Sonota UFO Video (split from SUNlite thread)

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: SUNlite

Postby nablator » Fri May 06, 2011 9:47 am

chrLz wrote:... I don't think the full-res video is going to shed much new light on what we are seeing.

There is no full-res version. Worse: the "original" (90 MB) is riddled with blocky artifacts: it was probably decompressed (why?) from a low-bitrate MJPEG or DIVX. However, stacking does reveal a shape, slightly darker than the background, between the two lights. The possibility that the dark shape could be an artifact between two overexposed lights could be tested with a similar low-light camera.
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am


Re: SUNlite

Postby chrLz » Fri May 06, 2011 10:39 am

Now just so I fully understand...

This video was first posted on the day after it was recorded, here:
http://sonotaco.jp/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1723
by its OWNER (not buckwild). So since Apr 08 it has been available at a publicly viewable website.

In September 2008, buckwild posted it amongst others for comment at the 'UFO-logic' forum:
http://ufo-logic.xooit.com/t1636-UfoCapture.htm?q=
So since Sep 08 it has been available at a second publicly viewable website.

In July 2009, europa73 (buckwild) posted it at ATS:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread486263/pg1
So since Jul 09 it has been available at a third publicly viewable website.

And then in August 2009, buckwild posted it at BAUT:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/92575-A-good-ufo-video-capture
So since Aug 09 it has been available at a fourth publicly viewable website.


Now he has posted it here at a fifth public forum, and gotten upset that it was found elsewhere (well spotted, astro), his 'strategy' has been ruined by someone googling the footage, and he has left us. Er, again..

Sigh. Anything I've missed?


As for it warranting an analysis, I would point towards JayUtah's (as usual) accurate observations and comments at BAUT (eg this), the fact that it is a one-off, the fact that nothing of the object/s is resolved, and the owner - who has written a number of ufo analysis programs - seems (oddly? you be the judge..) disinterested.

And as for it demonstrating non-earthly aeronautic abilities.. I'll agree it looks odd - IF it was an actual object in the sky and at a reasonable distance. But neither of those are givens (by a VERY long way), and as the width of the object/s is so small and it was allegedly taken on a small sensor (1/2" CCD) camera, the original footage is unlikely to be very helpful.

About all that accessing the original footage might do, is to show up how ridiculous some of the huge enlargements were, and also that Registax has been misused and/or misunderstood, in some of the previous 'analyses'...
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby chrLz » Fri May 06, 2011 11:23 am

nablator wrote:
chrLz wrote:... I don't think the full-res video is going to shed much new light on what we are seeing.

There is no full-res version. Worse: the "original" (90 MB) is riddled with blocky artifacts: it was probably decompressed (why?) from a low-bitrate MJPEG or DIVX. However, stacking does reveal a shape, slightly darker than the background, between the two lights. The possibility that the dark shape could be an artifact between two overexposed lights could be tested with a similar low-light camera.


I would humbly suggest that the dark shape is very likely a sensor issue (it is very common to see a 'bounce' effect between two bright areas), possibly made worse by sensor- ,camera software- or post processing- sharpening/contrast enhancement. Or just simply a compression effect, given the sad quality of it... As you've hinted, the best way to check that would really require the same camera, as that is a specialised sensor and likely behaves quite uniquely compared to other cameras. Even if they have the same sensor - different firmware/software may generate quite different results.

But if the original contains compression artefacts, I see even less value in further analysis, I'm afraid.
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Sonota UFO Video (split from SUNlite thread)

Postby astrophotographer » Fri May 06, 2011 2:50 pm

If you read the comments by the owner of the clip on the weblink for the video, he states the following:

Though the movement is rather tricky, now we are thinking the most probable explanation of this event is a pair of birds.
Because...
1. Many birds or bats that are lighted by ground lights have been captured by this camera.
2. Some movement like faction can be seen on the last part of the video.
3. The imaged curvature is very large against its angular velocity.
4. There are no simultaneous observation reported though this area is observed by several stations.
5. 3. 4. means that this event happens within the distance of a few hundred meters.


