reply to post by curious4ufos
There's a few more things missing to give a proper analysis.
- Focal length of lens used
- Object of known size (and distance from camera)
- The negative
An object can appear closer or farther in an image in relationship to its surroundings depending on the focal length of the optics used. In all
likelihood, this image was taken with 35mm judging by the size and aspect ratio of the print (not to mention that this was the most popular format in
the US during that period). As a matter of fact the Yashica Electro 35 was one of the most popular cameras in the 60's & 70's (I've got one
Next, determination of the object's position, to be "in front", or "behind" the trees is determined by the relative sharpness of the object in
relation to the trees. We cannot judge distance of the trees in this photo as we do NOT have a reference point that helps determine relative size &
distance. Add in the fact that we DO NOT KNOW the focal length, it would be near impossible to even ascertain a size/distance anyway.
As of now there is NO WAY to conclude that the object is larger, smaller, or the same size as a hubcap. Period.
The density, or black value on the object does NOT provide conclusive evidence that it is in front of, or behind the trees. That is just
A properly exposed print with a loupe would be helpful to glean more information. However, a print also has its own drawbacks. A print has its own
grain. It not only images the grain from the negative, but also introduces its own. Not that big of a deal if processed properly. Also, the
original print has lost much of its color, details and due to the ravages of time. Add the mishandling of it and you have the introduced scratches,
dirt and external debris.
So...the best way to analyze is not with the print, but rather with the negative. Using a negative and a loupe (or better yet, a microscope), one can
get a much better reading on the data. The negative can provide a much more detailed larger print for extra data extrapolation.
Now, what we DO know is:
- The image is badly out of focus. This further complicates analysis as this results in loss of data
- The image is over-exposed. This results in the lack of details in the sky and top of object.
- There is no negative available. This would be the one item that could really make all the difference in analysis regardless of the above facts.
- The image was shot in daylight
- Time of day might be possible to determine due to shadows and angle of the sunlight vs. location
- The object is dead center...kind of fortuitous for the photographer, no?
- Based on the grain that we can see, it appears to have been shot with ISO 100-400 ASA film.
If I had to guess, I'd say that the image may have been taken at ISO 200, 45mm @ f/1.7 at 1/500 sec.
Thus, this object could, in fact, be:
- a flying saucer from planet Zenar
- a 1970 Cadillac Eldorado hubcap somehow suspended in the air for a little photo fun in the hills.
- a chicken pot pie in the process of being discarded
Regardless, this is still a photo of a yet unidentified (flying/floating/suspended/etc) object.
I'd love to try my hand at recreating the scene with my Yashica. However, I've got to get a battery adapter and, as it turns out, the area of Tokyo
where I live has a distinct lack of US hubcaps to spare
Maybe when I get back to Georgia...