Rajinder

[Nemo492]

From Nekitamo, on OMF - June 12th
"Some people have magined the same background image was used in both pictures #16 and #17, although blurred and slightly perspective-corrected in PICT0017. Such "false" 2D perspective transforms are easily spotted as they don't produce true spatial shifting of objects like i.e. when you move your head to look what's behind something. This perspective shift in PICT0017 seems to be only a few pixels wide for the nearest objects and invisible due to the blur, but it is observable in position of the most remote wire (marked with red arrows in both images):"



"Additionally, I did some contrast enhancement (squares) to check for matching background noise which would also confirm the theory about the same background image being used for both pictures, but it is obviously different. All this indicates that we're indeed looking at two different images, though taken with the camera rotated (almost) around its no-parallax point. Just a coincidence or is Raj experienced in making images intended for panorama-stitching? Your guess is as good as mine... though he did mention he owns a camera (Canon)."

[Arkhangels]

Well like I posted some time ago in OMF, here's my modified image where I extended the side of the house in Raj's pictures and joined the two of them to get a full picture of the scene:




Well I thought his house could look a lot like this, except the color and the construction artifacts:


Regards
Ark

[nekitamo]

I tried to determine the exact horizontal and vertical tilt of the drone in PIC0016 by overlaying a simple 3D model and here's what I came up with:



Not exactly a perfect match, but close enough considering my poor 3D-modeling skills and simple (free) 3D application that I used. Drone size doesn't really matter here, but I used 4m diameter for drone ring (from my previous calculations of Chad's drone size) and set it on the appropriate height (36m) so it fits in (barrel corrected) PICT0016. As you can see, the drone indeed is slightly tilted relative to the ground level.

I didn't intend to analyze shadows, but tried to set proper sun angle anyway and - like others - failed to match shadows in Raj's image. But can sun really be simulated with some infinitely remote light source like it's done in similar 3D programs? Here's what I think really happens with light and shadows in the following situation (I used somewhat wider angle to show assumed position of the sun in relation to the original image):



Note that there's no shadow below the large paddle and that top crossbar shadow also fits Raj's image. So does it really matter how far is the sun or is it just about how it "sits" in the image perspective? Hope we'll be able to verify this once HPO's model is ready...

EDIT TO ADD: I was wrong about the shadows, check my next post...

[elevenaugust]

Well done, Neki! 
I guess you assume in your recreations that the pole is perfectly straight at a 90° angle, but do you think that a 85 or 95° pole angle can change anything in this situation??

[HPO]

Nicely done !!, two questions though, can you make a side view of this scene, so that the height of the sun is also visible?
And is it possible for you to make a simple "crown" underneath the torus, so we can check the shadows of those as well.

P.S.  I will try those angles myself in Vue6 when I find the time.

[nekitamo]

I guess you assume in your recreations that the pole is perfectly straight at a 90° angle, but do you think that a 85 or 95° pole angle can change anything in this situation??

Well, my (first) image would still look the same (as there's no ground visible), except for the different drone angle values. I did use straight pole, but if it is tilted exactly opposite of what I assumed to be the drone tilt, then the drone may be perfectly level - I admit!

As for the shadows, if I'm correct in my assumption it wouldn't matter as long as the sun keeps the same relative relative position in wider image perspective. It would only affect shadows on the ground, which aren't visible anyway.

[leviathan]

But can sun really be simulated with some infinitely remote light source like it's done in similar 3D programs?

No it can not, but the "experts" at this other forum are not telling you that and they should know.  I use parallel and distant light settings along with a host of other refinements in Cinema 4D.  There is no switch that will simulate real world lighting not even HDR lighting.  Nature does not play by my rules or their rules or your rules.  Just take a walk in nature and try to explain every lighting condition and shadow you see.  The arrogance of humans is to believe that everything plays by human rules.  It does not.  How can anyone ever explain a truly ALIEN DEVICE without knowing anything about the rules it feels compelled to obey?
L E V I A T H A N

[leviathan]

If the time and date in the camera are not correct the data is of no value.  Does someone know this camera is set properly and if so how!!! Is it by an assumption, if so then the "facts" are assumed!
L E V I A T H A N

[BigFnTuna]

If the time and date in the camera are not correct the data is of no value.  Does someone know this camera is set properly and if so how!!! Is it by an assumption, if so then the "facts" are assumed!
L E V I A T H A N

Agreed!  It's funny how some people shout hoax by CGI, but then say the CGI shadows are incorrect!

