Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 19   Go Down

Author Topic: The Bevington Object  (Read 265077 times)

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3007
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #60 on: September 29, 2012, 12:00:59 PM »

New video on TIGHAR YouTube channel about how Ric and Jeff re-photographed the Bevington photo.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Michael Elliot

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #61 on: October 13, 2012, 08:35:56 PM »

Is a file of the hi-res scan of the Bevington photo available yet. This the scan that I gather was made at the Oxford library where Bevington's papers were donated. I had a response from Ric a month or two back who said it would soon be available in a research paper. So far, I haven't found it.
Thanks
Mike
Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6117
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #62 on: October 14, 2012, 08:30:19 AM »

Is a file of the hi-res scan of the Bevington photo available yet. This the scan that I gather was made at the Oxford library where Bevington's papers were donated. I had a response from Ric a month or two back who said it would soon be available in a research paper. So far, I haven't found it.

I'm presently working on a research paper on the Bevington Photo for the new issue of TIGHAR Tracks.  It will include all three of the versions of the photo that we have obtained down through the years - 1992, 2010, 2012.

To clarify, what we got at Oxford this past April was not a scan of the photo.  Jeff got a new photographic image of the highest quality attainable with current technology (the Nikon D800 36MP camera he used had only just been introduced).  After we returned, I asked Jeff,

"I'm curious.  To my layman's eye, the 600 dpi scan done by Oxford seems to have sharper resolution that the best image we obtained.  What am I missing?"
 
Jeff replied,

"That is an illusion caused by low-resolution aliasing and image processing software in the scanner.  The D800 photograph we took at Oxford has approximately 16 times the spatial resolution of the earlier Oxford 600 dpi scan.  When images are taken at a lower resolution, curved edges have the appearance of being sharp and are straight due to aliasing by the image sensor.  This illusion is further exacerbated by image processing software in the scanner which attempts to increase the local contrast at these aliased edges.  While the eye reads the D800 photograph as being less sharp, this is because the curves and the correct levels of contrast in the photograph have been preserved.  This preservation provides the higher resolution necessary for more complete photointerpretation."
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #63 on: October 14, 2012, 12:14:16 PM »

Hi Jeff

The Nikon D800 is the highest resolution (36 MP), commercially available digital camera on the market today.  In contrast the satelite that was launched to "find" planets around distant stars has  a 96 MP sensor.  That satellite was launched in the last 12 months so the higher resolution sensors are new technology. 

There is a formula for calculating what 35 mm film would be in mega pixels and it has some variables such as ISO, film type, camera, etc.  It is generally accepted that a 35 mm shot is approximately 24 mega pixels.  Many of the new cameras being introduced by people like Nikon and Canon are capable of shotting up to 24 MP. 

I had the opportunity to briefly congratulate Jeff, at the Washington Symposium, for getting his hands on a D800 at the time as they were in production but not generally in distribution.  In fact it took me until August to get mine. 

The D800 is an FX or full frame camera and is considered a professional level DSLR.  Although announced 8 months ago it has no competitor yet in the marketplace.  Mega Pixels are in fact not what counts for showing a photo on a display like an ipad or monitor.  Even printing a 13" x 19" only requires a 15 MP photo to achieve full printing with no pixelization.

Jeff was able to rent one from a company he knows and had the right lens and flash to take the shots he did.  One of the other benefits of digital over film is that the digital photo is immediately available for the photographer to review.  Jeff and Ric had a limited time in a foreign country to take the shots.  Not a lot of resources available except what Jeff could carry.   Imagine having film and thinking you had the shots you wanted only to discover later when developed that you didn't.  Yikes.  Jeff knew exactly what he had during the photo session thanks to digital.

The big thing to remember is that Jeff started with an original photo that was much smaller than a 4X6 we most commonly see.  Then he had to target the Bevingtom Object which is even smaller in the photo!!  What we get to see are the lovely "blown up" versions of the shot.

The photo he obtained could only be as good as the original.  It could never be better.  The D800 provided him with the best digital image he could get of the original photo.  I believe he was restricted in taking the shot by not be allowed to remove the photo from the original album.  If you notice the picture that I think Ric took of Jeff working on the photo you see the album and the curvature of the pages in the album which means Jeff had no nice clean flat phot surface to work from.

I personally think Jeff did one heck of a job getting his shots.  His understanding of the technology is best shown in Ric's post about photo over scanned image.  TIGHAR is very lucky to have Jeff available.

Sorry for rambling but I think Jeff's skills, while not undervalued and clearly respected on this forum, still need a good plug. :)
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Michael Elliot

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #64 on: October 16, 2012, 11:20:32 AM »

In a comparison of resolution in film vs. digital, a lot more info. on the film is necessary. It's not a simple A vs B. While a D800 has 36MP, consider that Adox CMS II ISO 20 film has a resolution approaching 500MP when used at 20 ISO. A standard 35mm negative of this Adox can be enlarged to 7-8ft diagonal without the grain showing. When it comes to resolution, film is still far superior to digital (assuming an excellent lens.) On the other hand, while simple enlargement will show better results, one's ability to enhance the enlargement is limited -- unless one digitizes the enlargement.

On the other hand, if the Bevington pic was taken with a primitive lens, or the developing was poor, etc. etc., then doing hi-res film may not glean any extra info. Perhaps the pic was examined under powerful magnification, and this "don't bother" conclusion has already been reached. If not, it may be worth considering.
Logged

Alan Harris

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #65 on: October 16, 2012, 01:23:42 PM »

Michael and Jeff, we've had a similar discussion before, see my post here and Marty's reply 2 posts later at #25.  One key aspect to bear in mind is that Glickman was adjusting his optics to fill the digital frame not with a full 35mm frame, but with only a tiny area of the print around the Bevington object.  That significantly improves the effective resolution of the digital enlargement.
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #66 on: October 16, 2012, 09:20:31 PM »

Good points all. I enjoyed reading them. The main point is what Jeff said. Magnification of the existing image. The original image should only be reproduced and not enhanced or changed. I believe Jeff did that successfully. Now we have the ROV videos to examine as well. Lots of fun.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #67 on: October 17, 2012, 08:32:19 AM »

Thats true Jeff. Time is definately NOT on our side.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged

Michael Elliot

  • T2
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #68 on: October 17, 2012, 09:57:19 AM »

Thanks Alan. I assumed macro. Still, the amount of information available from hi-res film is many times that available in the dig. images. And redundancy was available by taking along one of the old “F” bodies and swapping. Of course, JG may have decided that the dig. was sufficient given the original.
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Jeff Glickman - Interesting - For Your Consideration
« Reply #69 on: November 01, 2012, 01:05:18 PM »



http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=skOd0xibssQ&feature=endscreen

Coupla observations:

1.)  Similar to Bevington Object yet still attached to the wing
2.)  Inverted landing gear sticks quite high out of the water yet...
3.)  ...the water depth is deep enough for snorkeling - the Niku reef substantially shallower
4.)  There is no number 4
5.)  This video causes us to ponder - why the Navy searchers did not see the Bevington Object?
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #70 on: November 01, 2012, 01:23:20 PM »

The more I think about this.......

The electra tire......fender......yoke..... would have been larger than the undercarriage in this video.  There was a rather large man made object sitting on a natural reef in shallow water.  It should have stuck out like a red X on the ground.  The Navy fliers were low enough and slow enough to notice this obvious aircraft part.   

Logged

Ric Gillespie

  • Executive Director
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 6117
  • "Do not try. Do or do not. There is no try" Yoda
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #71 on: November 01, 2012, 01:37:59 PM »

The Navy fliers were low enough and slow enough to notice this obvious aircraft part.   

The Navy fliers were there at high tide with a heavy surf on the reef (you can see it in the photo they took).  No way the Bevington Object was visible.
Logged

Bill Roe

  • T3
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #72 on: November 01, 2012, 01:55:27 PM »

The Navy fliers were low enough and slow enough to notice this obvious aircraft part.   

The Navy fliers were there at high tide with a heavy surf on the reef (you can see it in the photo they took).  No way the Bevington Object was visible.

Well, I can't find that photo they took.  The only reference to surf I could find was heavy surf on the eastern side of the island.
Logged

C.W. Herndon

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #73 on: November 01, 2012, 02:22:51 PM »

Here is the Lambrecht picture.
Woody (former 3316R)
"the watcher"
 
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 03:25:11 PM by C.W. Herndon »
Logged

Tom Swearengen

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 818
  • earhart monument, Hawaii
Re: The Bevington Object
« Reply #74 on: November 01, 2012, 03:25:37 PM »

Alternative thought is that the Bevington object wasnt there. Either was the Electra. Whatever happened in the time between the landing and the overflight, the plane and our object disappeared.
Tom Swearengen TIGHAR # 3297
 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 19   Go Up
 

Copyright 2024 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines Powered by PHP