So, POST details
Originally posted by JPhish
there would be next to no motion blur for a car in drive moving at 1 mile per hour if the camera had a fast shutter speed. However, you are missing
the point. The point is the motion of an object can help identify it.
of where you see such motion of these objects. If you can't do that, you are just waving your arms about.
YES, motion of an object *could* help, if the motion means we get a different view, or we can measure the speed. But these objects are stationary!
These objects are not moving in any way that changes their shape or orientation relative to the camera. (Even if they were, Yalcin's ridiculous
hand-holding would hinder any such attempt...)
That means that still frame comparisons are in fact quite useful, and in fact *extra* useful in cases where there is much camera movement and
refocusing, exposure adjustments, etc. You can then cherry-pick the best frames (indeed frame-stacking is a technique that might be useful here, but
without the original footage... I wouldn't bother.)
If you claim any of your factors render still frame comparisons invalid, AGAIN, POST DETAILS of where/when/how. You seem to be avoiding that like
Pictures are lesser evidence than photographs or stills.
??Wha?? You just contradicted yourself, but we'll assume it was just a slip of the non-Freudian kind...
I never said anything about motion blur . . .
No, and if you aren't specific, who would know *what* you are talking about. So... BE SPECIFIC.
No offense, but the frame you provided does not in any way show that - indeed it is EXACTLY the same scene as MY grab, just zoomed out! - so it
beautifully demonstrates how you CANNOT trust your eye to arbitrarily make measurements.
no offense, but that's poor frame grab, there are no reference
Those lights are clearly in excess of 20 feet above the water.
Anyway, the lights quite possibly are
or higher so let's concede that .... - the prawn trawler vessel I showed you has lights that are.. wait for it... about 25-30 feet above the
(I used to work in and around those vessels). So, we have a match - thanks! A small cruising ship would have higher lights again.
not at all, those lights could be extremely high over the water depending on how large the object is.
Oh, so your 20 feet estimate is possibly/extremely wrong...? I'm getting quite confused now.
When I first saw the video THIS is what I thought the day time object was. I changed my mind when I realized the light arrangement was
incongruent with that of an oilrig.
WHY are they incongruent with an oil rig? How far away and at what angle would the rig be, and what lighting is actually required of a rig after
daybreak? Why are you so eager to criticise others for dismissing stuff, when you are clearly eager to do so yourself, on very slim grounds? You
need to start justifying your decisions by giving examples, workings and proof.
To me, the fact that there are no oil/gas rigs in that direction
, is a far better justification for dismissing it, so I agree with the final
conclusion - it very likely isn't an oilrig.
(Interestingly, and contrary to what has been posted elsewhere, there IS at least one rig in the Marmara Sea (it's a gas rig actually), but according
to my digging, it is currently located about 20km to the WNW, not far offshore from Silivri.. But not anywhere near where the camera was
The lights are definitely higher than 20 feet and I’d be willing to GUESS they are much higher.
How is your 20 feet figure NOT a guess, but higher is? You keep avoiding this - HOW do you know? If it is just a feeling, then admit that please.
If it is not, then show the maths/geometry.
A very large cruise ship is a good guess, but again, I believe the light arrangement is incongruent.
Based upon....? __________________ Please fill in some gaps. ANY gaps.
you completely missed the point,
that’s ok though; I’m sure you understand now that I have elucidated.
* BTW - your 'analogy' of the cardboard Corvette would ONLY be useful if we had 3D imagery. We do not. Indeed the 'depth', if any,
of these objects - and/or any parallax issues that it would cause - has not even come up as an issue.
brought up the cardboard business, so how on earth is that NOT about the depth/shape/parallax of the object???? Again, you complain
about intepretation, but offer no specifics. We *have* to guess at your meaning if you don't 'elucidate' at the start. Indeed how will I know
what I have missed, if you won't elucidate..? Educate me...
[edit on 1-8-2010 by CHRLZ]