Challenger: What is this object flying across screen prior to explosion?

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by jtur88

But there is something else relevant about our analysis. The stills we are seeing are the film transferred to video, and then we're seeing the stop-frame of the video. We don't know how much blurring of the action is on the original frames of the Super-8 footage, which would depend on the exposure time of each frame.

They would need to use a telecine machine for this and you could get exact duplication of the frame rate and content of each frame with the right equipment. For example they often use camcorders to capture the film but it's specifically set up to work as one unit:


Ideally you want a machine that will speed up the film so it matches the camcorder so you get a 1:1 capture. If the camcorder is 24 or 30FPS the film should be going at 24 or 30 FPS. From there post capture you can slow it down to the original 18FPS or properly convert it to any desired FPS. How it was captured or what was done to it after capture is questionable but the video available on the internet was either captured using framerate inconsistent with the film or converted post capture.

Technically there is no reason to convert it from 18FPS to anything else for display as video on the internet. You can use any framerate you want for computer video, I often exploit this to substantially lower file sizes.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

The movement of the bird wings becomes quite apparent as the bird flies from left to right..

What I do see is that the shape is twice as long in one frame than it is in the other two, which would suggest that the shutter was open twice as long for that frame. In that longer image, the change in the relative position of light and dark areas in the object could be the wingtip of a soaring board suddenly shifting its axis, and raising the near wing tip by an increment about equal to the body of the bird. But that would not account for the other two images capturing the object for only half the shutter speed of the other.

How do you account for one of two frames having a part of the object juxtaposed with the rocket flare, but in only one of them, the object is twice as long as the other, yet it is in rapid motion leaving the margins of the picture within a frame or two. In other words, in one still, there is only Part A of the object, obscuring the rocket flare, and in another frame, there is a Part A and a Part B to the object, but Part A is still almost exactly in the same place. And 1/9 of a second earlier or later, it is not in the frame at all. As if, at 1/18 second intervals, the object (1) entered the picture,(2) parked in one spot, (3) elongated itself to double its length, and (4) left the picture.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by jtur88

What I do see is that the shape is twice as long in one frame than it is in the other two, which would suggest that the shutter was open twice as long for that frame.

This one?



From the OP it would be the fourth and fifth frame combined. When you want to change the FPS you have add or subtract frames. If you're adding you have to create them, to maintain smooth playback there is few methods to accomplish this but it gets really complicated...

How do you account for one of two frames having a part of the object juxtaposed with the rocket flare,

I just created this in my editor, from the op it's the fifth image overlaying the fourth image with 50% transparency. It's nearly identical to the one above and I just created it.



The source for this video has been stepped all over and without having the original or knowing what process it went through to get to the current condition there is no way to determine what is going on here. There is very good chance the original film has much more detail than what is being shown in this video.

[Peregrine]

Really?
Whatever it is clearly to me had nothing to do with Challenger.
It does not HIT Challenger. It looks to me to be very much in front of Challenger.

I say again: Really?