|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
March 15th 04, 12:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
antagonists digest, volume 2453077
In article ,
Frederick Shorts wrote: The Ice Cream Bandit wrote: Dr.Matt wrote: In article , Michael Haslam wrote: Dr.Matt wrote: And the conjuror is reportedly a fan of well-played Tchaikowsky, Holst, and Mahler. Here he is in an unretouched photo I took. Three brownie points to the first person who correctly explains the ghostly glow which illuminates his right hand. http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields/amzng.jpg A reflection off his spectacles? I'll call that two points. I'm pretty convinced the spectacles are involved, as is reflection, but it's not the spectacles that do the reflecting, and the source of the light hasn't been identified yet. I am guessing it's that little light on your digital camera that does the rangefinding/focus/lightmeter reading. Any points? No. Its the flash - butt indirectly. The clue to work this out is simple geometry. Or, rather, angles. First, work out where the center of the image is. Now, work out where this spot on the hand is in relation to the center. Next, look at what is opposite the center from that spot at the same distance from the center. Clue, look at the sign above his head. Notice the intense reflection from the flash. Now, the problem with comsumer grade cameras is that the flash is right next to the lens. This is the sole cause of the redeye problem and the solution is to move the flash further off-axis. Most professional use separate flash units. Often bouncing off a white ceiling as well butt holding the flash unit away from the lens usually works well enough to get rid of the redeye problem. Now, back to the spot. We have to remember that the lens is there. The flash is reflecting off that sign and coming back to the lens. It is then reflected again and onto the hand. Now, lens these days are multicoated to prevent lens flare etc. butt the outside surace of the lens is exposed and often cleaned. This wears off the coating over time. Usually this isn't a problem since this reflection problem seldom occurs or, if it does, comsumers aren't too fussed by it. The solution is to move further away, get rid of reflective objects in the background or have the subject pose further away from reflective surfaces. Remember the inverse square law. The flashes aren't too bright so if a reflective surface is far enough away, it won't cause as much of a problem. Tholen should know this since he pretends to be an asstronomer butt he's too busy dealing with his over sensitivity issues to bother answering. -- Freddie 'fag' Shorts I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way! I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Go Kerry! Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed! Contact me by email ) or mail me at FS Newssite Inc. 101 West 23rd St. Suite 2237, New York, NY, 10011 Check out my current web sites - http://www.orwellian.org http://www.miscstuff.org http://home.nyc.rr.com/cypherpunk/ 2.25 points out of 3. A far too complex solution, and one which would require the metal sign to be washed out by the flash (it says Isaac Asimov Reference Library). The glass table has been overlooked. But yes, most of the light in the scene comes from the flash. The red-eye effect indeed comes from overly direct reflection--off people's retinas. "Red-eye flashes" work by flashing multiple times in quick succession, giving the same people's irises a chance to contract before the picture is actually captured. -- Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields Music: Splendor in Sound "Hey, don't knock Placebo, its the only thing effective for my hypochondria." Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/ 
|
|
#12
March 15th 04, 01:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
antagonists digest, volume 2453077
To which I should add that the lens of this camera is rarely exposed and cleaned, the lens cover being coupled with the on-off switch. -- Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields Music: Splendor in Sound "Hey, don't knock Placebo, its the only thing effective for my hypochondria." Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
|
|
#14
March 16th 04, 03:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
antagonists digest, volume 2453077
"Dr.Matt" wrote:
In article , Frederick Shorts wrote: The Ice Cream Bandit wrote: Dr.Matt wrote: In article , Michael Haslam wrote: Dr.Matt wrote: And the conjuror is reportedly a fan of well-played Tchaikowsky, Holst, and Mahler. Here he is in an unretouched photo I took. Three brownie points to the first person who correctly explains the ghostly glow which illuminates his right hand. http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields/amzng.jpg A reflection off his spectacles? I'll call that two points. I'm pretty convinced the spectacles are involved, as is reflection, but it's not the spectacles that do the reflecting, and the source of the light hasn't been identified yet. I am guessing it's that little light on your digital camera that does the rangefinding/focus/lightmeter reading. Any points? No. Its the flash - butt indirectly. The clue to work this out is simple geometry. Or, rather, angles. First, work out where the center of the image is. Now, work out where this spot on the hand is in relation to the center. Next, look at what is opposite the center from that spot at the same distance from the center. Clue, look at the sign above his head. Notice the intense reflection from the flash. Now, the problem with comsumer grade cameras is that the flash is right next to the lens. This is the sole cause of the redeye