How to explain ... and results of poll

[Jaja]

Hello Blockey,

Hi Jaja

First it should be the way it is - it is what it is. If you think
it looks like it's going backwards when you know it is going
forwards, then it must be an optical illusion - or more tablets are
needed!

• Now that's a logical and reasonable thing to say ...

The optical illusion is true, now the question is why it's an optical illusion.

The white lines is causing it all, but why and how does it got captured likte that - giving us an illusion ...

The background and foreground which you accept as normal are also
blurred in the same way and direction; it is that this lighter part
stands out from the darker greens and looks like the smear you get
behind an object say a cars bumper trail. Remember, you also are
moving at speed (whether panning or not) and so the background
which is still will smear to your right. Optical illusion.

• Correct conclusion in my opinion ... now the reason why ;-)))

What did the train driver say about whether he was going forwards
whilst gong backwards? No wonder they're always late!

• That would be a possible explanation why trains always are late: they think they're moving forward, but in fact they're going back ...

Thus, a moving forward train is just an illusion ... Mystery solved!

Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com

 

[Jono Slack]

"What is the meaning of Life, The Universe, and Everything"

keep taking the pills

Jono Slack wrote:
Hello David
Of course, being a psychology professor, I realised that you > knew
the answer all along,

Answer? What in tarnation was the QUESTION anyway? (looking
around confusedly for his medication....)

but, as you are also a nice guy

Huh? (still looking for medication.....)

and I had thought that this was the preserve
of Englishmen.

Actually, I prefer grape jelly......

how're you doing David!

Much better since I found those little pills.......thanks!

David

 

[Jono Slack]

forty two

but we all knew that didn't we

with deep respect to the unforgettable Douglas Adams - without whom we wouldn't know.

 

[Jono Slack]

Jaja
Like David, you obviously don't understand the English

I only put "I think" there to be polite

:^)

kind regards
jono slack

p.s. you could try taking them out in photoshop, and then putting them back in the other way around?

Quit a logical, respectfull (;-) explanation ... except for those
last words:
"I think" ;-)))
And that's the problem, nobody is sure about this and no-one can
explain why - but those white lines are the key of it all ...
And no, I didn't add them afterwards using PS ;-)))

Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com

and I'm sticking to it - there's nothing wrong with the lines being
there - it's just the way they're tapering

I think

:^)

Hi Jaja
I got it wrong that time (think I voted for number 1)

• Well, that's why it's a poll ;-)))

I know why the train is going backwards - it's because the 'go
faster' stripes at the toop front of the train get thinner from
right to left, if it was going forwards you'd expect them to be
doing it the other way around.

• That's the crucial part of the image, but those lines shouldn't

be there so "pronounced" when the train is moving from the right to
the left and the camera is panning ...
Or are they just as long as the shutterspeed could capture
them?(1/80 sec)
It's an image that caused a lot of discussions and nobody had a
real explanation so far ...

IMHO (of course)

• Your well respected opinion (of course ;-)

Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com

 

[Jono Slack]

Bit Grouchy this evening aren't we?
this is a good club and you ought to want to be a member!

Laurie - I forgot to say how much I liked your black and white self portrait with the flute (not to mention the other one!).

I think Jaja should make three new copies of his photo

1. taking the white lines out
2. turning them round the other way
3. showing the back of the train as well

Then we'd know!

kind regards
jono slack

If Jaja is panning from right to left, trying to stay in sync with
the train, then the background is in fact moving from left to
right. Those white lines (it seems to me) are something behind the
train, appearing just as they should. I think if we could also see
the back end of the train in this shot, there'd be little confusion.

So, did I prove myself worthy of the club???

Laurie - not so sure she wants to join a club that would have her
as a member.

Hello Jono,

Quit a logical, respectfull (;-) explanation ... except for those
last words:
"I think" ;-)))
And that's the problem, nobody is sure about this and no-one can
explain why - but those white lines are the key of it all ...
And no, I didn't add them afterwards using PS ;-)))

 

[Jaja]

Hello Jono,

Jaja
Like David, you obviously don't understand the English

• Euh, I'm a Belgian speaking Ditch and French.

English is for us some kind of language we try to understand ... ;-)

I only put "I think" there to be polite

• I replied in that way to be polite ;-)))

Or is that an illusion.

:^)

kind regards
jono slack
p.s. you could try taking them out in photoshop, and then putting
them back in the other way around?

• No, my philisophy is to take as good as possible shots "right out of the camera" - or is it "left out of the camera" ...?

Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com

Quit a logical, respectfull (;-) explanation ... except for those
last words:
"I think" ;-)))
And that's the problem, nobody is sure about this and no-one can
explain why - but those white lines are the key of it all ...
And no, I didn't add them afterwards using PS ;-)))

Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com

and I'm sticking to it - there's nothing wrong with the lines being
there - it's just the way they're tapering

I think

:^)

Hi Jaja
I got it wrong that time (think I voted for number 1)

• Well, that's why it's a poll ;-)))

I know why the train is going backwards - it's because the 'go
faster' stripes at the toop front of the train get thinner from
right to left, if it was going forwards you'd expect them to be
doing it the other way around.

• That's the crucial part of the image, but those lines shouldn't

be there so "pronounced" when the train is moving from the right to
the left and the camera is panning ...
Or are they just as long as the shutterspeed could capture
them?(1/80 sec)
It's an image that caused a lot of discussions and nobody had a
real explanation so far ...

IMHO (of course)

• Your well respected opinion (of course ;-)

Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com

 

[Jono Slack]

Well Jaja

Let's get down to some real facts

1. you speak better English than I do either French or Ditch(Ditch?)
1a. possibly you speak better English than I do!
2. you are much more polite than I am (but I do my best)

3. it would appear that you are just as lazy as I am (in not fiddling with your picture!)

kind regards
jono slack

Jaja
Like David, you obviously don't understand the English

• Euh, I'm a Belgian speaking Ditch and French.

English is for us some kind of language we try to understand ... ;-)

I only put "I think" there to be polite

• I replied in that way to be polite ;-)))

Or is that an illusion.

:^)

kind regards
jono slack
p.s. you could try taking them out in photoshop, and then putting
them back in the other way around?

• No, my philisophy is to take as good as possible shots "right out

of the camera" - or is it "left out of the camera" ...?

Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com

Quit a logical, respectfull (;-) explanation ... except for those
last words:
"I think" ;-)))
And that's the problem, nobody is sure about this and no-one can
explain why - but those white lines are the key of it all ...
And no, I didn't add them afterwards using PS ;-)))

Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com

and I'm sticking to it - there's nothing wrong with the lines being
there - it's just the way they're tapering

I think

:^)

Hi Jaja
I got it wrong that time (think I voted for number 1)

• Well, that's why it's a poll ;-)))

I know why the train is going backwards - it's because the 'go
faster' stripes at the toop front of the train get thinner from
right to left, if it was going forwards you'd expect them to be
doing it the other way around.

• That's the crucial part of the image, but those lines shouldn't

be there so "pronounced" when the train is moving from the right to
the left and the camera is panning ...
Or are they just as long as the shutterspeed could capture
them?(1/80 sec)
It's an image that caused a lot of discussions and nobody had a
real explanation so far ...

IMHO (of course)

• Your well respected opinion (of course ;-)

Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com

 

[DF]

Jono Slack wrote:
Jaja
Like David, you obviously don't understand the English

I do SO understand "the English".....I learned everything from John Clease.

I do have trouble with the language, however.

I only put "I think" there to be polite

I only think "I put" where to me is a fright.

Best wishes,

David

 

[Tom Crowning]

Now a question. When you look at image 3 of the new poll, there's> something strange going on. It's a panning shot of a train moving> forward, but the blurred background gives the impression it's> moving backwards ...

All I see are trails (due the panning you did) of something white in the green background behind(!) the train.
Imagine you would have taken the picture without any train.
Got it?
tc

 

[Jono Slack]

HI David

I do so wish you'd taught my son Psychology - he might have found it a little more interesting . . . . . . as it is he's the first male in 3 generations on either side not to be a scientist - he's doing philosophy and advanced enjoyingyourself (I'm rather proud actually).

:^)

kind regards
jono slack

Sooooo if you know John Clease - do you know Douglas Adams?

Jono Slack wrote:
Jaja
Like David, you obviously don't understand the English

I do SO understand "the English".....I learned everything from John
Clease.

I do have trouble with the language, however.

I only put "I think" there to be polite

I only think "I put" where to me is a fright.

Best wishes,

David

 

[DF]

Jono Slack wrote:
HI David
I do so wish you'd taught my son Psychology - he might have found
it a little more interesting . . . . . . as it is he's the first
male in 3 generations on either side not to be a scientist - he's
doing philosophy and advanced enjoyingyourself (I'm rather proud
actually).

:^)

kind regards
jono slack

Sooooo if you know John Clease - do you know Douglas Adams?

Hi Jono,

No....I'm afraid I must plead complete ignorance on Douglas Adams. Does that seal my award as Confirmed Biggest Idiot on the forum? Yep, I reckon it does.

