Another released video

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

Thanks....

We wanted to know more about how it tracks targets. I asked would it be something similar to this.., that relies on camera footage.., rather than a range finder to track targets.

You replied the technology is old.., so.., you would guess yes.

This sounds like you are using the fact that the technology is old.., as the reason for it to be the same. I am saying that just because the tech is old.., doesn't mean its the same.

OK thanks, I could've worded it better I guess.  I was assuming it worked the same way as the tech I used, namely a contrast lock but some new tech may be involved that I am unaware of.  My TCS had no ranging capabilities itself, it used the aircraft radar for that which is a weakness as you'd have to illuminate the target with radar to get a range but possibly the ATFLIR uses its laser to get a range but I have no idea

[Fila]

On 3/23/2018 at 9:49 AM, ChrLzs said:

Oh good grief.  Fila, this is beyond ridiculously wrong.  Are you trolling?  I dearly hope so.  But either way, this is a complete waste of time - you obviously have not a clue about any of this - of course it is *not* 1x zoom.  If you can't see that just by using common sense, well, I doubt you have any.  Also, you have NOT visited the links supplied, so Stereo's suggestion that you are researching nothing, is spot on.

 

Welcome to my Ignore list - only a select few make it there.

The source claims the video to be only 1x zoom.., and the object is around 5 miles away. This would make the object much larger than a bird.

For the camera to register a bird sized object with 1x zoom.., it would need to be much closer. I am guessing within less than 1 mile depending on the cameras sensor and aperture size. But even the worlds best camera would not be able to detect a bird 8 kilometers away at 1x zoom.

Its possible to get the size of each pixel in meters or inches if we knew the camera type. Or perhaps we could just run the math against a variety of different camera stats and see how big 1 pixel is for each.., then go from there? Just to get a minimum and maximum. We would need the original footage and resolution. OR.., the lower resolution version.., but knowledge of what resolution the Raytheon AN/ASQ- 228 records video at. Plus the sensor size and focal length for that camera.

My 1st attempt anyway just as an example. Hopefully ChrLzs can jump in.., but be please be nice. I just chose specs for a good civilian camera circa 2015, but with a larger sensor.

Sensor size physical height: 40 mm - (Imax camera's are 52 mm, 23.5mm for a DSLR circa 2015. I assume the military would have slightly better? But this is a variable we can change once we know the camera specs)
Sensor's picture height: 4912 pixels (common HQ DSLRs)
Distance to object = 8200 meters (statute)
Object height in pixels: 6 (This was taken from a screenshot off the video, then measured. We need the real video's resolution. This is just an example.)
Object width in pixels: 11 
_________________________________
SIZE OF OBJECT:
With a Focal length of 18mm, the UFO is 22 meters high, by 40.5 meters wide

With a Focal length of 300mm, the UFO is 1.35 meters high, by 2.45 meters wide.

__________________________________

One thing to consider is the footage shown is at a much lower resolution according to the source.., which makes the object smaller.
We need to find out the video resolution we are seeing, get a size of the object in pixels, compared the output to the Raytheon's video resolution.., and estimate the upsize.

I.e. (example only) I would guess the footage is 480 and the camera recorded at 1080, which adds at least 2 to height, and 3 to width.
CAMERA - SIZE OF OBJECT
16mm: 33.9 meters X 58.43 meters
300mm: 1.78 meters X 3.12 meters

 

Focal length, usually represented in millimeters (mm), is the basic description of a photographic lens. It is not a measurement of the actual length of a lens, but a calculation of an optical distance from the point where light rays converge to form a sharp image of an object to the digital sensor or 35mm film at the focal plane in the camera. The focal length of a lens is determined when the lens is focused at infinity.

The focal length tells us the angle of view—how much of the scene will be captured—and the magnification—how large individual elements will be. The longer the focal length, the narrower the angle of view and the higher the magnification. The shorter the focal length, the wider the angle of view and the lower the magnification.

Edited March 31, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

On 3/31/2018 at 3:17 AM, Fila said:

The source claims the video to be only 1x zoom.., and the object is around 5 miles away. This would make the object much larger than a bird.

** snipped irrelevant commentary **

 

Please show where "The source claims the video to be only 1x zoom".  That is false, but I am interested in learning where you came up with that rather glaring mistake. Please show the source with a link and a quote. 

[L.A.T.1961]

41 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Please show where "The source claims the video to be only 1x zoom".  That is false, but I am interested in learning where you came up with that rather glaring mistake. Please show the source with a link and a quote. 

