Originally posted by jritzmann
Originally posted by CHRLZ
..I'd rather spend my time on more worthwhile endeavours.
..if this is not a "worthwhile endeavor" for you - why is it you're here to refute everything I say..
I'm simply here to add MY expertise. Why the exaggeration? - I haven't
you say. I've been quite specific about my
opinion - especially on the haze issue. I invite others to chime in - notably, elevenaugust and others
have already done that
.. and seem to agree with me.
You don't agree with any of it.
That's not correct. Please don't misrepresent my position.
Great. So where's that end for you?
? Hopefully it 'ends' with the readers having correct information and useful analysis. Would you not agree that errors and misinformation need to be
corrected, no matter WHO makes them?
To "break me" or refute til I bend to your opinion? You'll have a long wait.
? So, even if you are wrong you won't admit it? BTW, as I've said many times - I like
being wrong (I learn new stuff!) and I'm happy to admit
it when it happens - it does, occasionally..
I don't mind people disagreeing with me, because I don't
take it personally when people
question my expertise or point out an error. Feel free to check my record, eg examples like
this one at BAUT
, 3 of many examples on just one thread here at ATS..).
The object is highly reflective (whatever it is). The specular highlight shows that.
I agree that part
of it is. The part that is reflecting seems to be appropriately angled towards the sun which is obviously at about 45
degrees up and right.
If it's throwing the highlight that it is, then it stands to reason reflections would also fall in line - and they are significantly lighter in
tone than they should be based on the specular highlight displayed..
does that follow? Please be specific - how much lighter 'should' they be and how did you determine that? Yes, the part angled to the Sun
reflects, and the rest could be a very light colour from both reflected and transmitted light - indeed that's exactly what a light coloured plastic
bag would do. Especially in this environment, with a bright sun, bright blue sky, and very light ground reflecting lots of light upwards to reduce
But the fact that it 'seems' consistent with haze doesn't mean it IS
.. and fall in a progression with what's displayed in the rest of the shot that seems consistent with haze or atmospheric density.
. Your own choice of the word 'seems' shows that you know this. Even
assuming I accept that the light colour of an object must be haze (which I don't), to properly determine what might be haze and what might not, do we
have anything in this image at what might be a comparable distance to the object, upon which we might base any assumption? Not really. The only KNOWN
things that are obviously haze affected are:
1. The hills in the distant background.
It's just my opinion of course, but they do strongly appear to be very
distant - if the object
was at that sort of distance from the camera, it would be monstrously huge. (If anyone wants the math, let me know..)
2. The sea.
Which is not very useful as a guide because it is already
very blue/cyan, making it difficult to determine the 'haze
But let's check the R/G/B levels in the object anyway (I'm just using the initially posted jpeg, RAW figures might be a bit more accurate) - the
lightest (non-specular) areas seem to be in the order of 138/181/212 (Eg, coordinates 2249,351 and 2299,355). Compare the colour of the nearby sky in
that area, say 2204,313 - which is 158/188/216. In other words, the sky colour differs only by being a tad brighter and having more red in it - quite
consistent with the object being largely reflective/transparent. The reduction of red could easily be from its natural colour/reflectivity and the
nature of its light transmission characteristics.
In other words - yes, it *could* possibly be haze that caused the blue/cyan colour, but if it *is* haze affected, the object must be very large -
which then begs the question of why it wasn't noticed.. A nearby bug whizzing past, or a piece of uninteresting wind-blown litter, yes...
But there is absolutely no reason to dismiss the simplest possibility - namely that the object simply IS that colour!
edit on 16-11-2012 by CHRLZ because: fixed broken paragraph