Scaramanga
Senior Member
AAWSAP...AATIP...UAPTF....AOIMSG....AARO.......................why don't they just change it to BUNKUM and be done with it. .
Skinwalker Ranch - Season 4 Episode 10 - 3600 MPH UFO Claim
- Thread starter Curious George
- Start date
AAWSAP...AATIP...UAPTF....AOIMSG....AARO.......................why don't they just change it to BUNKUM and be done with it. .
John J.
Senior Member.
I guess that would be the UnToucanny Valley.
Curious George
Active Member
It's been some time but I got stuck in finding some tools to exactly match the zoomed in footage to the original 1024x1024 (recreated) still image. The best match is to take the HD 1920x1080 image, resize it to 890x569, then place it at (67, 428) on the raw image. This gives the best measure of matching which is called PSNR (with a value of 28.19 dB). I wanted an objective way of doing this that didn't rely on "eyeballing" what looks like points lining up.
By comparison, Mick's approximation would be resize to 878x583 and place at (74, 419), which I'm sure was a rough approximation by hand.
One of the difficulties I realized is that the sky is moving, so software can't match the whole image accurately. You need to crop out only the ground to get a valid match.
The reason I wanted to be precise, is to more accurately measure speed. Although you can measure speed by "fly lengths", the problem is the pixels are not square, and unless the fly is going in a perfect horizontal line, it could affect the speed measurement.
* The best matching was for these parameters, but the value itself is approximate, since I also matched the brightness and contrast roughly. Another analyst would probably get a much lower figure since the zoomed image has been brightened, and this measure is sensitive to changes in brightness. I could use a better measure like SSIM to avoid this issue.
By comparison, Mick's approximation would be resize to 878x583 and place at (74, 419), which I'm sure was a rough approximation by hand.
One of the difficulties I realized is that the sky is moving, so software can't match the whole image accurately. You need to crop out only the ground to get a valid match.
The reason I wanted to be precise, is to more accurately measure speed. Although you can measure speed by "fly lengths", the problem is the pixels are not square, and unless the fly is going in a perfect horizontal line, it could affect the speed measurement.
* The best matching was for these parameters, but the value itself is approximate, since I also matched the brightness and contrast roughly. Another analyst would probably get a much lower figure since the zoomed image has been brightened, and this measure is sensitive to changes in brightness. I could use a better measure like SSIM to avoid this issue.
Mendel
Senior Member.
The fly just needs to go reasonably straight. As long as you count fly length and speed in the same direction (i.e. horizontal), it works out, because any transformation (like going diagonally) affects both equally.
Curious George
Active Member
It's not just the fly though, in order to confirm the recording speed for the video I need to compare the rocket launch. We know the still capture showed a recording speed of 2000fps, but that's not proof of the frame rate of other scenes.
Last edited:
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Yes but did the bird arrive via the trans-dimensional quantum tunnel to the 39th dimension being chased by a horde of hungry dino-beavers.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
S04E15 "Looking Back and Far Beyond" 8 August 2023 - so Tuesday?
Is there any reason to suspect they made that segment after your "looks like a fly" post on Jul 1? (#4 : https://www.metabunk.org/threads/sk...isode-10-3600-mph-ufo-claim.13023/post-293054 )
To do so would be disingenuous. (A statement in the conditional mood, not an accusation.)
Similar threads
