In order to decrease the length of Bltizo's green lines in the cutter photo to match the length of the green in the mystery hull photo, you have to shift left and then retake the photo. Also, to my eyes the photographers are standing approximately the same distance from the hulls in each photo. Just examine the pier features and the window features and you can tell they are very close in size in each photo. If anything the cutter photographer was standing slightly further away than the mystery hull photographer because I actually had to resize the cutter photo to a very slightly larger size in order to more closely approximate the window sizes, which I was using as a common reference point, which I'm assuming is what you mean by "standard ruler". I think I actually should have increased the cutter photo by a few more percentage points. This would have the effect of making the cutter beam even wider than it is now.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
If you decrease the length of the green line for the reference length, which is the building, you also decrease the bow length of the cutter. That's the point.
To my eyes, everything suggests the two photos were shot from different perspectives. The scaling between the two photos we're using is off. The photo with the cutter has shorter light poles and a shorter building height than the photo with the mystery module. If you equalized their heights, you will find that structural features in the cutter photo have a much longer lengths relative to heights for the same features compared to the mystery module's. For example, look to the bottom left of both photos, at what I presume are pier columns. The gap between each column is narrower in the mystery module's picture than the cutter's, even without rescaling to match reference object heights. If you rescale to match reference object heights these differences become even more drastic.
Last edited:
You're right, moving to the left would shorten the visual distance between the blue pier (actually it's a blue gate) and the concrete pier -- but now that I look at it, I used a poor example of relative distance to compare with, because the cutter photo has the sun at a different angle and the concrete pier and blue gate are both blurred, adding extra variability in addition to the "extra" concrete pier that is visible in the cutter photo due to the sun, increasing the visibility of the pier on the left side of the photo and making it look larger.
So in terms of the visuals of it you're correct that going left would reduce the length, but in terms of determining the actual length, we were both wrong because it was a poor example where there was no true difference in that particular visual length between the photos.
I'll see if I can find a different one with a clearer difference in visual length, because I do think the angles of the photos are slightly different.
The 10,000 ton cutter is not 26-27m. Using satellite, one can measure its length to about 21m.
Let's wait for satellite pictures of the hull modules in question.
I'm not even sure what you are referring to here. I'm not proposing to decrease the length of the line by manipulating the photo, but by having the photographer shift left and retaking the photo.
Like I said, I should have enlarged the cutter photo slightly more than I did. This reflects a cutter photographer who was standing slightly further away from the mystery hull photographer. On the other hand, if I blow up the cutter photo a little more to match the heights of the buildings, windows and light poles, this will only serve the enhance the already significant difference between the wider cutter beam and the narrower mystery hull beam, further reinforcing my point that the cutter is much wider than the mystery hull.
I now understand where you are making the error. Because of the nature of how these people took the photos (they were at about the same elevation or the elevation difference is negligible compared to their distance from the hulls), it is not a problem to blow up one photo to match the heights of various objects in the photos. However, this does not apply to comparisons of widths in the same photos. I think we can establish by now that the cutter photographer is standing behind and to the right of the mystery hull photographer. To equalize the locations of the photographers, you have to first equalize distance from the hulls, which I have (mostly) accomplished by slightly blowing up the cutter photo. Only then can you try to equalize the angles, and you can only accomplish this by imagination, not by photo manipulation. And you do this by imagining the cutter photographer shifting leftwards, and then finally retaking the photograph. You can't compare the pier columns in any meaningful way except to confirm that the cutter photographer indeed has to move left to achieve the same final angle as the mystery hull photographer.
You really don't even have to use the piers to be honest. Just look at the light poles. They are slightly further apart in the cutter photo and slightly closer together in the mystery hull photo. This clearly indicates that the cutter photographer needs to shift left to match angles with the mystery hull photo. Once we establish the same distance from the hulls for both photographers, the fact that the cutter photographer has to then shift left is more than enough to establish that the cutter's beam is dramatically wider than the mystery hull's beam.
I thought about using the light poles, but the massive black words "da xin wen" make it a bit hard to easily tell where they all are relative to each other. It's also hard to tell where the light poles are using satellite because they're so small, so it's in turn more difficult to tell how the increase in space between light poles will affect the beam of the ship when we don't know their exact orientation relative to ship beam.
But it's alright, I think I found a better picture which shows that something is up with the perspective of the two photos...
However first, here is a picture which demonstrates that the previous distance between the concrete pier and the blue gate was a poor one:
basically, the entire "left side" (from our POV) of each column for the concrete pier appears larger because I think the cutter photo was taken sometime early in the morning when the sun was rising from the east, which helped to illuminate the entire "left side" of each column. Combined with the blurred effect of the bottom of the photo for the cutter photo, it creates a sense that that is a major difference in visual distance, when there probably isn't.
