[Merged] Skycentrism: Binocular Effect

[skycentrism]

They tend to be more gullible, I guess that's what you're really looking for..

No, they're wiser in fact.

[Rlyeh]

Draw a horizontal line right through the middle of both videos and then come back. Cause you have no idea what you're writing.

Give me a single frame and I'll find the exact centre.

[toast]

Even GLPers are better with this.

http://www.godlikepr...sage2431398/pg1

From the answers in GLP in relation to yr vids there:

[frenat]

Draw a horizontal line right through the middle of both videos and then come back. Cause you have no idea what you're writing.

Pause both videos at the start. They do NOT have the same center.

The attached pic shows this. Where the lines cross is the center of each video. They are NOT the same.

[frenat]

No, they're wiser in fact.

Hardly. GLP is infested with trolls, and has a lack of moderation.

[Rlyeh]

No, they're wiser in fact.

I doubt it. If your wisdom is any indication, they probably have trouble turning on cameras. Edited January 11, 2014 by Rlyeh

[Rlyeh]

Pause both videos at the start. They do NOT have the same center.

The attached pic shows this. Where the lines cross is the center of each video. They are NOT the same.

Would you look at that, the levelled one is centred at the water. The unlevelled one is closer to the horizon but still slightly in the sky. Edited January 11, 2014 by Rlyeh

[flyingswan]

It's not consistent at all, untill you put bigger and bigger values to the calculator to finally get it right. What if the calculable convexity should block the view of an object and it doesn't ? What would you say then ?

It's not my fault if you can't do such a simple piece of geometric calculation. With the figures quoted in the video, you will only lose the bottom few metres of the ship and the wind turbine, hardly noticeable for such large objects.

[skycentrism]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk-cOPtUWj8

Here you are. Where's the center here ?

[frenat]

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk-cOPtUWj8[/media]

Here you are. Where's the center here ?

Why are you unable to take a screen shot and draw lines with Paint?

Or why can't you see the center based on the play symbol in the middle of the video before you start it?

Are you going to acknowledge the fact that the centers are NOT the same on the previous two videos?

What about your multiple outstanding questions?

[skycentrism]

Better compilation, enable captions.

[media=]

[/media] Edited January 11, 2014 by skycentrism

[ChrLzs]

Atmospheric effects have nothing to do with this. If the camera is working fine then the center should remain where it was. Officially it's enlarging the object with optical zoom, as you said, I will refer to this later.

What if the camera/camcorder is 1.leveled with a libella and 2.not leveled but simply put on a tripod. How will the center of the image behave ? Does it have a meaning at all whether it's leveled or not ? In both cases it's still in a solid position so it's not about moving the camera or not BUT maintaining the level.

I asked you politely to get to the point, but instead you wish to play tinfoilhat word games, and then ask lots of seemingly unrelated 'innocent questions' in the hope of finding something to bite on.

After seeing the rest of the drivel you posted on your other thread and now are repeating here, plus your complete and utter ignorance of photography, let alone photogrammetry (look it up), plus that fact that you can't even draw lines on an image, plus your attitude - the words 'out of your depth' are hardly sufficient...

Goodbye. And here's a parting picture...

[Waspie_Dwarf]

My previous thread was locked. Supposedly for impolite atmosphere. I don't think so. I was just continuously attacked and simply tried to defend myself.

skycentrism may I remind you that when you joined this site you agreed to abide by it's rules. Those rules include the following:

6c. Appeal: Do not post content designed to complain about, rally support against or to criticise moderator action. If you disagree with action taken by a member of staff you have the option to appeal the decision by PMing a moderator or administrator.

[stereologist]

Sorry but you're bluffing.

Is this all you can muster for a paltry response to being told how inane your claim is?

The video simply shows that it is possible to see objects that extend above the horizon. Whoopee doo. My kids figured this out when they were under the age of 5.

How does the ship extend over the horizon in this video ? Tell me please, that's interesting. lol.

That's simple one. It does. The video makes that very clear. In fact the video makes it evident that only part of the ship can be seen over the horizon.