Regarding the zoom factor the original video does look as though it was shot a 1x zoom. But I suspect it is referencing the digital zoom setting, not optical. Top left of original video shows symbol NAR and below it Z 1.0, I think this indicates that the optical focal length is set to Narrow with digital zoom off.

A narrow field of view would indicate an optical zoom/ longer focal length is in use, as opposed to wide field. As we have no idea what size the object is or pixel size used for the camera working out a focal length is not possible just using the video.

This video shows a similar system in use, note the WIDE /NARO settings shown at top of video as the camera view is switched and then the ZOOM setting as the Digital zoom is used. 

 

[stereologist]

Do people know what is being shown in the video? What do people think is the zoom factor?

[stereologist]

Are people looking for the zoom factor information and trying to figure out why the zoom factor is not what they think it is?

[Merc14]

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

Are people looking for the zoom factor information and trying to figure out why the zoom factor is not what they think it is?

I have no idea what the magnification is on that system but the TCS used a magnified view by default and I assume ATFLIR  is the same or else why use the damn thing if it is simply the same as what your eye sees?   The whole reason is to see at range what you can't see and/or identify visually

[stereologist]

33 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I have no idea what the magnification is on that system but the TCS used a magnified view by default and I assume ATFLIR  is the same or else why use the damn thing if it is simply the same as what your eye sees?   The whole reason is to see at range what you can't see and/or identify visually

I might as well spill the beans. A typical process it seems is to people to make guesses and even after being informed that the guesses are bad they continue on that line of thinking. I would hope that people would actually ask why people think that they are wrong and then move into learning mode.

So here is the scoop. At the top of the screen is NAR. Below that is Z 1.0. The NAR stands for narrow. This means that the view is a 1.5 degree view of the scene. The Z 1.0 is I believe a digital view on top of the optical view.

So how do I know this? I looked it up. Here is a link explaining the display.

https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/G_Advanced_Targeting_FLIR_(ATFLIR)

 go to section 3.4 and display items 19 ad 20.

 

[stereologist]

This is to Fila and others that need to learn and not make guesses.

Quote

The source claims the video to be only 1x zoom.., and the object is around 5 miles away. This would make the object much larger than a bird.

The problem is that there was the assumption that the zoom was 1x. It is not really the value that needs to be understood. I've known from the start of this thread about the settings. They were discussed in the other videos.

It just seems to me that there is an obstinate desire to push forward with a bad idea. It avoids learning. I don't know about other people but I need to learn every day just to keep my head above water.

[Dejarma]

I've no idea why folk are getting into the technical side of the footage...the Basics need to be discussed first, like:

if the footage in question is of something the authorities do not want us to see because it's REAL footage of something truly weird & wonderful- then why are we seeing it?

It looks to me that all we're seeing here is the guys testing the system & commenting on how well it locks onto something== whatever it is seems irrelevant to me & to them by the sound of it!

Someone has obtained this test footage/ uploaded it with a header that has the words 'mysterious' & 'object' in it & everyone's dribbling over their mouse mats!

oh well, no worries= enjoy 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Dejarma

[Dejarma]

---deleted

Edited April 5, 2018 by Dejarma

[ChrLzs]

7 hours ago, Dejarma said:

if the footage in question is of something the authorities do not want us to see because it's REAL footage of something truly weird & wonderful- then why are we seeing it?
It looks to me that all we're seeing here is the guys testing the system & commenting on how well it locks onto something== whatever it is seems irrelevant to me & to them by the sound of it!

Indeed.  Later on, when more of the truth dribbles out, I am virtually certain you will discover that you are pretty much on the money..  A few things need to be repeated about this and the other similar footage:

- one of the videos dates back to 2004, the other to 2015 I believe, and NEITHER of them directly relate to the story by Fravor (a known UFO-pusher who has been paid for his story, by To The Stars.  Fravor's description of various alleged maneuvers of a craft do not match either video in any way.

- NOTHING in either video shows anything of note, unless you are fascinated by how birds, weather balloons or other jet aircraft look in a hybrid IR/Visual targeting system being used by people inexperienced with the equipment.

