1. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    your 'craft' is dots too.

    and it's 'thickness' is dependent on which screenshot one chooses to look at.
    1.JPG 2.JPG 3.JPG
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Minor point, thermal (LWIR) cameras don't need to use Fresnel lenses, and in fact most do not. They do need to use a transparent material for the lens that allow far IR to pass:
    https://www.axis.com/fi/en/learning...e-to-network-video/lenses-for-thermal-cameras


    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Mihai

    Mihai Closed Account

    Flock of bird ipothesis fails mainly because:

    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.

    2- The craft is clearly more thicker in middle and thinner on the sides, a regulated wing shape overall with a symmetry axis in the joint of "wings" corresponding with the direction of moving, straight lines in "wings", so it cannot be the fat birds in middle and skinny ones in sides, all perfectly aligned :))

    ticker thinner 19 photos stacked_burn.

    3- The simulations with birds shows same thickness along an irregular shape so it does not match the real observation so it fails to describe it.

    birds fir.

    4- The craft has at least the same altitude with the clouds because it obviously interacts with the clouds changing the appearance as it flies through them. At that altitude, over 4000m, the birds should fly with more than 700 Km/h and have a size over 5 meters, which is absolute impossible ;)

    In conclusion you have a better chance saying it is an highly advanced experimental secret plane rather a flock of birds.




     
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Have you read the explanation for this in the thread above? The out of focus, transparent dots?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Mihai

    Mihai Closed Account

    The hypothesis of out of focus is not verified because :
    1- I presented a movie with the same camera with a seagull flying on which you may see wings flapping.(https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hfkwztrtq925aov/AAAEJwd0-nicNy6UiPy0T1zca?dl=0)
    I could see the seagull by myself in the lights of the city, also it was night, see pic below.
    bird flying thermal.

    2-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.
    20170805-061720-5h1dw.

    In conclusion, the camera is well focussed. (even if it wouldn't be focussed, it wouldn't have the multiplier effect over the background sky layer, aka transparency, but an additive one, so the object would still be visible on the dark sky, only more blurred ;) )

    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 propulsion technology?
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2017
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No clearly not.

    That does not make any sense. A well focussed camera would give a sharp transition. And your own images seem to show the additive transparency, like on these branches.

    20170805-152232-35l3h.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 3
  7. Mihai

    Mihai Closed Account

    The branches are not out of focus, also the moon is not, the clouds have sharp edges, stop zooming on them by cropping the image, there are only 240x320 pixels already blown up.


    Look, i see you are trying all Adobe tricks to support your claims, it's fine for me that you believe whatever you want, i expose my opinion regarding the flying object in the clouds.

    I have no more common sense arguments to come with so i'll stay away from this subject. I even don't have the camera anymore.

    Have a good one!
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
  8. HoaxEye

    HoaxEye New Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. EricL

    EricL Member

    Something else occurs to me now, in thinking back over what does and does not make sense to the original poster.

    The original poster does not agree that the so-called interaction with the clouds is more easily explained by optical and digital effects than by his own reasoning which defies the laws of physics (that being, clouds ought to obscure electromagnetic wave transmission, not amplify it). On that note, he believes that heat on wings of this "aircraft" instantly increases when contacting clouds, but according to laws of physics, no object that has mass can change temperature instantly. He believes that since it's shaped like an aircraft it must be one, but does not believe that something that's shaped like a flock of birds (including having one leg of the 'V' being much longer than the other) gives evidence that it's probably just a flock of birds, which of course is related to his belief the the image is in crisp focus when in fact it is not (I will admit that the large magnification used to illustrate lack of focus might not have been the best approach, but the focus is poor by any reasonable standard, just the same).

    What I would like to add to this examination of evidence is in consideration of the single thing that original poster really focuses his attention on, and that's apparent temperatures that are indicated by the image. He has a lot of faith in that aspect. My question is, if it really is an enormous jet airplane, where are the trails of hot exhaust? Surely if the camera is so sensitive that it can detect the wings instantly heating up on contact with the clouds (that's his explanation, not mine), those trails of very hot exhaust gas must be visible in the image too. 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?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    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.

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aSibEtndLA&feature=youtu.be

    20170806-152527-bf1fy.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. Mihai

    Mihai Closed Account

    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.
    With SR35 camera with FOV 20x15 degrees and 320x240 pixels of sensor, birds are only visible in less than 500m.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2017
  13. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Then logic dictates they were lower and slower than your claiming,
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Mihai

    Mihai Closed Account

    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.

    bird flying thermal.

