As air passes over the lip of a non-enclosed stadium, you'd expect eddies. If unexpected non-player-induced perturbations to the flight path of the ball are to be codified into the rules, then every freak gust of wind would stop play.
For what it's worth, I go with "optical flare" and "burning flare", that tends to cover most cases and it's not too wordy and dodges some inevitable semantics. I've had the same problem confusing the two in conversations where both are involved...
Thinking about it more, you don't even need radiosity to vaguely realistically mimic the illumination. I presume he hadn't 3D modelled himself, and was just had a parameterised dodging layer above the layer containing his body based on the...
Yeah, same underlying camera artifact, different sensor/platform. The star shape itself doesn't tell you what's making the heat, that part's the same regardless of what's actually burning down there.
Not familiar with the Chandelier video...
Sure, plain version: the "six-pointed star" isn't the shape of anything flying. It's made inside the camera itself.
When a camera looks at a really intense point of light (or heat, for an IR sensor), the light bends slightly around anything...
For what it's worth, I go with "optical flare" and "burning flare", that tends to cover most cases and it's not too wordy and dodges some inevitable semantics. I've had the same problem confusing the two in conversations where both are involved...
Yeah, thanks, I figured it was a camera artifact because it's basically identical to the Chandelier Video, but I got a bit totally lost in the specific technical jargon.
So basically it's just the same as the previous "Chandelier star UFO" video...
I suspect it's using a different optical pathway to detect the laser returns and then overlaying them. The LTD seems likely as there's a flashing red dot that moves when the camera moves. That would be the laser on the ground.
The craft is well known to interstellar travelers: It is the Koodac Atebitin, manufactured on Rigel VII from 1972-1993.
And while the Handycam PJ5 only has "standard" (720 × 576) definition, it has two extraordinary features:
First, a true 57x...
I would agree, up to a point. Being able to definitively prove something a hoax, and how it was done, is the gold standard. Just me, but I think the problem here is that it creates a swapping of the burden of proof: Someone makes an extraordinary...
I would agree, up to a point. Being able to definitively prove something a hoax, and how it was done, is the gold standard. Just me, but I think the problem here is that it creates a swapping of the burden of proof: Someone makes an extraordinary...
Excellent replication of in interior reflection looking exterior.
That was my first interpretation as well.
The challenge that I cannot replicate, that maybe you can, is in the 3d reconstruction video. Please take a look at that.
If you can...
Than you for your detailed comment.
Regarding your points.
Metadata. Absolutely agree. The issue could be idiot file copies, or deliberate attempts to obfuscate. All I can report is what I found.
Location. Metadata would have given us...