Skinwalker Ranch - Laser Beam Stops and Starts in Mid Air

[FatPhil]

I imagine they'd go the FOX news route, "This program is for entertainment purposes only, and not meant to be factual".

I know I recommended the Francis Wheen book /How Mumbo Conquered the World/ many months ago, but it's my toilet reading, and progress is slow. However, in Chapter 5: The Catastrophists (Chapter 4 was a real slog - it was about postmodernism and the rot in academia that it kicked off), I've just come across this quote, and it seemed relevant, context should be derivable before you're too far in:

"I don't know that it's my responsibility to say that I've just created a fiction that is a fiction," Chris Carter told the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), a sceptical pressure-group which had proposed that each episode should be prefaced by such a disclaimer. But he acknowledged that his fiction invariably preferred supernatural explanations.

My intention, when I first set out to do the show, was to do a more balanced kind of storytelling. I wanted to expose hoaxes. I wanted Agent Scully to be right as much as Agent Mulder. Lo and behold, those stories were really boring. The suggestion that there was a rather plausible and rational and ultimately mundane answer for those things turned out to be a disappointing kind of storytelling, to be honest. And I think that's maybe where people have the most problems with my show ... But it's just the kind of storytelling we do, and because we have to entertain ... That's really the job they pay me for, and that's the thing I'm supposed to do.

 

[Mendel]

the Francis Wheen book /How Mumbo Conquered the World/

My intention, when I first set out to do the show, was to do a more balanced kind of storytelling. I wanted to expose hoaxes. I wanted Agent Scully to be right as much as Agent Mulder.

This is, of course, not "balanced" at all. You can't balance "the paranormal exists" with "the paranormal does not exist". If it exists half the time, it exists.
You can kinda teach skepticism by demonstrating that not all claims are true, but unless you allow for the position that none of the claims are true, you're not balanced.

Scooby Doo did pull this off (afaik), to the entertainment of many.
Skinwalker Ranch does not.

 

[jarlrmai]

Scooby Doo has had a few iterations since the original cartoon and in some of them the (ggg..) ghosts are real, which I feel is a betrayal of the ethos of the original.

 

[FatPhil]

My intention, when I first set out to do the show, was to do a more balanced kind of storytelling. I wanted to expose hoaxes. I wanted Agent Scully to be right as much as Agent Mulder.

This is, of course, not "balanced" at all. You can't balance "the paranormal exists" with "the paranormal does not exist". If it exists half the time, it exists.

You don't seem to be quite grasping the concept of "fiction".

 

[jhenshaw]

It's a portrait shot, so that suggests a photo taken with a phone.
View attachment 68834

More likely suggests they were trying to fill the frame with the lasers pointed vertically.

 

[jhenshaw]

True, but given the history of dubious and manipulated evidence presented by the "experts" at Skinwalker Ranch, I don't discount the possibility that what we are looking at is a landscape image cropped to look like a portrait image. I fully expect the first thing to come out of Travis Taylor's mouth will be "well it's not rolling shutter because it's in portrait mode" as per FatPhil's Fake Beard.

Without access to the raw photo's metadata to determine camera model, can't rule out rolling shutter.

 

[jhenshaw]

There's some stuff going on here that strongly suggests, to me, that the image has been altered::
View attachment 68837
The rounded ends of the green beam and the two nearly identical features in the blue beam in the gap of the green beam, and the slight wave in the left edge of the blue beam look to me like somebody erased that area, decided it would look spookier if the blue beam was not broken, and so painted in the missing blue beam. Oh, and how the darker blue part of the blue beam intrudes into the lighter blue part to a very similar extent to which part of the unbroken green beam is clipped on the other side of the image.


View attachment 68838
In addition to the further beam (on the left) being accidentally partially erased(See @jimmyslippin post HERE), adjusting levels a bit confirms what can be seen slightly in the un-fiddled-with-by-be image: the glare of the missing laser is still there.


View attachment 68839
I also have about convinced myself that I see very slight evidence of the central blue beam having been restored, with a slight line barely visible at the same level as the lower occluded bit of the green beams -- but that one may just be me falling for confirmation bias and anomaly hunting. IF that is correct, though, it suggest something occluded the view of the beams, possibly intruding from our right) which blocked all but the leftmost beams, and somebody decided it would be cooler looking if some beams were blocked and some weren't.

If the third example is me seeing things, the other two still strongly suggest the picture has been manipulated.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, "reality TV" shows are entertainment. If what actually happens is not entertaining enough, they are free to jazz it up a bit. I suspect strongly that they have done so here. (Captain Disillusion catching "America's Got Talent," a "reality show" in the form of a competition, helping a magic act look better by messing with the video is HERE, cued up to the most relevant bit, for another example.)

