Please look at this photo and tell me what you think

page: 10
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


No it's not.

Really? You really believe that? Depth perception is why humans have two eyeballs... tell you what. Put a patch over one eye and walk around all day. Then come back here and tell us how many bruises you have on your shins from bumping into stuff.




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22

Originally posted by intrptr
Those who say they can determine the size of the object or its distance from the camera are forgetting that in order to determine those things you need two lenses set some distance apart, not one camera lens.

Stereoscopic vision provides depth perception and allows humans (with two eyeballs) to determine size and range.

This is impossible from a single camera lens viewpoint.



Oh and this is just one method. PS3 has the ability to do it within the program and one can also use something like Google Sketchup to do it as well.

How do I calculate the distance of an object in a photo?

So if we know the distance to the pole and the diameter of the pole, which is probably 20", then we can start to use some assumptions to get an idea of the size of the object. The object certainly looks to be beyond the pole.


Stop right there.

Jenga.
edit on 9-1-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
There is a new plugin coming for Photoshop that re-constructs motion blurred images as well as focus blurred images. But it will not be cheap.
It is revolutionary , based upon a new mathematical process. It will be out soon.

It will be great seeing what it can do for photo's such as this.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Not always when the first post were done the height of the pole was given as 190 ft the camera is a Samsung PL210

Well yah, with all that data, sure. Maybe I should have been more specific and said its impossible to tell from a 2D picture. Wait I did say that.

So it is a small close up object isn't it?




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Who says it's behind the pole!!!!



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Bilk22
 


No it's not.

Really? You really believe that? Depth perception is why humans have two eyeballs... tell you what. Put a patch over one eye and walk around all day. Then come back here and tell us how many bruises you have on your shins from bumping into stuff.



It's called math. Something you probably need to understand better.

This link provides ANSI dimensions and standards for wood poles. If we know the approximate length of the pole we will know the diameter derived from the circumference. Well you need to know math to know how to arrive at that. Then we can work from there.

However it can be done using other methods including using software to do it. How do you think they make maps? How do you think the military make determinations of things from photographs?

Remember deny ignorance.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Outrageo
 


Nice post


I considered the non-flapping interval and went searching for a photo of a bird so I could get on photoshop and do some testing of the bird theory. All I did was one smudge and a little blurring and voila:

edit on 9-1-2013 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Who says it's behind the pole!!!!


One clue is the lighting. The father away an object is from the camera focal plane, the darker an object will appear because less reflective light is reaching the sensor.. The pole is brighter because it's closer.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Who says it's behind the pole!!!!


One clue is the lighting. The father away an object is from the camera focal plane, the darker an object will appear because less reflective light is reaching the sensor.. The pole is brighter because it's closer.


We have no idea what the actual colour/shade of the object is, so saying "it's darker" than something seems kind of silly.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Who says it's behind the pole!!!!


One clue is the lighting. The father away an object is from the camera focal plane, the darker an object will appear because less reflective light is reaching the sensor.. The pole is brighter because it's closer.


Or the pole is brighter because it's a brighter color than the object. Or the surface is smoother and more reflective. Or...



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by LightOrange
 

You can also take snap shots of a moving bird in this video like I did a while back.


I grabbed the "hummingbird" from the video:


And zoomed it (a little)...


The camera is steady on the tree. You can hardly see the bird fly by in the video. But I think it was really a UFO bird myself. Just look at the screen captures. They really look like a domed top, flat bottomed, correctly shaded "blur" don't they?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22
Do you have a pic of that pole from a distance? Do you know from what distance the pic was taken? No need to have the object in the pic. However from this info the size of the object can be extrapolated with certain estimates such as the distance of the object from the poll. This can help determine how large the object is and whether or not it can possibly be a bird. If the bird scenario is eliminated the conversation can go on further.
edit on 9-1-2013 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)









posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


It's called math. Something you probably need to understand better.

Math has nothing to do with it. We're discussing the magical ability on your part to determine depth of objects from a 2D picture.

Never mind. I see others are asking the same thing.
edit on 9-1-2013 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Who says it's behind the pole!!!!


One clue is the lighting. The father away an object is from the camera focal plane, the darker an object will appear because less reflective light is reaching the sensor.. The pole is brighter because it's closer.


A darker closer object out side the dof would look the same



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by larphillips
 


Approx what distance from the pole was the picture taken?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by larphillips
 


Approx what distance from the pole was the picture taken?


Couldn't tell you, I wasn't the photographer. The "object" photo was taken zoomed in, and probably out a bit from the base. A couple posts up, I included some additional non "object" photos of the tower to hopefully help with a little more perspective and sizing.

And bird or not, I find this discussion (and process) to be fascinating. That's why I love this site.


edit on 1/9/13 by larphillips because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by larphillips
 

Is it an H class pole? I'd assume so from the height and use. The diameter of the top of the pole is no less than 18" and no less than 22" at 6'.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rezlooper
A bird? Are you people serious? Tell me it's CGI and I can handle it, but a bird. This is why I've lost interest in the UFO forum on here because its overrun with skeptics that are so skeptical they will call this obvious metallic looking object a bird. Really?


A metallic object? Are you people serious? Tell me it's CGI and I can handle it, but a metallic object. This is why I have lost interest in the UFO forum on here because it is overrun with believers that are so starry-eyed they will call this obvious bird a metallic object. Really?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rezlooper
reply to post by intrptr
 


This hummingbird doesn't appear silver and metallic. So your point is?


Neither does the object in the OP.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Nevermind... got my answer while reading the rest of the posts...
edit on 9-1-2013 by Lithops because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join