problem and the solution is to move the flash further off-axis. Most professional use separate flash units. Often bouncing off a white ceiling as well butt holding the flash unit away from the lens usually works well enough to get rid of the redeye problem. Now, back to the spot. We have to remember that the lens is there. The flash is reflecting off that sign and coming back to the lens. It is then reflected again and onto the hand. Now, lens these days are multicoated to prevent lens flare etc. butt the outside surace of the lens is exposed and often cleaned. This wears off the coating over time. Usually this isn't a problem since this reflection problem seldom occurs or, if it does, comsumers aren't too fussed by it. The solution is to move further away, get rid of reflective objects in the background or have the subject pose further away from reflective surfaces. Remember the inverse square law. The flashes aren't too bright so if a reflective surface is far enough away, it won't cause as much of a problem. Tholen should know this since he pretends to be an asstronomer butt he's too busy dealing with his over sensitivity issues to bother answering. -- Freddie 'fag' Shorts I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way! I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Go Kerry! Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed! Contact me by email ) or mail me at FS Newssite Inc. 101 West 23rd St. Suite 2237, New York, NY, 10011 Check out my current web sites - http://www.orwellian.org http://www.miscstuff.org http://home.nyc.rr.com/cypherpunk/ 2.25 points out of 3. Cheapskate! A far too complex solution, Not really! Simple angles really. and one which would require the metal sign to be washed out by the flash (it says Isaac Asimov Reference Library). Not quite. Since the light from the flash reaches it at an angle, most of the light gets reflected away and upwards. Butt some comes back and this is evident from the flare. You can also see it to a lesser extent with the picture rail above the sign. The glass table has been overlooked. But yes, most of the light in the scene comes from the flash. I had considered the glass topped table. It should reflect some light too butt I could see no evidence for this in the photo. The red-eye effect indeed comes from overly direct reflection--off people's retinas. "Red-eye flashes" work by flashing multiple times in quick succession, giving the same people's irises a chance to contract before the picture is actually captured. Generally, they only do one pre-flash. Its still a problem because the iris only closes so much. So all you get its a smaller red dot in the eye. Its not really a good solution. -- Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields Music: Splendor in Sound "Hey, don't knock Placebo, its the only thing effective for my hypochondria." Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/ -- Freddie 'fag' Shorts I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way! I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Go Kerry! Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed! Contact me by email ) or mail me at FS Newssite Inc. 101 West 23rd St. Suite 2237, New York, NY, 10011 Check out my current web sites - http://www.orwellian.org http://www.miscstuff.org http://home.nyc.rr.com/cypherpunk/
|
|
#15
March 16th 04, 03:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
antagonists digest, volume 2453077
"Dr.Matt" wrote:
To which I should add that the lens of this camera is rarely exposed and cleaned, the lens cover being coupled with the on-off switch. Yes, most of them are like that nowdays. They would still attract some dust while open. It might also be an idea to open the cover and look at the lens or rather look at it at an angle to get a reflection off its surface. You'll notice that it is usually an orange-red color - this is from the multicoating. -- Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields Music: Splendor in Sound "Hey, don't knock Placebo, its the only thing effective for my hypochondria." Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/ -- Freddie 'fag' Shorts I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way! I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Go Kerry! Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed! Contact me by email ) or mail me at FS Newssite Inc. 101 West 23rd St. Suite 2237, New York, NY, 10011 Check out my current web sites - http://www.orwellian.org http://www.miscstuff.org http://home.nyc.rr.com/cypherpunk/
|
|
#16
March 16th 04, 03:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
antagonists digest, volume 2453077
"Dr.Matt" wrote:
In article , Coby Beck wrote: "Dr.Matt" wrote in message news  In article , And the conjuror is reportedly a fan of well-played Tchaikowsky, Holst, and Mahler. Here he is in an unretouched photo I took. Three brownie points to the first person who correctly explains the ghostly glow which illuminates his right hand. http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields/amzng.jpg I would say it is the light from the flash bulb, reflected off of the glass desktop, refracted by the eye-glasses. It may be possible to support a further supposition as to wether it is the main-part of the lens or the bi-focal part, but I don't want to think that hard at the moment. Finally! 3 brownie points to Coby. The award has been sent to you via telekinesis. I think this is wrong. If it were the spectacles, then there would be 2 spots and not one. I don't see another one near it so I can't see how it could be the spectacles. The angle doesn't see right and the shape of the spot is too round. It also doesn't account for the reddish orange color of the spot. Going from the flash directly to the glass-topped table and then thru the spectacles shouldn't cause a change in color. It should remain white. Bouncing off the front lens of the camera would explain that color though. -- Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields Music: Splendor in Sound "Hey, don't knock Placebo, its the only thing effective for my hypochondria." Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/ -- Freddie 'fag' Shorts I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way! I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Go Kerry! Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed! Contact me by email ) or mail me at FS Newssite Inc. 101 West 23rd St. Suite 2237, New York, NY, 10011 Check out my current web sites - http://www.orwellian.org http://www.miscstuff.org http://home.nyc.rr.com/cypherpunk/
