[wclubin]

This is my first post here and I am new to all of this. I woke up to the possibility of a flat earth about four days ago and as such I am probably not very advanced in the topic so please forgive me if this is a stupid question but here goes.

What is the difficulty with one of us sending up a balloon with a camera on it high enough, to see if there is curvature?

[huh?]

It is relatively easy.
A balloon cost about 120 USD and Helium about the same.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/science/gopro-balloon-footage-of-earth.html?_r=0

finding where the balloon lands is the real problem

[Orbisect-64]

People have sent balloons up with cameras.

The trick is to equip it with a camera lens that is not fisheye (No-GoPro). In the videos where they use GoPro (fisheye) notice that when the camera levels out there's also no curve. In videos where they used a standard 55mm or longer lens there's just no curve, period.

With GPS there should be no problem finding the balloon once it lands.

Here's one or two videos

















Red Bull Jump = Flat Horizon


—

[Earthisround]

They show a flat horizon because even at that height, the object is still not far enough away from the surface to be able to see a curve. One must be incredibly far away to be able to see the curve of the earth

[totallackey]

They show a flat horizon because even at that height, the object is still not far enough away from the surface to be able to see a curve. One must be incredibly far away to be able to see the curve of the earth

Oh how "incredibly far away," oh wise one...

[andruszkow]

They show a flat horizon because theyre not at a sufficient altitude or they zoom.

I snapped this from 24km, using a non-fish eye lens, with no zoom (raspberry pi camera)

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Cool!

[totallackey]

They show a flat horizon because theyre not at a sufficient altitude or they zoom.

I snapped this from 24km, using a non-fish eye lens, with no zoom (raspberry pi camera)

Hey, both the DogCam and the Natural Light Commercial are higher in altitude than your shot, so I am unsure what your point is, aside from showing a flat horizon...

[andruszkow]

They show a flat horizon because theyre not at a sufficient altitude or they zoom.

I snapped this from 24km, using a non-fish eye lens, with no zoom (raspberry pi camera)

Hey, both the DogCam and the Natural Light Commercial are higher in altitude than your shot, so I am unsure what your point is, aside from showing a flat horizon...

Better re-check my picture, buddy.

Also, care to throw a reference for what you mean by "DogCam"? A lot of videos are tagged with "DogCam", seeing it is an action camera, much like GoPro. And much like the "we corrected the fish-eye lens perspective distortion in photoshop, to show you the earth is flat" idiocy we get with the GoPro cams, which smells like fresh fish on a sunny dock on a july, the same is the case for most "corrected" DogCam shots.

How about one of you flat earth disciples with just a tiny bit of integrity, a tiny bit of pocket change, and a tiny TINY bit of pride, actually took the small amount of time needed for the incredibly simple task it is sending a camera to near-space with a helium balloon, and shot a video with a camera that doesn't come pre-configured with fish-eye perspective in it's software, exactly like I did to shoot that curvature picture I just showed you?

Seriously, it's a $150 project, tops, and you'll get 100% open source hardware, write your own software for it, write it directly to the hardware yourself, using electronic components that are more than durable for this teeny tiny task. And I promise you, you'll see the Earth has curvature

One of the best replies I got on this photo was the fact that the Earth is a flat disc, and what I'm seeing is the edge. Compared to pictures taken at about the same altitude from Australian launches, it had the same degree of curvature depicted. I find that funny, since Australia is close to the edge of this so-called disc. At least compared to my current position, which is 56º N latitude.

EDIT: You want to tell me that the Natural Light commercial doesn't show curvature? I've attached a still from seconds before the balloon pops.

(In before lens aberration, distortion, fish-eye perspective, "I wasn't there", "I don't trust in pictures", "I don't know math or electronics", and other grasping-for-straws excuses)

[TotesNotReptilian]

I took a quick look at the dogcam video.

According to my rather rough calculations, at 32,500 meters using a camera with a 60 degree horizontal FOV, we should see about 3.4 degrees of curvature.

The video shows 1.8 degrees of curvature.

Possible sources of error:
1. The FOV for the camera isn't 60 degrees. I have no idea what it is. Calculating backwards from 1.8 degrees of curvature results in a 34 degree FOV.
2. There is a decent chance that my equations are wrong. It gets rather nasty, and I didn't exactly take my time with the derivation. It would be nice if someone else tried to perform the same calculation so we can compare.