[stereologist]

You really should learn about optics, cameras, parfocal and parcentric issues. You need to learn what the horizon represents. You need to learn that light travels in straight lines. Basically, you need to start learning. Once you get through middle school, you are likely able to take a course in basic physics in high school. There you can learn about optics. Good luck.

[bmk1245]

Better compilation, enable captions.

[...]

Before making s#!t up, you better figure out limitations/drawbacks of your camcorder: take a piece of paper, draw small black circle, place that piece of paper at the distance of 3-5 meters fro camcorder, zoom to max (optical+digital) to "place" circle in the center of the frame, then zoom out and see how far from the center of the frame your spot will be.

Just an example (frames extracted from video taken with Sony HDR-PJ650VE on tripod, image stabilization off, with remote control to avoid camera displacement):

no zoom

max optical zoom

You must check your camera first. Lets see what you will get.

PS. photobucket rescales images, original frame size is 1280/720.

[ChrLzs]

Nice example, bmk. In that case, you can clearly see how small camera/lens 'defects' (in this case, the entire lens assembly is probably slightly misaligned so it isn't exactly perpendicular to the sensor) even on high quality cameras can make a significant difference in any attempted use to verify the angles and dimensions of a scene. I have a high end DSLR and one of the zoom lenses I have works perfectly, but the lens assembly 'floats' somewhat in the lens barrel, and you can even see it in the viewfinder if you 'twist' on it - the lens and resulting images are all fine, and it's just the way that lens is built.

This entire debacle is an almost perfect example of the problem with the vast majority of conspiracy theorists. They simply haven't a CLUE about how to undertake an analysis - they have already decided on the results, so they cherry pick whatever they can shovel from the gutters to add to their mindset. It's rather ironic that they accuse others of being close-minded.. Yet by the inept way they go about things, they prove that they cannot think laterally, they have no idea what other factors are involved, they don't know how to set up an experiment/work out error ranges/etc, and they are essentially entirely ignorant of the disciplines they would need to understand, in order to even begin to put up such a ridiculous claim and be taken seriously.

Earlier, in answer to the OP's (unjustifiably) simplified question about zooming, I answered:

ASSUMING that we are talking about a theoretical and 'perfect' lens, an unmoving camera/lens, an unmoving object and no atmospheric effects, THEN the center (central area) of the image (will be larger and) remain in the optical centre of the image frame.

BMK has now shown why you CAN'T assume a 'perfect lens', the OP hasn't properly addressed the unmoving camera factor and given the horizon is curved, has offered no way to pin down where the horizon/object is, and I've given an example above showing the HUGE effects that atmospheric refraction can cause.

So basically that is a complete FAIL on every point.

A real investigator would have (correctly) assumed his/her 'data' was somehow in error and instead of arrogantly dismissing people who know what they are talking about, would have taken the time to learn and understand what would be needed to eliminate the errors. Had the OP simply come here and asked WHY he was getting results he didn't understand, then this embarrassing silliness would have been avoided, and the OP might have started learning about systems analysis and scientific methodology (aka common sense)....

Edited January 12, 2014 by ChrLzs

[skycentrism]

Bluffing all the way. But ok, I'll leave you alone for some time. Wonder what you would say about what you've clearly ignored: what if the calculable convexity should block the view of an object but it does not. Light goes through ? Or maybe it avoids it by going over and than coming back to the previous track ?

Edited January 12, 2014 by skycentrism

[skycentrism]

One last thing: the center of the image should not change at all if the camera is working fine. Are all the cameras malfunctioning ? Are levelers so poorly constructed that they have such a small range ? No, but you obviously ignored that.

[bmk1245]

[...]

This entire debacle is an almost perfect example of the problem with the vast majority of conspiracy theorists. [...]

Amen to that...

Anytime I see threads like this, distinct picture sparks in my mind, i.e.

[bmk1245]

One last thing: the center of the image should not change at all if the camera is working fine. Are all the cameras malfunctioning ? Are levelers so poorly constructed that they have such a small range ? No, but you obviously ignored that.

