shootingstar

Unusual looking lunar feature
« on: January 24, 2019, 01:22:04 PM »
During a recent lunar imaging session I happened to come across this interesting looking feature.  Visible upper centre of image.  On first glance it could easily be perceived as something artificial looking.  But if that was the case then it would be massive. 

Image was taken using my 10" RC telescope with a high frame rate camera. This is a stacked single image from about 1500 individual frames from an original avi move.  The telescope was tracking the Moon at the time.

What do you see?

Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2019, 01:34:19 PM »
I see a composite image just like all other composite images.

Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2019, 01:47:07 PM »
I see a composite image just like all other composite images.
I never understand the significance attributed to composite images.
You understand when you use the panorama feature on your phone or camera the result is actually a composite image?
It takes a series of photos and stitches them together. That doesn't mean that the image doesn't represent what you're looking at.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2019, 02:04:07 PM »
Was the object definitely on the moon or was it floating between earth hand the moon? I ask because the thing that looks like a shadow casting on the surface of the moon could just as easily be the dark/shaded part of an object in the sky
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

shootingstar

Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2019, 02:09:29 PM »
Quote
It takes a series of photos and stitches them together

Sounds like you mean panoramic or mosaic image where you take several images of a larger region than the camera can take in a single image and then stitch them together. This one is neither of those.

Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2019, 02:20:46 PM »
Quote
It takes a series of photos and stitches them together

Sounds like you mean panoramic or mosaic image where you take several images of a larger region than the camera can take in a single image and then stitch them together. This one is neither of those.
Yeah, I got that but AATW, for whatever reason, didn't.

How do you know that all of the stacked images utilized does not somehow contribute to any inaccurate final rendering?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2019, 04:14:30 PM »
Can you post a single frame?

It might help to know which region of the Moon we're looking at, so that it could be compared with the libraries from LRO and other missions...
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

shootingstar

Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2019, 04:20:02 PM »
The original recorded video comprises typically 2000-3000 frames of an AVI file. The camera is a high frame rate camera set to 60fps so the total recording time is less than a minute.  The telescope is tracking the Moon precisely throughout this time so all individual frames are virtually identical.  AVI ensures the data is uncompressed and therefore digital artifacts that arise through the compression process in other file formats is minimised. Once loaded into purpose designed software each frame is analysed separately and an average quality is measured. Some frames will fall below that level due to atmospheric turbulence and so will be discarded. Only the best frames are kept for the next stage. 

The values of each pixel in the remaining frames are then measured and compared frame by frame. The frames are then stacked according to the algorithm chosen and sharpening processes in the background reduce the noise and ensure that the effective resolution of the final frame is much better than any single of the original frames. Random noise patterns in all the frames cancel each other out to make sure the final signal to noise ratio is increased significantly. That means that more detail is visible in the final image than could be seen during the recording.

Finally the stacked image is saved as a TIF or FITS file which can then be further processed in other software (e.g. Photoshop) or similar.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2019, 04:25:08 PM by shootingstar »

shootingstar

Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2019, 04:29:04 PM »
I took the image a couple of years ago but the region of the Moon covered in the image is around the mid northern hemisphere of the Moon as we look at it.  If I can be more specific I will be.

Bishthebosh

Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2019, 02:16:54 PM »
I see a crater. It has a shadow which suggests there is a light source at roughly somewhere between 10 and 12 o’clock as you look at it (upper left in other words).

Have looked at the moon myself through binoculars. Very beautiful. What occurs to me is that it cannot possibly be a light source, or it would not have shadows across the craters. Having looked at the ‘dark side’ images that the Chinese have released, there is way more cratering. This is what you would expect to see - given that the side we see is, of course, facing toward Earth which would largely shield it from meteor strikes.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9696
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2019, 02:36:28 PM »
It takes a series of photos and stitches them together. That doesn't mean that the image doesn't represent what you're looking at.
And yet a panorama in which someone's face is oddly stretched (because they moved) or in which one person is featured twice would not be evidence of human cloning/the person's ability of appearing in two places at once/spooky aliens with long faces.

Similarly, if I stitch a bunch of photos together to make the horizon appear triangular, it's not good evidence of the horizon actually being triangular.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2019, 02:49:21 PM »
Similarly, if I stitch a bunch of photos together to make the horizon appear triangular, it's not good evidence of the horizon actually being triangular.
Sure. But I would realise that it was a glitch in the way the photos had been composited.
I wouldn't randomly claim that you were never there and the place you were photographing didn't exist.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9696
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2019, 03:20:10 PM »
Sure. But I would realise that it was a glitch in the way the photos had been composited.
Only because I picked obvious ones. Allow me to remind you of the countless idiots who think wide-angle lens photography is representative of the Earth's curve. You can only recognise the irregularities you're already familiar with.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2019, 03:33:22 PM »
Sure. But I would realise that it was a glitch in the way the photos had been composited.
Only because I picked obvious ones. Allow me to remind you of the countless idiots who think wide-angle lens photography is representative of the Earth's curve. You can only recognise the irregularities you're already familiar with.
I think that's different, it's simply a distortion. It's not like goPros add in UFOs to the image. In the OP image it could be anything from a large structure on the moon, a satellite or a spec of dust on the lense but regardless, there is something there. It's not nothing.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9696
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2019, 04:35:01 PM »
I think that's different, it's simply a distortion. It's not like goPros add in UFOs to the image.
No, but they can introduce things that an overimaginative person will interpret as UFOs.

