Author Topic: Rajinder  (Read 23025 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Rajinder
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2008, 08:47:46 pm »
Check out four seconds of cloud movement.




Offline tomi

  • Hero Dronie #2
  • ********
  • Posts: 668
  • Karma: +37/-26
Re: Rajinder
« Reply #16 on: August 02, 2008, 08:57:54 pm »
Check out four seconds of cloud movement.





Good work numbers!  Keeps looking more and more on the real side, the more we look..  In this case it looks like the clouds are going 4 seconds in the opposite direction of the drone.  Very interesting...  ;D 

Offline spinnewise

  • Founding Dronie
  • *****
  • Posts: 119
  • Karma: +19/-0
Re: Rajinder
« Reply #17 on: August 02, 2008, 09:12:46 pm »
I think I know what causes the long shadow beneath the crossbar shadow. It is the big white insulator to the right of the pole.
Hope you know which one I mean.
Still looking for gorillas

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Rajinder
« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2008, 05:10:31 pm »
Good work numbers!  Keeps looking more and more on the real side, the more we look..  In this case it looks like the clouds are going 4 seconds in the opposite direction of the drone.  Very interesting...  ;D 

I think the cloud movement makes a good case for the photos being real and the timing as stated in the exif.  If fake the drone would have to be composited in. 

Offline tomi

  • Hero Dronie #2
  • ********
  • Posts: 668
  • Karma: +37/-26
Re: Rajinder
« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2008, 09:44:23 pm »
Good work numbers!  Keeps looking more and more on the real side, the more we look..  In this case it looks like the clouds are going 4 seconds in the opposite direction of the drone.  Very interesting...  ;D 

I think the cloud movement makes a good case for the photos being real and the timing as stated in the exif.  If fake the drone would have to be composited in. 


Yes,, It's just one more natural detail that those who are drone challenged will have to accept.. LOL  :D

Offline Arkhangels

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Dronie
  • **********
  • Posts: 99
  • Karma: +21/-0
  • ~~"Flying around"~~
Re: Rajinder
« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2008, 10:25:02 pm »
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.

WOW!
Nice job, I think your "simple" model is so complete as it needs to be to prove us that the scene presented in that particular Raj photo is plausible.
It even explains the lightning that me and Onthefence were trying to understand. That one right in the side of what you called "small fin shadow".

Now I ask Onthefence to check this out! :)

Nice work Nekitamo. Sometimes, it's not a good software that makes a good analysis, you proved it  ;)

Regards
Ark

Whoooooo

Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1048
  • Karma: +50/-0
Re: Rajinder
« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2008, 02:54:36 am »
Now I ask Onthefence to check this out! :)

Yes, I have been watching. I previously only addressed one issue of the interesting shadow relationship between two pieces of the drone (fin shadow and highlighted nub):



I was only able to reproduce this exact lighting example by bending the small middle (10 o'clock) fin downward a few degrees:





All other lighting example studies included too many variables for me to analyse in one setting:
  • craft size
  • craft distance
  • craft roll
  • craft pitch
  • craft yaw
  • camera field of view
  • camera distortion
  • camera roll
  • camera pitch
  • camera yaw
  • pole bottom diameter
  • pole top diameter
  • pole angle amount
  • pole angle direction
  • light source angle above ground
  • light source angle with respect to scene
  • lighting sources from reflective surfaces/clouds/ground

Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1048
  • Karma: +50/-0
Re: Rajinder
« Reply #22 on: August 04, 2008, 04:08:02 am »
The conclusion that I drew from my shadow study is that the arms of the drone are not lying on one plane as they would if it was slapped together in CGI.

I suspect that the drone arms are moveable for some purpose.

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Rajinder
« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2008, 07:47:29 pm »
Explanation of the pole equipment.  May provide a clue as to the location.


Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1048
  • Karma: +50/-0
Re: Rajinder
« Reply #24 on: September 04, 2008, 03:04:56 pm »
Frank (PI) pointed out that there appears to be a yellow label on the cross-arm of the pole shown in PICT15.

I'm not sure if there is a way to enhance this to reveal any lettering, here is the cropped and rescaled image without interpolation.



Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Rajinder
« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2008, 04:27:16 pm »
Frank (PI) pointed out that there appears to be a yellow label on the cross-arm of the pole shown in PICT15.

Most likely "High Voltage".  Those lines there carry 7k to 15k volts.  It may be a code requirement that the top be labeled that way.


Offline majicbar

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 226
  • Karma: +24/-3
Re: Rajinder
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2008, 08:31:41 pm »
Explanation of the pole equipment.  May provide a clue as to the location.



Also note that the lines from the pole going to the bottom of the picture are only two lines, indicating that it is not full phase power, meaning that it is only supplying power for lighting and not motors. This may indicate that it is supplying power for the lighting of a parking lot, which may indicate that it is near a park of some kind.

Offline majicbar

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 226
  • Karma: +24/-3
Re: Rajinder
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2008, 08:44:11 pm »
Pictures 15 and 16 may supply enough information to do some kind of photogrametric analysis. It has occured to me that we have established that the long arm, paddle, undergoes a perspective change, or foreshortening in Chad's photographs, and this will be the same in Raj's. For a known ratio of lengths, such as is provided by photo 16, the distance to this feature on the drone in 15 will change ratios given only one particular distance. We know the dimensions of the streetlamp in photo15, given the lens of the camera we should be able to consider its distance. We pretty much have some confidence in the dimensions of the crossbars on the telephone pole, 8 feet is my recollection. we can pretty much figure the width of the street is standard and thus we should be able to set the dimensions of the scene. Given the ratio of the long arm on the drone in photo15 and its ratio as given by photo16, we should be able to then establish the distance to the drone in photo15, and then its size by the relative distance to the streetlamp vs that to the drone.

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Rajinder
« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2008, 09:47:09 pm »
Also note that the lines from the pole going to the bottom of the picture are only two lines, indicating that it is not full phase power, meaning that it is only supplying power for lighting and not motors. This may indicate that it is supplying power for the lighting of a parking lot, which may indicate that it is near a park of some kind.

One thing to note,

On our visit to Capitola, 11A and I talked to a Comcast lineman who was working on a pole.  He was very friendly and quite interested in our little pole search.  After looking at our picture of the pole he claimed the cable amplifier to not be of the Comcast type.  He believed it to be from a competitor called "Charter".  Maybe somebody can ascertain which areas of Capitola are serviced by Charter.  That may narrow the search.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2008, 09:48:33 pm by 10538 »

Offline majicbar

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 226
  • Karma: +24/-3
Re: Rajinder
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2008, 10:17:18 am »
Charter Communications does not appear to have a good operation going in Capitola, Ca., but it looks like it could be anywhere in Capitola.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_10562723

 

Capitola council tells Charter Communications to fix problems

By JONDI GUMZ - Sentinel staff writer
Article Launched: 09/26/2008 01:24:22 AM PDT


CAPITOLA - Improve in 30 days, or there will be consequences.
That's the message Capitola Mayor Kirby Nicol gave Charter Communications, the company with a monopoly on the city's cable service, Thursday night. Councilman Sam Storey took the same stance.

 
 
 
« Last Edit: December 22, 2008, 10:23:09 am by majicbar »