Mendel
Senior Member.
I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with "hundreds".. Using at least a full roll of film seems far more plausible.
I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with "hundreds".. Using at least a full roll of film seems far more plausible.
I'm not a statistician, but if six consecutive pictures were taken, isn't the probability just 1/6 that the first one of those six happened to be in position number one on any particular strip of six negatives?So something that intuitively feels like it would be a remarkable coincidence actually has a 52% chance of occurring.
I'm not a statistician, but if six consecutive pictures were taken, isn't the probability just 1/6 that the first one of those six happened to be in position number one on any particular strip of six negatives?
No, you don't. Once you roll the dice, that's where the pictures are, you can't move them elsewhere afterwards. As 2 people have already explained to you.But with a roll of 24 negatives, you are effectively having 4 attempts at it.
I probably didn't pay enough attention in statistics class—math isn't my strongest skill… but to get all six photos on the same slide, you'd have to start at frame 1, 7, 13, or 19. Any other starting position would result in the six shots being split across different slides. That seems to suggest a probability of 1 in 6. But I'm probably getting it wrong.
No, you don't.
I'm not a statistician, but if six consecutive pictures were taken, isn't the probability just 1/6 that the first one of those six happened to be in position number one on any particular strip of six negatives?
This is where actual maths often defies human intuition. It seems like it would be unlikely.....but in fact it is not unlikely at all. It is actually likely.
Those old films had 24 negatives.....and thus you'd get 4 strips, each with 6 negatives.
But really, that means it is all identical to......what are the chances of rolling a 1, in 4 throws of a dice....which corresponds to all 6 negatives being on one strip.
The probability is 1 - (5/6)^4 which is 0.52.
So something that intuitively feels like it would be a remarkable coincidence actually has a 52% chance of occurring.
(EDIT : In fact technically the odds are even higher, as by definition your six photos can't start later than negative 19 )
Your maths is horribly wonky. The chance of 6 (consecutive) negatives all being on 1 strip (of length 6) is exactly 1/6. The number 4 does not enter into the calculation.
Yes....it is 1/6 for ONE strip. But you have FOUR strips in a 24 negative film. You have FOUR attempts at getting it right.
Yes, it's the same.NOTE : It might seem as if its the same as getting one of 1, 7, 13, or 19 out of a bag of 24 numbered balls....
Now do the homework I set you.
I set it for a reason.
Consider: why would the chance that the sequence of 6 pictures starts on {1,7,13} be different than the chance it starts on {2,8,14} or any of the other 4 options? So these 6 options have to have equal chances.
Your maths is horribly wonky.
Nope. One in six chances no matter how many strips there are. Your understanding of statistics is as bad as your understanding of the optics of reflection. The number of strips does not enter into it at all, because we are not specifying which of several strips has the pics, just "a strip".Yes, it is 1/6 for one strip....but there are four strips. You are effectively having four goes at getting it right. As someone mentioned there were also 36 negative varieties, that would give even more chance of getting it right than a 24 exposure one. You'd then have 6 goes at getting it right.
As I already explained, that would require that a strip starts with number one, but that is by no means certain. Two or three, plus some blank space, is just as likely to be on the first strip, so the first full strip might begin with some other number. There are six possible positions on a strip in which your series might begin, so there is still a one in six chance of the first one of the series beginning at the start of a six-negative strip.Yes, the start frame has to be 1, 7, 13, or 19. But no.....that does not mean the odds are 1 in 6.
Sigh.It's actually quite scary that at the moment I seem to be the only person commenting on the matter who actually understands maths.
Nope. One in six chances no matter how many strips there are. Your understanding of statistics is as bad as
Sigh.
Oh, silly me, I wasn't considering the situation where my roll of film had six million exposures on it.What ? Are you serious telling me that no matter how many strips of 6 there are....the chances of ONE of them having the sequence start at position #1 is still 1 in 6 ? You are confusing the chances for one strip with the chances across multiple strips.
So I have a million strips....that should absolutely guarantee one with a start place at #1...yet according to your understanding of statistics there's just a 1 in 6 chance of it.
It's sort of like telling me that because there's a one in 7 chance of it raining on a Sunday, that there's still a 1 in 7 chance of it raining on one of a million Sundays.
Doesn't matter. If you take a million pictures on your digital camera, and then pick a sequence of 6 consecutive pictures at random, the chance that the first file number of this sequence n satisfies "(n-1) is divisible by 6" is almost exactly 1/6.Oh, silly me, I wasn't considering the situation where my roll of film had six million exposures on it.
Because @Andreas did not repeat his argument 6 times and then claimed to be superior to everyone else (which was what netted you the sigh). I countered his point on the next post, and that was it.Lol....it's odd how no-one sighed when it was originally claimed that..
Your claim of >50% chance never got sighed at. That was a simple error. But this statement was not.It's actually quite scary that at the moment I seem to be the only person commenting on the matter who actually understands maths.
Yet it has been shown one way or the other that it would not be a remarkable coincidence at all. Which was my original point.
he'd only hand those photos to the newspaper that he intended to sell to them. feels absolutely unsuspicious to me.But cutting into the negatives and clearly trying to hide the other photos might have raised suspicion—unless he had a good explanation.
Lol...being condescending does not make my point wrong.
Sigh.
View attachment 78174
4/19 =21% is the chance for 6 sequential pictures to align with a strip, assuming the roll of film had no 0 and 00 positions.
For 36 exposures, the chance is 6/31=19%.
Yes. Still, "the last 6 shots" have to be somewhere.It's possible to start the sequence at positions 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 too. You'd hit the end of the roll rather than the scissors, but that's still a failure to get your 6 shots on one strip.
Perhaps I'm thinking too much like a skeptical UFO investigator, since asking for the entire roll of film or the untouched SD card is the first thing you do when investigating a case. But obviously, a random journalist wouldn't necessarily think that way. A MoD investigator probably would, though.he'd only hand those photos to the newspaper that he intended to sell to them. feels absolutely unsuspicious to me.
I tried asking an experienced photographer I know who is well-versed in analog photography. But according to him, it's impossible to say since we don't know for sure what camera or lens was used. Was the image cropped, etc.?If we use the aircraft length = to the length of a harrier jet.
With that, has anyone tried to roughly calculate how far away the jet is in the picture?
that was my point in post #1075No expert so forgive me I have missed something but nowhere does it state 6 negatives were in a strip - just that there were six of them, they could easily have been individual and nowhere does it state whether the negatives were continuously numbered or not.
So isn't any conjecture pointless.
As I recall, when sending a film away for development, you'd get it back cut into segments, usually with six negatives per strip. It's likely that one such strip was given to the newspaper.
If we use the aircraft length = to the length of a harrier jet.
With that, has anyone tried to roughly calculate how far away the jet is in the picture?
I had always presumed the 6 came from the contact print:We don't know if they were joined. Photographs can be reproduced from a single negative, the strips (usually of 6 exposures, at least for 35mm in the UK) are a product of the process used by many high-street developers that most people used to rely on to get their photos developed. Length of strip was (I once read) dictated by the size of the envelopes often used by the developers -e.g. in the UK, the pharmacy chain Boots.
I had always presumed the 6 came from the contact print
His rationale for this conclusion seems reasonable to me, but whether it's correct or not I have no idea.External Quote:Conclusion – The Calvine Photograph is a black and white image printed on colour photographic paper made from a copy negative of an original colour print.