In the OP image it could be anything from a large structure on the moon, a satellite or a spec of dust on the lense but regardless, there is something there. It's not nothing.
Or any number of anomalies on the sensor, or noise introduced during processing, or something that's been introduced to the image on purpose. Frankly, given how badly compressed the photo is (Our friend claims to have raw AVI at his disposal, but only gives us a shitty JPEG? How odd.), it could be anything, but it could very well be nothing.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2019, 04:37:54 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2019, 05:17:12 PM »
Pete, you are basically implying that everyone is dishonest because there is the opportunity to be dishonest.

This whole thread is pointless.  No one is addressing the OP.  You regularly state that you assume good faith in us and that we should assume good faith in you. So lets do that. Stop casting doubt on the honesty of everyone (that isn't assuming good faith). Stop contextualizing everything into a corner, and throwing red herrings about panaroma captures on cell phones.

To me, it looks like a mountain ridge. Poor resolution of the composite image does not help my eyes. Maybe I need to go to the eye doctor.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2019, 05:18:49 PM by WellRoundedIndividual »
BobLawBlah.

Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2019, 05:17:50 PM »
I think we can all agree that compression can introduce artefacts and composite panorama photos can distort angles.
Look. Here's one I took of the Grand Canyon:



Nice isn't it?
I don't know if there are any artefacts or distortions in that photo but that doesn't matter. The point is, in order for me to have taken that I had to be at the Grand Canyon

One of the FE arguments (not on here so much, to be fair, but I've heard it a lot) is that there are no photos of the earth from space, they're all composite.
This is wrong in 2 ways. Firstly, yes there are. There are loads of photos of the earth from space from multiple space agencies. Secondly, in order for a composite photo of the earth from space to be made the pictures which make up that composite have to be taken from space.

If the claim is that the photos are fake then why the hell would you make a load of fake pictures and then composite them? Just make one big fake one!

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9696
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2019, 07:33:23 PM »
Pete, you are basically implying that everyone is dishonest because there is the opportunity to be dishonest.
I haven't called anyone dishonest. I pointed out simple facts and consequences of digital photography.

throwing red herrings about panaroma captures on cell phones.
You do realise I wasn't the one who brought panoramas into this, right?

The point is, in order for me to have taken that I had to be at the Grand Canyon
You didn't. You could have generated it through plenty of other means. I see no reason to doubt that you visited the Grand Canyon, but your ability to post a panorama here doesn't affect my belief.

And that is neither here nor there. We're not questioning the entire photograph's existence. We're questioning the significance (and possibly existence) of the supposed small unidentified object. I explained exactly why I believe it to be an artefact. If you want to verify it yourself, you could try one of these common tricks:
  • Up the contrast and note that the surroundings of the "object" are uncharacteristically bright when compared to the remainder of the surface
  • Increase the saturation and note that this is the only section of the photograph that's not actually monochrome.
in order for a composite photo of the earth from space to be made the pictures which make up that composite have to be taken from space.
This claim is a new low, even for you. All you need to produce a composite image of the Earth is a collection of images of the Earth. They could be taken from any distance, if you're willing to put in the effort into stitching them together.

If the claim is that the photos are fake then why the hell would you make a load of fake pictures and then composite them? Just make one big fake one!
Indeed - why the hell would you make a load of fake pictures (that we haven't seen) and composite them? You'd naturally just make one and claim that there are thousands of frames that we're not seeing because of reasons.

Note, of course, that no one claimed the photo is "fake" - we're merely trying to explain to you how digital photography actually works. The fact that you idiots are sitting here and pondering what physical object might be represented by what is most likely a compression artefact or a tiny bit of overexposure is hilarious. You know what? I bet that thing there is actually Brexit. Yep, it's on the moon. Now you just need to go and get it.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2019, 08:10:11 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2019, 03:08:25 AM »
He asked us what we saw. I replied with an answer. To simply state, I see a composite image is... I don't know the word I am looking for...obtuse? Like turning on the radio and hearing a song and someone's says, "I hear noise" in response to "What do you hear?" Congratulations, Mr. Obvious. Maybe the OP was a bit vague, open and pointless, but still - the responses here are more like what you see in AR. Just move the post and roast him with less veiled arrogance.

So, back to the point, what is the point of your OP? Are you asking someone to professionally analyze the strange sighting? Are you playing a game with the image?
BobLawBlah.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
Re: Unusual looking lunar feature
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2019, 08:45:17 AM »
Pete, playing with contrast, hues, levels etc on a lossy compressed photo will present what you describe, shapes and colours are almost squared off, colours will be different, it could be a sign of manipulation but it could also just be a sign of lossy compression so I find that inconclusive.

Also just to be sure, could you provide an example of a digital photo artifact similar to the one above? When I think of digital photo artifacts I think blocks of miscolored, corrupt pixels. I work every day with digital photos, more specifically 3D Scanned data (basically where you take hundreds of images of something at various angles, then using software you can convert these things to 3D meshes for use in games, or similarly just tiling textures). I’ve probably taken thousands of photos by now and used the product of tens of thousands worth of digital photos but I’ve never come across any digital artifacts that look like an object in the image. Hence why I ask if you could give an example so I better understand your point (I’m not ruling it out completely, I’ve just not come across this myself). In the op the ‘object’ in question has somehow picked up what looks like the same lighting angle as the rest of the moon and doesn’t carry the characteristics of the typical blocky, multicoloured corruption artifacts that follow whole squared chunks of pixels.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?