It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

page: 98
77
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


REALLY, so that star that was turned into a donut shape was close to the camera?


Sorry, but an attempted debunk claim proves you wrong on this one.

Your post is just another example of personnel opinion being masqueraded as fact.

I also notice you also continue to ignore the NASA reports that show that this number of particles would not be floating outside of the shuttle.




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
REALLY, so that star that was turned into a donut shape was close to the camera?


Sorry, but an attempted debunk claim proves you wrong on this one.
If a star is turned into a "donut" then that's because the camera was focused to a closer distance and not infinity.

It was not an attempt to debunk anything, it was just an attempt at explaining how things work.


Your post is just another example of personnel opinion being masqueraded as fact.
It's not personal opinion, is a fact known by all photographers for the last 160 years.

Ask any photographer, you probably know some, even if amateurs. Any real photographer can explain it, better than I can.


I also notice you also continue to ignore the NASA reports that show that this number of particles would not be floating outside of the shuttle.
No, I am not ignoring it, but those reports are not relevant to what things look when out of focus, and that was what I was commenting.

The possible presence of ice crystals (and there's nothing pointing to ice crystals as the only possible explanation of those objects), as those reports say, depends on the time elapsed between the water dumps (or other ice producing event) and the time the video was made, and without the information about the water dumps we cannot know that for sure, that's why I am not commenting about that for now, I am awaiting for that data.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


98 pages and you still can't find a link to back up your claims, Hmm, brokeh tends to be more about background than foreground, so you are basically barking up the wrong tree.

When all the links you find present evidence that is in opposition to your claims, you need to start considering that you might be wrong.

Here is a link to someone who seems to know what he is talking about.

toothwalker.org...


The strength of residual aberrations, as well as the amount of vignetting and the size of the blur disk, depend on the subject distance and F-number. As a result, the aesthetic quality of the blur depends on several settings. It is not uncommon for a lens to receive mixed bokeh reports. The foreground blur and the background blur must be considered separately, because they can have different characters. Another important aspect that influences the reproducibility of bokeh assessments is the nature of the OOF image parts. Low-contrast tableaux are less likely to surprise the viewer than scenes with specular highlights or otherwise high contrasts.


It is not nearly as exact as you guys keep trying to claim.

Note, nothing in this states that these blurs only occur in the foreground when objects are very close to the camera.

This link discusses the effect more accurately.

toothwalker.org...


Spherical aberration (SA) is an image imperfection that is due to the spherical lens shape. Fig. 1 illustrates the aberration for a single, positive element. Light that hits the lens close to the optical axis is focused at position c. The light that traverses the margins of the lens comes to a focus at a position a closer to the lens. In this manner the focus position depends on the zone of the lens that is considered. When the marginal focus is closer to the lens than the axial focus, such as exhibited by the positive element in Fig. 1, one speaks of undercorrected spherical aberration. Conversely, when the marginal focus is located beyond the axial focus the lens is said to suffer from overcorrected spherical aberration.


The big point is that this type of Spherical Aberration can be created with a sphere slightly distant from the focus point.


From Fig. 1 it appears that a spherically aberrated lens has no well-defined focus. At any position behind the lens a sensor will be confronted with a finite circle of confusion (blur disk) rather than a true image point. However, there is a geometrically "best" focus [2], which corresponds to the circle of least confusion at position b. This is just the place where the ensemble of light cones has its minimum cross section.


In other words, most likely these SA qualities are being created by something close to the focal point which is the tether. If you are seeing spheres with SA problems, spheres close to the focal point will be effected by SA.

Let me emphasize the critical point.


At any position behind the lens a sensor will be confronted with a finite circle of confusion (blur disk) rather than a true image point.


Hmm, black knight, I would say your argument no longer has a leg to stand on.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ArMaP
 


98 pages and you still can't find a link to back up your claims, Hmm, brokeh tends to be more about background than foreground, so you are basically barking up the wrong tree.


Incorrect. Page 20.


[edit on 11/26/2009 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Note, nothing in this states that these blurs only occur in the foreground when objects are very close to the camera.