As for your son, he looks (from the photos you've posted) and sounds like (from your descriptions) a truly wonderful chap. Reminds me, indeed, of many of my own students. And you mustn't blame him for pursuing philosophy.....that will only make him a better scientist when he comes around.

BTW, your love and pride in him shines through in your text.......that's very touching. He surely seems like a son in whom one would take justifiable pride. (And I'm sure the feelings go the same from him to you, as well.)

Best wishes,

David

 

[Jaja]

Hello tc,

Finally, the question remains how this illusion was created ...
A small element in an image can "mislead" us ;-)

Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com

Now a question. When you look at image 3 of the new poll, there's
something strange going on. It's a panning shot of a train moving
forward, but the blurred background gives the impression it's
moving backwards ...

All I see are trails (due the panning you did) of something white
in the green background behind(!) the train.
Imagine you would have taken the picture without any train.
Got it?
tc

 

[Jaja]

Hello Jono,

Well Jaja

Let's get down to some real facts

• Ok, here we go ...

1. you speak better English than I do either French or Ditch(Ditch?)

• I do speak better than I write aparantly ... ;-)

1a. possibly you speak better English than I do!

• Euh, I speak better Dutch than I write "DUTCH" in English ...

2. you are much more polite than I am (but I do my best)

• As headmaster, I have to be polite all day ...

But, you on the other side of the Northsea are known as "gentlemen" ...

3. it would appear that you are just as lazy as I am (in not
fiddling with your picture!)

• That depends: I allow myself to be lazy for 15 minutes a day ...

kind regards

• Finally something we agree about ... ;-)

Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com

jono slack

Jaja
Like David, you obviously don't understand the English

• Euh, I'm a Belgian speaking Ditch and French.

English is for us some kind of language we try to understand ... ;-)

I only put "I think" there to be polite

• I replied in that way to be polite ;-)))

Or is that an illusion.

:^)

kind regards
jono slack
p.s. you could try taking them out in photoshop, and then putting
them back in the other way around?

• No, my philisophy is to take as good as possible shots "right out

of the camera" - or is it "left out of the camera" ...?

Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com

Quit a logical, respectfull (;-) explanation ... except for those
last words:
"I think" ;-)))
And that's the problem, nobody is sure about this and no-one can
explain why - but those white lines are the key of it all ...
And no, I didn't add them afterwards using PS ;-)))

Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com

and I'm sticking to it - there's nothing wrong with the lines being
there - it's just the way they're tapering

I think

:^)

Hi Jaja
I got it wrong that time (think I voted for number 1)

• Well, that's why it's a poll ;-)))

I know why the train is going backwards - it's because the 'go
faster' stripes at the toop front of the train get thinner from
right to left, if it was going forwards you'd expect them to be
doing it the other way around.

• That's the crucial part of the image, but those lines shouldn't

be there so "pronounced" when the train is moving from the right to
the left and the camera is panning ...
Or are they just as long as the shutterspeed could capture
them?(1/80 sec)
It's an image that caused a lot of discussions and nobody had a
real explanation so far ...

IMHO (of course)

• Your well respected opinion (of course ;-)

Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com

 

[matt chase]

I think you are all just figments of my imagination.

But then I have run out of pills, so I could be wrong.

And I'm not English. I think.
Oh wait, no I don't.

Matt Chase

On a less serious note...

If I were to investigate this, which I probably wouldn't because I'm not Sherlock or any other English guy, but say I were allowed out of my padded room more than I am, I would want to see a picture from the same spot, camera pointing in the same direction, with no train, and no panning. Just a plain, boring, straight on shot, to see what is there. But then that would ruin the fun of all this.

 

[Laurie Sokoloff]

Bit Grouchy this evening aren't we?

Good one - hope I'm not the only one to appreciate it!

Laurie - I forgot to say how much I liked your black and white self
portrait with the flute (not to mention the other one!).

Thank you - a compliment from you means a lot. I took that photo (with the flute) just after eight members of the orchestra were dismissed and/or demoted by our new music director. A colleague calls it my "please don't fire me" shot. Not sure what to call the other one!

everbest,
Laurie

 

[Laurie Sokoloff]

Hello Laurie,

Welcome to the club ;-)))

Thanks . . . I think. A serious question: is it your experience that the fast panning technique needs practice? I've tried it a couple of times, with less than successful results. Do you change camera settings for doing this?

Laurie

 

[Blokey Bloggs]

Hi Jaja

The background and foreground which you accept as normal are also
blurred in the same way and direction; it is that this lighter part
stands out from the darker greens and looks like the smear you get
behind an object say a cars bumper trail. Remember, you also are
moving at speed (whether panning or not) and so the background
which is still will smear to your right. Optical illusion.

