Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stealth bomber in flight on Google Maps

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 390 posts

Re: Stealth bomber in flight on Google Maps

#371

Post by LMMojo »

mcv wrote: post #366
widforss wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we talking about the same France? France, one of Europes largest military powers which actually use their military in various conflicts around the globe?

Maybe their argument is that France has nothing to fear from anyone, so why the secrecy? Of course it's nonsense no matter how you spin it. All militaries love secrecy (except maybe the ones that are just for show, but I expect even the Swiss Guard in the Vatican has its secrets).

I'm guessing their comment is from the view of the French being "cheese eating, surrender monkeys", a view not supported by France's long military history. This view was supported, for at least a few years, by a Google "I feel lucky" search for "French military victories" taking you to a Google search mockup site which suggested "Maybe you mean: French military surrenders".

Re: Stealth bomber in flight on Google Maps

#372

Post by rookderby »

abrowne wrote: post #313
oppositelock wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aha! Here we go. Here's a telephone pole: https://earth.google.com/web/search/39.0303298,-93.58495/@39... We know that telephone poles stick about 32 feet from the ground. Measuring the shadow in Google Earth above, it's about 20 feet. Now, it's a simple ratio. Using Earth, I measured the distance from the plane to its shadow at about 2430 feet, that would put it at 3,900ft, which is surprisingly low, but I don't kno…

Not too low if landing? From another comment: > This one was probably on final approach during the summer when the winds are usually out of the south and was probably about 2,000 feet above the ground. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29628167

Probably headed to Whiteman AFB. Here's one parked: https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B043'29.7%22N+93%C2%...

Re: Stealth bomber in flight on Google Maps

#373

Post by nkmnz »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #339
wodenokoto wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was at all color photos record electromagnetic radiation in visible colors. The “it doesn’t take photos it record electromagnetic radiation” is a silly thing to say.

This could be a comparative description of digital vs Chemical photography

"Chemical" photography captures electromagnetic radiation as well, but converts it into bonding energy, not into electrical signals.

Re: Stealth bomber in flight on Google Maps

#375

Post by daniel_reetz »

wodenokoto wrote: post #324
ihattendorf wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is typical digital cameras have a bayer filter in front of the sensor to allow taking a single color picture vs. here it sounds like multiple captures with individual filters (e.g. 1 blue, 1 red, 1 green, 1 monochrome) that are later combined into a color picture.

The point was at all color photos record electromagnetic radiation in visible colors. The “it doesn’t take photos it record electromagnetic radiation” is a silly thing to say.

There's some subtlety here. Colors are percepts- phenomena that happen in the brain. Wavelengths and radiation describe natural electromagnetic phenomena, not percepts.

Example: Infrared has no "color". It's possible to induce the illusion of colors in the absence of light altogether. I appreciate that the article took care with this language, as it's a deep and fascinating topic.

Re: Stealth bomber in flight on Google Maps

#376

Post by mountainofdeath »

oppositelock wrote: post #309
oppositelock wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get height if you can find the shadow, and find the time that the photo was taken, because at any given time and date, you can compute sun position, and you know the precise lat/lng of the shadow. The shadow would need to be in the same photo, though. (actually, it's a bit to the northwest, just found it). If you can find a vertical structure, like an antenna mast, you can measure shadow length and direction…

Aha! Here we go. Here's a telephone pole: https://earth.google.com/web/search/39.0303298,-93.58495/@39... We know that telephone poles stick about 32 feet from the ground. Measuring the shadow in Google Earth above, it's about 20 feet. Now, it's a simple ratio. Using Earth, I measured the distance from the plane to its shadow at about 2430 feet, that would put it at 3,900ft, which is surprisingly low, but I don't kno…

The B2 is based out of Whiteman AFB near Warrensburg, MO so roughly 25 miles or 40 km south of where the plane is so it is probably on its final approach to land or just took off.

Re: Stealth bomber in flight on Google Maps

#377

Post by goblin89 »

thrtythreeforty wrote: post #73
goblin89 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there are ways to get superior (compared to Bayer) color images from conventional raw-capable monochrome digital cameras (like Leica Q2 Monochrom) in static scenes using similar workflows of taking three separate shots.

Many cameras, especially medium format like Fuji GFX, can do "pixel shift" capture, where they use the sensor stabilization to shift the sensor by one pixel at a time to ensure red, green, and blue are each captured at all pixels, without needing demosaicing. The camera has to be mounted on a tripod for this to work - like any stacking requires, really.

Initially I thought pixel shift might be the way to go, but stumbling across [0] I got an impression it isn’t necessarily as great as it sounds (and, I guess, neither would be any three-shot RGB-filter-swapping composite).

[0] https://www.dearsusan.net/2020/11/09/nyquist-mtf-pixel-shift...

Re: Stealth bomber in flight on Google Maps

#378

Post by nzmsv »

mekkkkkk wrote: post #360
jcims wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s so bad it seems unlikely it isn’t a joke. I mean look at their mission patches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NRO_launches

The juxtaposition of the Ursa Major and Onyx/Vega patches almost gave me whiplash. Judging by the list of patches it seems like NRO is a fun place to work. Thanks for sharing!

Fun is maybe not quite the word I'd use. The juxtaposition of all the wording about "defense" and menacing-looking characters that would definitely be the villain and not the hero in any comic book or movie is... unsettling. Even if it's a self-aware joke about their public image (like the squid giving the whole Earth the hug of death), it's maybe gone a bit too far?

Re: Stealth bomber in flight on Google Maps

#379

Post by kloch »

oppositelock wrote: post #298
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are pushbroom linear sensors stacked up in the focal plane. The spectral channels are physically separated by larger distance than neighboring pixels in a Bayer grid. There is a time delay between each channel sweeping over the same location that gets corrected when the final imagery is aligned. The moving plane at altitude violates assumption of a static scene and exposes the scanning behavior.

The B2 bomber photo isn't from a push boom sensor, because it would be distorted since it's moving relative to the camera. This would manifest itself as a shear along the motion vector . There is no shear in this photo, only spectral bands. I've spent a number of years doing image orthorectification, and satellite imagery post-processing, then also worked on Google Earth and Google Maps, so I can tell you precisely w…

If it’s anything like space telescopes there are more than 3 spectral filters that can be selected which rules out a static Bayer-type filter system.

Re: Stealth bomber in flight on Google Maps

#380

Post by dangerbird2 »

hermitdev wrote: post #297
Scene_Cast2 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone wondering about what a pushboom sensor is - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.72.... Basically a 1D sensor that acquires a 2D image because the camera itself is moving. In this case, I'd imagine that there are 3 such sensors for RGB.

> Basically a 1D sensor that acquires a 2D image because the camera itself is moving. Or a static camera and a moving subject. This same style of camera is used for "photo finishes" in races. The camera is literally the finish line, and the the first pixel to "cross the line" is the winner.

Also office scanners. Basically, it's still a 2D image, but instead of two spatial dimensions, it has a spacial dimension and a time dimension.
Post reply on HN