Good research, that's true!

If you see a bokeh with no other reference or information, you may not be able to determine if it's an out of focus object in front of the focal point, or behind the focal point, that much is true.

Now are we lacking in reference points? No, we have a very good one in this case, several in fact, the tether, and the stars, both of which can be considered at infinity as far as the camera lens specifications are concerned regarding focus. It is by the combination of looking at the effects of those known references, which are in focus when we see the bokeh, that we know the bokeh are not in focus when the objects at infinity are in focus. Therefore the bokeh cannot be as far as, or farther than, the tether, they can only be closer. Why? Well the bokeh can't be at a distance greater than infinity. But if you were familiar with photography this would all make a lot more sense to you, so I agree with ArMaP, ask some photographers if you still have doubts and see what they say.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Sorry, but not even close to the reality. Neither the tether nor the stars are in focus. Even a fifth grader could see that. It the stars were in focus they would look like perfect little round spheres, and the tether would look like a very fine line of light, not like a fluorescent tube.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yeah, how many times you gonna post that video and pretend it actually doesn't prove you side more wrong than right.

Check out this video. It is extremely relevant to the situation as described in the scene list.

www.youtube.com...

edit, here is a better link

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 26-11-2009 by poet1b]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Sorry, but not even close to the reality. Neither the tether nor the stars are in focus. Even a fifth grader could see that. It the stars were in focus they would look like perfect little round spheres, and the tether would look like a very fine line of light, not like a fluorescent tube.


I'm not sure if the focus can get any better than that or not on the objects at infinity. In the video posted by DOF it looks like they were trying to optimize the focus, and we can see the best result they got on the tether when they changed the focus. I think part of the reason for the lack of sharp clarity is that the image is overexposed, which is a separate issue from the focus.

But you're trying to evade and obfuscate the issue about the bokeh distance with that reply, since even if the tether was slightly out of focus, the big round donut shaped bokeh are obviously way MORE out of focus, so look at the relative focus even if you think the tether could be sharper. When the focus is changes, the tether becomes larger, hence defocused, and the bokeh become smaller, and more focused. So you know the bokeh are NOT at the same distance as the tether, and thus they must be closer, or as you suggested could be possible in some other cases, further.

So if you want to explain that by saying the bokeh are further than the tether, then the argument goes from the ridiculous assumption that the bokeh are 2.5 mile diameter objects at the distance of the tether, to the assertion that the bokeh are actually 25 mile diameter objects at 10 times the distance of the tether? Is that what you are suggesting by implying that the bokeh can be further than the tether?

No I don't think that's a realistic alternative, as they would still be at "infinity" from the lens perspective just like the tether is. So they can only be closer than the tether.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Keep working on that thought, it will come to you.

In the mean time, happy Thanksgiving.

Do you guys cook the turkey? Like I always do?

I am looking forward to a great turkey dinner later today.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Keep working on that thought, it will come to you.

In the mean time, happy Thanksgiving.

Do you guys cook the turkey? Like I always do?

I am looking forward to a great turkey dinner later today.



Likewise, Poet.

One thing I'm thankful for this year is you.

Either my case for a prosaic explanation for STS-75 will get stronger based on your objections, made with energy and persistence (OK, 'obstinacy' may be a better word, but I possess that quality myself in spades) but also clearly with intelligence and honesty, OR you will have exposed inadequate explanations and reasoning requiring alterations of conclusions to drive them closer to reality.

Either way, I figure, there's gain.

Attaboy. In all seriousness. Hang in there.

I still think we're right, and I've seen better and better supportive evidence for that. BUT any such investigation needs an adversarial thrashing out of the arguments, and our understanding is improved by it.

Thanks, too, to DofF and Arbi and wmd and the others doing original research and bringing new references and demonstrations to the forum. I'd like to collect them and archive them in more easily accessible form on my own home page, with permissions -- we'll talk more later.



