HPO model/Raj photos shadows study

[Endzone]

Ok here's a link to a flash file to show how the EM field refraction would work on the torus shadow.

http://www.swellcast.com/paranormal/sundrone2.html

[majicbar]

I think that you should retitle the frame to read, shadow "inside" torus, as this is more precisely what you are showing.

[Endzone]

Thanks didn't notice that! 
Fixed
 
http://www.swellcast.com/paranormal/sundrone2.html

[HPO]

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?

Well if this was evidence of a hoaxer using a blue colored light, I think you would see that on more parts of the drone it's only on that quadrant, I would go for a reflected blue light.

[majicbar]

Do they have swimming pools in Capitola?

[tomi]

Fellow DRT members, please help..
 
I'm pasteing here what I posted over on OM in a question to Jeddyih.
I'm sorry it is a long rambling post asking the same question tediously..

Here it is:

Where you see a shadow inconsistency on the pole, I see many as per my example of the pole vrs his illustration.

How can his illustration be correct if the shadows on the pole have so many inconsistencies to his illustration. I think his work and time is commendable, however, dragon says and I agree with him, to determine the correct angle of the sun, the shadow on the side of the pole would help determine angle.

Where there are shadows or shadows missing between his illustration of the pole and the original picture, is an indication that there is something wrong with the angle established by Torvald. Unless the angle of light is as exactly as it is in the pole, how can you begin to determine what is missing off the drone in the picture.

The only other possibility I see to resolve this shadow discrepency is that the pole is fake, it's shadows are fake and then the drone was dropped in as well. Now that solution would in my mind be ridiculous. Why create a cgi composition of a telephone pole when a photograph would work just as well, per this original picture. But to get the exact conditions to determine what is happening on the shadows of the drone, you have to first get the shadows exactly replicated on the pole.

Reflective light and the elevation of the pole has left certain shadows out of areas on the original pole. These shadows are in Torvalds illustration, and he says certain shadows are missing from the drone.

Sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me how you can attach importance to missing shadows on the drone when you can't provide a replication of the shadows on the pole. If you can get the shadows on the pole with its ambient lighting replicated to the point where it matches the shadows on the photographed pole spot on, then say the drone is missing shadows, I would say that is a cause for determining something is wrong with the shadows of the drone.. but until the shadows can be matched, it says to me it is not an accuate means of identifying missing shadows.

Please help me see where I may be wrong here in my reasoning.

Here is my example I made yesterday to show these inconsistent shadows:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/8172/torvaldexp1ts1.jpg

Thanks for anyones help here.

[drewlac]

Shouldn't focus on shadow studies be on confirmed locations?  Until details of Raj's photo location is known, these shadow studies are based on assumptions.  Hopefully the PIs will track down this telephone pole soon and then all of the conditions of the location will be known.  The one thing I have learned while watching all of this unfold, is that things aren't always what they initially appear to be. Just a few examples off the top of my head to get my point across: mouse that turned into a house, speculated damaged part in Isaac's inventory photo shown not to be damaged by HPO's model.  There could very well be something that is currently unknown about Raj's photo location that would alter this analysis.  Until location details are validated, we need to remind ourselves that this analysis is based upon assumptions. 

[leviathan]

drewlac, logical and correct.  I see many inconsistencies on the pole, showing the phenomena we call light at work.
IC

[tomi]

Here is something I created to study the interior depth difference within the torus of the drones and shadow issues.

[spf33]

Well if this was evidence of a hoaxer using a blue colored light, I think you would see that on more parts of the drone it's only on that quadrant, I would go for a reflected blue light.

unless it was a spotlight using falloff and attenuation then it would look similar to what's in pic16;



i don't use colored spots all that much in max, i'd need to check, but using a colored light would result in the center cone of light tending to go towards white while the falloff edges go more towards the actual color chosen.  which is what kind of happens in pic16.

Do they have swimming pools in Capitola?

many.  and cars i thought to myself this morning as i noticed the low'ish sun reflecting off the windshield of jeep onto the side of a building.  i dont' know if it was a tinted window or not but the reflected light sure looked blueish...



simple java illustrates nicely.

perhaps this in place of, or in combination with, my current hunch that the pic16 pole isn't perfectly straight and the allowable compass alignment shift possible.

[HPO]

Yes, a blue colored spotlight as part of many other lights could be possible, he could have overseen that the light had a different color.
But using a spotlight in such a scene is a little odd IMHO. And most programs don't have a blue spotlight as standard, so he must have adjusted that himself.

[HPO]

Here is something I created to study the interior depth difference within the torus of the drones and shadow issues.

Hi tomi,.... funny, I came to a totally different conclusion, I think they are al the same, they seem to have a torus inside the main torus, that's the part I have named the inner core in my model.

[leviathan]

Today my friends and I took a walk around what we call the farm.  We saw many anomalies that can not be readily explained as to light and shadow and photographed some.  So this latest business seems to us to be a tempest in a teapot.  If this can convince anyone that looks at nature that the Drones are CG because of this, then they need to take a walk and see that nature is unaware she is breaking the rules of CG renderers.  We mentioned this to nature and she seemed entirely indifferent to human rules.  She only shook a little and continued in her ways.
IC

[Arkhangels]

HPO I have one question regarding your CGI (and the resin as well) model.
When you rendered the image below,
1- have you considered a possible 8º tilted arm? Or in your image the arm is straight in relation to the main torus?
2- how you disappeared with the shadow from the arm in that image? Or you didn't have to disappear with nothing because the arm does not cast a shadow in that render?




Regards
Ark

[HPO]

I've counted two questions  .

1- In the CGI it is straight, in which direction do you think it is tilted? are you refering to the chad drone pictures?

2- The shadow is on the main torus, only you don't see it because of the low angle of the sun.
    I'm also going to do the test with the shadows on the pole, Kris has send me his model of the pole, so I will test it with my model of the drone in Vue6.