New Raj shadow analysis

[onthefence]

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.


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:

• CARET specified "Three-dimensional image recorder/projector"
• The drones are reported to move unnaturally fast (jerky)
• The BB drone disappeared

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.

[Arkhangels]

HPO, I don't know if it can help you but here's one 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.

[10538]

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: 

[HPO]

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: 

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.

[elevenaugust]

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: 

I think some parts are moving, like an aileron flaps, maybe for some airflow purpose:

[onthefence]

Since the actual pole is tilted 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.



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.

[10538]

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

[elevenaugust]

Maybe another trip in May, huh?

Yeah! Cool!!!

[elevenaugust]

Since the actual pole is tilted 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.



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...

OTF (or maybe spf33?), did you try to recreate the whole scene with these new datas?

[HPO]

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: 

I think some parts are moving, like an aileron flaps, maybe for some airflow purpose:

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-

[10538]

Looks good to me, HPO.  That would explain some things.

[HPO]

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.

[Nemo492]

Ahah ! Good to hear that. It was posted 2 days earlier,
with the 2 CDs in a separate package.

[HPO]

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   

[Nemo492]

Sorry I had to finish the chocolates before I could parcel the camera.