Author
Message
brownpaperblag
Greenhorn
Joined: 26 Jul 2004 Posts: 3
[SPEC] Cambridge Hostpital - Rust room "drips" Hello first post so be nice
[WILDSPEC]
The "drips" in this photo bother me - they look a bit unnatural http://www.cambridgementalhospital.com/rustroom.html
So I traced the dot part on each drip:
http://img60.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img60&image=drips.gif
Which almost looks symmetrical along this (arbitrary) line:
http://img55.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img55&image=drips-3.jpg
So I copied the dots and flipped them:
http://img59.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img59&image=drips-4.jpg
But the more I look at it the more I think it's coincidence?
[/WILDSPEC]
bpb
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:51 pm
Tien_Le
Charter Member
Joined: 22 Sep 2002 Posts: 878 Location: corner of no and where
rustroom dots Thanks Blag. This is great. No way those are random.
_________________consume less; live more
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:54 pm
RobMagus
Unfettered
Joined: 17 Jul 2004 Posts: 469 Location: Vancouver, BC
I dunno...
by imposing symmetry on the picture and flipping the sides, you're bound to get something that looks non-random.
However, I've no explanation for it.
Perhaps we should ask charles?
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:34 pm
docvego
Boot
Joined: 24 Jul 2003 Posts: 47 Location: York, PA
It could be worth asking Charles, but I think stuff like that can actually happen in nature.
With the room all rusty and stalagtighted (yeah it's a word, i sware) it's probably dripping down a lot of white, mineral enriched water from the cieling to the floor. You could be seeing the result of the exposure on a lot of dripping water. For the condition the room is in, it could made sense.
I could still be wrong of course, so it's worth checking with Charles anyway.
_________________
DocVego
fngeeks.net
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 6:08 pm
brownpaperblag
Greenhorn
Joined: 26 Jul 2004 Posts: 3
Yeah I was thinking the same thing Rob... but it just seemed... you know.
I've emailed charles anyway
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 6:14 pm
RobMagus
Unfettered
Joined: 17 Jul 2004 Posts: 469 Location: Vancouver, BC
We specced that it was dripping stalactites. However, those things are not all falling straight down or even in the same directions as each other.
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 6:14 pm
FartyMcBride
Boot
Joined: 23 Jul 2004 Posts: 15 Location: NYC
RobMagus wrote:
by imposing symmetry on the picture and flipping the sides, you're bound to get something that looks non-random.
I agree, but I still think Blag is onto something. Those lines are definitely unatural and added after the fact. Note the jagginess of the two slightly diagonal lines midway up the left side of the pic, while the rest of the pic is sharp; the uniformity of width; and the fact that they some of them grow out of completely illogical places for stalactites.
_________________*poot*
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 6:55 pm
Eolirin
Greenhorn
Joined: 26 Jul 2004 Posts: 6
The drips that are at diagonals seem very heavily aliased(jagged edges). If they were part of the actual environment when the picture was taken I don't think they'd look like that.
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 6:57 pm
brat-sampson
Decorated
Joined: 25 Jul 2004 Posts: 289 Location: Stark
Quote:
If they were part of the actual environment when the picture was taken I don't think they'd look like that.
But if not, what are they doing there? And as for the exposure, why can we only see these on that pic when all the others taken in the same area appear normal?
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:46 pm
Samnite
Kilroy
Joined: 26 Jul 2004 Posts: 2
Here's the obligatory "I'm new" line: I'm new here.
Anyway, looking at those things, they're definitely not part of the original picture, and they're definitely not falling. They look more like they're small white dots flying upward, with blur.
When I saw Blag's image of the isolated dots, though, the first thing I thought of wasn't symmetry but stars. If that matched up with a night sky or something, it could give us a date? I don't really know anything about if that's feasible, and certainly not how to do it, but I feel like I've seen it work in a movie before. Any thoughts?
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:08 pm
RobMagus
Unfettered
Joined: 17 Jul 2004 Posts: 469 Location: Vancouver, BC
Someone should crosscheck that starry sky with the ones in Myst. *grin*
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:14 pm
brownpaperblag
Greenhorn
Joined: 26 Jul 2004 Posts: 3
Update from IRC:
DocVego found that the image has metadata stored inside it - nothing groudbreaking, just info about the camera that shot it.
Quote:
Nikon E3100
Picture taken May20th, 2004
F/2.8
400 ISO
Flash was used
Focal Length 5.8mm
Exposure time: 1/60 sec
You can see this by saving the file to your computer and right-clicking > properties in XP
Given this info, can anyone work out if those stripes could be drips?
Quote:
<RobMagus> well, assuming they've travelled over a distance of ~30 cm, those things would be moving at 750 m/s.
<RobMagus> I've probably done something horribly horribly wrong with the physics.
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:46 pm
handwash
Greenhorn
Joined: 26 Jul 2004 Posts: 5
brownpaperblag wrote:
Quote:
<RobMagus> well, assuming they've travelled over a distance of ~30 cm, those things would be moving at 750 m/s.
<RobMagus> I've probably done something horribly horribly wrong with the physics.
More like about 18m/s (1/60s exposure time, 30cm, so about 1800cm/s).
But that's pretty fast, about 65km/hr, so those are probably something added after the picture was taken. Even lowering the "distance" between dots to 15cm makes it 32.5km/hr, which is still pretty fast.
One last thing to consider is that, if they were actually in the pic, and if they all are the same things (water drops or whatever), they should all be about the same length... and there seems to be a pretty big variation in how long they are, even taking into account matters of perspective (like the ones further away being smaller). And they definitely wouldn't have straight diagonal tracks, either - more curved towards the ground.
So, I'd suggest that they're definitely something added after the photo was taken. But why?
For what its worth, drips.gif seems to suggest to me a map of star constellations... but that's probably because there're lots of cross-shaped constellations in my night sky. Oh well, that's probably a bit off
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2004 2:27 am
mmdoogie
Veteran
Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 91 Location: Huntsville, AL
The big spots look to me like when a drop of water gets on an inkjet-printed photo and runs down. The smaller ones, I don't know...
Just a guess...
--mrm
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2004 1:43 am
monty
Boot
Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 23 Location: Vancouver, BC
Some thoughts before bed....
1. A Nikon E3100 is a digital camera. Digital cameras do weird things in dark rooms (i.e. all of those bogus 'orb' photos you see online which are just specks of dust...albeit specks of dust that usually don't show up nearly as well with a film camera).
2. Shooting with a flash would cause water drops to appear as points..but if the exposure continued beyond the flash the remaining light could illuminate the drops long enough for them to form streaks like that. In other words it looks like a shot that was illuminated by a flash that didn't last as long as the exposure time.
3. The diagonal streaks seem to be localized on an axis in-line with the door in the background...if they ARE drops, they could be at an angle due to an air current. It's interesting to not that you don't see any diagonals in the other direction except for the two big ones to the immediate left of the door in the extreme foreground (very out of focus).
4. As per dishboy's excursion to the actual site (link: http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4795&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15 ), it doesn't look like there was anything on the Cambridge Grounds approximating this degree of mayhem on or around May of 2004...does it?
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2004 3:01 am
Display posts from previous: All Posts 1 Day 1 Week 2 Weeks 1 Month 3 Months 6 Months 1 Year Sort by: Post Time Post Subject Author Ascending Descending