[edit on 26-11-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


great work poet1b


i'm impressed with how you continue to show the closed minded ones how wrong they can be and you even have Jim rethinking his strategy !
that's priceless

thanks for the cool Zappa tune and have a Happy Thanksgiving



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
98 pages and you still can't find a link to back up your claims, Hmm, brokeh tends to be more about background than foreground, so you are basically barking up the wrong tree.
I don't want to show you a link to a page that explains how these things work because, from what I have seen, you will only understand what I mean by talking to someone directly, asking questions about it while that person explains it to you.

That's why I said that you should talk to a photographer, so you can have an "interactive" explanation, I know that my limited teaching abilities and grasp of the English language are not good enough to make you understand and that an Internet forum is not the best way of doing it.


When all the links you find present evidence that is in opposition to your claims, you need to start considering that you might be wrong.
I have no problem with that, but none of the links you posted contradicts what I have been saying, so either I am saying it in a way that prevents you from understanding it or you are not able to understand the underlying processes and so are unable to understand what everyone is saying.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



are you saying this is wrong ?


It is not uncommon for a lens to receive mixed bokeh reports.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Hi poet & easy

Poet your link

toothwalker.org...

IS the opposite of what you claim it reinforces what I am saying because the bokeh is a general term for out of focus highlights when you get this round shape the overall shape varies with lens type & blades in apeture mechanisim in the lens.
The first example picture on the page is of a lens focused on an object CLOSE to the camera this results in a very shallow depth of field when lens is set to gather as much light as possible in this case f4

look at this link click on depth of field chart half way down on right side.

www.sigmaphoto.com...

Look at different focal lengths for this zoom lens look at the depth of field when focused at close distances compare it with each focal length when focused at what represents infinity to the lens.
The picture of the gromit character on the right is taken so that the apeture of the lens is wide (to get more light) and to give the shallow depth of field to throw the background out of focus. Taken like this only objects a short distance either side will be in focus.
Now refer back to the depth of field charts above WHEN focused on infinity anything FROM infinity to the FRONT focus distance WILL repeat WILL be in focus SO anything thats out of focus MUST repeat MUST be closer than the front focus point LOOK at any lens dof table they all say the same.
This FACT alone PROVES that when focused on the distant object (remember the tether was from 40+ to 100 miles away) the out of focus objects must be CLOSER than the front focus point to look the way they do because when focused at infinity anything past the front focus will be in focus!
The front focus point will change as the focal length and aperture of the zoom changes BUT for the boken on this video to be behind or at a similar distance to the tether is impossible.
Myself,Armap,Depthoffield, Phage and others have be telling you this for a while.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Nice of you to finally figure out that bokeh is a general term after I provide a link to a sight that clearly illustrates this point. We have been making fun of your side for over twenty pages now for using this term like a kid in Jr High who has discovered a new word. What is clear is that despite all your claims, your horribly amateur video tapes, and use of words that you do not understand, is that none of you are experts on photography, so please stop trying to pretend differently. At least I have taken the time to look up what we see in the video which is more than any of you have succeeded in doing.

Lets take your statements, and insert some reality.

On this point your are starting to understand what is going on here.


Taken like this only objects a short distance either side will be in focus.


The part you are missing is that "objects a short distance either side" OF THE FOCAL POINT "will be in focus".

Look at figure two on this link.

toothwalker.org...

For spherical shape, the best focus is different than it is for normal objects. This is clearly explained. Depending on the lens, the sphere can appear dim in the center with a bright ring on the outside, bright in the middle and dim on the outside, or overall dim, depending on the position of the sphere from the focal point. This means that the large spheres with hollow centers are one side of the tether, while the dim small circles are on the other side of the tether.

Chances are that the lenses being used are of high quality, and designed for infinity adjustments, the problem is that the environment they are being used in is one of extreme contrast, which adds to the effect. What creates the problem in this video is over exposure which is compensated by closing down the aperture, which adds to the overall problem, and narrows the range in which we see the distortion.

The range as which we will start to see these distortions is quite broad but what is clear is that we are seeing distortions that indicate that these ufos are on both sides of the tether.

If any of you have the capability that you keep claiming, then you could demonstrate this by putting up the math that shows at what range we will start seeing these distortion effects. Chances are extremely slim that the focal range is no where near as broad as it would have to be to meet your claims.