[tomi]

But can sun really be simulated with some infinitely remote light source like it's done in similar 3D programs?

No it can not, but the "experts" at this other forum are not telling you that and they should know.  I use parallel and distant light settings along with a host of other refinements in Cinema 4D.  There is no switch that will simulate real world lighting not even HDR lighting.  Nature does not play by my rules or their rules or your rules.  Just take a walk in nature and try to explain every lighting condition and shadow you see.  The arrogance of humans is to believe that everything plays by human rules.  It does not.  How can anyone ever explain a truly ALIEN DEVICE without knowing anything about the rules it feels compelled to obey?
L E V I A T H A N

So true...... Just a layperson who loves to read and think about such things as light.. And thanks to one far more knowledgeable member here, I've got the most beautiful Electromagnetic Radiation Spectrum chart on my study wall.   

In the way that I simply understand it, light = energy packets and is our visible portion of the EMR spectrum. Light is photons, that behave as a wave until observed as a single photon, then it behaves like a particle.  Unknown physics are at work here which makes reproducing nature, in formulas describing light behaviour by using known physics rather challenging and never complete.  IMHO
 

[10538]

If the time and date in the camera are not correct the data is of no value.  Does someone know this camera is set properly and if so how!!! Is it by an assumption, if so then the "facts" are assumed!
L E V I A T H A N

It's entirely possible the date and time are not correct.  It's basically like setting a watch.  But then you have to ask yourself, why keep a watch with the incorrect time?  The most likely scenario is the date is set correctly and does coincide with the Raj report.  The only question about the time is how accurate it is.  I have one of the Minolta Dimage X cameras and the time has not deviated since I set it.  Still correct to the minute (I just checked it). 

The only realistic question in my mind is, was the camera's time updated properly for daylight savings time?  In 2007, daylight savings time started March 11, more than two months before the fateful day.  Did Raj's in-laws make the adjustment?  I believe Spf33 did some analysis on the shadow on the side of the house/building.  He may be able to verify this.

[spf33]

I believe Spf33 did some analysis on the shadow on the side of the house/building.

suppose i should probably get hpo's model in the scene at some point...

[nekitamo]

...can you make a side view of this scene, so that the height of the sun is also visible?
And is it possible for you to make a simple "crown" underneath the torus, so we can check the shadows of those as well.

P.S.  I will try those angles myself in Vue6 when I find the time.

Don't bother, I was wrong! Disregard my previous post... 

After adding the "crown" like you suggested, I tried again to match the shadows with the original image and now I believe it can be done - the key is in the crossbar shadow!

I kept thinking it was that big smear bellow, but it's not - I'm not sure what produces that one. The crossbar shadow is actually much smaller and sharper - it was right under my nose all this time and I didn't see it! Once i figured this out, almost everything fits with only a slightest tilt for the drone:



Drone geometry seems very important for proper shadows, so I believe my poor model is to blame for most of the differences.

[leviathan]

The pole is just as strange as the Drone in lighting and shadow, because they are both residing in nature at the same time enjoying the way nature does things instead of how we think nature does things.
L E V I A T H A N

[tomi]

Thank you, thank you, thank you Lev.

If you didn't do that, I was feeling compelled to do something similiar.
Yes for a fact, there has to be some ambient sun that corresponds to both those areas not being in shade.  It could be the elevation and the angle, but for sure those areas correspond.

And when you see spf33's last post on OMF, his work shows the sun to be about where it would prevent those areas under the boom and the bar from the pole to be in direct exposure of sun, due to the suns position and the tilt of the drone especially.

Thank you!