The Kaikōura, New Zealand 1979 Triangle UFO 16MM film analyzed

Excerpt from the story here -

Crew remember the day UFO was spotted over Kaikōura 40 years on
At the end of 1978, Australasia was in the grip of UFO fever. In October, 20-year-old Frederick Valentich disappeared while piloting a small Cessna 182 aircraft over Bass Strait while heading to King Island in Tasmania. Described as a "flying saucer enthusiast", Valentich informed Melbourne air traffic control he was being accompanied by an unknown aircraft.
Two months later across the Tasman, on December 21, Safe Air pilots Vern Powell and Ian Pirie spotted strange lights while flying from Blenheim to Christchurch. A producer for Melbourne's Channel 0 (now Channel 10), Leonard Lee heard the news and tracked down reporter Quentin Fogarty, who worked for the channel but was on holiday with his wife and children in Christchurch, staying at TV One journalist Dennis Grant's home.

Freelance Wellington cameraman David Crockett was also hired, along with his wife Ngaire, who operated the audio tape recorder. The group were invited to jump aboard Safe Air's Blenheim-based Argosy plane, named Merchant Enterprise, late on December 30, which pilots Bill Startup and Bob Guard were taking on a newspaper run between Wellington and Christchurch.

Shortly after takeoff, the pilots noticed strange lights appearing and disappearing over the Kaikōura coastline about 20 miles west. "While we were filming a standup to camera, Captain Bill Startup shouted to us that we should go to the flight deck immediately as something was happening again," says David Crockett. He managed to film a rapidly moving, bright white light.

Full story and much more on the sighting here -

NZHerald

A few years ago my team managed to secure the 16 MM film to analyze. Sighting footage filmed with this quality of equipment is rare and so we were eager to use the latest forensic image analysis software to see what results we could find.

Here are the results -

a reply to: A51Watcher

Good to see you mate and very interesting work on the footage - don't know much about image analysis but the object seen 14:55 is very intriguing to say the least (look forward to when the New Zealand Defense Force finally gives up restricted access to the original files in the year 2050).

Some of the image links are now defunct but if folks want more background info on the case then Ziggystar60 once authored a great thread below - Mr Fogarty certainly sounds a bit spooked in the vid and also looks like both he and pilot Bill Startup were pretty pissed off by the debunking antics employed.

"We got all sorts of people ringing us up telling us we're idiots," says Mr Startup. "We were fooling the public, we were putting a hoax out, this was all a big hoax for Christmas," says Mr Startup. 
"I became a bit of an object for criticism and almost ridicule, because we were poo-pooed by the authorities, and sceptics came out of the woodwork and cherry picked the things that suited them and dismissed all the evidence, and said we saw this, we saw that," says Mr Fogarty. 
Some of explanations for what they had a seen and filmed were Venus, squid boat lights and the lights of Wellington and Christchurch. 
"People can think about that, but they weren't on the aircraft," says Mr Startup. 
None of those involved are satisfied with any of explanations given by scientists and government officials. 
"None of them to my knowledge or satisfaction have coordinated the visual sighting with the radar sighting," he says. "They've said the visual sighting was squid boats, it was Venus, it was Jupiter, it was the harbour lights. You name it, they can come up with all sorts of reasons for what it was. 
"But they haven't explained why I can see Jupiter, Venus and the harbour lights doing 140 knots on my radar." says Mr Startup.

Caught on film by TV crew: The 1978 Kaikoura UFO sightings

The Entire story is amazing but the work your company did with the footage is spectacular!
I can totally see how our government has came up with "their" designs for our new Crafts. Because just as Lazar said We have Their Crafts!
It is amazing how when the video is slowed down the Crafts Real shape is revealed
The Craft almost seems Alive and Pulsating. It's hard for me to distinguish whether the craft is Spinning or Morphing.
Thank you for your hard work and for sharing

Excellent thread and analysis for one of my own favourite UFO sightings, although I'm sure the date was 30th December 1978, not 1st January 1979 (even taking into account up to a 12-hour time difference in the UK).

