should resolve this matter pretty quickly.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 January 18, 2009, 05:27:24 PM
Apart from obviously different camera elevation angle, I can't see any noticeable viewing angle size difference between this two shots. Angular sizes of various pole parts also seem to feet nicely, so you probably used very similar position for both versions. I used afternoon version for my analysis because it is inside Raj's image margins and better illustrates my point. Anyway, your observation shouldn't be hard to test... a few photographs of a ruler or bathroom tiles with various light levels should resolve this matter pretty quickly.

Yes.  Measure things like the crossarms and compare.  The afternoon shots are all smaller than the morning shots.  I was standing in the same spot which I had marked.

I guess the only way to be sure is to go back in May and try to duplicate the pics exactly which I will do!  At this point I am not convinced some other camera other than a DimageX was used.

: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: elevenaugust January 20, 2009, 09:00:32 PM
I just saw Jake's post about the "Moon landing myth"....

He said: ""Myth Busters" reenacts a moon photo-shoot, proving unparalleled shadows can be created by the environment."

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0&feature=related

Extract:
"......, this shoot was taken in a studio, because the shadows are not parallel. Supposedly, that's something that could only happen with multiple light sources...."

Interesting.

Please everyone take a look at this Mythbusters video and tell me if you see any connection to Raj's shadows....
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: onthefence January 20, 2009, 10:13:06 PM
Please everyone take a look at this Mythbusters video and tell me if you see any connection to Raj's shadows....
My opinion, different types of shadows.
With the Moon, you can fiddle with landscape to get the right shadows.
With the drone, fiddling is much more difficult with the geometric shapes.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 January 28, 2009, 05:25:40 AM
I think the point is that the distance away from the subject affects the amount in the viewscreen.

Here is an exaggeration using the same field of view at different distances from an imaginary pole above. While numbers is likely not as tall as this man, nor Raj likely as low to the ground as this man in his little car, I think this makes a point. It may not be enough explain what is going on though in numbers' image compared to Raj's image though:

My experiment was not conclusive when I double checked my measurements but I think OTF has a valid possibility here.  I held the camera high above my head while taking the pictures.  About 7 feet off the ground.  Of course I had no fear with no unknown object directly overhead.  Had there been one I think I would have been crouching and the camera would only be about four feet off the ground, maybe lower.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 February 02, 2009, 07:49:39 PM
I was just wondering if somebody (SPf or HPO) would like to try to duplicate in cgi this illustration.  The angles would have to be correct especially note which lower fins the sun is shining through.

(http://home.comcast.net/~dl1027/files/object/sun1.jpg)

: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: HPO February 02, 2009, 11:33:12 PM
Sorry Numbers, I really haven't got the time at the moment  :(, but I've just send spf the latest drone model with the revisited item15.
Maybe spf can help you out.
: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 February 03, 2009, 06:34:14 AM
Sorry Numbers, I really haven't got the time at the moment  :(, but I've just send spf the latest drone model with the revisited item15.
Maybe spf can help you out.

No problem HPO.  I know the feeling.  I've been getting killed at work lately.  My company laid off a bunch of people and the poor saps who are left must take up the slack.

Spf, this is not really a big deal.  I have always wondered about the hoax believers belief that the shadows in the Raj pics are not possible.  I still think it is possible IF the correct angles and perspectives are chosen.  I know it's not an easy job.  It does not need to get done but if either of you are have some free time and would like to work with me on this I would very much appreciate it.  I think I have a good eye but lack the cgi skills.

: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: spf33 February 04, 2009, 03:21:54 AM
latest hpo model in the scene.
not yet using the now known tilt on the pole - probably won't change the results much.

you can see the calculated sun angle (blue line) been using in the 3ds max daylight system compared to the your red line;

(http://www.divshare.com/img/6473184-487.jpg)

i'm fairly certain the results wont change in significant ways if i match them. i.e. the main paddle casting a shadow onto the torus. 

to make the change in time necessary to change the sun angle would also negate the corroborating results of the pic14 study and throw those shadows from the gutter way off as well.

: Re: New Raj shadow analysis
: 10538 February 04, 2009, 04:34:11 AM
you can see the calculated sun angle (blue line) been using in the 3ds max daylight system compared to the your red line;

Awesome Spf.  You went even further than I had hoped, tying in other known data.  This is looking sweet.  Can't wait to see the finished product.