    Don't make the confusion of low resolution camera with out of focus image. If you continue to argument the camera is out of focus, you should revise your knowledge about digital image capture and display.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2017
  15. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    your photos are out of focus. None of the other thermal images I've seen online are so blurry.
    have you even looked at your own photos?
    20170805-061720-5h1dw.


    and whatever you think about focus... your tree branches are transparent. which is the whole point of the birds flying against the white parts of the sky.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. Mihai

    Mihai Closed Account

    You missed the post 54 above (https://www.metabunk.org/posts/209033/) , please make your homework before posting.
     
  17. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Agree Agree x 3
  19. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's my fridge:
    20170807-124141-61alv.

    The black line is a cable tie at room temperature (around 75°F). The bottles are showing around 45°F, the back of the fridge is cooler.

    Here it is in far infrared. The camera (FLIR ONE) automatically adds a visible light outline to thing. You can't switch it off, but you can adjust the offset. I've adjusted it here to provide a clear view of the bottles and the cable tie. This demonstrates the additive nature of this type of camera.
    20170807-124318-e14lp.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Another version of this experiment:
    20170807-130456-bcbtq.

    This time I've put a 4°F ice pack at the back, and used a thin straw and a very thin wire (both at room temperature). The effect is more pronounced with the thin objects, as it would be for tiny objects that would normally look like points, like high birds.
    20170807-130620-p5uj5.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    More refinements to the demonstration. I figured out if I tape a light diffuser over the visible lens then it cuts out the edge overlay (it's still getting light, just can't find any edges).
    20170807-142041-lqnxl.
    Handy, I wish I'd known this earlier. So now I'm getting a pure LWIR image:
    20170807-133649-k5dy3.

    We still have the ice pack for the sky, the beer bottles for clouds. I've changed the "bird" object to a tiny plastic label tie, cut so there's a small blob on the end of some super thin plastic.
    20170807-134021-4pugz.

    Bird over dark sky:
    20170807-134152-cblbh.

    Bird over cloud:
    20170807-134231-2aq7u.

    via GIPHY


    Source: https://giphy.com/gifs/xT39DkteJziiTmRO3C/html5


    I think that proves quite conclusively that the the object in the OP video was below the clouds.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Aug 7, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  22. EricL

    EricL Member

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  23. Mihai

    Mihai Closed Account

    So at the end, let me understand your point of view with my words, regarding camera being out of focus:

    The FIR camera is out of focus so what we see actually not flies through clouds but much lower and it obviously must be birds, even if they are invisible on clear sky .
    The invisibility happens because of transparency of the blured objects and once the clouds are in background, the birds suddenly are visible because misterious effect.

    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.
     
  24. mik

    mik Member

    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.

    They're not invisible at all, just dimmer. This is because of the focus.

    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.

    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.

    But they are visible. Just fainter, for reasons above.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  25. HoaxEye

    HoaxEye New Member

    • Like Like x 1
  26. Mihai

    Mihai Closed Account

    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. Comparison below.
    This makes me wonder if your claim regarding focus is sincere or just a part of your job to dismiss all UFO files.
    BTW, have you ever encountered a video on which you agree there is a legit UFO?
    Screenshot 2017-08-08 12.57.13.

    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:))


    Source: https://youtu.be/WXKOqgxwp-c?t=3m26s


     
  27. mik

    mik Member

    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Clouds Givemethewillies

    Clouds Givemethewillies Active Member

    It does not matter what is the cause of lack of resolution is. You don't have the resolution to resolve flying ducks with gaps between them.
    "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think I have demonstrated above that that effect happens. A technical explanation is somewhat besides the point, as we can see that it actually happens.

    via GIPHY


    Source: https://giphy.com/gifs/3oEhmSHWspdZ5l0tpe/html5

    It's not entirely a focus issue, it's essentially a BLURRING issue, which in part is caused by focus, but is also caused by the low resolution of the sensor and the quality of the lens. But essentially each pixel in the final image comes from a region of the field of view.

    At a raw level and idealized camera might pick up something like this: The black is the sky, the grey is the clouds, the tiny white dot is a single pixel from a hot smalle source of heat, like a high bird.
    20170808-090517-y5d8i.

    A closer look
    upload_2017-8-8_9-4-49.

    But because the image is blurred, the camera sees something more like this:
    20170808-090648-qfebk.
    And the actual image depends on the response curve of the camera, which can be a hardware function of the camera, but which it may also try to adjust in software to bring out detail in the image.
    20170808-090912-orzpy.

    Notice here how the dot over the cloud is much clearer, but the dot over the dark region is nearly gone.

    If the display software then adjust the levels so that the brightest spot in the image is white, we get:
    20170808-091651-tz3je.

    The actual total mechanism is a bit more complex, involving resolution changes, and possible more stages of levels/curves adjustment. However this shows the basic idea.

