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.
Originally posted by CHRLZ
Radiosity? As for me, I'm simply saying it looks far more like a reflection than anything else, including lens flare.
I've already pointed out an image showing the interior vents with what appear to be circular sections that would point outwards. Combine that the flat silverish edges on the side of those vents, and there you have a half-hexagon-like shape. Add the dashboard panel itself, and you have the straighter oblique lines. That possible explanation seems to explain more of the anomaly than lens flare..
A number of people are failing to notice the orbs that Ms. Hartigan described coming from the light source are in fact illuminated at the correct angle from the light source if they had been up in the air. Meaning they're very likely spherical objects adjacent to the light (not backlit).
Those objects are approximately 4-10 pixels wide, and given the jpeg compression and builtin sharpning, ascertaining the shape is pretty much impossible (courtesy of Mr. Nyquist).
The reason this was held up as the correct interpretation, rather than say a lens flare or volumetric lighting, was primarily the lack of curvature.
This is only relevant if we know what is being reflected. It could be straight, and curved by the reflective surface or it could be curved, and reflected off a flat surface. Or any other combination.
Can you explain the relevance/usefulness of this equation? Are you planning to plug in some figures to make it mean something? As an example, how on earth is the color model important?
This creates potential "errors" for I_λ in that it can exceed the maximum displayable pixel value.
Yes, clipping could be important, but.. ahem.. you can SEE clipping, and the reflections are definitely not clipped.. Again, relevance?
As an example, how on earth is the color model important?
I understand that you are merely offering a rough simulation, but it's worth noting that you can't possibly duplicate a *real* lens flare without a full ray-tracing of the entire scene, inc. camera/lens/lens elements in question, all in 3D.
Below are several images that show the sequence going from a simple black background with a lens flare composited with a semi-transparent overlay of IMG_0432.JPG animated till the original image is completely opaque.
(a higher quality version w/o warped dimensions can be found here, and the original src material here).
That said, it's a good try, except... the lens flare isn't aligned with the centre of the image,
That is, they are normally found along a line drawn through the light source and the exact geometrical centre of the image.
...and the vast majority of lens flares of that type are symmetrical.
and you have only vaguely explained about half of one part of the anomaly...
Indeed, if you properly blow them up to view the actual pixels, if anything one looks vaguely triangular, the other..? If you are seeing circular shapes, then is it possible you are using software with an enlarging algorithm that 'guesses' at the shape? - such algorithms will indeed often round them off.
This more or less rules out the possibility that these objects are on a "windshield" or are foreground objects.
No, it doesn't. They could even be stone chips in the glass, the edges of which refract/reflect the light.
As a matter of fact we can even attempt to do a rough calculation on size if we can get an approximation of the length of the light-enclosure (assuming it's a street light).
On a 4-7 pixel object of indeterminate distance from the lens? That would be impressive.
Since most everyone believes the primary object is in a fixed position we can actually measure how much she would have had to move either forward or backwards based on scaling / rotation for it to be a "stationary" object.
Not without knowing how far away it is from the lens.
This then also strongly suggests the object is moving independently.
No, it does not. My animation clearly shows otherwise. The effects shown can be easily explained by the camera being moved in the X-Y plane, tilted up/down/sideways, or moved slightly back and forth in the Z-plane - all within a very small range indeed, as per my example above. Try it yourself.
Once we have the proportions mapped we can then check between the other images to make sure they translate and rotate in a consistent manner. To be more clear if we assume she's sitting in a vehicle we know her movements restricted in the depth/Z-axis at most to 2 or 3-feet. If the scaling exceeds that we know she's not in the car.
Put another way if it's an extreme foreground object then we should be able to say, "To place the blob over tree d would require an offset of a movement either Z units forward/backwards and/or X, Y units left/right/up/down (using Tait-Bryan angles).
Can you give an actual similar example of using T-B angle calculations in a photogrammetric sense, *given the information we have*?
...
What about the rest of it?
Meaning if we accept the idea that the object is on the windshield, then for there to be a reflection on the pane, the light source has to be bright enough to back-scatter off the dash or the material has to have a high specularity to cause reflection (though in this case the ray will travel at the same angle reflected through the object's normal not backwards).
So if the shot was taken from inside the vehicle (which I can now show isn't the case) we're almost definitely seeing a reflection of the hood or backscatter (not simply specular reflection since all the lighting is in the foreground).
So the jpeg compression artifacts are good enough to allow you to see "the interior vents with what appear to be circular sections that would point outwards" and "flat silverish edges on the side of those vents" along with the "dashboard panel itself," but not a well defined object with an edge and lighted contours?