I've moved now from the "rolling shutter" camp to the "pure photoshop bs" camp. The image at the top of your post is undeniable evidence of the clone stamp tool in photoshop. The reason the cut off green beams on the right have rounded edges is because that's the shape of the clone stamp tool (it's a circle). So you cut the thing off square to start with, then you want it to go back down a little bit so you clone-stamp extend it down or up. The reason it's more square on the left beam is because it's more natural to use a square selection to perform that manipulation.

The fact that in the episode they were so friggin easy to write this off as supernatural when they have all that talent in knowledge in that room is extremely unnerving and dismantles any ounce of faith I have in their intellectual honesty. You don't just jump to aliens. It's a weird artifact. You exhaust all options to explain it naturally before jumping to aliens. There are a lot of options.

 

[JMartJr]

More likely suggests they were trying to fill the frame with the lasers pointed vertically.

I think it is likely a phone, but either way I wonder if the goal of a portrait orientation was not to fill the frame, but to get both the equipment and the "gaps" in frame. (This only works if the gaps were, to at least some extent, actually visible at the time. Though it looks very much to me as if the gaps, however caused, have been improved by some sloppy editing, as discussed passim in this thread.)

A landscape shot without the gear on the ground is not as impressive, as it's not as clear what you're looking at:

 

[jhenshaw]

I think it is likely a phone, but either way I wonder if the goal of a portrait orientation was not to fill the frame, but to get both the equipment and the "gaps" in frame. (This only works if the gaps were, to at least some extent, actually visible at the time. Though it looks very much to me as if the gaps, however caused, have been improved by some sloppy editing, as discussed passim in this thread.)

A landscape shot without the gear on the ground is not as impressive, as it's not as clear what you're looking at:
View attachment 69694

I'm not sure why this claim about it being shot on a phone came into the picture. The context of the photo is a film set with a full-blow film crew and and probably hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gear. Half my own tripod-mounted DLSR shots are in portrait mode. You shoot portrait mode any time you're shooting something much taller than it is wide. The fact that it's in portrait mode is not interesting. You choose between portrait and landscape mode based on which best fills the frame.

 

[Mendel]

I'm not sure why this claim about it being shot on a phone came into the picture. The context of the photo is a film set with a full-blow film crew and and probably hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gear. Half my own tripod-mounted DLSR shots are in portrait mode. You shoot portrait mode any time you're shooting something much taller than it is wide. The fact that it's in portrait mode is not interesting. You choose between portrait and landscape mode based on which best fills the frame.

Have you ever seen a Cinemascope aspect ratio in a portrait orientation from a professional crew? Because that's what this would have to be (or a crop).
View attachment 68834

 

[Mendel]

New hypothesis: smartphone in landscape taking a "panorama" picture, i.e. a series of pictures stitched together by an algorithm. This could arguably produce the same type of rolling shutter effect, and might explain the rounded ends (but I have not checked)?

 

[jhenshaw]

Have you ever seen a Cinemascope aspect ratio in a portrait orientation from a professional crew? Because that's what this would have to be (or a crop).
View attachment 68834

I'm really not sure why you're talking about cinema aspect ratios like anamorphic. This is (reportedly) a photo. This still-photography. Yes, you don't shoot video in portrait mode in video/cinema. But this is photography. It's extremely common to shoot still-photography in portrait mode.

 

[jhenshaw]

New hypothesis: smartphone in landscape taking a "panorama" picture, i.e. a series of pictures stitched together by an algorithm. This could arguably produce the same type of rolling shutter effect, and might explain the rounded ends (but I have not checked)?

Highly unlikely, from my experience doing panos both on my phone and in Lightroom and in Photoshop. You would expect to see a plethora of other stitching artifacts if this were the case. I currently hypothesize that the rounded edges are round because that's the shape of the clone stamp tool in Photoshop/Lightroom.

 

[Mendel]

I'm really not sure why you're talking about cinema aspect ratios like anamorphic. This is (reportedly) a photo. This still-photography. Yes, you don't shoot video in portrait mode in video/cinema. But this is photography. It's extremely common to shoot still-photography in portrait mode.

I'm talking about Cinemascope because that's the only standard aspect ratio I know where the long side is more than twice the length of the short side, as in the picture under discussion.

 

[Mendel]

Highly unlikely, from my experience doing panos both on my phone and in Lightroom and in Photoshop. You would expect to see a plethora of other stitching artifacts if this were the case.

