Search results

Triggered by this discussion about lenses/FoV. IMO the only way a telephoto lens could have been used, is if the subject (rock in water) AND the fence/trees combination are rather far away from the cam. This, because as otherwise the tree and fence will not be able to fit in the same FoV. So if...

Awesome. Thanks a lot!

Damn, why do I always need to become a member of twitter to see interesting stuff. Sigh.

@DavidB66 I think you are correct yes. Indeed the angular fov only shifts and does not enlarge (I should have known, mirror has no power.).

@flarkey I would say, very possible. Also remembering how many Starlink satellites (2.3k, on top of all the others) we have orbiting. EDIT I just read on wikipedia: That is pretty much NS or SN direction.

Satellites were my first thought, although I would not know myself how certain satellites, in certain orbits, catching the sun, would look like from a plane in motion. But, if the position, direction, time and other things are precisely known, perhaps certain satellite orbital path from that...

It could, but only if you bring the subject (the island/rock/box) closer. And this poses issues with the focus (but that might not be impossible) of all objects in frame. The other point might be the fence and how to get that in the shot, when the subject (the island/rock/box) is so close to the...

Nope.. Just wanted to point out authorities are not obliged to tell the truth.

Still, they can also lie about it.

If we would perform some kind of probability analysis on this, we would probably end up with a confidence of 1/10 Sigma. Still, the chance of it being an ET craft is infinitely small. :)

Sorry guys, this thread is getting silly. The fantasies people have is amusing.

Just as a note. Analogue Focus stacking outdoors and in a non-macro/tripod situation, is IMO impossible.

Never been able to to that with a lens then was open to say F/2 or so. Just not possible.

Good point. It would require a very small aperture of the objective to make that work. So, say, F/16 or so. Large aperture=shallow depth of field small aperture=large depth.

That one is a bit different though as we know a lot. We know who shot the videos, we know what he supposedly used, we know when it was done and where. A lot different to the Calvine case IMO. We have literally zero facts, apart from testimony (being DOD doesn't matter).

I see we are more and more entering in the situation that we can make it all work by just introducing all kinds of unknowns.. I am pretty sure guessing, and just basically fantasizing about things we do not know at all, is not promoted on Metabunk. Perhaps I am wrong.

I also had a nice SLR in those days (Canon) and indeed there was auto focus. It could be the guys had a nice lens, like one that goes to F/1.4 or something. Seeing the non-perfect focusing in the image, a shallow depth of field could be expected.

I made a simple gif using the hi res picture, where I tried to find the mirror line by eye. I think I did an honest job here, but two things bother me. The white upper blob is not symmetrical with the bottom blob, and I notice these "herringbone" shaped lines diagonally.. Am I the only one...

ISO100 film was/is definitely not very great for low light conditions or indoor, unless tripod and long shuttertime.. But if a lens with large aperture (F/1.4 or so) was used, you can extend it quite a bit.

@DavidB66 Complicated, and thanks for the explanation. It is the Record messing about here, they should have called it "the Sunday Record" (in line with the naming), and would've avoided the confusion! ;)