Author Topic: Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis  (Read 13149 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline nekitamo

  • Administrator
  • Major Dronie
  • **********
  • Posts: 224
  • Karma: +28/-0
Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis
« on: June 02, 2008, 03:52:47 PM »
Even though some of you may have already seen the results of my preliminary analysis on this subject posted at Nemo's site, I've decided to do it all over again a bit differently, with much greater precision and followed with detailed, step-by-step explanations in order for everyone to be able to check my reasoning and verify my final findings. The analysis is based on the following image out of Chad's series, here with marked laser measured distances done by the detectives:



As you can see, there is an interesting coincidence that made me use this certain image for analysis - the markings for 36 and 50 meter measurements are practically in line with the imaginary axis passing along the smaller side fins and through the center of the drone ring. Also, it seems as if the drone is almost touching the canopy of the trees below, so it is probably very close to this imaginary line. This information by itself enables some provisional assessments of the drone size, but by courtesy of the DRT I was provided with yet another image, taken from the exact same spot as the indicated laser measurements, totally unmodified and containing full EXIF information which, among other things, enables precise calculation of field of view angle(s). As this is the basic information for all calculations here, I'm going to refer to this image as the "calibration image" in further text. Here's the basic concept for further analysis:



This represents the "top" view of the situation present in both Chad's and calibration image with the aforementioned measured distances of 36 and 50 meters marked as points A and B, respectively. What we want to find out is the length between these two points, and for this we'll use some basic trigonometry to crunch the numbers extracted from our calibration image. But first, some clarifications: although they are represented by two simple horizontal blue lines in the above image, what we are actually looking at are planes in 3D space, and those two I've drawn are each containing one of our reference points. Note how their intersections with those red and yellow circles (again, actually spheres in 3D space marking camera equidistant points) are represented in this clip from the calibration image (ignore the length, we didn't calculate it yet :)):



The outer edge of thus created circles contains all the points with the same distance that are also closing the same angle with the axis through the center of the image. Our previous basic trigonometry lesson reminded us that tan() of this angle is related to the tan() of half of horizontal field of view angle of the calibration image in the same way as the intersection circle radius is to the half of image width... but let's try with another image containing all formulas:



This is the situation around our point B, marked as X in the above image. For clarity, I've translated it around the previously mentioned circle into X' in order to have it sit on the horizontal image axis. This doesn't affect neither its distance from image center, nor from the camera, so also all the angles in thus defined right triangle (a1-b-c1) still remains the same. Note that we have yet another right triangle - the one that shares the same camera distance leg with the first one (a2-b-c2) with the known angle alpha2 (FoV/2) - now, by formulating our equations in just the right way so that only the ratio is required instead of using real measurements for a2/a1, we can use pixel measurements from the image to deduce the angle alpha1, and then the rest is easy. The value of a2 was calculated in two different ways just to check if everything is all right, and as the final result we get spatial coordinates of point X (also double checked by calculating the euclidean distance to the camera). After we do the same math for point A, by calculating the euclidean distance between the spatial coordinates of points A and B we get the value already shown in the calibration image: 23.5 meters.

Now, for the fun part - with all the dimensions known as a result of previous calculations, it's not hard to construct the ruler below our line. Here's how it looks in the calibration image:



But what we need is this ruler transferred into the perspective of Chad's image. In order to do that, first we find the same reference points in Chad's image:



There's difference in perspective, resolution, vegetation growth and so on, but I believe this should be the right spots. However, as nothing about Chad's image is known, I'm also going to need the following (IMO, safe) assumption to be able to transfer the ruler: both small side fins are of equal length. With this in mind, here's the final result of this analysis:



There. Feel free to comment on any aspect and inquire about anything that is presented here, especially if you've found an error or think my reasoning about something wasn't correct. If you're interested in trying to analyze this or other images by using similar methods, I've also created a spreadsheet containing formulas for precise FOV calculation from EXIF data, all of the above trigonometry and euclidean distance formulas, and also formulas for creation of the 2D ruler in any 3D perspective that is needed - just PM me.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 03:59:17 PM by nekitamo »

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2008, 05:40:46 PM »
Very impressive analysis, Neki.

I'm attempting to do some shadow/sun-angle analysis of the different Chad pics.  Can you or Spf determine the amount of tilt the object has with respect to the ground in this photo of the drone coming over the trees?  My guess is the tilt may be as much as 40 degrees.

Offline nekitamo

  • Administrator
  • Major Dronie
  • **********
  • Posts: 224
  • Karma: +28/-0
Re: Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2008, 06:50:58 PM »
I'm not sure about the ground level without additional data, but I can give you the precise number with respect to the horizontal camera angle of your calibration image: 26.8 degrees.

