Search Results
7/23/2025, 7:16:54 PM
>>16732050
For the same reason as >>16732047 and picrel have a white halo: the pixels of the video don't represent an absolute measurement, instead they depend of the bright of neighbor original pixels (of the camera).
If you gonna use a visual glitch as a criteria to interpret that video YOU'LL HAVE TO USE THE SAME CRITERIA FOR THE REST OF THE VIDEO WITH NO EXCEPTION, and that includes the rest of "disappearances" and change of size*** of the object, otherwise you be selecting with a bias to back the hypothesis of UFO at long distance.
Even with the mediocre quality of the yt video you can see that if the object's background changes from something 'homogeneous' to 'heterogeneous' (forest, waves) the object itself is affected because as I said, you're seeing a post-processed image, the nearby pixels will affect how the display shows the too-small object. And the problem is even worse if the object is bright but sub-pixel in size, the blurring (punctual "light" source spread) means you're watching a few pixels of the changing background + object brightness at the same time, if the background gets 'brighter' the object will be represented as smaller (affecting less pixels because its blurred bright now is negligible in more pixels).
For the same reason as >>16732047 and picrel have a white halo: the pixels of the video don't represent an absolute measurement, instead they depend of the bright of neighbor original pixels (of the camera).
If you gonna use a visual glitch as a criteria to interpret that video YOU'LL HAVE TO USE THE SAME CRITERIA FOR THE REST OF THE VIDEO WITH NO EXCEPTION, and that includes the rest of "disappearances" and change of size*** of the object, otherwise you be selecting with a bias to back the hypothesis of UFO at long distance.
Even with the mediocre quality of the yt video you can see that if the object's background changes from something 'homogeneous' to 'heterogeneous' (forest, waves) the object itself is affected because as I said, you're seeing a post-processed image, the nearby pixels will affect how the display shows the too-small object. And the problem is even worse if the object is bright but sub-pixel in size, the blurring (punctual "light" source spread) means you're watching a few pixels of the changing background + object brightness at the same time, if the background gets 'brighter' the object will be represented as smaller (affecting less pixels because its blurred bright now is negligible in more pixels).
Page 1