- Thank you received: 0
My pareidolia knows no bounds.
18 years 1 day ago #19145
by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
To give you a little more perspective on the sizes I'm talking about when I say "roughly 6 inches", I'm talking about on the screen monitor, not on the landscape. Also, obviously there are ranges to all this, but the point I'm trying to make is that the range is not one of many orders of magnitude, but all within the same order of magnitude. Here's what it would mean in the case of Skullface's head from MOC AB1-08403.
In this case, the scaled pixel width is 4.56m/pixel. The width of the swath is 1024 pixels or 4.67km. Skully's head is in the middle third of the swath, covering an area about 250 pixels x 300 pixels, or 1140 meters x 1368 meters.
Viewed at 100% (actual size) in PaintShop that's roughly 3 inches by 3.5 inches.
Like I said, there's a fairly broad range within one order of magnitude, but I'm guessing that the sweet spot on the Martian terrain, is somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 meters to 4000 meters wide for a given face.
As you can see that would be less than a pixel (at best) to 4 pixels, if we were looking at 1km/pixel as in the Clementine images (all the way to fractional pixels at 32km/pixel).
Consider the fact that the MOC Gallery Wide Angle images are around 750m/pixel, and after all this time, no one has found a face in those.
rd
In this case, the scaled pixel width is 4.56m/pixel. The width of the swath is 1024 pixels or 4.67km. Skully's head is in the middle third of the swath, covering an area about 250 pixels x 300 pixels, or 1140 meters x 1368 meters.
Viewed at 100% (actual size) in PaintShop that's roughly 3 inches by 3.5 inches.
Like I said, there's a fairly broad range within one order of magnitude, but I'm guessing that the sweet spot on the Martian terrain, is somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 meters to 4000 meters wide for a given face.
As you can see that would be less than a pixel (at best) to 4 pixels, if we were looking at 1km/pixel as in the Clementine images (all the way to fractional pixels at 32km/pixel).
Consider the fact that the MOC Gallery Wide Angle images are around 750m/pixel, and after all this time, no one has found a face in those.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 11 months ago #19045
by Trinket
Replied by Trinket on topic Reply from Bob
"Consider the fact that the MOC Gallery Wide Angle images are around 750m/pixel, and after all this time, no one has found a face in those."
Wrong.............
Wrong.............
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 11 months ago #19079
by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br />Wrong.............<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What took you so long? As soon as I posted that, I thought: "uh oh".
Let me rephrase it:
Consider the fact that the MOC Gallery Wide Angle images are around 750m/pixel, and after all this time, aside from Trinket, no one has found a face in those.
rd
<br />Wrong.............<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What took you so long? As soon as I posted that, I thought: "uh oh".
Let me rephrase it:
Consider the fact that the MOC Gallery Wide Angle images are around 750m/pixel, and after all this time, aside from Trinket, no one has found a face in those.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 11 months ago #19048
by thebobgy
Replied by thebobgy on topic Reply from Robert (Bob) Smith
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by shando</i> 19 Nov 2006 : 22:35 Fred, I've done some shadow photos - added color - makes great abstract images. Leaves have fallen up here in the north country. I'll be looking for hidden faces, come spring.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Shando, I would think that the chances of finding faces, or other objects, (pareidolia) would be just as common in branches as it would be in leaves. I won’t be able to begin my trials till after New Years. After reading this thread I just have to give it a try.
thebobgy
thebobgy
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- pareidoliac
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 11 months ago #19080
by pareidoliac
Replied by pareidoliac on topic Reply from fred ressler
thebobguy- Pareidolia is always there. The detail and art that can be obtained is much greater with shadows, compared to sky in back of leaves. Shadows have a great grey scale that overlaps due to light diffraction, and a non-pinpoint light source (the sun). Look at my "Einstein" image and there's no way that detail could ever be seen looking up at even every tree in the world. Picture what could be captured by the shadow of every tree if this photo was just from one tree at one time. Try mounting a 30"x40" white foam board on a tripod. More trouble but more than worth it. Good luck with capturing beyond art from the "sacred", and your unconscious solipsistic mind.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 11 months ago #19049
by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by thebobgy</i>
<br />I would think that the chances of finding faces, or other objects, (pareidolia) would be just as common in branches as it would be in leaves. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">thebobgy, if you mean shadows of branches without leaves, I would think that would make it significantly harder to find faces. Imagine if DaVinci tried to paint everything with a broad brush, there would be a certain level of detail that would not be attainable. Same difference. There's a certain miminum requirement for detail. The leaves provide it, for all the reasons Fred mentioned.
rd
<br />I would think that the chances of finding faces, or other objects, (pareidolia) would be just as common in branches as it would be in leaves. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">thebobgy, if you mean shadows of branches without leaves, I would think that would make it significantly harder to find faces. Imagine if DaVinci tried to paint everything with a broad brush, there would be a certain level of detail that would not be attainable. Same difference. There's a certain miminum requirement for detail. The leaves provide it, for all the reasons Fred mentioned.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.438 seconds