- unless they have been edited (and then one would have to ask why), the videos are NOT Declassified footage from the DoD.  If it was at any time classified, it would be clearly annotated at the start and end.  It has been interesting to watch how Elizondo squirms when he describes the process by which he got these UNclassified videos.  One of them had been freely available from about 2004 2007, and the other shows no sign of ever being classified.  The DoD has refused to comment on the videos as they have no provenance and therefore would be difficult to identify, and of course Elizondo has NO RECORD of his Freedom of Information request - because there never was one. Or least one that relates to these two videos.

 

There will be much more to come out later - this whole debacle is now unravelling, as I suspected right from the getgo, into nothing more than a moneymaking scam.  If you'd like to start the journey on verifying this.... start here:

https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-up-with-those-pentagon-ufo-videos/

Note that is a long read - but make sure you don't stop after the first paragraph or three, or you won't see how convoluted the rabbit hole is...

Edited April 6, 2018 by ChrLzs
to correct video's 1st appearance year

[Merc14]

7 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Indeed.  Later on, when more of the truth dribbles out, I am virtually certain you will discover that you are pretty much on the money..  A few things need to be repeated about this and the other similar footage:

- one of the videos dates back to 2004, the other to 2015 I believe, and NEITHER of them directly relate to the story by Fravor (a known UFO-pusher who has been paid for his story, by To The Stars.  Fravor's description of various alleged maneuvers of a craft do not match either video in any way.

- NOTHING in either video shows anything of note, unless you are fascinated by how birds, weather balloons or other jet aircraft look in a hybrid IR/Visual targeting system being used by people inexperienced with the equipment.

- unless they have been edited (and then one would have to ask why), the videos are NOT Declassified footage from the DoD.  If it was at any time classified, it would be clearly annotated at the start and end.  It has been interesting to watch how Elizondo squirms when he describes the process by which he got these UNclassified videos.  One of them had been freely available from about 2004 2007, and the other shows no sign of ever being classified.  The DoD has refused to comment on the videos as they have no provenance and therefore would be difficult to identify, and of course Elizondo has NO RECORD of his Freedom of Information request - because there never was one. Or least one that relates to these two videos.

 

There will be much more to come out later - this whole debacle is now unravelling, as I suspected right from the getgo, into nothing more than a moneymaking scam.  If you'd like to start the journey on verifying this.... start here:

https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-up-with-those-pentagon-ufo-videos/

Note that is a long read - but make sure you don't stop after the first paragraph or three, or you won't see how convoluted the rabbit hole is...

Good read.  The whole thing was fishy from the start and I always thought that "pilot interview" didn't match up with the video it was attached to.

[Fila]

On 04/04/2018 at 1:31 AM, stereologist said:

Please show where "The source claims the video to be only 1x zoom".  That is false, but I am interested in learning where you came up with that rather glaring mistake. Please show the source with a link and a quote. 

I'm sorry. Thank you bringing up the fact that I did not provide a reference for that claim.

https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/2015-go-fast-footage/

Edited May 6, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, Fila said:

I'm sorry. Thank you bringing up the fact that I did not provide a reference for that claim.

https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/2015-go-fast-footage/

So let me pull out the quote you should have pulled out for us. Bolding mine.

Quote

As the video starts, the sensor is in infrared “black-hot” mode – black elements in the display are warmer than the dark, or lighter color, areas.  It is at zoom factor 1.0.  The F/A-18 Super Hornet is at 25,000 feet altitude, 259 knots (~300 mph, Mach 0.61), and in level flight.  The sensor is aimed 22 degrees below the horizon and 36 degrees to the left of the F/A-18’s direction.  

The knuckleheads over at that site have missed a critical piece of information. Sorry those those flim flam artists misled you.

Right above Z 1.0 on the screen are the letters NAR. That is an abbreviation for narrow. It means this is a narrow field of view or an angle of 1.5 degrees. If this were a camera it would mean that the lens was a 1500mm lens (approximately).

https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/G_Advanced_Targeting_FLIR_(ATFLIR)

Quote

Field of View Option - The current FOV may be changed either by pressing this option, or by stepping through the various zoom levels using the HARM/RAID/FLIR FOV switch SHFT+R. The label corresponds to the 6°x6° Wide FOV (WFOV), Medium 3°x3° FOV (MFOV), and narrow 1.5°x1.5° FOV (NAR).

What this means is that the optical system is using a lens system to provide a 1.5 degree field of view and that no zoom has been applied.

If we know the field of view angle and we know the distance we can determine the width of the display in real units.

