|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 14, 2005 0:48:03 GMT -4
I believe I have now spotted a human arm... Have you yet reached a conclusive identification of the object you previously identified as a "bare human arm?" Do you agree that it is, in fact, the folded S-band antenna, or do you hold to your original interpretation? Have you yet reviewed my response to your request for "replies as to what the other anomalous objects could be on page 4 (I think) of this thread?" Do you have any intention of actually resolving any of the issues you have already raised before diverting attention to something else? Do you understand what "Auto Levels" does? I do.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 14, 2005 2:42:05 GMT -4
No, I have not been 100% convinced of the identification of the object . I have not been satisfied with the "mesh" being the "arm" for reasons I have previously outlined. The object the "arm" is holding is a better comparison to the distal end of the antenna. But I haven't changed my original interpretation, no. Yes, I now have reviewed the one still to which you replied - the "chair" still. You left out any interpretation of the "chair" itself, but the "struts" can be looked at from a larger frame of reference. I have added 5 stills in sequence to show the movement changes to the "shade" itself. The far left and center still are where I clearly see "people".
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 14, 2005 2:51:02 GMT -4
Yes, I do as well....for reference here's the general description... The Auto Levels command defines the lightest and darkest pixels in an image, and then redistributes intermediate pixel values proportionately. Because Auto Levels adjusts each color channel (red, green, and blue) individually, it may remove or introduce color casts. Auto Levels gives good results when an image with an average distribution of pixel values needs a simple contrast adjustment. And so it improved the results of the still, even if not to any great degree. It did not "misinterpret" the information to lessen the quality, in any way I can see. If you think it did, please explain specifically why.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jul 14, 2005 3:50:36 GMT -4
The one on the right looks like Marvin the Paranoid Android to me: I don't see a chair anywhere, nor any people... It's just the Face on Mars thing.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 14, 2005 4:03:46 GMT -4
What do you think the object is in the far right still? What is in the other stills?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jul 14, 2005 4:10:51 GMT -4
Crinkled Mylar foil
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 14, 2005 10:55:15 GMT -4
re: the "Man in the swivel chair" images:You left out any interpretation of the "chair" itself What's there to interpret? It's s section of crinkled foil which, to your mind in this context, appears to resemble a chair. It's an optical illusion, nothing more. Your sequence depicts a shift in the camera's focus (meaning what it's pointed at) as depicted below, approximately. (click for full-size image) The area around the upper-forward corner of the descent stage's quadrant IV. The side of the descent stage's quadrant IV. re: the second "bare human arm" image:This demonstrates that you can copy text from the Photoshop Elements help file, not that you actually understand what this feature does. Did it? How do you know it's an improvement?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 14, 2005 12:14:50 GMT -4
Level adjustment alters the relationship between brightness levels. This can introduce artificial contrast and create false contours.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 14, 2005 13:19:02 GMT -4
Level adjustment alters the relationship between brightness levels. This can introduce artificial contrast and create false contours. True, though I don't believe it's contrast or contour demarkation he's claiming the Auto Levels has improved, but rather the color balance, particularly of the "hand".
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 14, 2005 15:36:02 GMT -4
Auto-leveling in Photoshop is a misnomer because it does attempt to do color correction. The manual level adjustment treats only intensity. The automatic level adjustment applies corrections to each color channel appropriately in order to render the picture in its idea of appropriate colors. The notion of "appropriate" colors is based on assumptions derived from a cross-section of "typical" photography. The histograms are then compared against this arbitrary profile to see whether a linear correction can be applied at each histogram slot. For normal photography that has problems with color cast (e.g., the color temperature of its lighting) the automatic color correction does a good job. For special photography like photos taken in space, the algorithm does a very poor job of rendering acceptable or correct color. Space photography is not a part of the assumptions made about baseline "correct" photographs. Television pictures from field-sequential cameras are not appropriate in any case because there are false colors produced by the sampling, and those go into the algorithm's judgment of the "correctness" of the picture.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 14, 2005 19:43:56 GMT -4
Stupid git with an overactive imagination? I wouldn't say the two go hand-in-hand, but imagination, you've got (too bad it disqualifies you from many management positions)! Roger that. Before we get into pareidolia and the problems with reading reflection patterns in a wrinkled piece of mylar shown on a blown-up, digitized copy of a poor quality video, let's step back for a moment. Assume, for the sake of argument, that we are looking at a high-quality, wide angle photograph from the same perspective, and that we replace the mylar with a flat mirror. What are we going to see? In the background, the ground and sky. In the foreground, the MESA and Al Bean holding the camera: Pete Conrad and the S-Band antenna would be in the middle distance (not shown), unless either or both were obstructed by Bean. Now let’s curve the surface, making it convex: We’re all familiar with the distortion seen in spherical mirrors. In particular, objects very close to the mirror look disproportionately large when compared to background objects, which look tiny (I can go into the “why” of this, if you like). More curvature causes more distortion: Note that the same applies to sharply concave reflectors, which also reverse the image: Thus, a very convex or concave reflector will show you a wide panorama of the entire scene. The ground & sky will dominate the image. The MESA, because of its proximity, will take up a large chunk of the ground reflection. Astronaut Bean, a few feet further away, would be the next most visible object, but would only take up a small fraction of the total image, and anything further away than him would be insignificant. Note that a reflector that’s not spherical, such as a car bumper or - hey - a bent piece of metal or mylar will severely distort the image perpendicular to the axis of the bend. All of the above is talking about a single reflector. The wrinkled mylar on the side of the LM creates a myriad of highly curved, concave and convex non-spherical reflections. This is not like a fun-house mirror, which has comparatively subtle curvature, which nonetheless causes startling effects. In this case, each one of the reflections is a highly distorted (and possibly flipped) image of the entire scene.(As in the previous illustrations, the green lines show 180-degree reflections straight back to the camera.) To say that, …is, as you say, showing an active imagination (“I was going to say I saw a ducky and a horsy, but I changed my mind.”). The light blotches are not parts of a larger image; they are each entire panoramas of a ~180 scene. When you ask, The answer is: - The black parts are each mostly reflections of the black sky. Some of each may be reflection of the LM’s shadow, including the MESA, which is mostly in the shadow. - The light parts are each mostly reflections of the lunar surface. - I don’t know if Al Bean was standing in the sunlight, when these frames were taken; if he was, then the sunlit side of him would accentuate the light stuff, whereas the shaded parts of him would obscure a small part of each lunar surface reflection.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 14, 2005 22:52:46 GMT -4
Turbonium: Just out of curiousity, what are the astronauts discussing in the video when "the arm" is on screen? I think Bean is saying ''you can really move around up here. You don't seem to get tired" You must have known that already, no? LunarOrbit - was there something you wanted to bring up when you asked me about this? I'm not aware of any reply you might have made.......
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 14, 2005 22:53:19 GMT -4
I've only heard from joe on the still from page 10 (ignore the "auto leveled" version for arguments sake). The object is most definitely in motion in the video clip.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 14, 2005 23:16:20 GMT -4
I think Bean is saying ''you can really move around up here. You don't seem to get tired" You must have known that already, no? LunarOrbit - was there something you wanted to bring up when you asked me about this? I'm not aware of any reply you might have made....... Sorry, I guess I missed your reply to my question. I was basically just wondering what the astronauts were doing at the time you see "the arm". I figured they would be talking about their tasks, and if they were doing something with the S-band antenna they would have mentioned it. I don't have Real Player (and have no intention of installing it), and I also don't have the Apollo 12 DVD's (not yet anyway), so I can't watch the video myself.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 14, 2005 23:56:11 GMT -4
|
|