How would you recognize stitching artefacts in a mostly indistinct background?
These do not look like stars:

I currently hypothesize that the rounded edges are round because that's the shape of the clone stamp tool in Photoshop/Lightroom.

Yes, but the glow/glare has been cloned along with the beam? So why is the radius so small?

 

[Eburacum]

The fact that the ends of the green beam are rounded is not necessarily proof that this is not a rolling shutter effect. In the Tom Scott video upthread the ends of the beam he is using are definitely tapered, rather than cutting off at right angles; it seems that the beam still continues to be visible for a very short period after the power is cut off.

This aspect of the phenomenon convinces me even more strongly that this is a rolling shutter effect, which may or may not be intentional.

 

[jhenshaw]

I'm talking about Cinemascope because that's the only standard aspect ratio I know where the long side is more than twice the length of the short side, as in the picture under discussion.

There is no reason for there to have been an anamorphic lense on set. You don't use those for tv. This is how I would assume it was shot, and then it was cropped on the sides in lightroom.

 

[jhenshaw]

How would you recognize stitching artefacts in a mostly indistinct background?
These do not look like stars:

Probably clouds. If it were a pano I would expect there to be slight bends in the lasers in mid-air. The missing chunks we see are nothing remotely similar to any pano-stitching artifact I've ever seen. Pano stitching artifacts are minor warps, minor bends in straight lines, repeated portions near edges, and overlapping of elements near edges. You don't expect to see massive square chunks missing.

"Yes, but the glow/glare has been cloned along with the beam? So why is the radius so small?" Of course. And here's where you set your radius of your clone stamp tool in Photoshop:

 

[Mendel]

There is no reason for there to have been an anamorphic lense on set.

I agree. "For example, the Full Format RED DRAGON resolution is 6144x3160, which has an aspect ratio of 1.94:1." ( https://www.red.com/red-101/anamorphic-lenses ) Digital video does not require anamorphic lenses for wide image formats.

Pano stitching artifacts are minor warps, minor bends in straight lines, repeated portions near edges, and overlapping of elements near edges. You don't expect to see massive square chunks missing.

I do not think they're panorama stitching artefacts, either. I am suggesting that some lasers were turned off momentarily during the panorama recording, creating a kind of "slow motion" rolling shutter effect as described above, because most frames in that panorama sweep would have the lasers on, but a few would have some lasers turned off.

I expect that any reasonably smart stitching algorithm would be able to preserve the prominent straight laser lines intact, given the absence of other, distracting picture elements.

 

[jhenshaw]

I am suggesting that some lasers were turned off momentarily during the panorama recording, creating a kind of "slow motion" rolling shutter effect as described above, because most frames in that panorama sweep would have the lasers on, but a few would have some lasers turned off.

I've never seen any examples of that being replicated, so I have no idea how such a thing would present. However I do not think the evidence points in the direction of a panorama.

I expect that any reasonably smart stitching algorithm would be able to preserve the prominent straight laser lines intact, given the absence of other, distracting picture elements.

It's very difficult to get a long straight line to come out straight in a panorama. The absence of other elements actually increases the degree of error since the algorithm needs those patterns for orientation. Furthermore, you very rarely attempt panos in low light with a phone, if we're still talking about phone, because those cameras tend to have terrible low light performance. The low low light performance is heavily exacerbated by the fact that the typical phone panorama algorithms need you to keep the phone in motion. This constant movement introduces light painting distortions due to the low shutter speed needed in that low light.

The image looks like it was probably shot on a DSLR mounted in vertical orientation, probably at an aperture between 1 and 2, and with a lens length somewhere around 50mm. The shot was probably cropped in on the sides a little bit in Lightroom as photographers often do—sometimes just for aesthetics, sometimes because there's nothing interesting in the removed areas, and sometimes because there was a person or something in the removed areas.

 

[jarlrmai]

I've never seen any examples of that being replicated, so I have no idea how such a thing would present. However I do not think the evidence points in the direction of a panorama.

It's very difficult to get a long straight line to come out straight in a panorama. The absence of other elements actually increases the degree of error since the algorithm needs those patterns for orientation. Furthermore, you very rarely attempt panos in low light with a phone, if we're still talking about phone, because those cameras tend to have terrible low light performance. The low low light performance is heavily exacerbated by the fact that the typical phone panorama algorithms need you to keep the phone in motion. This constant movement introduces light painting distortions due to the low shutter speed needed in that low light.

