1938 Aerial Photos

[Charlie Chisholm]

Not sure the museum pics are low res. Look at these specs:

The resulting file will be 48bit, RGB, Tiff, at 5000px on long edge at 3000 dpi, with a resulting file size of approximately 1.5GB. They will be optical scans with no interpolation. The price is $14 +GST per frame. There are 47 frames in total on the roll.

Isn't that hi-res?

Makes it look more attractive for people who only want a few to look at.

[Kevin Weeks]

Not sure the museum pics are low res. Look at these specs:

The resulting file will be 48bit, RGB, Tiff, at 5000px on long edge at 3000 dpi, with a resulting file size of approximately 1.5GB. They will be optical scans with no interpolation. The price is $14 +GST per frame. There are 47 frames in total on the roll.

Isn't that hi-res?

Makes it look more attractive for people who only want a few to look at.

By lo-resolution I am referring to the groups of pictures that were sent to me to reference which frames I would like to purchase. they are definitely not sending low resolution images out for the $14 price.

[Charlie Chisholm]

By lo-resolution I am referring to the groups of pictures that were sent to me to reference which frames I would like to purchase. they are definitely not sending low resolution images out for the $14 price.

Yeah, I think they might even be using the same set of hi-res negatives that Ric &  Jeff left at the museum.

That would be a good second source for someone who doesn't want to do the Researcher level on Tighar.

A guy would really have to buy two shots of the same area to eliminate photo flaws, though. Like the 2 best shots of the seven site or the 2 best shots of the landing site. Even if a guy bought all 4 of those it would be less than Researcher membership by a wide margin.

I guess the only disadvantage is it would be impossible to really compare anomalies directly with Researchers, because of the different scans used. But if they are both using the same negatives it would be close.

[Michael Calvin Powell]

Why would anyone try to save money by buying from the museum instead of uping their membership to Researcher level?  If you care about this effort then you should put your money behind it here.

[Monty Fowler]

Exactly, Mr. Powell.

I can see this spiraling down into a, "I (insert name here) personally found Amelia," kind of thing.

If that's what floats your boat, well, then, good for you. Just don't forget who rendered those images high resolution in the first place. That's right, TIGHAR.

LTM, who prefers to pass the ammunition,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[Doug Giese]

Any preliminary findings from the study group?

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

Any preliminary findings from the study group?

No.  I doubt very much that there will be many, if any, interim reports.

If you've ever traveled with children, you might know how annoying it is for them to keep asking, "Are we there yet?"  I'm pretty sure that TIGHAR plans to wring as much information as it can from the photos--and to make the information publicly available as soon as humanly possible for a group of volunteers.

[Ric Gillespie]

Any preliminary findings from the study group?

Marty is right. We're just getting started. There is a lot to look at and there's a learning curve in being able to distinguish possible objects from natural features.  There will be many false alarms.  We'll only report on stuff that passes muster. 

[Monty Fowler]

Exactly. Unfortunately, this endeavor is not one for the instant gratification crowd. The only way to do it and make sure we don't miss anything is to be relentlessly, grindingly thorough. And that takes time.

LTM,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR No. 2189 CER

[Tim Collins]

It sure would be nice if you could pass along to us armchair analysts any helpful keys (scale; resolution sizes, references; etc.) that you guys determine, so we can all be on the same page.

[Gus Rubio]

Ric,

Curious about how much dirt or scratching is present on the negatives.  Many of the period pictures we've seen of the island have their fair share of artifacts from dirt, etc., which can cause false alarms and lead to debates over possible artificial objects.  Hopefully the 1938 pics will not have that problem to such a degree.  Thanks.

Having been sealed up still uncut for so long, it seems like they were not handled very much until now. 

[Ric Gillespie]

Curious about how much dirt or scratching is present on the negatives.  Many of the period pictures we've seen of the island have their fair share of artifacts from dirt, etc., which can cause false alarms and lead to debates over possible artificial objects.  Hopefully the 1938 pics will not have that problem to such a degree. 

The negatives are in relatively excellent condition but flaws, dust specks, and scathes are inevitable.  The study group is learning how to spot the false alarms.

[Chuck Lynch]

I just want to tell you all "Good luck!" We're all counting on you.

[Jerry Germann]

Hello Ric,

I was looking at your topic starter , your first entry shows three pictures; the one titled western shore jig , it is the one with the Norwich City ship , anyway ....I know people have been known to see things that are not there if you look to long , but what caught my eye right away was in the reef just to the left of the wreck If you blow up the picture it looks to me like SOS  , actually SCS but maybe faint outline of an O , what do you think?

[Ric Gillespie]

what do you think?

I think you're a troll who is simply trying to waste our time with dumb postings. I have put you under moderation.