UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1999 > Jan > Jan 21

Re: 'Rods' - On The Learning Channel

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 19:07:25 -0500
Fwd Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:09:38 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Rods' - On The Learning Channel


>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:52:32 +0000
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: 'Rods' - On The Learning Channel

>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>>Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:30:55 -0500
>>Fwd Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:05:08 -0500
>>Subject: Re: 'Rods' - On The Learning Channel

>>>From: Roger Evans <moviestuff@cyberjunkie.com>
>>>Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:02:28 +0000
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>

>>>From: Jose Escamilla <rods@rmi.net>
>>>Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:15:46 +030>0
>>>Fwd Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 15:57:23 >>annel>


Thanks for the message....

>Previously, Bruce wrote:

and, sorry for....

<snip>

>>Jose says his big test was to use the electronic zoom to zoom in
>>on the central section of a 6 ft long section of the ribbon
>>(marked by black lines?) from a distance of 100 ft. The angle
>>between the 6 ft marker was tan^-1(.06) = 3.4 degrees. His zoom
>>may have restricted the field of view even more. At any rate, he
>>would get the bolt in only 1 frame.

>Hey! I guessed right!<g>

Yup

>>His test showed overall
>>blur...perhaps not surprising. It should be compared with the
>>blur of the ribbon image. However, in any case, the motion smear
>>of the bolt was only about 1% of its length so any noticeable
>>blur was due to the camera/optical system and not the motion.>

>Hi Bruce,

>I could be wrong, but I think Jose implied that he was using the
>digital (as opposed to optical) zoom for maximum magnification.
>Would such "false" enhancement of the image size affect your
>calculations?

>Just curious....


Shouldn't make any difference in th calculations of how large
the image should be due to motion smear (about 1% longer than
its size when there was no motion). It was my impression that
the test here really was of the digital zoom....would it work
the way an optical zoom would?

Of course the digital zoom is "cursed" by the digitization which
sets a "minimum resolvable size" (pixel) at the focal plane.
This could explain why the zoomed image was (apparently)
blurredall around. (Looked at carefully I expect the edges of
the image actually woul have looked "blockish" or
"pixelized"..... made up of small square areas, each being an
image pixel.

No doubt about it: optical zoom is superior (if the optics are
good).

Note for the interested: use your paint program of any version
and look at a .bmp or .gif or some other format picture. When
the picture completely fits on th screen it looks "good." The
pixels are too small to be (easily) resolved by the (typical)
eyeball. No start blowing it up (use the "magnifying glass:"
symbol or the zoom). With enough blowup you will eventually see
that th picture is made up of square areas and within each area
the color and brightness are constant. The color and brightness
will change from on area to the next at the edges of objects.
This zoom done on the computer is comparable to the electronic
zoom in videocameras.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com