Of course you could be honest for a change and admit you have no clue what so ever the range at which these distortions would start to be observed.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Your problem isn't you English skills, it is a lack of understanding of the subject, and what seems to be an arrogant claim on your part that your understanding is superior to my own, when you have yet to demonstrate that you have any in depth understanding of science or technology, and that goes for the rest of you.

First of all, this isn't even photography we are talking about but videography, which is very different. In addition, you are not going to find any videographers who are going to have any real world experience with filming under these conditions, unless you know someone who works with this stuff in aerospace. Chances are that would be the guy who wrote the scene list from the mission.

The guy who wrote the scene list for NASA most likely has more knowledge about this stuff than any of you ever will, unless you get jobs doing this stuff for an aerospace company.

The fact that the guy who wrote the scene list is probably an expert in the field, as well as the guy who wrote the study on objects seen in the camera lens in during shuttle flights The expert who wrote the scene list clearly identified ice particles as being from dumps and what we see with the tether as being debris.

Yet you people continue to insist that you have a superior understanding, not only more than me, but the experts as well.





posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Your problem isn't you English skills, it is a lack of understanding of the subject, and what seems to be an arrogant claim on your part that your understanding is superior to my own, when you have yet to demonstrate that you have any in depth understanding of science or technology, and that goes for the rest of you.
If that is what you get from what I wrote then my problem is really my English writing skills.


If my understanding of optics is superior to your own that does not diminishes you, we cannot be all-knowledgeable in all subjects, and from what you have been saying since you joined this discussion I get the feeling that you need to learn more about this subject, in the same way you (and all of us) learnt that ice in space last for much longer than any of us thought (as far as I know).

My understanding of science is very limited, I only finished high-school, but I have never claimed to have any special or above-average understanding of science.

My understanding of technology is limited to some fields, like electronics and computers, and in that area I know enough to design and build all parts of a computer, from the processor to the PSU, but I don't understand what that could change in this discussion.


First of all, this isn't even photography we are talking about but videography, which is very different.
Not in the optics part, and that was exactly what I was talking about, the way the lens work, and they work the same for a photo or a video camera, what's behind the lens is what makes the difference in the way the image is recorded.


In addition, you are not going to find any videographers who are going to have any real world experience with filming under these conditions, unless you know someone who works with this stuff in aerospace. Chances are that would be the guy who wrote the scene list from the mission.
There's no need for the videographer/photographer to have experience in taking photos in space, optics works in the same way, the only difference being the lack of atmosphere distortion for more distant things.


Yet you people continue to insist that you have a superior understanding, not only more than me, but the experts as well.
No, I never said that, what I said is that apparently you do not understand how lens work, how a small aperture changes the depth of field, why objects out of focus look the way they do, what is spheric aberration, etc., that's why I said you should talk to a photographer, because a photographer would be more knowledgeable than myself and having a direct conversation with someone like that may be a better way of understanding it.

As I said many, many times on these forums, I am not an expert in photography, all I know I learnt by myself and from the explanations my sister, a professional photographer, has given to me on some subjects.

Even today, at lunch, I told my sister about your post with the links to that page with the photos of Gromit (I love those movies
) and she said that most people have a wrong understanding of photography.

So, while not an expert, I know the basics, and although I have to constantly ask questions to my sister about my many doubts about the more technical aspects of photography at least I know enough to understand what is happening when a photo (or a video) is made.

PS: please do not take it the wrong way when I say that you should talk to an expert (a photographer or real videographer and not just someone that uses a camera) about this, I just think that the best is to talk to an expert, whatever the subject, when we need more information about it.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
are you saying this is wrong ?


It is not uncommon for a lens to receive mixed bokeh reports.

No, why did you got that idea?



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


because you said to Poet1b that the links he posted contradicted what you had been saying and i wondered why you said that. maybe i took what you were posting out of context ? if i did then i apologize



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


This is what I said:


...none of the links you posted contradicts what I have been saying...




top topics



 
77
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join