As a kid, I remember the high excitement generated by this story, an encounter bolstered by the UFO being sighted and filmed on TWO consecutive flights by a TV crew who were genuinely spooked - one female crew member even too frightened to join them for the second journey.

Like Karl, I'm not an image analysis expert. but the triangular shape is an interesting proposition I have not heard before, the blue edges being of particular interest. The cameraman himself described the main object as having a brightly lit bottom with a transparent "sphere" on top - leading to the popular notion of a "saucer", but a more triangular shape cannot be ruled out.

Startup's reply to some of the more hasty explanations is a classic:

"But they haven't explained why I can see Jupiter, Venus and the harbour lights doing 140 knots on my radar."

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

Startup's reply to some of the more hasty explanations is a classic:

"But they haven't explained why I can see Jupiter, Venus and the harbour lights doing 140 knots on my radar."

Hola amigo and that quote is indeed a classic - here he is saying it (along with other comments).

a reply to: A51Watcher



Great case and outstanding research.

The triangles three tips of 'propulsion' look more like they are holding something in a matrix rather than a flying system. Just a gut feel, zero science involved on my part

Cheers mate, I appreciated no music overlay!

this case is without doubt one of the best recorded ufo encounters, when the objects are being tracked on ground and air radar doing 140 knots and the sceptics are saying fishing boats and Venus its absolutely ridiculus. a reply to: karl 12

Very nice. I appreciate the focus being taken away from that one "figure 8" frame, which I always thought was a camera bump anyway, but some people just latched onto it like a dog with a bone.

Hopefully the high-definition scan will be made available to other researchers who want to do their own analyses.

Well you damn sure proved it was an object

a reply to: karl 12

And good to be seen Karl.

Basically this analysis has separated the various channels of light into different individual images and then stacked the ones that appear to show the most detail.

The good news is we don't have to wait till 2050 for more analysis of the footage from the event. Latest word from the team is there will be 3 more videos of footage not covered yet that are pretty interesting as well.

Certainly more to this event than has met the eye up until now!

a reply to: FreeFalling

Thank you for the kind words Free. The next 3 videos of this footage the team will be releasing soon will probably answer some questions and raise some new ones.

There is a light source. Very nearly a point source. Is there any possibility that the enhancements (filters) you've used have accentuated artifacts produced by the lens/shutter system of the camera? I ask because such effects can be seen in other equipment.

An experiment of mine, using a tripod so the image is quite steady. No stabilization required.


I'm aware that you used film, not an original digital record. Is it possible that the process of digitization itself introduced artifacts?

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Like you and Karl, I'm not an image analysis expert either, but in the last several years I have learned a lot from the experts on our team, and consulting various experts in their fields regarding aspects of effects seen in our videos.

If these triangle craft ever turn out to be ours, I think it will represent a huge leap in technology.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Thanks zazzafrazz. You could be right, we just don't know yet. This is our first 16MM film of a triangle crafty to analyse, so we are still trying to figure out it's propulsion system at this time.

The best we can say is it's power and propulsion system seems to be quite unusual.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I hope so too. I will keep everyone posted.

originally posted by: Jackfish28
Well you damn sure proved it was an object

Yeah, Scratch one squid boat.

originally posted by: Phage
There is a light source. Very nearly a point source. Is there any possibility that the enhancements (filters) you've used have accentuated artifacts produced by the lens/shutter system of the camera? I ask because such effects can be seen in other equipment.

An experiment of mine, using a tripod so the image is quite steady. No stabilization required.

I'm aware that you used film, not an original digital record. Is it possible that the process of digitization itself introduced artifacts?

Try to explain the different colours and the UAP's innerstructures as well as a clearly visible rotation of the UAP.

Your Venus recording only shows a steady non rotating object.

You used a digital camera.

The film was made with 16 mm and digitzed using film scanner.

a reply to: A51Watcher

Try to explain the different colours and the UAP's innerstructures as well as a clearly visible rotation of the UAP.