The implication of 4 and 5 is that the two lights were "close". Since they are pinpoints, we are talking about something small. The separation between the lights is about 1 degree based on his scaling. If it were 300 m away, then it would only be about 5 m across. At 100 M that becomes 1.7m. At 10 m we are describing something that is 0.2 m across. These values are rounded off (just in case somebody wants to quibble about the math). The actual sizes of the lights would be very small.

As for the dark shape, I tried stacking a dozen frames or so but the compression issues with the images makes it difficult to determine if there is anything there at all. Playing with photoshop and adjusting the brightness/contrast/curves, I can create something between the lights but if I take the raw video and invert it, I get nothing. I am not a video expert but the area between the lights might be affected by the lights themselves affecting the adjacent pixels. This may or may not be an effect of the video camera sensor or the resultant video that was created.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: Sonota UFO Video (split from SUNlite thread)

Postby James Carlson » Sat May 07, 2011 12:40 am

A couple of thoughts: there's no requirement in law that you have to own an image before analysing it, so some of these excuses seem to be a waste of time unless you're doing it just to annoy everyone. I can at least understand that motivation, and I agree that sometimes it's necessary. All of this bravado over legal distinctions, however, not only doesn't apply to this case, it just comes off as delay and diffuse. If you don't prefer to discuss it because you're analysis is incomplete or you lack the ability or desire to do so, just say that and move on. If you're going to reach conclusions and use those conclusions to make a make a valid point regarding other matters, you have to at least refer to the process used to reach those conclusions in the first place.

If you can support what you're claiming, than by all means enlighten me. I don't really care much whether anybody else understands it or not, but when I read three pages of forum discussion, I kind of like to have a good idea what the argument is. From what little I can see, if a video has to be ripped apart, reprocessed, pasteurized, crunched, bottled, and then sold to the boy in the back row with the flaming red hair before someone can actually make a decision regarding actuality or presence, it doesn't qualify as something interesting enough to examine further. I spent a sizable chunk of my naval career examining and analyzing massive swaths of real time sound data recorded from the ocean floor in order to locate and track man made craft, and I assure you that everything in the entire world makes noise of one type or another across the entire spectrum of measured datasets, and when you process that noise you introduce more noise into it; and then you have to display it in order to analyze it, and that creates more noise, and when you finally reach a conclusion and have to reprocess it again to isolate signals and prepare it for transmission so you can communicate your conclusions to others, you're changing the data again. By the very nature of reality, things change when you look at them, so if you want to call something real, you have to be able to study it enough before it disappears while preserving something in it that other people can look at in order to agree or disagree with your conclusions. Insisting that you aren't going to show anyone what you've got, but you hope they'll remain classy enough to accept your findings just doesn't hack it.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Sonota UFO Video (split from SUNlite thread)

Postby nablator » Sat May 07, 2011 4:14 pm

I took a look at the original video that I kept on another computer. It is not as bad, by far, as I remembered. So I'm taking back the "riddled with compression artifacts" part, I must have mixed it up in memory with some of the captures that were posted on forums. Still the dark shape is fuzzy, indistinct and can be seen only by applying aggressive contrast filters.

If you want to have a stab at analysis, just PM me your email. It's a 25 MB zip.
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Sonota UFO Video (split from SUNlite thread)

Postby chrLz » Sun May 08, 2011 12:30 am

nablator wrote:...the dark shape is fuzzy, indistinct and can be seen only by applying aggressive contrast filters.

