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.
Or that the object was moving.
Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Upon reviewing that again, the fact the "object" moves more still indicates to me it is closer to the camera, thereby being consistent with my conclusion it is debris on the windscreen of the wtiness' car.
Originally posted by ArMaP
Or that the object was moving.
Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Upon reviewing that again, the fact the "object" moves more still indicates to me it is closer to the camera, thereby being consistent with my conclusion it is debris on the windscreen of the wtiness' car.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Whether we see the hood or not is dependent on the angle the phone camera is aimed at. If it's aimed up enough so that the bottom edge of the frame is above the hood you won't see the hood. Depending on the slope of the hood this will vary by the model of car too.
The difference in depth could be a lot more than 6 inches and can make a big difference. I don't know the actual distances, but just to make a comparison, let's say when you lean back (normally ) in the seat you're 2 feet from the postit note, and if you lean forward just one foot, that will nearly double the apparent relative movement of the postit note.
That's because the ratio has gone from 6/2 which is a ratio of 3, to 5/1 so it's a 166% increase.
Bingo. If you lean forward from 2' to 0.5' instead, then the ratio of the object that was 6' away goes from 6/2 which is a ratio of 3, to 4.5/0.5 which is 9, and the relative movement increases by 300%.
Move forward another 3 inches, and the ratio goes to 4.25/0.25 which is 17, now 566% of the original relative movement.
Originally posted by TheMalefactor
Yo Arb, appreciate the effort to help make sense of the details. Could you check my understanding of what you wrote below? Want to make sure I'm following you.....
So that narrows down considerably where the camera can be, right?
If you just compare the postit note on the windshield (which might be 2 feet away) to an object that has a direct or reflected distance of 6 feet, then really the formula would be something like that but the y would actually be a constant of 4 feet. And the exponential increase occurs as X approaches zero. But I don't know how you can say less than 1, less than 1 what? foot? meter? centimeter? The units don't matter so the value of 1 is irrelevant, forget about less than 1. It's as the distance to the windshield x approaches zero, that the ratio becomes infinite, and that happens regardless of the units.
Sounds like you're saying we're dealing with some sort of function like (y+x) / x? Then when x > 1 it will behave like a linear-line graph and when it's < 1 exponentially. So you're saying the graph below is due to x < 1?
So if we're to take this type of formula and we're assuming it's going exponential then that also means the size of the postit should get bigger and bigger in the camera viewfinder, right?
Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Mark_Frost
What is it with Sydney? This is recent footage. Perhaps it is a balloon?
Originally posted by FileZero
reply to post by Phage
How do you explain the apparent 'change of shape' if it is dirt on the windshield? A 3d moving object will ' change shape ' in 2d photos due to parallax and rotation... a blob of dirt would not.
Originally posted by FileZero
reply to post by Phage
Could the streaking you mention be a result of the camera itself, and not the windscreen?