Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Last edited:
The green disc on the ground is not the shadow of the disc in her hand. That's hidden in the shadow of the woman's body. The shadow of her hand that you see is that of her left hand.
Edit:the 'shadow' of the disc is actually greenish, which it shouldn't be; it should be the same colour as the other shadows.
What is it a shadow of then? Another flying disc that's blocked from view?
What gives? Didn't you guys read the solution? Highlight the blank area under the word solution.
What gives? Didn't you guys read the solution? Highlight the blank area under the word solution.
AHA! I wonder if this happens with all digital cameras?
Apparently it does. Look at the thread titled 'the camera doesn't lie?' and the picture of the kid seems to indicate that the camera used swept horizontally instead of vertically in this case.
I was under the impression that open-eyed boy on the T.V. screen was the result of timing lag between the direct and the reflected light entering the lens of the camera.
I am not aware of any single lens, still picture camera that "sweeps" vertically or horizontally when the shutter expose the incoming light to either film or a CCD.
Good lord no, that is not what is going on. Light travels at 300,000 km/sec, a quick calculation of the time lag of light in a few feet will prove that to you.
Sarkus is correct.
Check it out
I was wrong when I said ccd it is a cmos camera.
The above link seems to have disappeared.
So, until normal service is resumed, here is some music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvDK5nyyI7Q
If you rule out photo-editing, I guess you could come with any number of alternate explanations: aliens, the camera somehow predicts the future, the return of Cthulhu, a miracle... take your pick, 'cos you'd be into the realm of fantasy whichever you picked.If Sarkus is correct, how would you explain the picture if it was taken with a camera that utilized a "global shutter"?
Heck, maybe the photo was digitally altered.
If my "impression" was incorrect or wrong - it would only be maybe the 27,463rd or 27,464th time this month, so...
Thanks.
Note. In that link there is an explanation if you highlight the blank area.
The shadow looks reasonable, the person throwing the Frisbee from across his body, such that the sun's angle puts the Frisbee's shadow slightly forward of the shadow of the person's left arm.1.) - the purported "Precognitive shadow" of the "disc" appears in front of the throwers left hand - where it would be Prior to beginning the action of throwing the "disc" - not after.
A translucent Frisbee would result in this, as it lets some light through which would result in the different hue compared to shadows of opaque objects (such as the person). Hold any thin coloured plastic that lets light through and you'll see this is the case.2.) - the "shade or hue" of the "disc's" purported "shadow" is different than the "shadow" of the person throwing it. Zoom in/enlarge the picture and check it out.
Why would it appear further away? Wouldn't it depend on the speed of the shutter and where in the throwing motion the "top half" is relative to the bottom. Given the brightness of the scene, I'd have thought a rather quick shutter speed would have been used.3.) - if the effect was produced by a "rolling shutter" or "vertical/top to bottom scanning", the purported "Precognitive shadow" of the "disc" would appear further away, using applied geometry and the apparent position of the light source, in this case, the Sun.
Again, depends where in the throwing motion the picture was taken, and the shutter speed.That is not even taking into consideration origin's comment on the speed of light - after all the blinking of a child's eye occurs much faster than the action of throwing a "disc".