Regardless, the horizon certainly isn't flat.

[TotesNotReptilian]

They show a flat horizon because theyre not at a sufficient altitude or they zoom.

I snapped this from 24km, using a non-fish eye lens, with no zoom (raspberry pi camera)

According to this website the Raspberry Pi stock camera has a diagonal FOV of either 46 or 65 degrees depending on the mode. At 24km high, I predict 2.1 or 3.2 degrees of curvature, respectively.

The horizon in the picture is rather hazy, so it's difficult to get a definite measure of the curvature, but my best guess (low confidence) is about 2.8 degrees of curvature.

[totallackey]

They show a flat horizon because theyre not at a sufficient altitude or they zoom.

I snapped this from 24km, using a non-fish eye lens, with no zoom (raspberry pi camera)

Hey, both the DogCam and the Natural Light Commercial are higher in altitude than your shot, so I am unsure what your point is, aside from showing a flat horizon...

Better re-check my picture, buddy.

Also, care to throw a reference for what you mean by "DogCam"? A lot of videos are tagged with "DogCam", seeing it is an action camera, much like GoPro. And much like the "we corrected the fish-eye lens perspective distortion in photoshop, to show you the earth is flat" idiocy we get with the GoPro cams, which smells like fresh fish on a sunny dock on a july, the same is the case for most "corrected" DogCam shots.

How about one of you flat earth disciples with just a tiny bit of integrity, a tiny bit of pocket change, and a tiny TINY bit of pride, actually took the small amount of time needed for the incredibly simple task it is sending a camera to near-space with a helium balloon, and shot a video with a camera that doesn't come pre-configured with fish-eye perspective in it's software, exactly like I did to shoot that curvature picture I just showed you?

Seriously, it's a $150 project, tops, and you'll get 100% open source hardware, write your own software for it, write it directly to the hardware yourself, using electronic components that are more than durable for this teeny tiny task. And I promise you, you'll see the Earth has curvature

One of the best replies I got on this photo was the fact that the Earth is a flat disc, and what I'm seeing is the edge. Compared to pictures taken at about the same altitude from Australian launches, it had the same degree of curvature depicted. I find that funny, since Australia is close to the edge of this so-called disc. At least compared to my current position, which is 56º N latitude.

EDIT: You want to tell me that the Natural Light commercial doesn't show curvature? I've attached a still from seconds before the balloon pops.

(In before lens aberration, distortion, fish-eye perspective, "I wasn't there", "I don't trust in pictures", "I don't know math or electronics", and other grasping-for-straws excuses)

Why should I "re-check," your picture, buddy? You posted, and I quote:

"They show a flat horizon because theyre not at a sufficient altitude or they zoom.

I snapped this from 24km, using a non-fish eye lens, with no zoom (raspberry pi camera)"...imp[lying the ashots presented were not at sufficient altitude.

So, first you state the shots presented SHOW A FLAT HORIZON!!! Second, you come back with this fucking claptrap:

"I took a quick look at the dogcam video.

According to my rather rough calculations, at 32,500 meters using a camera with a 60 degree horizontal FOV, we should see about 3.4 degrees of curvature.

The video shows 1.8 degrees of curvature.

Possible sources of error:
1. The FOV for the camera isn't 60 degrees. I have no idea what it is. Calculating backwards from 1.8 degrees of curvature results in a 34 degree FOV.
2. There is a decent chance that my equations are wrong. It gets rather nasty, and I didn't exactly take my time with the derivation. It would be nice if someone else tried to perform the same calculation so we can compare.

Regardless, the horizon certainly isn't flat."

Contradict yourself much?

You can do math, CORRECT? 24 KM equals how many feet? It is certainly LESS than the dogcam video AND the Natural Light video... That was all I was addressing, for the most part...

And as far as the rest of your bullshit, it is all SUBJECTIVE interpretation using your INSANE measuring stick... You do not know your ASS from a hole in the ground...

[andruszkow]

They show a flat horizon because theyre not at a sufficient altitude or they zoom.

I snapped this from 24km, using a non-fish eye lens, with no zoom (raspberry pi camera)

Hey, both the DogCam and the Natural Light Commercial are higher in altitude than your shot, so I am unsure what your point is, aside from showing a flat horizon...