• Correct conclusion in my opinion ... now the reason why ;-)))

I think maybe I did not explain myself well enough here. I had the impression that you were following the train in a car - too many cowboy movies me thinks. The illusions of going in reverse is given by the light-coloured lines being in front of the train. In such a shot the trails would usually be behind the object - as in a second curtain shot. In this case, the light-coloured flora against the dark green has conspired to be in front of the train giving the optical illusion of the train going in reverse - the trails are behind the train's seemingly forward movement. I think...

Blokey

 

[Jaja]

Hello Laurie,

I've put some panning tricks&tips in another thread ...
I hope they help a little bit.

Kind regards,
Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com

Hello Laurie,

Welcome to the club ;-)))

Thanks . . . I think. A serious question: is it your
experience that the fast panning technique needs practice? I've
tried it a couple of times, with less than successful results. Do
you change camera settings for doing this?

Laurie

 

[Jono Slack]

Thank you David

I don't need Silas to be a scientist - I rather like him being a philsopher - as for justifiable pride - I don't think he's ever done anything serious in life except being 'charming' and good to talk to! (certainly never any work!). But, yes - I'm very fond of him.

As for Douglas Adams - you must find out about him. Rather than reading his books, (some of which are fine). You should get the tapes of his BBC radio series - which is a real classic - I'm sure that Amazon can get them (the certainly can over here).

What you need is:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0563477881/o/qid=1005400327/sr=8-1/ref=sr_aps_b_1_1/202-7200845-8019035

and

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/056347789X/o/qid=1005400327/sr=8-3/ref=sr_aps_b_1_3/202-7200845-8019035

this - I couldn't find them on amazon in the States, but I didn't look that hard.

Enjoy!

kind regards
jono slack

Jono Slack wrote:
HI David
I do so wish you'd taught my son Psychology - he might have found
it a little more interesting . . . . . . as it is he's the first
male in 3 generations on either side not to be a scientist - he's
doing philosophy and advanced enjoyingyourself (I'm rather proud
actually).

:^)

kind regards
jono slack

Sooooo if you know John Clease - do you know Douglas Adams?

Hi Jono,

No....I'm afraid I must plead complete ignorance on Douglas Adams.
Does that seal my award as Confirmed Biggest Idiot on the forum?
Yep, I reckon it does.

As for your son, he looks (from the photos you've posted) and
sounds like (from your descriptions) a truly wonderful chap.
Reminds me, indeed, of many of my own students. And you mustn't
blame him for pursuing philosophy.....that will only make him a
better scientist when he comes around.

BTW, your love and pride in him shines through in your
text.......that's very touching. He surely seems like a son in
whom one would take justifiable pride. (And I'm sure the feelings
go the same from him to you, as well.)

Best wishes,

David

 

[David SL]

Jaja,

Nice pictures in the latest poll!

The train image can be explained by recognizing a few facts:

The train and your camera plane were moving foward, everything else relative to your panned camera frame and the train was moving backward.

Had the train not been there, your relative motion (toward the left) with respect to the surrounding stationary objects would have caused them to blur toward the left ( as they do.) This gives the illusion that those stationary objects are moving from left to right (which relative to your motion from right to left) they are. Now add the train, which you are tracking (as best you can from right to left) by panning so that it maintains its position in your frame. If your motion relative to the train is near zero (as it would be if you are panning at its foward rate of motion) then relative to your camera frame its not moving. (no blur streaks) The only blur affect visible, is the one contributed by the surrounding non moving objects previously explained. Thus, your eye is tricked into grouping the train with those blur streaks and thus gives the illusion that the train is moving backward. Enhancing the illusion are the streaks behind the train, which seem to be made by the train..but upon close inspection reveal themselves to be part of whatever stationary background was whizzing by from left to right behind the train.

Knowing this, you should be able to reproduce the affect pretty easily. Note, the affect is enhanced by a larger relative motion between the tracked object and the stationary background components.

Dsl

Hello all,

First the results of the poll series 32. Here's the winner:



A nightshot of a church in Oostende (Belgian coast).
The complete results are online also and so is the new poll, series
33.
You're invited to vote again. Thanks for participation.

Now a question. When you look at image 3 of the new poll, there's
something strange going on. It's a panning shot of a train moving
forward, but the blurred background gives the impression it's
moving backwards ...
I took the image by following the train that drove from right to
left (panning also from right to left). Any explanation, or is it
an "optical illusion"?
When I showed the image for the first time, this was also discussed
but no reasonable explanation was found ...

Jaja
http://www.belgiumdigital.com