Again, put your cam on the simple test. Put test results here. Take another (borrow from friends/rent) cam on the same test (~same settings). Post results here.

Otherwise you will be remembered as a loon and a crock. Your choice..

[Czero 101]

Again, put your cam on the simple test. Put test results here. Take another (borrow from friends/rent) cam on the same test (~same settings). Post results here.

Otherwise you will be remembered as a loon and a crock. Your choice..

That's already what he's thought of here, bmk.... Its amazing how he thinks his "You're bluffing" rebuttal is anything more than a clear indication of his willful ignorance and total refusal to engage in open, intellectually honest discussion / debate.

Cz

[ChrLzs]

Bluffing all the way.

Yeah, and that is your technical answer to all those points raised? You certainly are a master-debator...

But ok, I'll leave you alone for some time.

Translation:

You posted a pile of unsupported drivel on a discussion forum where there are quite few folk who know what they are talking about. You were expecting adoration, you got derision, now you are flouncing off.

Wonder what you would say about what you've clearly ignored: what if the calculable convexity should block the view of an object but it does not.

Really? Well then, all you have to do is SHOW YOUR WORKINGS. Give us all the assumptions you have made, show us the STILL images (not Youtube garbage), show us the properly reasoned photogrammetric analysis you have performed, and give us all the numbers. It's perfectly obvious from the floundering presented so far that will NEVER happen. Hence the FLOUNCE. But I'll happily apologise if you can do it - surely that would make the effort worthwhile? Just don't come back here with more drivel that has had less thought put into it, than I use to spread butter on toast..

Until you come up with a properly reasoned argument, and also acknowledge ALL the stuff you NEED to be considering and saying a little more than "you're bluffing" as a response, then you can expect no respect whatsoever...

What is particularly amusing is that in all these posts, you STILL haven't specified your claim. Is it perhaps:

- the earth is flat

- the science of optics is completely wrong

- the science of atmospheric effects .. " "

- there are little leprechauns in cameras that photoshop the images to fool us

Pick one, or do feel free to elaborate.

Light goes through ? Or maybe it avoids it by going over and than coming back to the previous track ?

Is english not your first language? Can you explain the point you are trying to make in some other words, ie ones that make sense? Maybe phone a friend..

One last thing:

Of course there is, dear. it's not like you meant it when you said you would leave us alone..

One last thing: the center of the image should not change at all if the camera is working fine.

Absolute hogwash. For a start, no lens design is perfect, and even a tiny misalignment of a single element within the lens will cause a change in centering. Second, and here's what really indicates you have no experience whatsoever, it is inherent in the design of most autofocus lenses to have a very freely moving lens assembly - in other words the entire lens assembly is very lightly supported in the barrel and on the helical focusing mechanism. This is done for two reasons:

- fast AF : the lighter and quicker the lens can be moved, the faster it can be focused

- low battery drain : the less friction encountered by the focus motor, the less battery use

I have a DSLR and one of my lenses is a tele zoom - it's a Minolta 75-300. It's a wonderfully sharp lens - I've posted quite a few images at UM (eg here) using it. The lens assembly is quite loose, not because it is worn or broken, but because it is meant to be that way. I can shift it, oh, about .8° quite easily, possibly more - would you like me to post some examples..?

And unlike YOU, lens and camera designers KNOW that it doesn't matter as the 'looseness' deliberately built into the lens is NOT an operational issue. By its nature, autofocus will move the lens into correct focus, and for normal photography it matters not a bit that the scene might be slightly displaced laterally.

That's why people who know what they are doing NEVER use zoom lenses for anything requiring precise measurement. It would be a really dumb thing to do.

Are all the cameras malfunctioning ?

Lovely example of a straw man. Almost all zoom lenses do this and it is no malfunction - indeed it is because other mechanisms in the camera are working well and deal with it, that Joe Average never has a problem. Joe Average isn't silly enough to try to use a consumer camera for a demanding measurement application... I'll guarantee that you will never find a consumer level camera that offers *perfect* zoom centering.

Are levelers so poorly constructed that they have such a small range ?