Let d = 5 miles = 5*5280 feet = 26400 feet

width = 26,400 * sin(1.5 degrees) = 690 feet

On the screen is a tracking block. It is approximately 1/36 of the width of the screen. That makes it match up with an object approximately 20 feet across.

[ChrLzs]

Fila, this zoom business was pointed out to you earlier, and clearly you haven't bothered to even look at the links given for the equipment - either that or you don't know how zoom/digital zoom works.

Either way, it isn't a good look.  You need to learn about optics, and also spend a bit of time researching the individual components of claims..  And if you don't understand, ASK - don't make assumptions...

..or pick a different hobby.

 

PS, you don't reference a claim by referencing the same moro people who make the claims.  Sheesh.

[Minimalists]

The below link is a full in depth article over at the Black Vault:

http://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/to-the-stars-academy-of-arts-science-tom-delonge-and-the-secret-dod-ufo-research-program/

About 3/4 of the way down it discusses this video and two more.

[Fila]

On 04/06/2018 at 1:32 PM, stereologist said:

The repetition gets old especially when you disregard the corrections and continue to bluster along incoherently such as in attempting to tell you that the image was not 1x. In the FLIR thread you blustered on about the object being big because the image was 1x when you were repeatedly told it was  not.

Hello Stereo. Just getting back finally. Thank you for actually going into details. ChrLzs keeps saying he is an expert, but never actually adds anything constructive.., yet keeps telling me I am dumb if I can't see why I am wrong.., without actually telling me. An amazing ability to have.., but kinda annoying for me.

I made it clear I am a media student learning about cameras. I used language like;

"The source claims the video to be only 1x zoom.., and the object is around 5 miles away. This would make the object much larger than a bird.

For the camera to register a bird sized object with 1x zoom.., it would need to be much closer. I am guessing within less than 1 mile depending on the cameras sensor and aperture size. But even the worlds best camera would not be able to detect a bird 8 kilometers away at 1x zoom.

Its possible to get the size of each pixel in meters or inches if we knew the camera type. Or perhaps we could just run the math against a variety of different camera stats and see how big 1 pixel is for each.., then go from there? Just to get a minimum and maximum. We would need the original footage and resolution. OR.., the lower resolution version.., but knowledge of what resolution the Raytheon AN/ASQ- 228 records video at. Plus the sensor size and focal length for that camera.

My 1st attempt anyway just as an example. Hopefully ChrLzs can jump in.., but be please be nice. I just chose specs for a good civilian camera circa 2015, but with a larger sensor."

 

So I have been very nice, very open to discussion, open to learn new things and work together. Not the liar you are making me out to be across the forum in an attempt at defamation.

If you or ChrLzs have anything to add.., please do. But before you post.., take some time to calm down. This is not the end of the world. Just stop.., sit and notice what your body is doing.

Do your muscles feel tight? Is your breathing shallow? Is your brain suddenly "racing"? Your eyes darting around, hard to focus? Maybe your chest feels weird too. Just take note, and then realise they are just feelings. Take a moment to relax them and get back to normal. Step away from the computer and think about something else for 30 seconds. Then come back.

I hope you feel better now.

On 06/05/2018 at 10:06 PM, stereologist said:

So let me pull out the quote you should have pulled out for us. Bolding mine.

The knuckleheads over at that site have missed a critical piece of information. Sorry those those flim flam artists misled you.

Right above Z 1.0 on the screen are the letters NAR. That is an abbreviation for narrow. It means this is a narrow field of view or an angle of 1.5 degrees. If this were a camera it would mean that the lens was a 1500mm lens (approximately).

lol, those knuckleheads. Blink 182 are pretty similar to the 3 stooges. It would be funny to watch TTS academy in action.

So they are wrong by stating "It is at zoom factor 1.0."? This is a serious attempt at misleading me. If true.., I will send an email immediately.
I did provide an image showing different focal lengths, and how they can magnify an image. Did you see that? Comment #102

On 06/05/2018 at 10:06 PM, stereologist said:

https://forums.vrsimulations.com/support/index.php/A/G_Advanced_Targeting_FLIR_(ATFLIR)

What this means is that the optical system is using a lens system to provide a 1.5 degree field of view and that no zoom has been applied.

That's a cool link, thank you. Is that the specs for the Raytheon AN/ASQ- 228?
Wait. So really.., all you are saying is that you found the focal length?
 

I fail to see why you have caused so much drama on other threads about this.., claiming I am wrong. When I am not wrong. All I have done is show my work on the process, and provided options once we did find the cameras specs.

