|
Post by gwiz on Sept 22, 2005 3:01:26 GMT -4
Or to put it another way, what you're seeing are not so much surface details as reflections in a wavy mirror that, in the way of reflections, move as your viewpoint does.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 22, 2005 3:22:02 GMT -4
These are 2 of the same frames from the online video version.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Sept 22, 2005 3:40:10 GMT -4
Apart from showing that if you enlarge a frame enough, you can see the pixels, what point are you trying to make?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 22, 2005 3:42:50 GMT -4
I still can't see anything but blur and scan artifacts.
How about if, for the purposes of discussion, we accept that there is something in those images. Given that, what conclusions would you like to entertain based on that?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 22, 2005 10:44:51 GMT -4
Why am I looking at highly-magnified DCT artifacts?
Turbonium, these pictures were taken with a field-sequential color television camera. Go do some original research and find out what that is. Then, after you have demonstrated that you understand how a field-sequential camera works, see if there's anything in those principles of operation that might explain why bright patches might appear to change shape and position from frame to frame as the camera moves.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 22, 2005 15:00:35 GMT -4
Why am I looking at highly-magnified DCT artifacts? Because he seems to think that a 19Kb/s 320x240 RealVideo stream scaled up to 640x480 is of superior quality to a 2Mb/s 720x480 MPEG-2 stream scaled down to 640x480. And just to confuse things further, the transmission was recorded on kinescope. I''ve already tried to explain this several times, over here.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Sept 22, 2005 15:15:31 GMT -4
Even assuming the blurs are meaningful, I find the placement of the yellow lines and little arrows mostly an arbitrary interpretation. In the sequence near the top of this page, it seems someone wants to make a point about the border between areas tilting -- yet the yellow line is NOT placed in the same relationship to the patterns there. (It sits on top of the "trident" shape on the left in the top image, yet cuts right through that shape on the bottom image -- and that's just one example).
So even if you assume those patterns are stable enough to make these kinds of statements about their relationships (I do not so assume -- we are so close to the noise floor here this could all be aliasing), if these ARE the reflections of crinkled foil then, in the real world, it would be completely expected that dramatic changes would occur in the reflected shapes with even slight movements of the camera.
I'd as soon give this one its head, though...see where he wants to go with it. For the purpose of argument, assume this is a pristine visual record of...whatever it is....and let us hear what it is that is supposed to be revealed in it. It won't be informative, but it might be entertaining.
|
|