What leveler? And given all that has now been very patiently explained, how would a leveler be useful if the camera is simply not remotely suitable for the intended purpose? Even if the rest of your 'experiment was sound (and I'll bet my backside it isn't), you have destroyed any chance of any useful measurement right from the start. How embarrassing!!!

No, but you obviously ignored that.

No, we obviously know why you are having so many problems. You've ignored simple basic requirements, have tried to perform an 'experiment' that was doomed to utter failure, have not even specified what your claim is, and haven't offered anything but silly handwaving and complaints you are being treated unfairly. Boohoo.

If you do nothing else in your post-flounce postings, SPECIFY YOUR CLAIM.

And go read that photo.net thread AGAIN. The answers were perfectly correct. Funny how everyone here and over there is in agreement. Only one person doesn't get it. BTW, I see your account there is now deleted....

Edited January 13, 2014 by ChrLzs

[stereologist]

One last thing: the center of the image should not change at all if the camera is working fine. Are all the cameras malfunctioning ? Are levelers so poorly constructed that they have such a small range ? No, but you obviously ignored that.

Bluffing all the way. But ok, I'll leave you alone for some time. Wonder what you would say about what you've clearly ignored: what if the calculable convexity should block the view of an object but it does not. Light goes through ? Or maybe it avoids it by going over and than coming back to the previous track ?

Please write clearer. These posts are incomprehensible to me.

I suspect the problem is that you do not understand what the horizon is. Once you take an intro course into optics you will learn why you are mistaken. Light and all EM travels in straight lines until it interacts with matter.

My son who is in 6th grade did the algebra and geometry with me to determine how far the horizon is when looking out to sea from an elevation of h. The horizon is the set of points where a tangent line passes through the observation point. Just as nearby objects can obstruct the view of the horizon, objects beyond the horizon can be tall enough to be intersected by a tangent line that passes through the observation point.

If you can't draw yourself a simple diagram I'll do it for you.

[ChrLzs]

I was sorta hoping that at some point, 'skycentrism' might have the cojones to actually admit what he was heading towards, but it seems he is cojone-less... So for those who aren't onto him yet... He believes we live inside a hollow earth. So to him, the ground is actually dished... (although why it doesn't then circle up and over us and thereby obscure the Sun, Moon and stars, I'm not quite sure..)

Anyway, posting as Karol or Wiosna he tries to spread this insanely stupid idea far and wide. Problem is, he gets (rightly) laughed off (and then usually booted off) every forum he repeats this at... So *here* at UM, he has decided instead to try a 'backdoor' approach, where first he pretends to have innocently identified an 'anomaly'. The best he can come up with is his poorly centred lens on his camcorder, which he was then going to try to use to prove it can see things that are (gasp!!) BELOW the horizon (or at least that is what TPTB would want you to think...). Because of course, *his* very speshul horizon curves upward, doncha know.....

Now if you are thinking this is beyond stupid, you'd be right.

If you are thinking he is trying to get more hits on his Youtube channel, you'd be right, so please don't encourage the stupidity.

If you are thinking that a 6th grader like Stereo's son can easily work out the truth, or even a cheap digicam strung underneath a helium balloon would prove him completely wrong, you'd be right. Quite a few folks, like this guy, have done just that:

Even Karol himself could do this, but of course he won't as he needs his fantasy. It's all he lives for, it seems..

And of course other than that rather beautiful demonstration, if you are thinking that there are REAMS upon REAMS of evidence that completely and utterly contradict this unforgivable silliness, you'd be right.

Added: Just for the record, and to give Skycentrism an unchallenged 100% failure rate on everything thus far posted.. Binocular effect has absolutely NOTHING to do with what he is trying to push. Binocular refers to using two eyes or lenses to perceive a scene, the main advantage of which is the 3D depth-perception effect. It has other advantages, including that it makes it easier to estimate distances (within a kilometre or two). But neither that, or any other of those 'bino' advantages is relevant to Mr Centrism's fantasy claims. So he didn't even get his title right.

Edited January 13, 2014 by ChrLzs