    The fact that the dots show this effect shows that they are SMALL objects, below the clouds.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This might require a little more explanation, but it's even more technical so I left it out, feel free to skip this post.

    Why are the resultant dots different brightnesses if it's the same dot blurred?

    The answer is that most of the source pixels in the blurred dot don't come from the bright pixel, they come from the background. Consider a simplified 3x3 blur of a single pixel over either a black, or a 20% gray. I've marked the pixel colors as a fraction of white. So black is 0.0, this grey is 0.2, and white is 1.0
    20170808-093033-bp5ez.
    (Both center pixels are pure white, i.e. 1.0)

    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

    So the blurred dot over the grey area is about 2.5 times as bright as the blurred dot over the black area. 20170808-094006-77cco.

    Then the response curve/adjustment curve/levels can easily exaggerate this when adjusted to the full range.
    20170808-094424-1knkv.
    (Note: this is a simplification considering just one pixel. Real blurs are a bit more complex, but the end result is the same)
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Amber Robot

    Amber Robot Member

    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?
     
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    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.

    However in my diagram of the grey background I neglected to turn the pixels outside the box grey. So if you were to just blur that you'd get a dimmer border around the middle filter.

    Simply blurring is done using a convolution filter, which is simply a series of weights given to each pixel to give the middle pixel in the blurred image. My example uses a 3x3 filter. Photoshop allows you to specify an arbitrary 5x5 filter, like with this source image:
    20170808-115732-pzsiz.
    Apply this filter:
    20170808-115835-mc4i0.
    Gives:
    20170808-115855-dp43u.

    I'm not sure this is helpful in explaining anything though :) Again I think the best explanation is the simple demonstration that it happens (with my fridge). The whys are really irrelevant, and perhaps a bit overcomplex.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Mihai

    Mihai Closed Account

    This looks like a solid wing shaped object to me, an UFO.
    It has a thinner part and a thicker part, straight lines, perfect angular symmetry regarding the path it flies. Photo obtained by stacking frames.
    thumbnail enlarged 16-15.
    Image15.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2017
  34. EricL

    EricL Member

    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.

    Oh, and I really wonder about the legitimacy of "stacking frames", especially when the opposing viewpoint is one where the image is actually a number of discrete points which do not remain perfectly in the same positions relative to each other. If I understand your method, even if the discrete dots which we believe are birds were much more clear than they are, stacking images would tend to fill in the empty space between them.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  35. Mihai

    Mihai Closed Account

    Hi Eric, thanks for your reply, fresh air in here.

    I was a videographer a long period (2005-2014) i know many filming techniques. But i never heard anywhere of such effect that adding/stacking multiple "blurred photo" will result in a sharper photo with definite corners.

    When you have an optically blurred image, nothing in the world can redo the sharpness. Mathematically is impossible. That's why NASA went in space and corrected the optics of Hubble, they couldn't do it in software.

    thumbnail enlarged 16-15.

    It must be a solid object partially visible in each frame but when added together, here it is

    Have a good one!
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2017
  36. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i don't.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  37. EricL

    EricL Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It looks just like some blurred point sources of heat.
    20170808-143710-tzgmd.
    On the left is the stacked image from the OP. Stacking it just fills out the bumps a little.
    The second image is some individual pixels lit at full brightness in a typical irregular bird V pattern
    The third and fourth are just two different type of blur.

    Here's an animation showing a preview of a diffrent blur (I've edited the convolution matrix to be more like a typical lens blur - I'm using this type of blur simply as it can blur and scale the brightness in one step - so makes for a simpler demo)
    blur on off.

    There's no significant difference between the stacked image from the video, and the simulated blurred point heat sources. The "straight" edges are simply an artifact of the limited number of angles you can have when you are dealing with very few pixels.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  39. Mihai

    Mihai Closed Account

    Hi Mick, interesting animation here, thanks.

    For the moment let's ignore the fact shown above, that stacking frames produces a sharper image with higher res (Hubble couldn't do it because it was out of focus).

    Let's put the blur simulation and stacked frame photo side by side and check the details:
    blur on off.

    thumbnail enlarged 16-15.

    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

    Now taking into account that stacking frames with partially obscured object produced a crisper image than a single frame, denotes that the image was well focused or else NASA guys could fix Hubble by software, not by flying in space and putting corrective optics on Hubble.

    Comparison between one frame and the stacked frame image
    one frame .
    thumbnail enlarged 16-15.

    Conclusion:

    The winged shape is by no meaning produced by out of focus camera.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 9, 2017
    • Disagree Disagree x 5
  40. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Sorry, but you are just reading too much into that image. Everything you list is just a function of contrast adjustments and where the birds (point sorces of heat)) happen to be. The clouds have just as sharp edges.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1