My bad for using a poor example, and wasting everyone's time.
====
Now, for the better picture, which is unaffected by difference in sunlight, and unaffected by blur -- I chose the distance between the edge of the white building and the crack on the white building.
The (left) edge of the white building is lined up with a thin red line, and the purple arrows indicate the crack in the surface of the white building.
We can see that the length is far greater in the cutter photograph than the suspected 055 module photo.
A more detailed comparison using only the building's width (ignoring height, which is irrelevant for this comparison), and lined up more closely, shows the same:
Another good thing about using the building as a benchmark is that the front surface of the building was parallel with the measured beam of the cutter in the graving dock (as seen below with the photo below -- there are thin red lines of the building's surface and the cutter's beam to show they are indeed parallel)... and it should probably also be parallel with the beam of the potential 055 module in the same graving dock.
That means, any change in perspective which causes an increase or decrease in visual distance of the building's edge to the building's crack, would likely have a similar effect on the visual distance of the beam of the ship in that graving dock, because the distance we're interested in should be parallel with the metric distance of the building edge to building crack which we're using (accounting for any differences in relative proximity between each ship in the graving dock and the building, which will also have an effect)
Therefore, using the distance between the white building's edge and the crack in the building, I think it is reasonable to argue that there is something about the cutter's photo which may have increased the beam of the cutter relative to the beam of the potential 055 module, between the two pictures, possibly the photographer in the cutter photo stood more to the left relative to the module photo where the photographer was more right.
That said, I'm a little bit confused as to how there can be such a significant difference in the length of the building edge to building crack between the two photos, while there is such a small difference between the previous visual distance we measured (concrete pier to blue gate -- once we compensate for the sun and the blur)....
So, overall I think the difference in the building's we have enough perspective effects/artefacts to say that something is definitely up, and that using the photos as they are to try and guess the potential 055 module's beam relative to the cutter is not as simple as a cut and paste.
I do think that it's probably too much for me to say that the potential 055 module is probably greater in beam than the cutter, because even accounting for perspective distortions and angles, it is hard to be confident in saying that, so I'll take back my previous statement in that regard.
However, at the same time, I also don't think we can be anywhere near confident enough with the evidence we have at hand to say that the modules definitively cannot be for the 055 as a result of its suspected beam, due to the effect of perspective/angle.
Better for us to wait for satellite photos, which I'm sure we'll get in a few months.
Last edited:
You are putting all your eggs on that "crack" basket which I do not feel is necessarily a crack or even a permanent feature of that building. It could easily be a cable or a rope. Just looking at my original photo comparison, there is literally no way that there is that much angle difference between one photo and the other. There is only a barely recognizable difference to begin with. Whatever that line is, I do not think it is a crack and should not be used for comparison purposes.
Take a few photos at various distances and zooms. You might be surprised
What I do know is that the light poles are probably not mobile objects. If you look at the base of the light "bulbs" at the very tops of the light poles, the distances between two of them in the cutter photo are clearly wider than in the mystery hull photo. I will create a more accurate comparison photo tomorrow to reflect the fact that the cutter photo is still slightly too small when the heights of the buildings are compared. When I blow up the cutter photo the differences between the light pole distance will be magnified even more.Take a few photos at various distances and zooms. You might be surprised
Ok, first of all when I said the "height didn't matter" I only meant for the close up comparison picture where I wanted to align the edge of the building together, where I cut off the roof of the building. Obviously the height is important to keep everything in proportion, and for the close up comparison picture I kept everything in proportion, I just chopped off the roof of the building when I cropped it.
As for the "crack" -- it most definitely is there, but it's not actually a crack, it seems to be some kind of stain or rusted part of the building, and it's quite persistent. I've had a look at the archives over on CDF and it's been there since at least september 2014, and as we can see from the photo of the mystery module, it's still there.
The crack is actually two entities: on the "left" of the photo, there's a very small "crack" which is actually the shadow of what appears to be some kind of light fairing or security camera fairing, while immediately to the right is the much larger and more visible stained part of the building.
I'm not going to bother circling the crack in all of the photos, they're pretty obvious.
September 2014: lower middle, lower part of this photo
December 2014: middle of this photo
February 2015: middle left of this photo
So for the purposes of comparison, yes I think this is definitely the clearest thing we have, and is especially useful given the front surface of the building is likely parallel.
edit: I now realize what the "crack" is -- it's rust/oxidation from the camera or light fairing... that's why it's consistently there despite the passage over multiple years. So the size of the rust/oxidation "crack" may change over time, but the position of that crack will remain the same because the camera/light fairing itself is inherently fixed.
... so this crack is fixed, it's clear and easy to see and measure, and the distance between the edge of the building to the crack is also parallel to the beam of the ships in the graving dock. I don't think it can get any better than this tbh, using the two photos we have.
Last edited:
- Status