FLIR dosen't use standard lenses but Fresnel as standard lens does not work at longer wavelengths (7-15 um).
The use of fresnel lenses for IR is a relatively new thing, and is focussed on cost and miniaturization rather than quality. The FLIR SR-35 is an older model camera and uses regular shaped lenses made from Germanium.
Thermal cameras cannot use regular glass lenses, as glass will reflect thermal radiation rather than allowing the radiation to pass through the lenses. Commonly used materials for thermal lenses are Germanium (Ge), Chalcogenide glass, Zinc Selenide (ZnSe) and Zinc Sulfide (ZnS).
These materials provide good transmission for wavelengths in the range of 8-15um, i.e. LWIR (Long-wavelength infrared). Sometimes LWIR is also called far infrared.
1- The craft glows only when enters in clouds, you cannot see the entire craft in first frames but only a small tip of the right wing. If there were birds, you could see birds continuously until entering in the clouds, when they would disappear obscured by clouds. My 12 year girl understood that worm bodies continuously glow until they are obscured.
The hypothesis of out of focus is not verified because :Have you read the explanation for this in the thread above? The out of focus, transparent dots?
Can we agree that this is an aerodynamic winged shape with a regular speed for an airplane, so it must be a secret project with advanced technology?
The apparent out of focus is due large gradients of temperature on small distances. For example, in the moon FIR picture, the moon is surrounded by a false shadow ring of heat but the branches of the trees are not shadowed, being colder. So this is not out of focus and is no transparency involved. Is just the fact the FIR sensor radiate electric charges in nearby pixels when large differences in nearby pixels appear.
The objects are clearly out of focus. This has been pointed out several times.The branches are not out of focus, also the moon is not, the clouds have sharp edges
I'm sorry, but you have not made much common sense arguments and failed to respond to criticism.I have no more common sense arguments to come with so i'll stay away from this subject.
Just one ornithological observation, a lone seagull low enough to observe flapping wings is only going to be 200-300ft max overhead, an echelon of birds flying together can be up to 20,000ft up (and at times, such certain migrating geese and cranes species, much much higher - bar headed geese have been recorded at 29,000ft and common cranes at 33,000ft). Thats a big difference and will result in very different images.1- I presented a movie with the same camera with a seagull flying on which you may see wings flapping.
Jet exhaust does not show up from a distance. In this FLIR footage the exhaust gasses are only visible close up, and slighttly at an extreme angle.Does anyone know if jet exhaust, hot and fresh out of the engines, can be expected to show up on an infra-red image? Does anyone know how to search for infra-red images which would show whether or not this is to be expected?
The bird argument was for the focus. And btw, If they flew at over 20000 ft, they should be supersonic and huge in size to move in such a way, check the math yourself.Just one ornithological observation, a lone seagull low enough to observe flapping wings is only going to be 200-300ft max overhead, an echelon of birds flying together can be up to 20,000ft up (and at times, such certain migrating geese and cranes species, much much higher - bar headed geese have been recorded at 29,000ft and common cranes at 33,000ft). Thats a big difference and will result in very different images.
Then logic dictates they were lower and slower than your claiming,If they flew at 20000 ft, they should be supersonic and huge in size to move in such a way. The birds are only visible in less than 500m.
You don't understand: the sensor is 320x240 pixels, already blown up by the DVR to 704x576 pixels. If you may see a bird flapping wings in the distance, it means the camera is focused but low resolution.The objects are clearly out of focus. This has been pointed out several times.
I'm sorry, but you have not made much common sense arguments and failed to respond to criticism.
Some people are prone to believe what they want to believe. Especially people who show confirmation bias.
your photos are out of focus. None of the other thermal images I've seen online are so blurry.If you continue to argument the camera is out of focus
You missed the post 54 above (https://www.metabunk.org/posts/209033/) , please make your homework before posting.
I didn't miss it.You missed the post 54 above (https://www.metabunk.org/posts/209033/) , please make your homework before posting.
Wow, that's clever and effective. The OP's main 'evidence' hinges on the belief that camera artifacts don't happen in the way that some here have suggested and can't be a cause of what's seen in the video, and this shows perfectly well that such a thing not only happens, but that under such circumstances it should be expected. Very good.I think that proves quite conclusively that the the object in the OP video was below the clouds.
