4 ms·

Neither the comment your responding to nor the paper the submission is on deal with either cattle mutilation nor crop circles

jiggawatts 4y ago
The linked paper on arXiv[1] starts off with: " We observe a significant number of objects whose nature is not clear. Flights of single, group and squadrons of the ships were detected" (emphasis mine) The word "ships" is a bit of a stretch to say the least without some really good evidence. What's their "scientific" evidence? In the synopsis they say: "Adobe colour system" which... umm... how can I put this politely... they looked at the pictures in Photoshop! The calibrated scientific instrument that they used to quantitively gather evidence for visiting aliens is the eyedropper tool.[3] This is what I'm talking about. There's no evidence, just people promoting themselves to make a buck, get published, make insurance claims, or just have a laugh. Call me when they have an in-focus picture that's not just a splotch a few pixels across.[2] [1] There is no special requirement, peer review, or any of the actual scientific process required for publishing a pre-print on arXiv. It's just a dumping ground for students, and is about as authoritative as GitHub. [2] They have their photos in the paper. Go have a look, they're hilarious! These could be anything, such as airliners, satellites, or whatever your imagination can come up with: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.11215.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.11215.pdf [3] This feels like kicking a puppy, but I have to point out that in all PC colour systems, including Adobe RGB are non-linear and require gamma correction to obtain scientifically-relevant linear light intensity levels. The Photoshop eyedropper tool specifically does not do this, returning the encoded non-linear values. The paper mentions none of this, yet they use the RGB values directly in formulas to estimate metrics like distance. They also mention "RGB spectrum" as if that means anything without the context of the camera filters, sensor response curves, etc...
- behnamoh 4y ago
  What if UFOs blur images taken from them? We already have similar technology that blocks cameras using laser.
  - jiggawatts 4y ago
    Then detect the interference. It's a similar problem to "jamming" in military radar systems. You might be half-blind while jammed, but you're aware that you are being jammed in the same way that you won't miss someone shining a torch in your face. Multiple cameras across a wide range of wavelengths (UV-Visible-IR) would be fantastically difficult to hide from, for a range of parameters such as UFO size, altitude, speed, etc... To the point where it starts to become physically impossible, irrespective of technology level. For example, various militaries have looked into tracking high-altitude spy planes via the disturbance they make in the air. You can camouflage the plane all you want, but you can't stop air from existing.
- torotonnato 4y ago
  I don't think they are using Photoshop, but that would be hilarious :D It's just the camera sensor's color space (Adobe RGB). Anyway, gamma correction should be problem, unless they shoot raw images and in this case the color space gets out of the equation. I was curious, so I found another paper by the original authors and the color correction is more carefully considered, since they seem to take into account the sensor response too [0]. [0] - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.07403.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.07403.pdf
  - jiggawatts 4y ago
    This paper also doesn't mention "gamma" and uses the word "linear" only in other contexts. Even if they're using RAW photos, the response curve is still non-linear because the individual pixels "saturate" as they get closer to the maximum exposure. This shifts colours, because a bright colourful source will saturate the pixels of the matching colour first, and then the other colours a bit later. A bright yellow meteor trail will saturate red and green, and then blue. Their entire method and conclusion all hinges on analysing the relative intensities of RGB colours of photos of very bright meteor trails. These guys are so unscientific it's almost a parody of science. It reads like a bunch of high school students doing "science" with their dad's camera, and then a kind professor submits their homework to arXiv to make them feel like they're Just Like The Big Boys. Having said that, there is some amazing real scientific research being done with CotS camera equipment! Examples: https://astronomytechnologytoday.com/2018/06/28/miniwasp-parallel-imaging-array/ https://astronomytechnologytoday.com/2018/06/28/miniwasp-par... https://petapixel.com/2022/07/25/telescope-made-from-multiple-canon-lenses-is-hunting-for-galaxies/ https://petapixel.com/2022/07/25/telescope-made-from-multipl... https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1561833 https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1561833 That last one is a beautiful example of how to do science right, with detailed calibration data and characterisation of every aberration in the system.
    - torotonnato 4y ago
      >These guys are so unscientific... Naaaaa, this is not my field, so I assume I'm missing some crucial pieces of information (which the paper apparently lack too, I agree on that). >A bright yellow meteor trail will saturate red and green, and then blue. Here I assume that they can do their job, but maybe you are right. Since they are doing their observations at two "meteor stations", maybe they know what they are talking about though. >Their entire method and conclusion all hinges on analisying the relative intensities of RGB colours of photos of very bright meteor trails. They use a simple mathematical model, with even other obvious limitations, like considering the atmosphere homogenous, so? Here I'm citing the calibration part (which is a bit disappointing, true :) at the end of page 4: ...The color chart in Fig. 10 allows us to evaluate the color characteristics of the Moon and check the calibration of our cameras. The Moon has a color relative to the sky background: B - G = -2.5 log (1.7 / 2.7) = 0.5. We take into account the color correction in the Jhonson B - V system according to [x] due to Rayleigh scattering equal to 0.14 magnitude. Let’s get the estimate B - V of the Moon: B - V = 0.50 + 0.60 - 0.14 = 0.96. The actual color of the Moon is B - V = 0.91 according to [1] and differs from our estimate by 0.05 magnitudes within the photometric error. In Figure 9 we can see a local feature (water tower). The color diagram of the tower in Fig. 12 gives a distance estimate of 0 ± 1 km. The actual distance is about 300 meters. Thus, colorimetric measurements confirm our estimates... EDIT: page 4 of the UAP paper