Better re-check my picture, buddy.

Also, care to throw a reference for what you mean by "DogCam"? A lot of videos are tagged with "DogCam", seeing it is an action camera, much like GoPro. And much like the "we corrected the fish-eye lens perspective distortion in photoshop, to show you the earth is flat" idiocy we get with the GoPro cams, which smells like fresh fish on a sunny dock on a july, the same is the case for most "corrected" DogCam shots.

How about one of you flat earth disciples with just a tiny bit of integrity, a tiny bit of pocket change, and a tiny TINY bit of pride, actually took the small amount of time needed for the incredibly simple task it is sending a camera to near-space with a helium balloon, and shot a video with a camera that doesn't come pre-configured with fish-eye perspective in it's software, exactly like I did to shoot that curvature picture I just showed you?

Seriously, it's a $150 project, tops, and you'll get 100% open source hardware, write your own software for it, write it directly to the hardware yourself, using electronic components that are more than durable for this teeny tiny task. And I promise you, you'll see the Earth has curvature

One of the best replies I got on this photo was the fact that the Earth is a flat disc, and what I'm seeing is the edge. Compared to pictures taken at about the same altitude from Australian launches, it had the same degree of curvature depicted. I find that funny, since Australia is close to the edge of this so-called disc. At least compared to my current position, which is 56º N latitude.

EDIT: You want to tell me that the Natural Light commercial doesn't show curvature? I've attached a still from seconds before the balloon pops.

(In before lens aberration, distortion, fish-eye perspective, "I wasn't there", "I don't trust in pictures", "I don't know math or electronics", and other grasping-for-straws excuses)

Why should I "re-check," your picture, buddy? You posted, and I quote:

"They show a flat horizon because theyre not at a sufficient altitude or they zoom.

I snapped this from 24km, using a non-fish eye lens, with no zoom (raspberry pi camera)"...imp[lying the ashots presented were not at sufficient altitude.

So, first you state the shots presented SHOW A FLAT HORIZON!!! Second, you come back with this fucking claptrap:

"I took a quick look at the dogcam video.

According to my rather rough calculations, at 32,500 meters using a camera with a 60 degree horizontal FOV, we should see about 3.4 degrees of curvature.

The video shows 1.8 degrees of curvature.

Possible sources of error:
1. The FOV for the camera isn't 60 degrees. I have no idea what it is. Calculating backwards from 1.8 degrees of curvature results in a 34 degree FOV.
2. There is a decent chance that my equations are wrong. It gets rather nasty, and I didn't exactly take my time with the derivation. It would be nice if someone else tried to perform the same calculation so we can compare.

Regardless, the horizon certainly isn't flat."

Contradict yourself much?

You can do math, CORRECT? 24 KM equals how many feet? It is certainly LESS than the dogcam video AND the Natural Light video... That was all I was addressing, for the most part...

And as far as the rest of your bullshit, it is all SUBJECTIVE interpretation using your INSANE measuring stick... You do not know your ASS from a hole in the ground...

1. I told you, that the pictures you guys were talking about in this thread shows a "flat" horizon because of either A: Lack of altitude or B: Zooming (and obviously, the hidden C: Both)

2. I showed you a picture that I took from 24km that shows curvature, because 24km is more than enough, and I informed you which cam I used.

3. I don't know if you're just a troll, stressed, young, or a combination of them all. Either way, you're quoting me for posts I didn't write. Then you carry on with your business here in a hostile tone, while expecting to be taken seriously. Obviously you didn't read things through. The ever-so-popular dogcam video is shot with a HD Max (140 degree FoV) in fish-eye perspective. The video is a result of rectilinear conversion. This means the video has been post-adjusted by software, probably dog cams own supplied software. Being a community of people generally not relying on digital video and stills as evidence "because it's prone to editing", you sure do put a lot of faith in this video, post-produced with a software utilizing algorithms you do not know.

That's exactly why my picture, and every picture taken by high altitude balloon enthusiasts alike are important to a debate like this, when it can be documented which cameras and what software were used to process all the data (open source, remember?). My next launch will carry a camera capable of storing in RAW format. I'll post each and every picture taken on this forum in RAW format afterwards, just for the purpose of stopping you people from crying about "faked pictures".

For the sake of intellectual motivation, stop the personal attacks and rude tone. If you're an adult, it's just awkward.

[totallackey]

They show a flat horizon because theyre not at a sufficient altitude or they zoom.

I snapped this from 24km, using a non-fish eye lens, with no zoom (raspberry pi camera)

Hey, both the DogCam and the Natural Light Commercial are higher in altitude than your shot, so I am unsure what your point is, aside from showing a flat horizon...

Better re-check my picture, buddy.

Also, care to throw a reference for what you mean by "DogCam"? A lot of videos are tagged with "DogCam", seeing it is an action camera, much like GoPro. And much like the "we corrected the fish-eye lens perspective distortion in photoshop, to show you the earth is flat" idiocy we get with the GoPro cams, which smells like fresh fish on a sunny dock on a july, the same is the case for most "corrected" DogCam shots.

How about one of you flat earth disciples with just a tiny bit of integrity, a tiny bit of pocket change, and a tiny TINY bit of pride, actually took the small amount of time needed for the incredibly simple task it is sending a camera to near-space with a helium balloon, and shot a video with a camera that doesn't come pre-configured with fish-eye perspective in it's software, exactly like I did to shoot that curvature picture I just showed you?

Seriously, it's a $150 project, tops, and you'll get 100% open source hardware, write your own software for it, write it directly to the hardware yourself, using electronic components that are more than durable for this teeny tiny task. And I promise you, you'll see the Earth has curvature

One of the best replies I got on this photo was the fact that the Earth is a flat disc, and what I'm seeing is the edge. Compared to pictures taken at about the same altitude from Australian launches, it had the same degree of curvature depicted. I find that funny, since Australia is close to the edge of this so-called disc. At least compared to my current position, which is 56º N latitude.

EDIT: You want to tell me that the Natural Light commercial doesn't show curvature? I've attached a still from seconds before the balloon pops.

(In before lens aberration, distortion, fish-eye perspective, "I wasn't there", "I don't trust in pictures", "I don't know math or electronics", and other grasping-for-straws excuses)

Why should I "re-check," your picture, buddy? You posted, and I quote:

"They show a flat horizon because theyre not at a sufficient altitude or they zoom.

I snapped this from 24km, using a non-fish eye lens, with no zoom (raspberry pi camera)"...imp[lying the ashots presented were not at sufficient altitude.

So, first you state the shots presented SHOW A FLAT HORIZON!!! Second, you come back with this fucking claptrap:

"I took a quick look at the dogcam video.

According to my rather rough calculations, at 32,500 meters using a camera with a 60 degree horizontal FOV, we should see about 3.4 degrees of curvature.

The video shows 1.8 degrees of curvature.

Possible sources of error:
1. The FOV for the camera isn't 60 degrees. I have no idea what it is. Calculating backwards from 1.8 degrees of curvature results in a 34 degree FOV.
2. There is a decent chance that my equations are wrong. It gets rather nasty, and I didn't exactly take my time with the derivation. It would be nice if someone else tried to perform the same calculation so we can compare.

Regardless, the horizon certainly isn't flat."

Contradict yourself much?

You can do math, CORRECT? 24 KM equals how many feet? It is certainly LESS than the dogcam video AND the Natural Light video... That was all I was addressing, for the most part...

And as far as the rest of your bullshit, it is all SUBJECTIVE interpretation using your INSANE measuring stick... You do not know your ASS from a hole in the ground...

1. I told you, that the pictures you guys were talking about in this thread shows a "flat" horizon because of either A: Lack of altitude or B: Zooming (and obviously, the hidden C: Both)

2. I showed you a picture that I took from 24km that shows curvature, because 24km is more than enough, and I informed you which cam I used.

3. I don't know if you're just a troll, stressed, young, or a combination of them all. Either way, you're quoting me for posts I didn't write. Then you carry on with your business here in a hostile tone, while expecting to be taken seriously. Obviously you didn't read things through. The ever-so-popular dogcam video is shot with a HD Max (140 degree FoV) in fish-eye perspective. The video is a result of rectilinear conversion. This means the video has been post-adjusted by software, probably dog cams own supplied software. Being a community of people generally not relying on digital video and stills as evidence "because it's prone to editing", you sure do put a lot of faith in this video, post-produced with a software utilizing algorithms you do not know.