You can not tell if the V is above, inside or below the clouds from that video. The first two assume a high amount of IR radiation to show through a ton of water vapor, so the most likely option is below. Nothing to do with focus here.The FIR camera is out of focus so what we see actually not flies through clouds but much lower
They're not invisible at all, just dimmer. This is because of the focus.even if they are invisible on clear sky .
The blur is caused by the image being out of focus. Small objects then appear wider but more transparent as the light, or IR, is not focused.The invisibility happens because of transparency of the blured objects
This is because of the focus as demonstrated in the the pictures posted earlier by Mick. He demonstrates the mechanics behind this not at all mysterious effect. As out of focus objects become wider and blurry, they also become more transparent. This transparency blends the background into the out of focus object, making it dimmer over dark areas, and brighter over light areas.once the clouds are in background, the birds suddenly are visible because misterious effect.
But they are visible. Just fainter, for reasons above.Let's say the camera is out of focus, i need a better explanation on how birds are not visible on clear sky but visible when clouds are in background
Let's say the camera is out of focus, i need a better explanation on how birds are not visible on clear sky but visible when clouds are in background.
Here's a similar resolution thermal image from a FLIR branded camera:
Here's a 160x120 image.
(images from: http://www.rtftechnologies.org/general/thermal-imager-comparison.html )
Compare with one image from the OP, which is obviously blurred:
No claim for the resolution of the first image was made in that post. The source site cites the image as FLIR Photon 320 (324x256 Vanadium Oxide). 120x160 referred to the second image.Mick West you are misleading people with the resolution claim, i can clearly see the resolution of 640 x480 and see one pixel details as 1/640 of the length of the image.This image has in no way 120x160 pixels.
This is how a 120x160 Lepton core camera looks like compared to 320x240 and 640x480
You see, all are out of focus, from your standards)
No claim for the resolution of the first image was made in that post. The source site cites the image as FLIR Photon 320 (324x256 Vanadium Oxide). 120x160 referred to the second image.
It seems that you are mistaking the loss of detail caused by resolution to loss of detail causded by focusing issues.
Let's say the camera is out of focus, i need a better explanation on how birds are not visible on clear sky but visible when clouds are in background.
This might require a little more explanation, but it's even more technical so I left it out, feel free to skip this post.A closer look
But because the image is blurred, the camera sees something more like this:
So a very simple blur would just average the pixels in a 3x3 box to get the new color of the center pixel.
So for over the left we have
(8*0 + 1*1.0)/9 = 0.11
and the right:
(8*0.2 + 1*1.0)/9 = 0.28
I perhaps oversimplified it. Each pixel in my simple example is the average of the nine pixels in the 3x3 box it sits in. With the black background each of the nine pixels is aways 8 black and one white, so they all end up the same.I'm not sure this is right. A constant background doesn't blur, right? So, the background would still be 0.2 while the one pixel of 1.0 would become nine pixels of 0.11. So the 3x3 would look like 0.31 in each pixel, right?
This looks like a solid wing shaped object to me. It has a thinner part and a thicker part, straight lines, perfect angular symmetry regarding the path it flies. Photo obtained by stacking frames.
It seems you are not actually paying attention to the details being discussed here. No one has disputed that this looks like a solid object. In fact, everyone would agree to that. But what has been pointed out, repeatedly and in ever-increasing detail, is that cameras are not perfect and there are multiple reasons to believe that optical and digital effects can explain all that we see in this clip, while providing evidence that it most likely is not a solid object (and this explanation has the added benefit of not requiring that we break any laws of physics, as your earlier statements about interaction with clouds do). Not only does this not seem to register with you, but you also ignore other peculiarities, such as, in spite of your statements about "perfect symmetry" and the "high degree of accuracy in how the image is presented", you conveniently ignore the fact that one side of the 'V' is nearly twice as long as the other (among the other things already discussed more than should be necessary). That feature by itself contradicts your statements about both symmetry and image clarity, if in fact it were true that this "object" is an aircraft. This seems to be a clear case of confirmation bias.
i don't.No one has disputed that this looks like a solid object.In fact, everyone would agree to that.
I should clarify, that what I mean is that the image presents a fairly continuous body at a glance, but it's a whole other thing to recognize some kinds of optical effects which lead to this.i don't.
Obvious differences between simulation and stacked frames photo:
- Th simulation does not offer the sharp angles from the tip of the wing
- The simulation does not offer different thickness in each wing and in the join section in middle
- The sim does not show crisp edges on wings but faint ones