This is a link to my original comment: https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/316365-another-released-video/?do=findComment&comment=6413737

Edited June 5, 2018 by Fila

[Jon101]

10 hours ago, Fila said:

Hello Stereo. Just getting back finally. Thank you for actually going into details. ChrLzs keeps saying he is an expert, but never actually adds anything constructive.., yet keeps telling me I am dumb if I can't see why I am wrong.., without actually telling me. An amazing ability to have.., but kinda annoying for me.

I made it clear I am a media student learning about cameras. I used language like;

"The source claims the video to be only 1x zoom.., and the object is around 5 miles away. This would make the object much larger than a bird.

For the camera to register a bird sized object with 1x zoom.., it would need to be much closer. I am guessing within less than 1 mile depending on the cameras sensor and aperture size. But even the worlds best camera would not be able to detect a bird 8 kilometers away at 1x zoom.

Its possible to get the size of each pixel in meters or inches if we knew the camera type. Or perhaps we could just run the math against a variety of different camera stats and see how big 1 pixel is for each.., then go from there? Just to get a minimum and maximum. We would need the original footage and resolution. OR.., the lower resolution version.., but knowledge of what resolution the Raytheon AN/ASQ- 228 records video at. Plus the sensor size and focal length for that camera.

My 1st attempt anyway just as an example. Hopefully ChrLzs can jump in.., but be please be nice. I just chose specs for a good civilian camera circa 2015, but with a larger sensor."

 

So I have been very nice, very open to discussion, open to learn new things and work together. Not the liar you are making me out to be across the forum in an attempt at defamation.

If you or ChrLzs have anything to add.., please do. But before you post.., take some time to calm down. This is not the end of the world. Just stop.., sit and notice what your body is doing.

Do your muscles feel tight? Is your breathing shallow? Is your brain suddenly "racing"? Your eyes darting around, hard to focus? Maybe your chest feels weird too. Just take note, and then realise they are just feelings. Take a moment to relax them and get back to normal. Step away from the computer and think about something else for 30 seconds. Then come back.

I hope you feel better now.

lol, those knuckleheads. Blink 182 are pretty similar to the 3 stooges. It would be funny to watch TTS academy in action.

So they are wrong by stating "It is at zoom factor 1.0."? This is a serious attempt at misleading me. If true.., I will send an email immediately.
I did provide an image showing different focal lengths, and how they can magnify an image. Did you see that? Comment #102

That's a cool link, thank you. Is that the specs for the Raytheon AN/ASQ- 228?
Wait. So really.., all you are saying is that you found the focal length?
 

I fail to see why you have caused so much drama on other threads about this.., claiming I am wrong. When I am not wrong. All I have done is show my work on the process, and provided options once we did find the cameras specs.

This is a link to my original comment: https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/316365-another-released-video/?do=findComment&comment=6413737

Fila, you are either not reading what you are being told or are misunderstanding. 

 

[Fila]

 

On 23/03/2018 at 9:49 AM, ChrLzs said:

Oh good grief.  Fila, this is beyond ridiculously wrong.  Are you trolling?  I dearly hope so.  But either way, this is a complete waste of time - you obviously have not a clue about any of this - of course it is *not* 1x zoom.  If you can't see that just by using common sense, well, I doubt you have any.  Also, you have NOT visited the links supplied, so Stereo's suggestion that you are researching nothing, is spot on.

Welcome to my Ignore list - only a select few make it there.

1 hour ago, Jon101 said:

Fila, you are either not reading what you are being told or are misunderstanding. 

Can you please explain? I have heard this already.., but no one wants to explain how. Stereo is the only one trying. All I've done is show the process I would take and discussed the variables., including focal length.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Fila

[ChrLzs]

Fila. ANY image may be resized at ANY point in the process, so hanging your hat on one of the zoom settings as if it gives you the object's size, is simplistic in the extreme.  If you don't understand the complications of doing real photogrammetry, you really should not make bold proclamations....

Let me go through some of the enlargements/zooms that may happen:

1. From the instant it hits the front element of the lens and it travels through the optics - that is where OPTICAL zoom and the first level of enlargement or 'zooming' if you prefer.  Many cameras have an optical zoom ability, but I believe these FLIR things only have a couple of set magnification settings (that would be where they quote the different 'fields of view' angles).

2. Once each electronic frame/image is captured on the sensor, the cameras electronics may crop the image, eg only read a small part of the sensor (cameras may do this to save storage space or to allow higher than normal frame rates than normal) - this gives an 'effective' further magnification.  The cameras electronics may *also* have internal digital zoom, where it takes the pixels that were recorded at whatever optical zoom and crop size, and then doubles/triples the pixels to get a larger (not clearer) image.  Those further croppings or enlargements are often bundled together and referred to as digital zoom... but wait...

3. Finally (well sorta), the displaying device may have further abilities and offer further enlargement process - more digital zoom...

And even after that, the image may be rephotographed or filmed off a screen, or post-processed - more potential zooming...

UNLESS you know how to identify all the enlargement that has taken place, then making claims about it being unzoomed, or working from a single indicator on a screenshot - well, it's just silly and likely to be 100% wrong.  A good researcher will investigate every aspect of the camera/lens/display chain and identify all the zoom factors involved.  That can then usually be verified from on-screen indicators like crosshairs/reticules/scale indicators but you need to understand where they fit in the chain.  But the very first step is to check the camera specs for that field of view angle - in this case as soon as you saw the basic camera specs, you should have known that it was GREATLY magnified - like using very big and high end binoculars.

Thinking it was at a zoom level of 1.0 suggests that you have no real mental picture at all of how this stuff works.

Ask questions and learn - don't blithely make assumptions.

Edited June 6, 2018 by ChrLzs

[Fila]

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Fila. ANY image may be resized at ANY point in the process, so hanging your hat on one of the zoom settings as if it gives you the object's size, is simplistic in the extreme.  If you don't understand the complications of doing real photogrammetry, you really should not make bold proclamations....

Hello ChrLzs. I don't know what you mean by resizing the image. Where did I make this bold proclamation about the image size?

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

1. .... OPTICAL zoom and the first level of enlargement or 'zooming' if you prefer.  Many cameras have an optical zoom ability, but I believe these FLIR things only have a couple of set magnification settings (that would be where they quote the different 'fields of view' angles).

2. ...the camera.. may crop the image. The cameras electronics may *also* have internal digital zoom

3. the displaying device may have further abilities and offer further enlargement process - more digital zoom...

 the image may be rephotographed or filmed off a screen, or post-processed - more potential zooming...

Yes I am aware of all this, and once we know these settings.., we can get the size of each pixel. I provided the formula. I clearly and calmly stated I was estimating most of the camera specs.., as I could not find them.

Have another read.., and you will see. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/316365-another-released-video/?do=findComment&comment=6413737

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Thinking it was at a zoom level of 1.0 suggests that you have no real mental picture at all of how this stuff works.

Ok. One more time, then I might have to ask for help on how to deal with this from some of your peers via PM.

I got that information from this source. https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/2015-go-fast-footage/ where they state "It is at zoom factor 1.0." I feel like you have not sufficiently answered why the video is not what they claim. Can you please go into more detail why its obviously not 1x zoom.

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Ask questions and learn - don't blithely make assumptions.

Please provide a quote where I have done this, and I will address it immediately. Otherwise please refrain from making false accusations.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Fila

[ChrLzs]

19 hours ago, Fila said:

 

Can you please explain? I have heard this already.., but no one wants to explain how. Stereo is the only one trying. All I've done is show the process I would take and discussed the variables., including focal length.

I'm happy to help, Fila, as long as you will genuinely listen....  Consider yourself un-ignored for a while....

It sounds as if you have done some basic work, on this or some other thread?  Or is there are a particular scenario that you are trying to solve, as in to work out a distance or size?  Please point me either to where you have done a calculation, or to the posts that you think can be analysed and some numbers calculated, and I'll be happy to try to outline where the problems are and if they can be overcome.

Photogrammetry, which is what this sort of thing is called, can be a bit complex, but the basic principles are simple geometry, a little maths (mostly just multiplication and division, nothing fancy), sometimes a little trigonometry (remember Sines, Cosines and tangents?), some knowledge of lenses and digital imaging in general, and ... wait for it...

... a big application of common sense and very careful thought about what you can and cannot do.  You really, really need to be careful not to make any assumptions - if you do, your answers will almost certainly be completely wrong.

 

Photogrammetry is a passion of mine, and I'm happy to share...

[ChrLzs]

Fila, my apologies, I didn't see that you did provide a link to a post above.

 

The problem is, that post contains so many errors and 'guesses' I'm really struggling to even begin.  But I'll try - give me a bit of time as you seem to be very confused.  Posting all those pretty pictures is meaningless if you don't actually know how to apply the basics.  I'll be back later. and go through the post inch by inch.

[stereologist]

On 6/5/2018 at 6:27 PM, Fila said:

Hello Stereo. Just getting back finally. Thank you for actually going into details. ChrLzs keeps saying he is an expert, but never actually adds anything constructive.., yet keeps telling me I am dumb if I can't see why I am wrong.., without actually telling me. An amazing ability to have.., but kinda annoying for me.

I made it clear I am a media student learning about cameras. I used language like;

"The source claims the video to be only 1x zoom.., and the object is around 5 miles away. This would make the object much larger than a bird.

For the camera to register a bird sized object with 1x zoom.., it would need to be much closer. I am guessing within less than 1 mile depending on the cameras sensor and aperture size. But even the worlds best camera would not be able to detect a bird 8 kilometers away at 1x zoom.

Its possible to get the size of each pixel in meters or inches if we knew the camera type. Or perhaps we could just run the math against a variety of different camera stats and see how big 1 pixel is for each.., then go from there? Just to get a minimum and maximum. We would need the original footage and resolution. OR.., the lower resolution version.., but knowledge of what resolution the Raytheon AN/ASQ- 228 records video at. Plus the sensor size and focal length for that camera.

My 1st attempt anyway just as an example. Hopefully ChrLzs can jump in.., but be please be nice. I just chose specs for a good civilian camera circa 2015, but with a larger sensor."

 

So I have been very nice, very open to discussion, open to learn new things and work together. Not the liar you are making me out to be across the forum in an attempt at defamation.

If you or ChrLzs have anything to add.., please do. But before you post.., take some time to calm down. This is not the end of the world. Just stop.., sit and notice what your body is doing.

Do your muscles feel tight? Is your breathing shallow? Is your brain suddenly "racing"? Your eyes darting around, hard to focus? Maybe your chest feels weird too. Just take note, and then realise they are just feelings. Take a moment to relax them and get back to normal. Step away from the computer and think about something else for 30 seconds. Then come back.

I hope you feel better now.

lol, those knuckleheads. Blink 182 are pretty similar to the 3 stooges. It would be funny to watch TTS academy in action.

So they are wrong by stating "It is at zoom factor 1.0."? This is a serious attempt at misleading me. If true.., I will send an email immediately.
I did provide an image showing different focal lengths, and how they can magnify an image. Did you see that? Comment #102

That's a cool link, thank you. Is that the specs for the Raytheon AN/ASQ- 228?
Wait. So really.., all you are saying is that you found the focal length?
 

I fail to see why you have caused so much drama on other threads about this.., claiming I am wrong. When I am not wrong. All I have done is show my work on the process, and provided options once we did find the cameras specs.

This is a link to my original comment: https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/316365-another-released-video/?do=findComment&comment=6413737

When we go back through the thread we notice that you went with a 1x zoom. We notice you claimed that the zoom was 1x but it was already established in the thread that this was a highly magnified image. The question is why you and you alone were unaware of that. You repeated that the source said it was 1x, but as you so often state you gave no details.

I was not aware that the TTSA was what you were referring to as the source. The source to me is the video. The video itself showed it was a narrow or 1.5 degree field of view.

What I was asking is why you thought it was a 1x image. From other readers perspective you continued to bluster about this being large without understanding what had already been posted in the thread. If you notice it took quite a while before that mistake was fixed. It's post after post with a significant mistake.

There is plenty of information there to get the size of the object. The angle each pixel subtends is knowable because the FOV is known to be 1.5 degrees for the image. The distance is known. It's a simple matter of trigonometry to determine this is small, not large. The exact size is not well known due to limitations in the imaging system, but an approximate range is knowable.

Did TTSA mislead you? We could say no. You misled yourself. The digital zoom was set to 1. The optical zoom was set to 1.5 degrees.

The different images you posted was really unimportant. It told us nothing of value since the focal length is not of value in this effort. It is not known here.

So why did I wait so long to post the answer? Because you never once stopped to ask what was the matter. This thread is a great example of how you bluster on about something even after being told or shown how you are wrong. Had you not exhibited this blustering behavior in thread after thread after thread I would have simply posted the data. Frankly, I believe you'd have disregarded the FLIR info in this thread had I posted the information earlier simply because that is what you do - you disregard the evidence in favor of some half baked idea you already have.