Which, as I'm sure Nab is aware, is a subtle example of the classic 'confirmation bias'.. In other words, the 'analyst' knows what s/he is looking for, and therefore plays with the ole Photoshop sliders (many of which are additive/destructive) until something appears that looks promising. Then a bit of sharpening, a huge enlargement, more contrast enhancement and another sharpen.. Wow. Aliens (or a dark shape that is 'clearly a craft'). :roll:

Given that approach, I can find very clearly defined aliens in pretty much any image. As I may have mentioned before (sorry!) there's a 'good' example of all this here at BAUT, but be warned that it is a long thread and involves Jose (Rods) Escamilla.. I'd recommend the first page to set the scene, pages 7/8, and the last couple. And yes, that Chrlzs over there is me.

What a 'real' analysis does is consider all the factors that contribute to the pixel-by-pixel nature of an image (and this is in addition to considering the provenance of the image and hoax/CGI possibilities), starting with what is in front of (and in this case, behind) the lens (like panes of glass..), the lens itself, the aperture and zoom settings, the optics of the sensor and any filters in front of it, the sensor & onboard amplifier's performance and characteristics, the nature of the capture (eg interlacing), inbuilt sharpening/contrast enhancement, things like jpeg compression/quantisation/posterisation, any other reformatting or post proc, and so on.

It then proceeds to determine if there is really anything that can be revealed by appropriate non-destructive processing, processing that is not guided by the aforementioned confirmation bias. And photogrammetry may be applied to determine sizes / distances / speeds ONLY if there is indisputable evidence that gives the 'object's distance and the image's field of view.

If someone claims that an image reveals an alien, or even just 'unusual' flight characteristics, but they cannot explain exactly and precisely how they got to that conclusion, in a repeatable fashion, and also properly addresses all the issues above... then they got nuthin.

Given all the issues I've just mentioned (and some more I haven't), and the fact that it seems clear that most of them are indeterminate, plus that this seems to have been a one off incident and the source doesn't appear to be very cooperative (so reflections, cgi etc can't be investigated or ruled out)... I'll pass on the original, but thanks.
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Sonota UFO Video (split from SUNlite thread)

Postby nablator » Sun May 08, 2011 10:33 am

chrLz wrote:Wow. Aliens (or a dark shape that is 'clearly a craft'). :roll:

Yes I am acutely aware of the craziness in UFO circles such as:
http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1009/reveal4.php
http://www.profindsearch.com/storm_ufo.htm

Far from these extreme examples of confirmation bias, the techniques (and their limits) that I used are well understood and correctly applied:
- deinterlacing removes the crenelated aspect that can be mistaken for fluttering wings.
- stacking eliminates some of the digital noise, it also has the effect of blurring the image if the alignment of frames is bad or if there is movement or change in perspective.
- levels adjustment is destructive when the range is badly selected, here it is only stretching the color (or gray scale) space.

Nothing else. No deconvolution filter was used (for sharpening, focusing...).

Overall, the final picture is still fuzzy and there are no aliens peering through portholes to be seen. I don't claim this footage is anything special. My best guess is one (or two) reflective beetles.
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Sonota UFO Video (split from SUNlite thread)

Postby chrLz » Sun May 08, 2011 12:49 pm

nablator wrote:Yes I am acutely aware of the craziness in UFO circles such as:
http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1009/reveal4.php
http://www.profindsearch.com/storm_ufo.htm

Heheh! Hadn't seen the first one, that's almost as hilarious as the second link, which is my 'favorite'. There were/are similar farces surrounding the Kumburgaz video.

I agree fully with what you have said. The only minor addition I would make is that while Registax is very useful for reducing noise/atmospherics etc, there are folks who believe that because it has been used, the resulting imagery is 'accurate'. For example they will look at the registaxed version and assume because there is a more clearly resolved dark shape there, it is a real object. But it may simply be an artefact of the way the sensor records bright areas, or one of many other effects.

No deconvolution filter was used (for sharpening, focusing...).

Well, there's your problem! No wonder you couldn't find the aliens! :D Try USM, 500%, 3.8 pixel radius, 0 threshold! Works on anything..

(Sorry, that's an Escamilla in-joke)
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Previous

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron