The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Regicide on September 01, 2020, 02:12:30 PM

Title: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Regicide on September 01, 2020, 02:12:30 PM
2 1/2 hours of a piece of garlic bread being sent to about 35 kilometers up, taken with a nonfisheye camera and with a box in the foreground for flat reference. Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKAblynZYhI&list=PLzvm9kVsZ3hniCB09Tv1i_L7duQoYyrzc&index=2&t=0s

Take some screenshots and draw flat lines on. I tried to do it myself, but the upload size was too big.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: TomInAustin on September 04, 2020, 05:15:18 PM
2 1/2 hours of a piece of garlic bread being sent to about 35 kilometers up, taken with a nonfisheye camera and with a box in the foreground for flat reference. Enjoy!

Take some screenshots and draw flat lines on. I tried to do it myself, but the upload size was too big.


Somewhere near the high point.  Pretty curvy for sure.

(https://snipboard.io/UB4uwr.jpg)
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 04, 2020, 05:26:58 PM
nonfisheye camera
Barrel distortion is not exclusive to fish-eye lenses. It is a largely unavoidable consequence of optics.

and with a box in the foreground for flat reference
Indeed, it does! Try drawing straight lines across the styrofoam box to see just how "flat" it appears.

(https://i.imgur.com/F7sdsa6.png)

Not particularly helpful or useful, even if you ignore the FAQ's clarification on photographic/video evidence.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: TomInAustin on September 04, 2020, 05:56:26 PM
Barrel distortion is not exclusive to fish-eye lenses. It is a largely unavoidable consequence of optics.

Very true.  The cloudy day they picked makes it impossible to compare the low altitude frames to the high altitude.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on September 04, 2020, 10:56:40 PM
1.  At 35 km, the camera is about 0.5% further from the centre of the earth than it is at the surface.  How much better perspective is this supposed to give us? 

2.  Any lens with a focal length <infinity will distort the image to some extent.  And what is a "non-fisheye camera"?  Focal length?  Can I buy one?

3.  Styrofoam is a well proven straight-line reference medium.  Oh, I'm sorry, I'm thinking of stainless steel.  Apparently, styrofoam is NOT a well proven straight line reference medium. 

4.  Garlic?  Bread? 

Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: J-Man on September 05, 2020, 09:43:41 PM
Thanks for this, while I don't see curvature, I do see what looks like the molten glass dome covering earth.  Science ends up proving things you weren't looking for !!!
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 06, 2020, 09:55:22 AM
Thanks for this, while I don't see curvature, I do see what looks like the molten glass dome covering earth.  Science ends up proving things you weren't looking for !!!
Can you show what you mean by this?
And can you explain how a glass dome of this size wouldn’t just fall apart under its own weight?
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Bikini Polaris on September 06, 2020, 10:47:59 AM
The clip shows the sun for the entire ascension of the balloon, but isn't the spotlight effect supposed to create a light to dark moment? Is there a computation on the height where this transition should happen? As far as I understand at some point a weather balloon going up should stop seeing a bright sun.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 06, 2020, 10:55:53 AM
The clip shows the sun for the entire ascension of the balloon, but isn't the spotlight effect supposed to create a light to dark moment?
No. The only way you'd be obscured from sunlight is if the Earth itself obstructed it. In other words - you'd have to be launching at night or entering the night during the flight.

As far as I understand at some point a weather balloon going up should stop seeing a bright sun.
I'm not sure where you got that from, but it's not what we predict, and, as you just saw, it's not what actually happens.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Regicide on September 17, 2020, 09:58:12 PM
Had to get a new account, but here is my continued argument:

Once the camera is above the clouds, look at the horizon. It should appear flat.

Once the camera reaches its full height, look at the horizon. It should appear curved.

In both perspectives, look at the box in which the garlic bread is. It should appear identical in both.

The curvature observed at the full height is not a product of the camera. Otherwise, the horizon would appear equally curved at a low altitude.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 17, 2020, 10:33:02 PM
Had to get a new account
You could have just not deleted it in the first place.

Once the camera is above the clouds, look at the horizon. It should appear flat.

Once the camera reaches its full height, look at the horizon. It should appear curved.
Neither of those are necessarily correct, given that we've already established that your video is subject to very obvious barrel distortion.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Regicide on September 22, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
I’m going to address some complaints.

First of all, extreme barreleye? I’m willing to accept that a camera will always have some barreleye, but this is hardly a matter of extreme distortion. Before it enters the cloud layer, draw lines along straight objects like the truck bed, table, roads, etc. They all seem fairly straight. This is hardly a fisheye lens.

Secondly, I am aware that this was done on a cloudy day. The creator who launched this lives in England, where it is cloudy for 320 days of the year. It’s going to be difficult to launch this on a day with clear skies.

Thirdly, I don’t understand how you are refuting my request for you to make an observation, I guess I worded it weirdly. Once the camera is above the clouds, draw a line next to the horizon, and you can see it appears fairly flat. Once it reaches its apogee, draw a line next to the horizon and you can see it appears curved. How can an observation of the horizon that changes over time be attributed to camera distortion?

Finally, I did not make this video. I have neither the time nor the resources to put together a weather ballon observation launch, but if I did I would do several things differently. I would use a camera that is as close to zero distortion as possible, even though this one is fairly close. I would also use a ruler for reference. I know the video isn’t perfect, but unlike many other videos it doesn’t have a jump from launch to apogee. In this one, you can observe the curvature of the horizon slowly increasing, relative to the box. There’s a bit of distortion at the edges of the frame, but if you look at the middle, there is hardly any. Note I said hardly, there will always be some.

P.S. Just wondering, what’s the official FE explanation for the sky fading to black from blue. Is it still a product of atmospheric scattering, or is there some alternate explanation.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Longtitube on September 22, 2020, 08:23:44 PM
Pete claims "very obvious" barrel distortion, but I wonder if he has thought this one through. There is very mild distortion (tray seam line dips down a little in middle) consistent with barrel distortion at the bottom edge of the camera view, the sort that most photographers would tolerate. This distortion would be reversed at the top of the camera view (straight line would rise up a little in middle) and be of a similar amount.

However, nobody has demonstrated distortion across the middle of the camera view, where the horizon is shown in the screen capture displayed in the OP. Barrel distortion would not distort the view there, perhaps Pete is thinking of a bottle bottom lens?  http://cameramaker.se/Coke_Lens.htm
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 23, 2020, 05:21:46 AM
First of all, extreme barreleye?
You're the only one to have called it extreme. I called it obvious. And if is obvious - all you need to do is inspect the box, as we already did.

Before it enters the cloud layer, draw lines along straight objects like the truck bed, table, roads, etc. They all seem fairly straight.
If we're operating with such nebulous and imprecise terms as "fairly straight", then we might as well say that the horizon "seems fairly straight" in the screenshot presented. We already have a perfectly good reference point to gauge the level of distortion, one that's always in frame. Why should we discard it and keep looking for new ones? Just to match your hypothesis?

However, nobody has demonstrated distortion across the middle of the camera view, where the horizon is shown in the screen capture displayed in the OP.
The horizon is not in the middle of the view in that picture, and its perceivable curvature is more subtle than that of the tray seam line. This is consistent with barrel distortion.

The best way forward here, if you're really unsure, would be to establish what lens was used and adjust the photo for distortion in something like Lightroom.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Longtitube on September 23, 2020, 07:10:12 AM
I beg your pardon, the screen capture was in TomInAustin’s post:-

(https://snipboard.io/UB4uwr.jpg)

Which part of the image was the “middle” again?
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 23, 2020, 12:33:17 PM
Which part of the image was the “middle” again?
Bright green lines added for your convenience - though I'm not sure why that needed my input. Surely you could have measured it yourself?

(https://i.imgur.com/2dvxvfX.png)
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Longtitube on September 23, 2020, 08:43:50 PM
Thank you so much.

You earlier said the visible seam on the garlic bread tray demonstrated barrel distortion was present. It is, although very mild, so here's what a uniform, straight-lined grid looks like viewed through a lens with strong barrel distortion, with green lines in the middle of the picture:–

(https://i.imgur.com/Zha4qK9.jpg)

These green lines are straight, showing there is no horizontal distortion along the vertical green line or vertical distortion along the horizontal green line, but the further away from the middle you look, the stronger the distortion becomes. At the edges the distortion is unmistakeable.

Now here is the screen capture first posted by TomInAustin, with the amount of distortion showing on the tray seam marked in blue and the amount of curve in the horizon marked in green.

(https://i.imgur.com/XzGFiRN.jpg)

Near the edge of the image, the distortion measures 3 vertical pixels and we would correctly expect 3 or 4 pixels in the opposite direction near the top of the picture, while also expecting less distortion nearer the middle of the capture.

That is not what the capture shows: the curved horizon is only a short way above the middle of the picture, yet is curved by at least 23 pixels. That's not what mere barrel distortion would show. The horizon is plainly curved.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 24, 2020, 10:47:57 AM
I'm sorry, but I'm not really interested in your whataboutism.

Your measurements are extremely fuzzy: the horizon is not at all well-defined within the picture, but you're pretending it is; you're also comparing the curvature of two arcs of different spans by simply measuring the difference in their sagittae - a mathematical non-starter. The red line you're measuring from doesn't even touch the horizon on either edge of the frame.

You also describe your expectations as "correct" despite knowing absolutely nothing about the setup in use - you call them "correct" because they match your preconception.

In fact, we can commit similar crimes on geometry with your own grid:

(https://i.imgur.com/mT6sw80.jpg)

I already provided you with simple steps to correct the photo for barrel distortion. If you really deny its significance, you can verify your own claim.

It's strange that you're so desperate on this particular point, too. It's not like it changes how useful the photo is - it's just a drop in an ocean of issues.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Longtitube on September 24, 2020, 09:16:05 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm not really interested in your whataboutism
....
It's strange that you're so desperate on this particular point, too.

There's no need to get personal, mate, even if you were right about desperation (which you aren't.)

you're also comparing the curvature of two arcs of different spans by simply measuring the difference in their chords

You're quite right, so I measured the length of the straight blue line by the tray's seam, originally highlighted by yourself. It's 715 pixels.

(https://i.imgur.com/gY4Cs60.jpg)


The tray seam, shown as an arc in the screen capture, dips 3 pixels below the long straight blue line. Were it the same width as the image, 1117 pixels, it would dip (1117/715) x 3 = 4.6 pixels. This is still sustantially less than the estimated 23 pixels the horizon rises above the straight red line, in fact about a fifth of the rise.

I repeat the general point about barrel distortion being important near the edges of an image, whereas it's very slight near the middle of the same image. I've seen many images displaying barrel distortion over many years and many showing much more distortion than the screenshot. Distortion affecting the middle of an image more than the edges is not barrel distortion, and is not evident in the screenshot.

I deliberately do not intend to process the image for distortion in Lightroom or any other program, because we have both seen many claims over the years that this, that or another image can't be trusted as it's been "Photoshopped" and we both know the pointlessness of such arguments. Indeed, the wiki makes this very point in the FAQ.

Yours must be a thankless task, moderating forums populated mostly by people who doubt or outright reject the flat earth hypothesis. Another week and another sceptic with experience and real-world knowledge asks difficult questions casting doubt on another part, or from another angle on the same part as last month, which the believers here struggle with. I'm sure you must groan at the next hazy, wobbly video shot over miles of water to make or disprove the case for the horizon or ships disappearing over it. It's not for the money anyway!

However, should anyone throw the barrel distortion problem back into the mix, you have an example to produce in answer – I'll leave the original test chart where it is. The lens was an 18-135mm zoom, the chart image was lifted directly from a review of that lens. What does surprise is the FAQ suggests a curved horizon will be seen from high up: I'd have thought you'd welcome the video evidence of such.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 25, 2020, 12:45:37 PM
The tray seam, shown as an arc in the screen capture, dips 3 pixels below the long straight blue line. Were it the same width as the image, 1117 pixels, it would dip (1117/715) x 3 = 4.6 pixels. This is still sustantially less than the estimated 23 pixels the horizon rises above the straight red line, in fact about a fifth of the rise.
This continues not to be how geometry works. I'm sorry, but there's nothing more I can do to help you with this. The ratio between the "line" and "dip" have nothing to do with the eccentricity of these two arcs. I can keep pointing out that you're wrong and explaining why you're wrong, but in the end of the day you won't accept it, because you're not interested in being correct - you just want to confirm your preconceptions.

But hey, let's keep on keeping on. Let's illustrate the issue with my previous example:

(https://i.imgur.com/mT6sw80.jpg)

The span of the white frame is 590 pixels, and the "dip" (sagitta) of the first arc is 14 pixels.

The second arc has a span of 195 pixels and a sagitta of 1.5 pixels.

You assert that I can make these comparable through a simple ratio. Let's do that.

1.5*590/195 = 4.53

As you can see, by your logic, I should expect that the arc towards the bottom of the image is much less curved than the one closer to the middle. However, even a cursory visual comparison will reveal that not to be the case. In reality, when measured correctly, the sagitta of the second arc is 23 pixels. Your logic fails.

The physical reason behind your error is that (as you astutely pointed out) the effect is more pronounced the further away from the centre of the frame you are. By sampling the curvature from just the (horizontal) middle of the frame, you fail to account for the significant increase in effect towards the edges.

You also entirely ignored the many issues with your "23 pixels" estimate - the line you're using as your reference point does not touch the horizon on either edge of the frame (or, indeed, at all). When adjusted appropriately, the correct sagitta is more akin to 10 pixels.

You already know how to correctly verify your claim. If you choose to "deliberately refrain" from proving your position, then I don't think we have much left to discuss.

I repeat the general point about barrel distortion being important near the edges of an image, whereas it's very slight near the middle of the same image.
Terms like "very slight" and "important" continue to be meaningless. The supposed curvature of the horizon in the image you're focusing on is "very slight" and "not important" and yet here you are fixating on it.

The lens was an 18-135mm zoom
Do you realise how extremely wide this range is, and how useless that statement is as a result? An 18mm focal would be bordering on a fisheye lens, which this obviously isn't. A 135mm focal wouldn't capture anything remotely close to this wide an area. Before you can perform your experiment, you need to know the actual focal of the lens at the time of filming, not what the particular device is capable of.

I deliberately do not intend to process the image for distortion in Lightroom or any other program, because we have both seen many claims over the years that this, that or another image can't be trusted as it's been "Photoshopped" and we both know the pointlessness of such arguments.
Yes, as I pointed out many times, there are more severe issues at play here than you trying to circumvent simple optics and geometry. Nonetheless, my focus for now is on pointing out these two failures, and altering the photograph to more accurately represent what you should see from an altitude of 27km would be beneficial to you.

Yours must be a thankless task, moderating forums populated mostly by people who doubt or outright reject the flat earth hypothesis.
Oi now, governor. There is absolutely no need to get personal, innit.

Another week and another sceptic with experience and real-world knowledge asks difficult questions
Yes, with insight and expertise like referring to a lens as an "18mm-135mm zoom" when trying to determine its barrel distortion, claiming that the Earth is round but 5 times smaller than in RET, or demonstrating your excellent knowledge of geometry as you did above, you're guaranteed to blow me away.

EDIT: I note that I've been referring to these curves as "arcs" which may be a bit hasty - they could be arcs, but they might not be depending on the specific situation. I'll leave the phrasing as-is since it doesn't particularly affect any of the underlying reasoning, but it's only fair that I highlight that inaccuracy.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Regicide on September 25, 2020, 02:28:02 PM
I think we are all missing the point here. All debate is being focused on one screenshot, and whether the observed curve (surely we can at least agree that there appears to be a curve) is a product of optics or an observation of a round earth. But I didn't post a screenshot. I posted a link to an unedited 2 1/2 hour-long video from the ground to the apogee to the ground again. If you look at the video right after the garlic bread breaks through the clouds, at about 3.1 km, you can see that the horizon essentially appears flat. Take a screenshot and kick up the contrast for a better view.
(https://imgur.com/C8SrtTU)
Then if you look again at 15 km, a subtle curve is visible.
(https://imgur.com/70LLtvH)
Finally, at the highest point, you can clearly see a curve.
(https://imgur.com/czinQsa)
How could a camera artifact account for a changing curve? Just interested ;).

Additionally, I don't think anyone has made any claims to the diameter of the earth:
...claiming that the Earth is round but 5 times smaller than in RET, or demonstrating your excellent knowledge of geometry as you did above, you're guaranteed to blow me away.
Also, just wanted to point out this:
EDIT: I note that I've been referring to these curves as "arcs" which may be a bit hasty - they could be arcs, but they might not be depending on the specific situation. I'll leave the phrasing as-is since it doesn't particularly affect any of the underlying reasoning, but it's only fair that I highlight that inaccuracy.
Word choice does not necessarily affect an argument. I used the term "fairly straight" because if I had used the word "perfectly straight" I would have been lying. It's not perfectly straight, there's a slight distortion. However, it's much closer to straight than the screenshots from 35 km.

Looking forward to your response :)
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 25, 2020, 04:21:41 PM
Please fix your image links. People shouldn't have to reverse-engineer your post just to be able to figure out what point you're making.

Take a screenshot and kick up the contrast for a better view.
We cannot know what that line actually is. It's most likely not the horizon, which is why you needed to "kick up" the contrast.

Then if you look again at 15 km, a subtle curve is visible.
Ah, yes, interesting - once the horizon appears slightly above the middle of the frame, it starts to look like it's curving a little. I wonder why that might be. I wonder why it follows the formula for barrel distortion to the tee, and why adjusting for it makes it disappear. Truly mind-boggling, that one.

Finally, at the highest point, you can clearly see a curve.
Your red line doesn't even attempt to align with the horizon here - I'm not sure if that's you being incompetent or just trying to lie. Hilariously enough, the curve here is lesser than that in your 15km screenshot. I wonder if that might have something to do with the fact that the horizon is closer to the middle of the frame.

EDIT: For the absolute avoidance of doubt, here's your screenshot with the actual horizon traced correctly:

(https://i.imgur.com/MMBw1HZ.png)

Now, let's take my purple shape and superimpose it on your supposedly "less curved" horizon at 15km:

(https://i.imgur.com/3e1IkK8.png)

Blimey! Who'da thunk it. When you do things correctly, you get consistent results.

How could a camera artifact account for a changing curve? Just interested ;).
Let's start with the basics - this isn't "a camera effect". It's basic optics. "How does optics affect what we see?" is a question I sincerely consider beneath anyone here.

Additionally, I don't think anyone has made any claims to the diameter of the earth
Yes, you would think that. However, claims have consequences. If you simultaneously claim that:


Then only one option remains geometrically feasible - the Earth must be tiny. Of course, the alternative is that one of the claims above is false - I strongly suggest you consider that possibility.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Longtitube on September 25, 2020, 09:01:29 PM
The ratio between the "line" and "dip" have nothing to do with the eccentricity of these two arcs. I can keep pointing out that you're wrong and explaining why you're wrong, but in the end of the day you won't accept it, because you're not interested in being correct - you just want to confirm your preconceptions.

But hey, let's keep on keeping on. Let's illustrate the issue with my previous example:

The span of the white frame is 590 pixels, and the "dip" (sagitta) of the first arc is 14 pixels.

The second arc has a span of 195 pixels and a sagitta of 1.5 pixels.

You assert that I can make these comparable through a simple ratio. Let's do that.

1.5*590/195 = 4.53

As you can see, by your logic, I should expect that the arc towards the bottom of the image is much less curved than the one closer to the middle. However, even a cursory visual comparison will reveal that not to be the case. In reality, when measured correctly, the sagitta of the second arc is 23 pixels.

Very good, Pete, I always enjoy the chance to learn something new, and found a handy sagittal calculator should anyone like to check the following figures. https://www.liutaiomottola.com/formulae/sag.htm (https://www.liutaiomottola.com/formulae/sag.htm)

The arc of 715 pixels has a measured sagitta (couldn't remember the term - thank you) of 3 pixels – this corresponds to an arc radius of 21302 pixels. The same arc extended to a width of 1117 pixels would generate a sagitta of 7.3 pixels, so yes, a simple proportional calculation is wrong. So near the bottom edge of the screenshot we have an equivalent full-width distortion of 7.3 pixels and barrel distortion of a straight horizon line much nearer the middle of the image would show distortion of rather less than that.

You also entirely ignored the many issues with your "23 pixels" estimate - the line you're using as your reference point does not touch the horizon on either edge of the frame (or, indeed, at all). When adjusted appropriately, the correct sagitta is more akin to 10 pixels.

Fair point about the red line in the screenshot, so I had my own try at it. I do hope the (black) line is distinct enough this time:–

(https://i.imgur.com/EOadi82.jpg)

Oh dear, "akin to 10 pixels"? Did you try measuring it yourself? My point still stands – if the tray seam (assumed by both of us to be straight) has distortion equivalent to 7.3 pixels across the entire frame, an assumed straight horizon close to the middle should show much less distortion, not more than twice as much. I attach very slight importance to your claim – if these words mean anything.

The lens was an 18-135mm zoom
Do you realise how extremely wide this range is, and how useless that statement is as a result? An 18mm focal would be bordering on a fisheye lens, which this obviously isn't. A 135mm focal wouldn't capture anything remotely close to this wide an area. Before you can perform your experiment, you need to know the actual focal of the lens at the time of filming, not what the particular device is capable of.

Dear me, I should have made abundantly clear the 18-135mm zoom lens is the one that took the test image of the grid, not the view from tens of kilometers above Earth. I do apologise for the misunderstanding, the intention was to demonstrate barrel distortion in a known, measured case and yes, I do understand how wide this range is.

But do you know the film or sensor size of the camera that this zoom lens was attached to? Was it perhaps a phone? Or a 35mm camera? Perhaps a micro 4/3 DSLR, an APS-C digital camera, a medium format or even an 8"x10" field camera? I'll spare you, it was fixed to an APS-C digital camera and 18mm is a typical wideangle focal length on an APS-C camera, with a 76 degree angle of view across the diagonal. Nowhere near fisheye with this camera format and I do hope this helps you.

..claiming that the Earth is round but 5 times smaller than in RET...

Eh? You must be confusing me with someone else.

Oi now, governor. There is absolutely no need to get personal, innit.

Praise be, the man has a sense of humour! Until next time, mate.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2020, 08:03:27 AM
The same arc extended to a width of 1117 pixels would generate a sagitta of 7.3 pixels
It'll be a bit more complicated than that - to get any number for direct comparisons, we'll first need to establish which barrel distortion formula to use. This is one of the reasons why I'm advocating for a visual solution, rather than a numerical one.

Oh dear, "akin to 10 pixels"? Did you try measuring it yourself?
I did, but I neglected to illustrate it at the time. 16 pixels is definitely pushing it. Of course, the challenge here will be agreeing on how to distinctly identify the horizon as a line where the image is (understandably) out of focus at that distance. The way I see it, your top line seems rather arbitrary - it doesn't seem to follow any arc at all, and your bottom line appears to only intersect the horizon on the right hand side. I'll draw something more appropriate later today, when I have access to software that doesn't suck.

Dear me, I should have made abundantly clear the 18-135mm zoom lens is the one that took the test image of the grid, not the view from tens of kilometers above Earth.
That still makes no sense - the lens had a single focal length at the time the photograph was taken. The range of possible lengths is irrelevant.

I'll spare you, it was fixed to an APS-C digital camera and 18mm is a typical wideangle focal length on an APS-C camera, with a 76 degree angle of view across the diagonal. Nowhere near fisheye with this camera format and I do hope this helps you.
I should be clear: I already have a good enough idea of the equipment used. That's what enables me to speak with a decent amount of confidence here, and why I recommended giving Lightroom a shot.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Longtitube on September 26, 2020, 09:21:06 AM
It'll be a bit more complicated than that - to get any number for direct comparisons, we'll first need to establish which barrel distortion formula to use. This is one of the reasons why I'm advocating for a visual solution, rather than a numerical one.

Which barrel distortion formula? Can't you handle the algebra for arcs? It's given on the page for that sagittal calculator; any O-level schoolboy should be able to do the calculations.

I should be clear: I already have a good enough idea of the equipment used. That's what enables me to speak with a decent amount of confidence here...

Then please don't describe a lens as "bordering on fisheye" when it is anything but. A fisheye lens has a field of view of 180 degrees, more than twice that of an 18mm on APS-C.

I look forward to your own arbitrary arc drawing, since you had little difficulty with Regicide's screen captures:–

EDIT: For the absolute avoidance of doubt, here's your screenshot with the actual horizon traced correctly:
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2020, 09:33:21 AM
Which barrel distortion formula?
That depends on the specifics of the lens.

Can't you handle the algebra for arcs? It's given on the page for that sagittal calculator; any O-level schoolboy should be able to do the calculations.
I can "handle" it, just like I could "handle" your last proposed proportion. What I question is whether you chose to apply the right calculation. As I pointed out yesterday, these curves may or may not be arcs.

A fisheye lens has a field of view of 180 degrees, more than twice that of an 18mm on APS-C.
Again with the silly comparisons. Firstly, fish eye lenses start at 100° FOV. Secondly, the lens you propose this is is only a tiny bit away from a fish eye in terms of focal lengths.

You really try to force ratios where they don't belong. It does not inspire confidence.

I look forward to your own arbitrary arc drawing, since you had little difficulty with Regicide's screen captures
As I said, as soon as I have access to software that doesn't suck, I'll provide an appropriate illustration, like I did yesterday. I'm not sure why you'd complain about me not being at my desk right now, instead of just waiting a while.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Longtitube on September 26, 2020, 09:52:49 AM
fish eye lenses start at 100° FOV. Secondly, the lens you propose this is is only a tiny bit away from a fish eye in terms of focal lengths.

You really try to force ratios where they don't belong. It does not inspire confidence.

Really? Name an APS-C fisheye lens with a 100° field of view: not a rectilinear wideangle, a curvilinear lens. Then demonstrate how the video we're all discussing is shot using a fisheye lens.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2020, 10:02:52 AM
Righto, here's where I'm getting 10px from:

(https://i.imgur.com/3xePOGU.png)

It's difficult to see what's going on with the naked eye, but this curve follows through pixels which received the same amount of light at the time of shooting, thus likely representing a "true" horizon. It's a bit more intuitive when viewed at higher contrast:

(https://i.imgur.com/iGde3Xv.png)

Of course, the horizon is extremely blurry, so you may want to argue that we should follow one of the other well-defined lines that become visible at higher contrast. Using the second layer gives us a result that looks a bit more intuitive at low contrast.

(https://i.imgur.com/4L2iaQH.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/MhVqvxK.png)

That gives us a sagitta of 11px. So, yeah, "more akin to 10px" seems to pretty much get us there, but if you prefer I'll stick to "10-11px" :)

Really? Name an APS-C fisheye lens with a 100° field of view: not a rectilinear wideangle, a curvilinear lens.
Why would I do that?

EDIT: I'm still unsure what this achieves, but: Tokina AT-X 107 DX Fisheye @ 17mm f: https://tokinalens.com/product/at_x_107_dx_fisheye/

Then demonstrate how the video we're all discussing is shot using a fisheye lens.
Why would I demonstrate something that I patently don't believe, and which I actively argue against? The video being shot at a narrow angle only helps my case.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2020, 10:06:24 AM
Oh, while we're at it, let's verify your "3px" estimate for the tray. I'm not sure why I chose not to question it before, but...

(https://i.imgur.com/2ewNVcD.png)

In a truly shocking turn of events, it's actually 7px.

You might be starting to see where this is going.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2020, 10:18:43 AM
Since you refused to solve the problem visually, I will. Let's find out if Tiny Round Earth* holds any water.

First, let's ensure that we're only looking at arcs of identical** spans. I am discarding the sides of the image that we can't compare to the tray.

(https://i.imgur.com/APEsVaN.png)

Now, let's trace the horizon.

(https://i.imgur.com/bHmnnDH.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/QeIk9H2.png)

Turns out the actual sagitta is 4-4.5px for an equivalent** span. A visual comparison also makes it plainly obvious that it is the tray that appears more curved. So, yes, the curvature of the horizon is much less pronounced than that of the tray. Tiny Round Earth* is not consistent with this observation.

You see the tray seam as "straight" because you expect it to be, and you see the horizon as "curved" because you really want it to be. However, at this altitude, and with such a narrow field of view, seeing any significant curvature should not be possible, and, unsurprisingly, is not possible.

Combine this with my rebuttal of Regicide's point: he was at the liberty to choose his own screenshots from multiple altitudes, and he ended up showing that the curvature decreases with altitude. This would not be consistent with the geometry of a sphere... unless we account for the optical effect you're so opposed to.

As always: when you follow a consistent and correct methodology, you get consistent results. Turns out that, despite your protestations, Tiny Round Earth* cannot be proved with this footage.

* - Remember, if you were correct here, the Earth would have to be round and much smaller than advertised. Regardless of FET vs RET, we can safely discard the "tiny" factor.
** - There is some room for inaccuracy here since our reference lines are at slightly different angles. Unfortunately, that's the experimental setup we were given. However, even with generous margins of error, there is no room for alternative conclusions.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Longtitube on September 26, 2020, 07:11:17 PM
Righto, here's where I'm getting 10px from:

(https://i.imgur.com/3xePOGU.png)

You pointed out inaccuracies in my version and Regicide's attempts to measure the horizon sagitta, so I expect you to apply the same standards to your own . Your purple straight line is not aligned with the left of the horizon. I measured from where the white area becomes pale blue at either side: yours goes from the middle of the pale blue at left to close to the transition at right. The "increased contrast" version I have been unable to reproduce by merely increasing contrast in my own bitmap editor, but if you can give me a link to the Bad Acid plug-in used I'd be obliged: I have an unrelated use for it in mind. For the purposes of this discussion it's useless and your result of 11 pixels invalid. Indeed, you're on shaky "Photoshopped" grounds there, see the wiki FAQ.


Oh, while we're at it, let's verify your "3px" estimate for the tray. I'm not sure why I chose not to question it before, but...

(https://i.imgur.com/2ewNVcD.png)

In a truly shocking turn of events, it's actually 7px.

Well, let's have a closer look again. My measurement was across a width of 715 pixels and I was very interested to see yours being across 776 pixels. Big deal, you may say, but I was very careful to avoid the curved area at either end of that seam, something you haven't done. At the left side especially, your measurement clearly strays into that curved area to the benefit of an increase in sagittal measurement. Tut, tut. I'm not saying you are being disingenuous, but both these measurements are sloppily done, so both are invalid.

Finally, you mention Tiny Round Earth, a term I'm unfamiliar with. I don't know whose tiny round head is supposed to have mentioned the subject, but it wasn't me, and I couldn't find it on the forums or the wiki. Could we have an explanation? With calculations for the result you claim?
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2020, 07:45:00 PM
Your purple straight line is not aligned with the left of the horizon
It is, and I showed you my methodology for why/how. If you dispute the methodology, it's on you to illustrate your objection. I used Photoshop, and reproduced the results in Corel. I'm not interested in your inability to adjust contrast in an image - honestly, if you can't perform such simple tasks, you probably shouldn't be getting involved in discussions that exceed your capabilities.

This, by the way, is why I keep suggesting that you use Lightroom. It's clear that all you can do is eyeball lines in MS Paint. You have an idiot-proof solution available to you. Use it.

Big deal, you may say
I may, and, indeed, if this is the best argument you have to offer, then I'll have to conclude you're no longer arguing in good faith - after all, if you had a sincere argument, you would have immediately followed up with a reasoned substsntiation. As a consequence, we're done here - I will not waste my time with someone who tries to lie his way through an inconvenient discussion.

I wish you the best of luck in arguing that the entirety of the Earth is roughly the size of the USA. In the meantime, the solution to your problem is plainly visible to all. You failed to analyse the images at every step of the process, starting with your inability to accurately trace the horizon, meausre heights, or even correctly apply proportions. There is nothing one can do to help a person who does not want to be helped.

If you wish to return to good-faith arguing, I will reconsider, but until then, this thread is now dead. Your failure has been illustrated, and you were not interested in rising up to the challenge. Fine by me.

(Of course, you may wish to defend your position by repeating the analysis over whatever width you find appropriate. Spoiler alert: you will not succeed at defending your Tiny Round Earth delusion.)

your measurement clearly strays into that curved area to the benefit of an increase in sagittal measurement. Tut, tut. I'm not saying you are being disingenuous, but both these measurements are sloppily done, so both are invalid.
I don't respesct liars, and you just showed yourself to be one.

If you're going to make a claim like this, substantiate it. Specifically, show the section of the image in which I "clearly stray into that curved area". Spoiler alert: you won't be able to, because I started my measurement at the very pixel the "curved area" ends. The quality of your work has been consistently atrocious. That's the crux here, really. Re-read through your failures. Note how you haven't been able to get a single technical detail correctly. Every measurement was wrong, every attempt at defining a proportion was wrong. You even challenged me to identify an example of one of the most abundant lenses out there. You know very little, and it's pretty obvious. And all that to defend a hypothesis that directly contradicts your worldview.

Feel free to restrict the image as much as you'd like and repeat the measurements. Here's a shocker: it won't suddenly make your Tiny Round Earth delusion true. No matter how far you run, you will not find a subsection in which your sloppy allegations work.

Have a fantastic day, TRE'er.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Longtitube on September 26, 2020, 08:21:12 PM
I'll let the above images stand and let other readers judge for themselves.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 26, 2020, 08:24:32 PM
I'll let the above images stand and let other readers judge for themselves.
Very well, if you ran out of couter-arguments, all I can do is rest my case and, once more, wish you a fantabulous day.

In the meantime, if anyone else wants to question my methodology or claim that the Earth is round and very small, you know where to find me. Longiboy's mantle is there for you to pick up!
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: RhesusVX on October 29, 2020, 03:58:16 PM
In the meantime, if anyone else wants to question my methodology or claim that the Earth is round and very small, you know where to find me. Longiboy's mantle is there for you to pick up!

Not claiming anything, but an interesting debate for sure, with some logic and reasoning presented on both sides.  I've read it all, looked at all of the images presented, and will try to keep things very simple because that's normally where the answers lie.  Based on what I see, and accounting for the fact that there are no hard edges in the video to accurately draw against:

1. Near the start of the climb (roughly 1m into the video) the horizon looks straight regardless of position or orientation (conforms to agreed flat Earth theory)
2. Near the end of the climb (roughly 1h 50m into the video) the horizon looks curved regardless of position or orientation (conforms to agreed globe Earth theory)

If we consider that the same camera was used throughout the entire video, with no cuts, it's fair to say that any distortion in any part of the image would manifest itself equally regardless of altitude.  Given that there are enough images in that video where the horizon is in the middle of the screen, and it looks straight near the ground, the only rational explanation for the horizon being curved when viewed high up is that it is indeed curved.

What causes that curve?  Interesting question...and we already determined that it's not the camera.  So...

a. If you stand on the surface of a large enough sphere and look out to the horizon, it looks flat from that perspective.  If you rise high enough above the surface of that sphere, you would see a curved horizon, I think we can all agree on that one, surely?  That's just common sense and observation that you can do at home with a large beach ball and a tiny camera.  Get high enough and you'd see the full sphere.
b. If you stand on the surface of a large enough flat disc and look out to the horizon, it would also look flat from that perspective.  However, what sort of horizon would you expect to see if you were to rise high enough?  A flat one?  Well no, you'd see the curved edge of the disc. Get high enough and you'd see the full disc.

Both models predict a curved horizon at high altitude, so why are flat Earth supporters going out of their way to claim that the horizon viewed high up is in fact straight?  That in itself shows a level of rejection of logical reasoning and observable fact.  Surely you'd be agreeing that yes, it is curved, and instead disagreeing on what that horizon actually represents (the edge of the Earth if it's a flat disc, or the Earth's surface curving away if it's a globe).

Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Longtitube on October 30, 2020, 10:27:30 PM
Interesting observations, unfortunately this thread was hardly a shining example of methodical, precise demonstration of the case for either side.

Pete claims "very obvious" barrel distortion, but I wonder if he has thought this one through. There is very mild distortion (tray seam line dips down a little in middle) consistent with barrel distortion at the bottom edge of the camera view, the sort that most photographers would tolerate. This distortion would be reversed at the top of the camera view (straight line would rise up a little in middle) and be of a similar amount.

However, nobody has demonstrated distortion across the middle of the camera view, where the horizon is shown in the screen capture displayed in the OP. Barrel distortion would not distort the view there, perhaps Pete is thinking of a bottle bottom lens?  http://cameramaker.se/Coke_Lens.htm

My original point was to do with how barrel distortion would affect the video image and drawing lines/boosting contrast & saturation to extreme levels didn't help much. I kept thinking there must be a better, more obvious way for anyone to assess the video or screenshots from it, and I think I may have one. I'm using screenshots and anyone can do this with MS Paint: use Photoshop if you prefer, or Paint.NET, Gimp, PhotoPaint, whatever.

Starting with a plain orthogonal grid, all straight lines:-

(https://i.imgur.com/Y60rbDb.jpg)


Apply an amount of barrel distortion to the grid, such as would be experienced with a fairly wide-angle rectilinear lens and the grid distorts like this:–


(https://i.imgur.com/S9sqnDk.jpg)


But when we get on to real images from the video, how might we simply check how straight or curved the horizon line is? The barrel-distorted grid is pretty obvious, but how about this image from the video, just 8km above the ground?

(https://i.imgur.com/OVyxNwA.jpg)


It's very easy, open the image in a bitmap editor and scale the width down without altering the image height. I'm scaling the image down to 33% of its original width, leaving the image height unchanged. The dialog box shows the settings for MS Paint Resize (Ctrl-W):–


(https://i.imgur.com/RyPYVHQ.jpg)      (https://i.imgur.com/F6iXZPr.jpg)


The cloud line looks pretty straight to me. If the barrel-distorted grid gets the same treatment, it shows the distortion quite clearly:–


(https://i.imgur.com/oTaZH9l.jpg)


This works when the horizon is not level too, like the following grid which has been rotated about 12 degrees:–


(https://i.imgur.com/bY9VCId.jpg)


The red lines are straight, but scaling the image doesn't alter them being straight:–


(https://i.imgur.com/diyVbde.jpg)


The vertical distortion of the lines is still obvious. What we want to see is what the horizon looks like when the balloon gets up to 35km or so when it burst. Here the horizon is above the middle of the frame:–


(https://i.imgur.com/NFGbLKV.jpg)


The horizon looks curved, so let's compare it to the barrel-distorted grid and scale both images to 33% on width:–


(https://i.imgur.com/vsg4eRk.jpg)


The horizon is clearly curved and a good match for the barrel-distorted grid at the same area of the image. Yep, could be barrel distortion! But before lighting the cigars and pouring the brandy, let's check how the images compare if the horizon is in the middle of the frame (or below that). Middle first:–


(https://i.imgur.com/Z0nycmk.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/iO3fnQM.jpg)


Oh. Not straight. Possible barrel distortion? A straight horizon should be showing straight in the middle of the frame - note the grid lines are curved up just above the horizon area and curved down just below it. So not a convincing case for barrel distortion here.

Finally with the horizon below the middle of frame:–


(https://i.imgur.com/FD7X0YI.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/XPYvsoe.jpg)


That's all wrong for barrel distortion, the horizon is curving the opposite way to the grid, a grid which replicates the effect of barrel distortion.

So, the case for dismissing this footage as hopelessly compromised by barrel distortion fails. How you interpret the clear evidence for a curved horizon is up to you, but this video clearly shows the horizon at a height of 35.7km (117,126ft) is curved.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 30, 2020, 10:57:43 PM
Longitube, I'm afraid I already provided you with both correct calculations and methodology for this. You were unable to address them, and now you're just ignoring them, sneaking in new distortions of optics instead - like pretending that rotating your subject is equivalent to rotating your lens, a complete contradiction. At this point it's hard not to suspect that these "errors" are deliberate.

This time you didn't even bother drawing the sagittae - you just hope that people will take your word for it. Apparently, correctly identifying the lines you want to be evaluating "didn't help much" - yeah, I'm sure it didn't help your argument. How many times are we going to have to do this before you address the critical issues with your argument?

I was willing to originally assume horrendous incompetence on your part, but it would take a fool not to see your actions for what they are. This "I don't like to do things correctly, so let's do things simply instead (and sneak in some whoopsies to make my argument look correct)" schtick is transparent, and frankly a display of disrespect towards the work I've put towards explaining things to you.

When you mangle your methodology, you get mangled results. You seem to really want that. If you're not going to argue honestly, please don't argue at all.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on October 30, 2020, 11:23:42 PM
Yet another post that shows why low-quality pictures are not a good source of evidence, oh joy!
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: RhesusVX on October 31, 2020, 10:34:52 AM
Longitube, I'm afraid I already provided you with both correct calculations and methodology for this.

This doesn't need any calculations, and it's convenient that some things get ignored to suit narrative.  I posit the following which is in relation to this, and am questioning why you are doing your best to show that the horizon from space would be/is flat? 

a. If you stand on the surface of a large enough sphere and look out to the horizon, it looks flat from that perspective.  If you rise high enough above the surface of that sphere, you would see a curved horizon, I think we can all agree on that one, surely?  That's just common sense and observation that you can do at home with a large beach ball and a tiny camera.  Get high enough and you'd see the full sphere.
b. If you stand on the surface of a large enough flat disc and look out to the horizon, it would also look flat from that perspective.  However, what sort of horizon would you expect to see if you were to rise high enough?  A flat one?  Well no, you'd see the curved edge of the disc. Get high enough and you'd see the full disc.

Both models predict a curved horizon at high altitude, so why are flat Earth supporters going out of their way to claim that the horizon viewed high up is in fact straight?  Perhaps you turn to the EA theory to say that the light is curved upwards the further it travels and so that compensates for the curvature of the edge of the disk, making it look straight?  Fair enough.

RET has a proven, scientific model for showing that light travels in a straight line.
FET only has a theory that light curves upwards, and the further it travels the more it curves.  There is no proven, scientific model for this.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 31, 2020, 10:55:30 AM
I posit the following which is in relation to this, and am questioning why you are doing your best to show that the horizon from space would be/is flat? 
I'm not. Assuming FET, the horizon would not appear flat from space. The argument here is not whether the horizon appears curved - I'm simply criticising Longitube's crusade against proper analysis of evidence. Perhaps instead of projecting your insecurities onto me, you should familiarise yourself with the ideas you're trying to dispute, ideally prior to disputing them?
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: RhesusVX on October 31, 2020, 05:25:28 PM
I posit the following which is in relation to this, and am questioning why you are doing your best to show that the horizon from space would be/is flat? 
I'm not. Assuming FET, the horizon would not appear flat from space. The argument here is not whether the horizon appears curved - I'm simply criticising Longitube's crusade against proper analysis of evidence. Perhaps instead of projecting your insecurities onto me, you should familiarise yourself with the ideas you're trying to dispute, ideally prior to disputing them?

You've got a habit of being defensive and belittling people don't you?  No need for the insecurity talk.

You're not stupid, you know that the crux of the entire debate is all around the fact that the video shows a curved horizon, and you know that people are using that argument to demonstrate that the Earth is a globe.  The video has plenty of evidence in it to show that any curvature seen is not due to the camera, so quite why you bothered to waste all that time is beyond me - anybody can pause the video early on to see that the horizon is straight in the centre of the picture, and that at its peak the horizon is curved in the same part of the picture (and indeed above, or below it).

If you agree with me that under FET the horizon would also appear curved, why not just make people aware that would be the case?  Clearly some people are not taking the time out to imagine what would happen if you were to rise high enough above a flat disc.  Surely, if you want to spark debate, you would be educating people into saying that under FET, the visible horizon that you see also isn't the outer edge of the Earth, it's the visible limit of the region illuminated by the sun, which in turn explains the transition from blue to black.  Under FET, there would be a huge region of the earth with a shallower curved horizon beyond that, but EA means that the light curves away so you never see it.  If you want everyone to take FET seriously, take you seriously, and debate rationally, you might want give people food for thought rather than just shoot them down.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 31, 2020, 07:30:41 PM
You've got a habit of being defensive and belittling people don't you?  No need for the insecurity talk.
You continue to get this wrong. I'm describing your behaviours and why they are not acceptable here (i.e.: take them somewhere else if you'd like, but they're stopping here one way or another), you're describing me as an individual. All while ignoring the point of the conversation, of course.

Unfortunately, this is common among some of the more zealous RE'ers here. They don't really understand the subject they're lashing out against, and when it's pointed out to them that they might want to sit down and figure out what it is they're opposing, they default to silly insults. I'm afraid that this kind of playground stuff is not allowed here.

You're not stupid, you know that the crux of the entire debate is all around the fact that the video shows a curved horizon
I disagree profoundly. The crux of the entire debate is that the video shows an extremely irregular curvature, which, as a trend, decreases with altitude. The reason for this is plain and simple, and I provided multiple methods to verify this fact. I can't force you to choose verification over blind statement of belief, but I can point out that such statements don't belong in this forum.

and you know that people are using that argument to demonstrate that the Earth is a globe.
Two people are doing that. That's hardly an overwhelming consensus.

The video has plenty of evidence in it to show that any curvature seen is not due to the camera
We conclusively demonstrated that the opposite is the case. Instead of stating again and again that you consider yourself to be correct, engage with the actual argument.

If you agree with me that under FET the horizon would also appear curved, why not just make people aware that would be the case?
I just did - directly to you; and we routinely do, throughout or documentation. I can't help the fact that you didn't bother to read it before telling us that we're wrong.

Surely, if you want to spark debate, you [should follow my recommendations]
Thank you for your suggestion. We will be choosing not to follow it.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: RhesusVX on October 31, 2020, 08:50:56 PM
You continue to get this wrong. I'm describing your behaviours and why they are not acceptable here (i.e.: take them somewhere else if you'd like), you're describing me as an individual. All while ignoring the point of the conversation, of course.

Unfortunately, this is common among some of the more zealous RE'ers here. They don't really understand the subject they're lashing out against, and when it's pointed out to them that they might want to sit down and figure out what it is they're opposing, they default to silly insults. I'm afraid that this kind of playground stuff is not allowed here.
Quite obviously I'm describing the tone of your responses.  But, your comment was directed at me and my apparent insecurities, just like you called Longitube out for being incompetent and disrespectful.  When somebody doesn't understand, or they provide some evidence to challenge things, responses become aggressive and condescending.

I disagree profoundly. The crux of the entire debate is that the video shows an extremely irregular curvature, which, as a trend, decreases with altitude. The reason for this is plain and simple, and I provided multiple methods to verify this fact. I can't force you to choose verification over blind statement of belief, but I can point out that such statements don't belong in this forum.
We can agree to disagree on this one, because the crux of the debate is clearly all to do with the curvature of the earth.  Why else would somebody come onto a flat Earth forum and claim victory that you can clearly see a curved horizon?  You're the one who immediately brought barrel distortion into the mix to dispute the validity of the video.

Two people are doing that. That's hardly an overwhelming consensus.
Last time I checked, two individuals count as people, and did I state it was an overwhelming consensus?

We conclusively demonstrated that the opposite is the case. Instead of stating again and again that you consider yourself to be correct, engage with the actual argument.
I am engaged - the centre of the camera clearly does not present much distortion, as can be seen at lower altitudes where the horizon is known to look flat and can be used as an accurate reference.

I just did - directly to you; and we routinely do, throughout or documentation. I can't help the fact that you didn't bother to read it before telling us that we're wrong.
You did what, educate me?  I was the one stated that both models would predict a curved horizon based on pure logic.  What is that I'm supposed to have read, and what did I tell you that you were wrong about in that particular statement?

Thank you for your suggestion. We will be choosing not to follow it.
So you're choosing to not help educate people into understanding FET and your beliefs in it?  Fair enough, but don't go losing it every time somebody challenges something that they don't, won't or can't understand or rationalise.  At the end of the day, there is an abundance of scientific evidence there to support a globe Earth model, including the curved horizon being discussed here and what that horizon represents.  FET disregards that evidence, claims things are faked, so the burden of proof is on the flat Earth community to put forward their evidence to support their conclusions and claims with tested hypotheses, not the other way around.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 31, 2020, 10:32:07 PM
Quite obviously I'm describing the tone of your responses.
Yes, you are; and this is the third time I'm asking you to stop. There will be no more polite requests on that matter after this post. Follow the rules of engagement. If you cannot do that, go back to Reddit.

We can agree to disagree on this one
Certainly - but if you're not interested in discussing the subject, you shouldn't have wasted our time.

Last time I checked, two individuals count as people
Entirely irrelevant. You will stop trying to derail this thread. I will assist you if needed.

I am engaged
You have not addressed a single iota of my argument, and you keep trying to warp it into something it is not. You will not succeed in that.

You did what, educate me?
No.

So you're choosing to not help educate people into understanding FET and your beliefs in it?
Oh, we'll continue doing the excellent job that elevated FET as far as it did. It's just that we won't follow the suggestions of someone who has no understanding of the subject, and who yet claims an aura of superiority through his ignorance.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: squareMoon on November 21, 2020, 05:27:00 AM
Hi, i've all but spent 30 minutes on the site and this is the first thread i've actually read.  After skimming through the video i found that the camera goes upside down right after shoot deployment.

If this really is just "distortion" shouldn't the curve remain above the line?

(https://imgur.com/a/5PwNaqH)

(https://i.imgur.com/ggQnjFw.png)

edit: trying to get image to embed. If that doesnt work: https://i.imgur.com/ggQnjFw.png
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Dr David Thork on November 21, 2020, 09:25:41 AM
4.4 degrees C at 35.5km? I call BS.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=what+is+the+temperature+at+35.5km%3F
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 21, 2020, 12:41:38 PM
If this really is just "distortion" shouldn't the curve remain above the line?
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Longtitube on November 21, 2020, 04:47:16 PM
If this really is just "distortion" shouldn't the curve remain above the line?
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

We do? Please explain, since I missed that first time around. (I know, I know)
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: squareMoon on November 21, 2020, 05:35:23 PM
If this really is just "distortion" shouldn't the curve remain above the line?
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

So you're saying the center of the video changes throughout the 2 hour video and it does so just perfectly to support your distortion theory?... wouldn't the lens also have to change throughout the video?

This is just a screen shot, one single frame in a two hour video.  The camera is NOT stable, the horizon is all over the screen, can you find a frame that shows the distortion in the opposite direction or even flat?
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 22, 2020, 10:44:28 AM
We do? Please explain, since I missed that first time around. (I know, I know)
The video is shown to us in a 16:9 aspect ratio, without apparent squashing. The frame of the camera is not 16:9. Therefore, cropping likely occurred, either in a way transparent to the user, or by the user's choice.

This, combined with the countless observations we've made above, brings the obvious conclusion. The exact nature of the cropping, and how it was performed, will probably remain unknown.

So you're saying the center of the video changes throughout the 2 hour video and it does so just perfectly to support your distortion theory?
No. If you're going to argue in such poor faith, expect no further responses.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Longtitube on November 22, 2020, 07:59:42 PM
We do? Please explain, since I missed that first time around. (I know, I know)
The video is shown to us in a 16:9 aspect ratio, without apparent squashing. The frame of the camera is not 16:9. Therefore, cropping likely occurred, either in a way transparent to the user, or by the user's choice.

This, combined with the countless observations we've made above, brings the obvious conclusion. The exact nature of the cropping, and how it was performed, will probably remain unknown.

I don't think I've heard a lamer excuse, at least this week. If the original video footage was shot in 4:3 (4K) instead of 16:9 (1080p), it would lose a little at the top of frame and an equal amount at the bottom of frame in conversion, but the centre of the 4:3 footage would still be the centre of the 16:9 conversion shown on the YouTube footage. If the person setting up the camera to make the video selected a resolution less than the highest the camera is capable of, there is currently no camera around which does that by cropping off, say, much of the top left, bottom left and top right to record in 1080p instead of 4K and therefore needs the camera repositioned to frame the footage correctly at the lower resolution and thus not properly use the centre of the lens. "Hey, we got a really cool feature on this camera: change resolution and ya gotta reframe! Much cooler than these squares who don't have to!!" That would sell like cold offal.

Here's a video of the different resolutions available on a GoPro Hero4 Black, shot from a tripod. Notice how the camera does not change its direction of view for each different resolution.

https://youtu.be/ujogsQcfdDo
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 22, 2020, 08:22:48 PM
I don't think I've heard a lamer excuse, at least this week.
Very well. I guess we're done here, then? Of course, you do realise that this scenario makes your claims entirely impossible, but that's probably by design. You gave up on serious discussion long ago.

If the original video footage was shot in 4:3 (4K) instead of 16:9 (1080p), it would lose a little at the top of frame and an equal amount at the bottom of frame in conversion, but the centre of the 4:3 footage would still be the centre of the 16:9 conversion shown on the YouTube footage.
You are making a very generous assumption, which is almost certainly false given what we know about the video. Or, well, you think you are; once you thought about it for half a minute you'll realise how unhelpful it was to your case. However, given how convinced you are of your geometry-defying assumption, I guess we'll leave it at that. The Earth just happens to change shape over time in ways which are inconsistent with optics. Thus spoke Longitube.
Title: Re: An unedited clip of a weather balloon ascending to space, without fisheye.
Post by: MrScarlight on January 03, 2021, 12:07:12 AM
First post.

Spent over an hour watching through this and toggling through frames, mostly interested in distortion of the image the two of the three frames. Not sure what to think, though i will drop this here for now.