I'm not attempting to explain anything. I'm asking questions about the process and what is seen.

Your Venus recording only shows a steady non rotating object.

Yes. With very little atmospheric distortion (known as mirage effects, or scintillation in astronomy). Your video can be interpreted as showing the effects of atmospheric distortion of a distant object rather than "rotation", can it not? It appears so to me.

You used a digital camera.

Correct. Including the use of digital zoom.

The film was made with 16 mm and digitzed using film scanner.

Yes. I understand that. I said so. Can scanners introduce artifacts? In particular when high levels of zoom are employed.

a reply to: Phage

The answer to most of your questions can be found on the internet with a little research. Follow the lead of the answers already given.

As far as the scanning introducing artifacts it appears from the report that did not occur -

#
Preprocess Report
#
Subject : Kaikoura UAP Video 1 of 4
File name : 1978 Kaikoura 16mm Film
Original film : Fujicolor type 8425, ASA 400 color reversal
Type : interneg 16 mm Transfer
Film processor : Bond Colour, Richmond Victoria, Australia
(www.bondimaging.com.au)
Integrity : verified
MD5 Hash code : f2ed5f9c2e1ef6c19a91f1fe670111f1
SHA1 Hash code : 9eb500341925b6c9762dde15cdbdbe12409b9597
SHA256 Hash code :
cb2019c7386dc7a759c7243c2563c856eb5801906f2d429346adaf42c7448dce
SHA384 Hash code :
e4d6a285fc7e979be947688985b0a2d574c5aeef6e9cb2d903b3592a7c9cbf2d526c2c3da9a7e56b4768b4087c51261d
SHA512 Hash code :
57ddeaf2fb6fbeb4e0fe01113bd6a6deb2f0a88db6bc8a92552f51b6c5cb2136ef16b9e35784cd2756bf84c2319655f3ca9a22ea19b75c87b8222e76ba422bc1
#
This report contains calculated results for 16mm film transfer to HD video.
#
General video forensics:
#
Complete path: C:SPACEProject KaikouraOriginal Video Interneg 1978
KaikouraNorthern leg 1.mov
#
File name : Northern leg 1.mov
ID : 1
Format : ProRes
Format version : Version 0
Format profile : QuickTime 422 HQ
Codec ID : qt 2005.03
File size : 1.42 GiB
File size (bytes) : 1527357665
Duration : 00:01:07.958
Type : Time code
Format : QuickTime TC
Length (frames) : 1631
Width : 1920 pixels
Height : 1080 pixels
SAR (Storage sample) : 16:9 (1.778)
SaR (Sample Aspect Ratio : undefined (0:1) (0.000)
PAR (Pixel Aspect Ratio) : 1:1 (1.000)
DAR (Display Aspect Ratio) : 16:9 (1.778)
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 24.000 FPS
Color space : YUV422p10le (709)
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:2
Color Range : Limited
Channels : 3
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 3.613
Overall bit rate mode : Variable
Overall bit rate : 17979607 bits/sec
Total streams : 2
Video stream : 1
Stream size : 1.42 GiB (100%)
Color primaries : BT.709
Transfer characteristics : BT.709
Matrix coefficients : BT.709
matrix_coefficients_Original : BT.709
Audio stream : n/a
Encoded date : UTC 2013-12-04 01:10:39
Tagged date : UTC 2015-06-06 05:02:30
Writing library : Apple QuickTime
Video language : English
Storag & Preservation : excellent (no vinegar syndrome, chemical
burn, cracks or mold)
#
Summary:
#
1. The 16mm film was transferred to a digital format. Quicktime.mov
1. 1. N/A
#
2. Pixel frame size of 1,920 x 1,080 x 2,203
2.1. Written as Width x Height x Diagonal
#
3. Total pixel count: 1,920 x 1,080 = 2,073,600
3.1. This is High Definition Video Frame Quality.
#
4. The video transfer was done in zero compression.
4.1. Average bit rate (ABR) of 17979607 bits/sec
4.2. This Video set is +179,000 +/- almost twice as good as Blu-ray data
#
5. The recording frame speed is 24 or 10 frames per second. (see videos
2,3,4)
5.1 Matching the original film speed taken on the day of the event.
#
6. The 1920 x 1080 has a viewing ratio of 16:9
#
7. Data used for math.
7.1. 16mm frame size in mm 10.600 x 7.4900 x 12.7031
7.2. Video Frame in Pixels 1,920 x 1,080 x 2,203
#
8. Scaling: the film was drawn in at 10.60 pixels x 7.49 pixels.
8.1 This represents the original and all calculations made against it.
#
9. The film laboratory used a mask to give the video a clean cut view.
#
10. Calculated ratio: Millimeter to Pixel count transfer is 144x times.
10.1 Resulting in a projected frame size of 1,477.4400 pixels x
1,078.5600 x 1,829.2405
#
11. Mask: The masked area left a picture that measures 1,432 pixels x 1,062
#
12. Mask: Fully masked 16mm is 144 times original exchange ratio.
#
13. In simple terms, if you measure anything on the print using pixels,
just divide it by 144 and you will have the Millimeter measurement for
the 16mm original film.
13.1 The cropped 16 mm retained the original 144 ratio
#
14 Off center measurement
14.1. The transfer to video measures 1.36 pixels off center to the right.
#
15. N/A
#
16. The mask on the projected side cut off the following.
16.1. 22.72 pixels on the right and left of each frame. Total 45.44
16.2. 8.280 pixels top and bottom of each frame. Total 16.56
16.3. The frame is sitting exactly on the bottom of the 1920 x 1080
master. The pre-masked 16mm mask started there.
#
17. Percentages Frame vs Masked Off:
17.1. Projected side;
17.2. Original 1,477.44 x 1,078.56 = 1,593,507 Total Pixels
17.3. Masked side; 1,432 x 1,062 = 1,520,784
17.4. 1,593,507 - 1,520,784 = 72,723 Missing original pixels
17.5. Resulting in 95.43% of the original 16mm film is shown
17.6. Unless an Object is right on the edge it will not bother the
main progress or results of this project. Most all of the videos
viewed so far have the main object very close to frames center.
#
18. Terms to be used when transferring Frames:
18.1. Original Frame; The 1920 x 1080 Quicktime.mov frame that
were extracted from the videos. Aka (Video Name) - # (1 to end)
Example: Triangle – 17 ( this is the original )
18.2. Projected size: The most likely pixel frame size used prior to
masking. On the 16mm frame side of the transfer.
18.3. 16mm crop: The extracted size from the original to view the
film as close to the original film as possible.
Aka (Video name) 16mm - #, Example: Triangle 16mm - 17
18.4. 144 ratio: Number used to back calculate to the 16mm frame size.
18.5. 200 pixel item results in 200/144 = 1.38mm Film size.
18.6 0.1 Millimeter of the 16mm film stock = 100 microns
#
19. Remarks:
19.1 Dr. Maccabee Quote: “The smallest images are about 2 to 4
times the film grain size, this appears to be about 0.005 to 0.010 mm.”
0.005mm * 1,000 = 5 microns
0.010mm * 1,000 = 10 microns
19.2.
Example: 100 pixels / 144 ratio = 0.6994 mm or 694.44 microns
Actual Width: 1,477.44 Pixel Projected Size / 144 = 10.26 * 1,000 =
10,260 microns
Actual Height: 1,078.56 Pixel Projected Size / 144 = 7.49 * 1,000 =
7,490 microns
#
20. Test Math Print. Triangle - frame 0045, Processed to show edges
#
End of preprocess report

a reply to: A51Watcher
Thank you.

I can see that a high resolution scan was used and nearly the entire frame was captured. But, I'm not an expert on video, I can't tell from that information if artifacts may have been introduced by the scanning process so I'll accept your assessment.

Another question, about the post-processing, if you don't mind? What are the original pixel dimensions of the light source in the digital version and what is the zoom level used for your analysis? Also, do you know what algorithm was used for the zoom?