That's exactly why my picture, and every picture taken by high altitude balloon enthusiasts alike are important to a debate like this, when it can be documented which cameras and what software were used to process all the data (open source, remember?). My next launch will carry a camera capable of storing in RAW format. I'll post each and every picture taken on this forum in RAW format afterwards, just for the purpose of stopping you people from crying about "faked pictures".

For the sake of intellectual motivation, stop the personal attacks and rude tone. If you're an adult, it's just awkward.

First, I did attribute a quote to you in error, for that alone I apologize.

As to the rest, your post indicating the other balloons were not high enough to show curvature when somehow your balloon is remains as disingenuous asshattery at its finest...

Everyone here has access to the post...

And everyone can see the horizon is flat...

[andruszkow]

First, I did attribute a quote to you in error, for that alone I apologize.

As to the rest, your post indicating the other balloons were not high enough to show curvature when somehow your balloon is remains as disingenuous asshattery at its finest...

Everyone here has access to the post...

And everyone can see the horizon is flat...

I attached two pictures. Do you honestly not see curvature in either of them? I mean, what do you expect? A 180 degree arc?

Newsflash: The Earth is big.

[totallackey]

First, I did attribute a quote to you in error, for that alone I apologize.

As to the rest, your post indicating the other balloons were not high enough to show curvature when somehow your balloon is remains as disingenuous asshattery at its finest...

Everyone here has access to the post...

And everyone can see the horizon is flat...

I attached two pictures. Do you honestly not see curvature in either of them? I mean, what do you expect? A 180 degree arc?

Newsflash: The Earth is big.

No shit...the earth is big...and there is no curve to the horizon.

And you made a statement designed to mislead and obfuscate the truth. You claimed the videos (i.e., dogcam and natural light) were at insufficient altitude to present or detect curvature. Both of these videos were taken at a significantly higher altitude than that of oyur example...yet you claim yours does reflect and depict curvature...

Go suck an egg...that way there will be less chance of that egg ending up on your face the next time you post disingenuous bull shit...

[TotesNotReptilian]

No shit...the earth is big...and there is no curve to the horizon.

And you made a statement designed to mislead and obfuscate the truth. You claimed the videos (i.e., dogcam and natural light) were at insufficient altitude to present or detect curvature. Both of these videos were taken at a significantly higher altitude than that of oyur example...yet you claim yours does reflect and depict curvature...

I measured several degrees of curvature in the dogcam video, andruszkow's picture, and ironically, the "How does the earth look" video. Why do you keep claiming it shows no curvature?

At those altitudes, we should only expect a few degrees of curvature. And that's what it shows. Surprise surprise.

[totallackey]

No shit...the earth is big...and there is no curve to the horizon.

And you made a statement designed to mislead and obfuscate the truth. You claimed the videos (i.e., dogcam and natural light) were at insufficient altitude to present or detect curvature. Both of these videos were taken at a significantly higher altitude than that of oyur example...yet you claim yours does reflect and depict curvature...

I measured several degrees of curvature in the dogcam video, andruszkow's picture, and ironically, the "How does the earth look" video. Why do you keep claiming it shows no curvature?

At those altitudes, we should only expect a few degrees of curvature. And that's what it shows. Surprise surprise.

You measured....looking at pixels...determining with YOUR eyeballs what constitutes a curve...

[TotesNotReptilian]

I measured several degrees of curvature in the dogcam video, andruszkow's picture, and ironically, the "How does the earth look" video. Why do you keep claiming it shows no curvature?

At those altitudes, we should only expect a few degrees of curvature. And that's what it shows. Surprise surprise.

You measured....looking at pixels...determining with YOUR eyeballs what constitutes a curve...

Um... yes? I drew a line across the horizon. I then counted the number of pixels between the horizon and the straight line in the middle of the picture. I then used this formula to calculate the radius of curvature, which can then be turned into degrees.

Here is the dogcam screenshot I used:



Since the horizon is fuzzy, I cranked up the contrast to get an unbiased reference for the horizon:



I counted about 10 pixels, which equates to about 1.8 degrees.

Note: Sometimes increasing the contrast is useful for detecting the horizon, but sometimes edge-detection is better. Sometimes neither works well. It depends on the lighting of the picture.

[Round fact]

The picture clearly shows a curved horizon.

I'm interested in how you determine how to reach the altitude you want with a balloon