|
|
#17
March 16th 04, 03:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
antagonists digest, volume 2453077
In article ,
Frederick Shorts wrote: "Dr.Matt" wrote: In article , Coby Beck wrote: "Dr.Matt" wrote in message news
In article ,And the conjuror is reportedly a fan of well-played Tchaikowsky, Holst, and Mahler. Here he is in an unretouched photo I took. Three brownie points to the first person who correctly explains the ghostly glow which illuminates his right hand. http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields/amzng.jpg I would say it is the light from the flash bulb, reflected off of the glass desktop, refracted by the eye-glasses. It may be possible to support a further supposition as to wether it is the main-part of the lens or the bi-focal part, but I don't want to think that hard at the moment. Finally! 3 brownie points to Coby. The award has been sent to you via telekinesis. I think this is wrong. If it were the spectacles, then there would be 2 spots and not one. I don't see another one near it so I can't see how it could be the spectacles. The angle doesn't see right and the shape of the spot is too round. nope, the cassette in the foreground blocks one of 'em, and the table is huge and mostly not in the frame. It also doesn't account for the reddish orange color of the spot. Going from the flash directly to the glass-topped table and then thru the spectacles shouldn't cause a change in color. It should remain white. Bouncing off the front lens of the camera would explain that color though. Trying to salvage your complex solution, but this is indoors, mainly lit by the flash, and that's just the color of his hand. -- Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields Music: Splendor in Sound "Hey, don't knock Placebo, its the only thing effective for my hypochondria." Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
|
|
#18
March 16th 04, 07:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
antagonists digest, volume 2453077
"Dr.Matt" wrote in message ... In article , Frederick Shorts wrote: It also doesn't account for the reddish orange color of the spot. Going from the flash directly to the glass-topped table and then thru the spectacles shouldn't cause a change in color. It should remain white. Bouncing off the front lens of the camera would explain that color though. Trying to salvage your complex solution, but this is indoors, mainly lit by the flash, and that's just the color of his hand. Personally I don't think Mr Shorts is serious, but... a reflection from the lens of the camera would not focus the light to that spot, it would difuse it because it is a convex surface anyway. -- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
|
|
#19
March 16th 04, 12:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
antagonists digest, volume 2453077
"Dr.Matt" wrote:
In article , Frederick Shorts wrote: "Dr.Matt" wrote: In article , Coby Beck wrote: "Dr.Matt" wrote in message news
In article ,And the conjuror is reportedly a fan of well-played Tchaikowsky, Holst, and Mahler. Here he is in an unretouched photo I took. Three brownie points to the first person who correctly explains the ghostly glow which illuminates his right hand. http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields/amzng.jpg I would say it is the light from the flash bulb, reflected off of the glass desktop, refracted by the eye-glasses. It may be possible to support a further supposition as to wether it is the main-part of the lens or the bi-focal part, but I don't want to think that hard at the moment. Finally! 3 brownie points to Coby. The award has been sent to you via telekinesis. I think this is wrong. If it were the spectacles, then there would be 2 spots and not one. I don't see another one near it so I can't see how it could be the spectacles. The angle doesn't see right and the shape of the spot is too round. nope, the cassette in the foreground blocks one of 'em, and the table is huge and mostly not in the frame. Nope, incorrect. You are erroneously presupposing that the flash is from the left. Look a little closer. The flash is coming from the right. Look at the shadow cast by the box on the bottom right. The format of the image also helps here. Its clear that the camera was rotate 90 degrees to take a vertical image and thus moving the position of the flash. The glasses aren't blocked by the cassette from the perspective of the flash. Also notice the shadow of the glasses on the shirt just behind it. Its clear that the glasses are close to the edge of the table. They cast a clear shadow on the shirt. Both of the lenses do this. It also doesn't account for the reddish orange color of the spot. Going from the flash directly to the glass-topped table and then thru the spectacles shouldn't cause a change in color. It should remain white. Bouncing off the front lens of the camera would explain that color though. Trying to salvage your complex solution, but this is indoors, mainly lit by the flash, and that's just the color of his hand. His hand is already well lit by the flash. If there was more white light, the hand would just be brighter and not changed in color. If you have an image viewer, download the image and zoom in on that spot. Notice the cross pattern around the spot? Its whitish in color and runs up and down and across (butt partially obscured by the beard and phone cord). This is starburst pattern and well known to photographers. -- Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields Music: Splendor in Sound "Hey, don't knock Placebo, its the only thing effective for my hypochondria." Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/ -- Freddie 'fag' Shorts I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way! I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Go Kerry! Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed! Contact me by email ) or mail me at FS Newssite Inc. 101 West 23rd St. Suite 2237, New York, NY, 10011 Check out my current web sites - http://www.orwellian.org http://www.miscstuff.org http://home.nyc.rr.com/cypherpunk/
|
|
#20
March 16th 04, 12:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
antagonists digest, volume 2453077
In article ,
Frederick Shorts wrote: "Dr.Matt" wrote: In article , Frederick Shorts wrote: "Dr.Matt" wrote: In article , Coby Beck wrote: "Dr.Matt" wrote in message news
In article ,And the conjuror is reportedly a fan of well-played Tchaikowsky, Holst, and Mahler. Here he is in an unretouched photo I took. Three brownie points to the first person who correctly explains the ghostly glow which illuminates his right hand. http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields/amzng.jpg I would say it is the light from the flash bulb, reflected off of the glass desktop, refracted by the eye-glasses. It may be possible to support a further supposition as to wether it is the main-part of the lens or the bi-focal part, but I don't want to think that hard at the moment. Finally! 3 brownie points to Coby. The award has been sent to you via telekinesis. I think this is wrong. If it were the spectacles, then there would be 2 spots and not one. I don't see another one near it so I can't see how it could be the spectacles. The angle doesn't see right and the shape of the spot is too round. nope, the cassette in the foreground blocks one of 'em, and the table is huge and mostly not in the frame. Nope, incorrect. You are erroneously presupposing that the flash is from the left. Look a little closer. The flash is coming from the right. Look at the Wrong. I have the camera so I know. shadow cast by the box on the bottom right. The format of the image also helps here. Its clear that the camera was rotate 90 degrees to take a vertical image and thus moving the position of the flash. The glasses aren't blocked by the cassette from the perspective of the flash. Presupposition on your part. Also notice the shadow of the glasses on the shirt just behind it. Its clear that the glasses are close to the edge of the table. They cast a clear shadow on the shirt. Both of the lenses do this. All presupposition on your part, and your theory of a bounce off the camera lens still doesn't work because the camera lens is still the wrong shape. It also doesn't account for the reddish orange color of the spot. Going from the flash directly to the glass-topped table and then thru the spectacles shouldn't cause a change in color. It should remain white. Bouncing off the front lens of the camera would explain that color though. Trying to salvage your complex solution, but this is indoors, mainly lit by the flash, and that's just the color of his hand. His hand is already well lit by the flash. If there was more white light, the hand would just be brighter and not changed in color. If you have an What do you mean by changed in color? I still don't see it. image viewer, download the image and zoom in on that spot. Notice the cross pattern around the spot? Its whitish in color and runs up and down and across (butt partially obscured by the beard and phone cord). This is starburst pattern and well known to photographers. I still don't see any of those details and conclude you're having a field day making stuff up. -- Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields Music: Splendor in Sound "Hey, don't knock Placebo, its the only thing effective for my hypochondria." Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/ -- Freddie 'fag' Shorts I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way! I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Go Kerry! Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed! Contact me by email ) or mail me at FS Newssite Inc. 101 West 23rd St. Suite 2237, New York, NY, 10011 Check out my current web sites - http://www.orwellian.org http://www.miscstuff.org http://home.nyc.rr.com/cypherpunk/ -- Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields Music: Splendor in Sound "Hey, don't knock Placebo, its the only thing effective for my hypochondria." Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| antagonists digest, volume 2453074 | Anthony Mandic | Astronomy Misc | 11 | March 14th 04 09:50 PM |
| antagonists digest, volume 2453030 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 28th 04 09:46 PM |
| antagonist's digest, volume 2452858 | dizzy | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 7th 03 07:05 PM |
| antagonist's digest, volume 2452854 | dizzy | Astronomy Misc | 4 | August 7th 03 01:02 AM |
| antagonist's digest, volume 2452836 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 26th 03 07:32 PM |
Linear Mode
