I'm glad this isn't a horror story about one person suing another, thinking they had stolen their shot. Happenstance fun-ness is better!
Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
131–140 of 219 posts
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
The birthday paradox arises because the probability that two candidates do not match is small compared to the number of candidates. In this case, the candidates are photos and a match in fact requires a match on multiple variables (e.g. angle, timing) that are effectively continuous. A match between 2 arbitrary photos must then have zero-ish probability and a non-match must have one-ish. So it still seems inestimably…
There are probably well over 10 trillion photos taken. Less by professionals, but they are more likely to take the same photo. Anyway, that low probability applies to every other photo. So, the first photo is compared to every other photo and by the end your talking ~50,000,000,000,000,000,000 comparisons. The odds would have to be mind boggling tiny for this not to happen all the time.
You're missing the other dimension to this: it's not that two photographers took pictures at the exact same time, I'm sure that happens frequently. It's that they took the exact same picture. There were definitely not 10 trillion photos take of this lighthouse in new england.
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, but I am not sure that you would indeed require it to be the same millisecond. I mean I don't know how long the exposure was, but I guess its longer than a millisecond (just took a look at some of my own photos and they were at 4-5ms exposure in very bright sunlight, the blog image exposure is probably more like 10ms). The heading says that the pictures were taken in the same millisecond, but as far as I unders…
They said they compared EXIF metadata, so they should know when each of the shots were taken. I'm not a photographer and don't know what level of detail is recorded there, though.
The time in the EXIF metadata is just based on the time/date stamp that's been set in the camera. I don't know about the newer Canon but I'm pretty sure the older model would just be something someone manually set.
Re-reading the article, I think saying the pics were shot at the "same millisecond" was just a colloquial expression to mean the look of the waves makes it look as if they were shot at the exact same time. They shared metadata but that seems to have been to share the other shooting parameters. I believe (and this would seem to confirm [1]) that EXIF timestamp data is only precise down to 1 second. added: and only as accurate as the photographer who set the date and time.
[1] https://www.media.mit.edu/pia/Research/deepview/exif.html
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Always been a dream of mine, sadly I don't think as a lowly French IT person that there is a way for me to have that experience. Thanks for sharing
I have a friend who sometimes works at Pole, and they apparently do need people to winter over and manage the IT infrastructure. I don't know whether they have citizenship requirements (it's a US-led station), but it's apparently a hard enough position to recruit for (six+ months in the dark) that they might be flexible.
I believe that this is the US Antarctic Program's IT contractor's jobs page: https://ghgcorp.applicantpro.com/jobs/
It looks like they only hire Americans though (probably some requirement imposed on the contractor).
There are of course lots of other contractors for other sorts of jobs.
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, but there are about eight orders of magnitude more milliseconds than days, and you need another two or so orders of magnitude because not everyone is a photographer who publishes their photos. Then again, the internet is a medium that reaches many more people, which is not true of the average birthday. So one would still expect this to happen only maybe every few years.
Well, but I am not sure that you would indeed require it to be the same millisecond. I mean I don't know how long the exposure was, but I guess its longer than a millisecond (just took a look at some of my own photos and they were at 4-5ms exposure in very bright sunlight, the blog image exposure is probably more like 10ms). The heading says that the pictures were taken in the same millisecond, but as far as I unders…
Shorter than a millisecond. One shot at 1/1000th, the other at 1/1600th.
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, but I am not sure that you would indeed require it to be the same millisecond. I mean I don't know how long the exposure was, but I guess its longer than a millisecond (just took a look at some of my own photos and they were at 4-5ms exposure in very bright sunlight, the blog image exposure is probably more like 10ms). The heading says that the pictures were taken in the same millisecond, but as far as I unders…
They said they compared EXIF metadata, so they should know when each of the shots were taken. I'm not a photographer and don't know what level of detail is recorded there, though.
The time precision that you can derive from the spray of the waves is a lot more precise that anything you will get out of the exif data - the wave will only have that exact captured spray pattern for a small fraction of a second, but the time synchronization on the two photographers cameras is almost certainly out by a larger amount of time than the wave looked that way.
Working with images from multiple photographers cameras who haven't gone out of their way to sync the time beforehand, I've usually had to assume about a 10s time skew. They do not have precise clocks and are not sybchronized often.
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#137I once plugged my usb cable in on the first try. Goes to show you anything is possible!! Edit: upon further inspection it turns out it was USB-C. Nevermind, all is right with the world :)
Something I learned a few weeks ago (after many years of using USB) is that usually cables have the USB logo or marking on the "right side" up. So if you don't know which one is the right side up, the one with the logo should win. Might help some other lost souls here :)
This works until you need to plug something into the back of a computer with vertical ports.
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#138I once plugged my usb cable in on the first try. Goes to show you anything is possible!! Edit: upon further inspection it turns out it was USB-C. Nevermind, all is right with the world :)
The real issue that usb cables are four-dimensional[1]. That's why applying three 180-degree rotations will return one to its original orientation.
1. https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2388#comi...
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#139This made me so happy! I have a glee from ear to ear!
Re: Two Photographers Unknowingly Shot the Same Millisecond in Time
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
The certificate is signed by a Google intermediate CA using GlobalSign as the root CA. I don't use Chrome but I find it hard to believe that Chrome now distrusts Google's own CAs. A user errors seems more likely :)
For the record : those two parts (their CA / own services, and their teams responsible for security) are really well separated and it is not the first time a Google thingy is deemed unsafe by Google security. Whatever one thinks of Google, it's hard to not agree that they take security very seriously, both internal and external (and project zero is one of the best thing ever). Personally, I prefer it that way. Better…
> Whatever one thinks of Google, it's hard to not agree that they take security very seriously
I completely agree. Don’t think I stated otherwise?
Anyway, I find it hard to believe for any browser to untrust Google’s intermediate CA. And more so for Global Sign.
That said I recon that especially if Chrome started distruating Google CA that we all heard about it ;)