The image looks like it was probably shot on a DSLR mounted in vertical orientation, probably at an aperture between 1 and 2, and with a lens length somewhere around 50mm. The shot was probably cropped in on the sides a little bit in Lightroom as photographers often do—sometimes just for aesthetics, sometimes because there's nothing interesting in the removed areas, and sometimes because there was a person or something in the removed areas.

There's no way you can know the device or settings without seeing the original images. Let alone the aperture.

 

[jhenshaw]

There's no way you can know the device or settings without seeing the original images. Let alone the aperture.

Definitely not a precise guess, no. But from experience, if I were shooting in that environment, I would go for a 50 1.4 at 3200 iso and probably 5k with maybe a 1/30th shutter depending on requirements or if handheld vs tripod.

 

[jarlrmai]

The people who made the photo say it is a long exposure, I don't trust them but that's what they say.

 

[JMartJr]

You choose between portrait and landscape mode based on which best fills the frame.

Or what best tells the story you want to tell. After all, the eventual frame is the TV screen, which is not filled by a portrait shot.

But I accept your point that a non-phone camera can be tilted 90 degrees for a portrait shot.

 

[JMartJr]

The people who made the photo say it is a long exposure, I don't trust them but that's what they say.

Folks, check me on this, I am not sure it is true, but does it make sense to those of you with camera knowings?

1: IF it is a long exposure, then would possible rolling shutter or interruptions of the laser being emitted be off the table as an explanation of the effect seen?

2: IF so, that would seem to leave intentional fakery (blocking the beam physically with some object or removing sections in photo-editing, or both).

If 1: is valid, then 2: can be debated.

 

[jarlrmai]

Folks, check me on this, I am not sure it is true, but does it make sense to those of you with camera knowings?

1: IF it is a long exposure, then would possible rolling shutter or interruptions of the laser being emitted be off the table as an explanation of the effect seen?

2: IF so, that would seem to leave intentional fakery (blocking the beam physically with some object or removing sections in photo-editing, or both).

If 1: is valid, then 2: can be debated.

There's a lot of wiggle room in the words long exposure but yeah it will rule out rolling shutter as the sensor would receive light over many fluctuations of the laser, however with lasers that bright it seems if it were a long exposure it would need to use a very strong ND to avoid over exposure even at ISO 100 and a small aperture.

 

[FatPhil]

There's a lot of wiggle room in the words long exposure but yeah it will rule out rolling shutter as the sensor would receive light over many fluctuations of the laser, however with lasers that bright it seems if it were a long exposure it would need to use a very strong ND to avoid over exposure even at ISO 100 and a small aperture.

It's definitely not an "astro" long exposure, as we have stars with no trails - so we're definitely in the sub-minute range.
Those lights are monsters, so I wouldn't have expected such a time to be a possibility anyway. Anything not hand-holdable could be considered long, so my surprise level if it turned out to be 1/10s would be zero, and fits their description.

However, to address the question asked, I'd say that a long, even 1/10s, exposure blows the rolling shutter argument out of the water, as typically these things (I'm thinking "quasi-continuous" lasers) are clocked up to fairly high frequencies, and have low duty cycles. A fast exposure is more likely to capture a shard of light for the very brief moment that the laser's actually on than a gap when it isn't. However, a slow exposure is going to capture the sum of dozens to hundreds of pulses, one missing start or end bit will be neither here nor there compared to the dozens of pulses its capturing. The exact specs of the lasers used should be checked, but 100Hz to 10kHz aren't isn't uncommon, with 0.1% to 10% duty cycles, just doing a quick scour with a googoo search for ``sky laser duty cycle''.

 

[jhenshaw]

It's definitely not an "astro" long exposure, as we have stars with no trails - so we're definitely in the sub-minute range.
Those lights are monsters, so I wouldn't have expected such a time to be a possibility anyway. Anything not hand-holdable could be considered long, so my surprise level if it turned out to be 1/10s would be zero, and fits their description.

If I was asked to do a long exposure shot of the lasers, I would put on an ND. Don't think you'd get past 20-30 seconds without blowing it out though. Lack of star trails is consistent with 10-20-seconds for that latitude and 20-50 mm lens.

 

[Mick West]

If I was asked to do a long exposure shot of the lasers, I would put on an ND. Don't think you'd get past 20-30 seconds without blowing it out though. Lack of star trails is consistent with 10-20-seconds for that latitude and 20-50 mm lens.

Looking at the photo you only see a few stars. There are similar shots on video:

(adjusted contrast slightly). So there's no real need for a very long exposure, it's 1/30 or more like 1/60th in the video.