Offline spf33

  • Administrator
  • Major Dronie
  • **********
  • Posts: 215
  • Karma: +28/-0
Re: Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2008, 08:22:29 PM »
very nice work, nekitamo.

it will be interesting to see to how the 2d analysis and 3d analysis of this photo compare.

40° and 28°?  are you guys seeing a left\right or a forward\backward tilt?


Offline nekitamo

  • Administrator
  • Major Dronie
  • **********
  • Posts: 224
  • Karma: +28/-0
Re: Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2008, 09:48:17 PM »
very nice work, nekitamo.

it will be interesting to see to how the 2d analysis and 3d analysis of this photo compare.
Thanks. I hope for matching results, or I've just spent few days doing nothing :)

40° and 28°?  are you guys seeing a left\right or a forward\backward tilt?
I was actually talking about the horizontal angle of the ruler from my calculations in relation to the camera's horizontal axis. That means left/right for the drone, I suppose.

Offline leviathan

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 290
  • Karma: +22/-0
    • L E V I A T H A N
Re: Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2008, 11:43:52 PM »
Good research nekitamo.  If this quality of work had not been sidetracked by dribble over the last year and defending oneself, all would be far along.
IC
We at L E V I A T H A N were banned from the UFO Casebook Forum and it is so sad.
http://livyatan.blogspot.com/

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2008, 12:01:35 AM »
very nice work, nekitamo.

it will be interesting to see to how the 2d analysis and 3d analysis of this photo compare.

40° and 28°?  are you guys seeing a left\right or a forward\backward tilt?

I was only guessing with the 40 degrees.  If Neki comes up with 26.8 that's good enough for me.

Spf, oddly enough the tilt does look to be angled directly away from the camera.  I'm not sure what this could mean. 

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2008, 04:38:21 PM »
I was actually talking about the horizontal angle of the ruler from my calculations in relation to the camera's horizontal axis. That means left/right for the drone, I suppose.

So 26.8 is the horizontal axis.  I'm wondering what the overall tilt angle could be and at what direction the tilt is going (with respect to the camera).  Maybe someone could do a 3D representation? 

When we first discovered the actual photo locations it seemed a logical assumption that two of the photos were taken back to back.  But the lighting and shadow on the drone coming over the trees has bothered me.  Establishing the actual sun angle may put those concerns to rest and also confirm that both pics were taken in rapid succession.

Offline tomi

  • Hero Dronie #2
  • ********
  • Posts: 668
  • Karma: +36/-26
Re: Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2008, 10:20:47 PM »
I don't know if this idea is even pertinent to where the analysis is at this time with the tilting issue.  But it seems intuititive to me that there would be a gimble effect between the arms and the basket underneath. 
Think of a compass on a boat.  That is the way I think the drones lower appendage would have to work.  Sorry again, if this seems tpp simplistic and past the point of discussion.

Offline nekitamo

  • Administrator
  • Major Dronie
  • **********
  • Posts: 224
  • Karma: +28/-0
Re: Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis
« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2008, 08:21:50 AM »
I went a bit further with my study of the perspective in Chad's image #4 and did some more "ruler transfers". Here's the result:



I'm probably pushing it too far with this one, but here goes:


Offline leviathan

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 290
  • Karma: +22/-0
    • L E V I A T H A N
Re: Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis
« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2008, 04:46:10 PM »
Very nice work indeed.
IC
We at L E V I A T H A N were banned from the UFO Casebook Forum and it is so sad.
http://livyatan.blogspot.com/

Offline tomi

  • Hero Dronie #2
  • ********
  • Posts: 668
  • Karma: +36/-26
Re: Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2008, 05:16:07 PM »
Really nice work, thank you for offering all this time and insight to the community.  :)

Offline nekitamo

  • Administrator
  • Major Dronie
  • **********
  • Posts: 224
  • Karma: +28/-0
Re: Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis
« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2008, 09:10:41 AM »
Actually, you should thank my employer - my current job has a "duty cycle" of at least 5 idle minutes for every minute of actual work, and no one cares how I pass my idle time as long as work is done properly. :)

Offline nekitamo

  • Administrator
  • Major Dronie
  • **********
  • Posts: 224
  • Karma: +28/-0
Re: Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2008, 06:59:02 AM »
Perhaps this will help better understanding of the Chad's drone dimensions, especially if you're not thinking in "metric" terms.
Well, I am, but still find this hard to believe...



majicbar

  • Guest
Re: Chad's image #4 - manual 3D analysis
« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2008, 08:11:09 AM »
This sizing of the drone would go some distance to explaining Ty's calling the drone a "mothership".
« Last Edit: June 06, 2008, 08:14:37 AM by majicbar »