jiggawatts 4y ago

The linked paper on arXiv[1] starts off with: " We observe a significant number of objects whose nature is not clear. Flights of single, group and squadrons of the ships were detected" (emphasis mine) The word "ships" is a bit of a stretch to say the least without some really good evidence. What's their "scientific" evidence? In the synopsis they say: "Adobe colour system" which... umm... how can I put this politely... they looked at the pictures in Photoshop! The calibrated scientific instrument that they used to quantitively gather evidence for visiting aliens is the eyedropper tool.[3] This is what I'm talking about. There's no evidence, just people promoting themselves to make a buck, get published, make insurance claims, or just have a laugh. Call me when they have an in-focus picture that's not just a splotch a few pixels across.[2] [1] There is no special requirement, peer review, or any of the actual scientific process required for publishing a pre-print on arXiv. It's just a dumping ground for students, and is about as authoritative as GitHub. [2] They have their photos in the paper. Go have a look, they're hilarious! These could be anything, such as airliners, satellites, or whatever your imagination can come up with: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.11215.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.11215.pdf [3] This feels like kicking a puppy, but I have to point out that in all PC colour systems, including Adobe RGB are non-linear and require gamma correction to obtain scientifically-relevant linear light intensity levels. The Photoshop eyedropper tool specifically does not do this, returning the encoded non-linear values. The paper mentions none of this, yet they use the RGB values directly in formulas to estimate metrics like distance. They also mention "RGB spectrum" as if that means anything without the context of the camera filters, sensor response curves, etc...

behnamoh 4y ago
What if UFOs blur images taken from them? We already have similar technology that blocks cameras using laser.
- jiggawatts 4y ago
  Then detect the interference. It's a similar problem to "jamming" in military radar systems. You might be half-blind while jammed, but you're aware that you are being jammed in the same way that you won't miss someone shining a torch in your face. Multiple cameras across a wide range of wavelengths (UV-Visible-IR) would be fantastically difficult to hide from, for a range of parameters such as UFO size, altitude, speed, etc... To the point where it starts to become physically impossible, irrespective of technology level. For example, various militaries have looked into tracking high-altitude spy planes via the disturbance they make in the air. You can camouflage the plane all you want, but you can't stop air from existing.
torotonnato 4y ago
I don't think they are using Photoshop, but that would be hilarious :D It's just the camera sensor's color space (Adobe RGB). Anyway, gamma correction should be problem, unless they shoot raw images and in this case the color space gets out of the equation. I was curious, so I found another paper by the original authors and the color correction is more carefully considered, since they seem to take into account the sensor response too [0]. [0] - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.07403.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.07403.pdf
- jiggawatts 4y ago
  This paper also doesn't mention "gamma" and uses the word "linear" only in other contexts. Even if they're using RAW photos, the response curve is still non-linear because the individual pixels "saturate" as they get closer to the maximum exposure. This shifts colours, because a bright colourful source will saturate the pixels of the matching colour first, and then the other colours a bit later. A bright yellow meteor trail will saturate red and green, and then blue. Their entire method and conclusion all hinges on analysing the relative intensities of RGB colours of photos of very bright meteor trails. These guys are so unscientific it's almost a parody of science. It reads like a bunch of high school students doing "science" with their dad's camera, and then a kind professor submits their homework to arXiv to make them feel like they're Just Like The Big Boys. Having said that, there is some amazing real scientific research being done with CotS camera equipment! Examples: https://astronomytechnologytoday.com/2018/06/28/miniwasp-parallel-imaging-array/ https://astronomytechnologytoday.com/2018/06/28/miniwasp-par... https://petapixel.com/2022/07/25/telescope-made-from-multiple-canon-lenses-is-hunting-for-galaxies/ https://petapixel.com/2022/07/25/telescope-made-from-multipl... https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1561833 https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1561833 That last one is a beautiful example of how to do science right, with detailed calibration data and characterisation of every aberration in the system.
  - torotonnato 4y ago
    >These guys are so unscientific... Naaaaa, this is not my field, so I assume I'm missing some crucial pieces of information (which the paper apparently lack too, I agree on that). >A bright yellow meteor trail will saturate red and green, and then blue. Here I assume that they can do their job, but maybe you are right. Since they are doing their observations at two "meteor stations", maybe they know what they are talking about though. >Their entire method and conclusion all hinges on analisying the relative intensities of RGB colours of photos of very bright meteor trails. They use a simple mathematical model, with even other obvious limitations, like considering the atmosphere homogenous, so? Here I'm citing the calibration part (which is a bit disappointing, true :) at the end of page 4: ...The color chart in Fig. 10 allows us to evaluate the color characteristics of the Moon and check the calibration of our cameras. The Moon has a color relative to the sky background: B - G = -2.5 log (1.7 / 2.7) = 0.5. We take into account the color correction in the Jhonson B - V system according to [x] due to Rayleigh scattering equal to 0.14 magnitude. Let’s get the estimate B - V of the Moon: B - V = 0.50 + 0.60 - 0.14 = 0.96. The actual color of the Moon is B - V = 0.91 according to [1] and differs from our estimate by 0.05 magnitudes within the photometric error. In Figure 9 we can see a local feature (water tower). The color diagram of the tower in Fig. 12 gives a distance estimate of 0 ± 1 km. The actual distance is about 300 meters. Thus, colorimetric measurements confirm our estimates... EDIT: page 4 of the UAP paper