HPO model/Raj photos shadows study

[leviathan]

So.. my point, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that without any ability to truly predict how light is going to behave in outside full sun conditions in any environment or upon any object such as this one, elevated very high with a lot of reflected light catching its underside, is very hard if not impossible to put into calculations that would be 100% realistic in a CGI program. 

Yes tomi you are right.  Reality can not be reduced to static calculations.  The Drone is startlingly correct in shadow and lighting based on the shadow and lighting of the pole.  This is why it appears so real, because all the conditions are acceptable to the mind as a real object in the environment, so maybe it is exactly what it appears to be.
L E V I A T H A N

[elevenaugust]

Here's the fake re-creation from Kris/Saladfinger.
We can also see the same "missing shadows" as in Raj's photos and in HPO's rendering.
So what is presenting on OMF (torvald rendering) like sort of "definitive proof" could in fact only be either:
- Wrong drone angle
- or the rendering engine of both Kris and HPO is wrong and cannot make right shadows....

What is the most plausible??
Can't wait to see the explanation....

[spf33]

- or the rendering engine of both Kris and HPO is wrong and cannot make right shadows....

it all really depends on the lighting\shadow type used, might be a good idea to get each
to explain the exact lighting setup used;

hpo - software:solidworks render engine: vue6 (?)
kris - software:lightwave render engine:? (?)
torvald - software:? render engine:maxwell render engine (ray trace)
spf - software: 3ds max render engine: mental ray (ray trace)

shadow types:
shadow mapping, fast and less accurate
shadow volume, another shadowing technique
ray casting, a slower technique often used in ray tracing
ray tracing capable of producing a very high degree of photorealism
photon mapping, a much slower technique capable of very realistic lighting
radiosity, another very slow but very realistic technique

[BigFnTuna]

It seems to me that the angle Torvald has the drone at is wrong...

Do you mean a biased perspective ?

He has the tail of the drone basically pointing towards the ground, when I think it is pointing more towards the sky and the sun.  I think the drone is in a similar position as this Chad shot:

http://www.droneteam.com/history/chad/scannedimage-5.jpg

And the angle of the sunlight hitting the inside of the drone seems too steep, like maybe he didn't account for DST.  Only my opinion though.

Tuna

[HPO]

hpo - software:solidworks render engine: vue6 (?)

Correction and addition:

hpo - software:Not the Solidworks render engine, but the Vue6 render engine (radiosity, Vue6 calls it Global radiosity)

[HPO]

So.. my point, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that without any ability to truly predict how light is going to behave in outside full sun conditions in any environment or upon any object such as this one, elevated very high with a lot of reflected light catching its underside, is very hard if not impossible to put into calculations that would be 100% realistic in a CGI program. 

Yes tomi you are right.  Reality can not be reduced to static calculations.  The Drone is startlingly correct in shadow and lighting based on the shadow and lighting of the pole.  This is why it appears so real, because all the conditions are acceptable to the mind as a real object in the environment, so maybe it is exactly what it appears to be.
L E V I A T H A N

Yes in real life there is a real chaos of reflections of light from everything on everything, the closest thing would be with a HDRI render but even that can not get the right light reflections from everything in the enviroment on the drone, all of it has to be physically there IMHO.

[Endzone]

Which I feel is the reason CGI lighting is usually easier to spot. I totally agree, light is chaotic in nature. Ground reflections cannot be determined at the location they are all talking about at OMF without actually being there at that time of day with all the ground objects that were there at the time of the photo, including but not limited to car hoods, ground conditions, etc.

[leviathan]

I do not care which render engine they used, the sun angles are wrong and do not recreate the original scene.  How can it be created, not knowing what was there and this is what is being counted on. The original moment and all its conditions CAN NOT BE REPRODUCED only a facsimile can be reproduce an approximation of the real world event.  It would not hurt my feelings one bit if the OMFERs called it bunk and left the stage, but they demand that the posters here believe their false opinions and some of THEM know they are false and they laugh at all foolish enough to follow.
L E V I A T H A N

[HPO]

While waiting for HPO's model to be finished , I propose you to:

• 1- Read again what's have been said before on the possibly shadows inconsistencies on Raj's photos, and especially Spf33 great study here, and Torvald's works here, on OMF.
• 2- In order to try to recreate the exact conditions of Raj's shoots last year, we need to know, HPO, the place were you lives and use to try your model, in order to gives you the same sun elevation and appropriate hours.

The problem is how to test it with the same pole configuration?
Maybe you will need to create a pole model?
Any idea about his height?

The main problem, as we all know it, is this:

But as for your questions, ....the place where I live,...hmm I don't know if I but that on a public forum  , but The Netherlands is just a small country anyway, so in the south part it is.

Creating a pole model  , that would be fun, but it will be very small then, and what about the camera setup with such a small thing? (the pole that is) Just let it float in the air near the camera on a long stick?

And what my biggest concern is, is to get the model high enough  , so it catches enough ambient light but also have the abbility to adjust the pitch and the jaw.

[elevenaugust]

But as for your questions, ....the place where I live,...hmm I don't know if I but that on a public forum  , but The Netherlands is just a small country anyway, so in the south part it is.

Of course!

Creating a pole model  , that would be fun, but it will be very small then, and what about the camera setup with such a small thing? Just let it float in the air near the camera on a long stick?

I guess it's probably the only solution, but I think it really depends of the relatives sizes of the drone/pole.
Anyway, probably some tests with only the drone for the moment could gives interesting results.

[leviathan]

The shadows and lighting on the pole can not be totally explained either and do we want to throw in subsurface scattering that is certainly present on things other than human flesh.  Why we can spend a year on that alone.  Who is it that knows the exact optical properties of the Drone construction material.  Remember the strange surface properties of the A1.  To reproduce something even close, one must know most if not all of the factors present in the original event and no one does.
L E V I A T H A N

[spf33]

interested in hearing any more opinions on this, it doesn't get mentioned too often, but where is this blue
tinted highlight on the drone coming from when simply adjusting the brightness?



is this evidence of a hoaxer using a blue colored light which doesn't seem to match the rest of the scene?  or is this
evidence of reflected blue tinted light from - a pool, the ocean, asphalt?  or is this a reflected non-colored light and the blue tint is actually the lightened missing shadow?

[HPO]

Anyway, probably some tests with only the drone for the moment could gives interesting results.

Well something I already tested was the shadow projection of the arm on the item15, that one I can confirm !
But I had to do that with to hands so no pictures yet.
One thing I noticed with that test (and which is obvious when I think of it) when you bank the drone to the side where the item15 is attached, the shadow gets bigger (higher) on the item15. So when you look at Pict16 on how big the black shadow on it is, the drone does not only have a tilted position with the big arm upwards but also must have a substantial bank to that item15 side.

If I make myself clear enough 

(edit: put the word bank in it instead of tilt or jaw, makes more sense of course)

[Endzone]

I am currently reading up on EM and how it can affect light waves that strike it. Much like a prism affects light when struck by it. I am putting forth the theory that if the field intensity of the cage is such that it can affect light, it is therefore possible that the reason we see a shadow also besides angle in the torus is because of how the light striking the cage and it's possible EM field could be refracted and or canceled out entirely by that field.

[leviathan]

This very thing has been pointed out in the case of the Birmingham Drone and its ring anomaly.  The interior of the ring is lighter than the sky.
L E V I A T H A N