If we assume the black object is still in the car that means....
Q.E.D., the shot was taken outside, the black object is moving independently (due to the disproportionate translation), the reflection is a combination of the lens flare, the middle lamp, and (very likely) reflection from off the hood.
Cheers!
Originally posted by rusethorcain
[-snip-] MOD NOTE: Do Not Post People's Private Information.
Should I call him?
So the jpeg compression artifacts are good enough to allow you to see "the interior vents with what appear to be circular sections that would point outwards" and "flat silverish edges on the side of those vents" along with the "dashboard panel itself," but not a well defined object with an edge and lighted contours?
I think you are assuming that people are suggesting the 'orbs' and the 'blob' are reflections.
This is a mistake.
A number of people are failing to notice the orbs that Ms. Hartigan described coming from the light source are in fact illuminated at the correct angle from the light source if they had been up in the air. Meaning they're very likely spherical objects adjacent to the light (not backlit).
Those objects are approximately 4-10 pixels wide, and given the jpeg compression and builtin sharpning, ascertaining the shape is pretty much impossible (courtesy of Mr. Nyquist).
Indeed, if you properly blow them up to view the actual pixels, if anything one looks vaguely triangular, the other..? If you are seeing circular shapes, then is it possible you are using software with an enlarging algorithm that 'guesses' at the shape? - such algorithms will indeed often round them off.
This more or less rules out the possibility that these objects are on a "windshield" or are foreground objects.
No, it doesn't. They could even be stone chips in the glass, the edges of which refract/reflect the light.
number of people are failing to notice the orbs that Ms. Hartigan described coming from the light source are in fact illuminated at the correct angle from the light source if they had been up in the air. Meaning they're very likely spherical objects adjacent to the light (not backlit).
I am not understanding all but 20% of what you're saying but, THANK YOU
Your statement is nothing less than mob mentality and lemming behavior.
"Sure! They all say it. Must be true. Let's jump!!"
Sheesh!!!
If I had presented you with those photographs before this case, and without claiming a 'sighting', just asked you what you thought, what would you have told me? Please be honest.
Originally posted by wayaboveitall
If we assume the black object is still in the car that means....
Lol nobody did. The blob is suggested to be on the outside of the windscreen.
Q.E.D., the shot was taken outside, the black object is moving independently (due to the disproportionate translation), the reflection is a combination of the lens flare, the middle lamp, and (very likely) reflection from off the hood.
Im sorry but you cant get reflection off the hood if your sitting on it and facing away from it. The lense is on the otherside of the camera from the hood and there is, in the photos, nothing infront of the lense thats reflective
Originally posted by wayaboveitall
If I had presented you with those photographs before this case, and without claiming a 'sighting', just asked you what you thought, what would you have told me? Please be honest.
[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]
I was proposing the notion if she was on the left side of the vehicle or even towards the front-middle (such that the hood was in foreground or even off to the right), then it could cause reflection. If she's sitting on the right side. Then you're absolutely correct there's literally no way it would be the hood.
The main point I make though, the reason we can say definitively that the object isn't on the windshield, is it moves at a greater offset than the glare.
Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by Xtraeme
Well a few points . She claims these objects emerged from a bright yellow light that appeared first , then after the other objects flew away it also disappeared. Are you claiming the bright yellow light is not the streetlight? Also Maybe...maybe not proved the hood of the car would not show right here : www.abovetopsecret.com... .Also the center of the windshield is not as curved as the edges. I can also provide other pictures of the `orbs` taken by others that when zoomed reveal wings. Also why when all else is in focus is the black blob blurred?
[edit on 1-4-2010 by bluemooone2]
Originally posted by ArMaP
A question to everyone: why do people refer to it as "black blob"?
It doesn't look black to me, and with the light coming from almost behind it it should look darker than it was.
Why for the love of gawd, is it out of the realm of possibility that those second objects DID occur but.........she THOUGHT they emerged from the bright light (aka; lamppost) when in fact, that wasn't their birthplace after all?
One can have absolute clarity (seeing two orbs) and STILL have an oversight (lamp post) at the same time or does that conflict with some type of quantum mechanics?
con·fab·u·late (kn-fby-lt)
intr.v. con·fab·u·lat·ed, con·fab·u·lat·ing, con·fab·u·lates
1. To talk casually; chat.
2. Psychology To fill in gaps in one's memory with fabrications that one believes to be facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The incident (of two flying orbs) is not obliterated just because she MIGHT'VE mistook their origin. That COULD happen you know.
A question to everyone: why do people refer to it as "black blob"?
It doesn't look black to me, and with the light coming from almost behind it it should look darker than it was.