TwinkleTwo

[avalonswan]

Well your in luck! My step father is into CCTV security and still sells the stuff from my old company. Pelco is a good place to start for PTZ mounts and inparticular the software and protocols used to move them. They are somewhat standardized around pelco. Speeco is another brand, but don't forget the majors names like Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba Etc.. there sights are choked full of information on gear and specs. Do note thoughthe the lecnses are almost mandated to be Telescope CCTV atronomy rigs. Everythign else is designed for 100 feet or less which will not give you enough focal legnth or focus for most aerial photos. 123 security products has a lot of information that can get you started on the right path for any question raised.

[xpoq47]

Great. I need information. I looked at a list of equipment supported by one program and liked what I read about the Sony EVI-D30 and EVID100, which were expensive new but in some cases cheap used now, but your point about telescope CCTV rigs is something I was wondering about and have to take into consideration. So far, the protocols that have gotten my attention are VISCA and Pelco-D. But I know virtually nothing about the equipment so far and was thinking about something perhaps a bit old (therefore cheap if bought used and possibly already lying around in the case of some potential participants) rather than the newest stuff (which has the advantage of actually being available, even though it's probably more expensive). But a lot of people donft want to buy used stuff. Anyway, I need a detailed list of what is usable and what protocols I'll have to support. And Ifm not going to buy any such cameras myself. Ifm just making the software.

[avalonswan]

Someone to talk to possibly
www.astro-photos.net/ccd-setup2009_en.html
Then again you may need translation from German. But still cool!

[xpoq47]

I got the specs for VISCA, Pelco-D, and Pelco-P. I may have to support a few more.

One of the tricks of the software is that each image a local computer sends to the control computer is described in only four bytes: the x and y coordinates of the center of a target or out-of-range values to indicate there is nothing in view. (Image analysis is done by the three local computers.) This obviously speeds communication, which is especially important when the program is relying on this information to align two cameras with the detecting camera. The second bonus from this is that it makes centering of all three fast and easy (virtually instantaneous) once an object is in view of all three cameras, without which zooming might well send the object out of frame. And saving of images is speeded by the fact that itfs done at each camera station by the computer directly wired to the camera, not slowed by Internet transfer. The only such transfer will be to the projectfs Web site after saving is accomplished, just so people can view the results while the target is still there.

One direct question: What would an object such as a helicopter look like from 3-7 miles away photographed with something like a Sony EVI-D30 or EVID100 with the extremely good viewing conditions offered by New Mexico skies? Good enough, or does the job require something much more expensive?

[avalonswan]

I would not know about the helicopter question but there was a guy on one of the UFO shows about area 51 you might want to contact. He still looks at area 51 from the only vantage point left which is roughly 20 miles away if I remember correctly. He used a telescope and ccd camers to do the viewing. He can give you details. Another source Would be Douglas Trumbull but he's rather reclusive at present . He built a truck like what I want to build but then stuck it in a garage and I have not hear a thing about it since. The helicopter question is good because I do not believe anyone has done target photos in clear daylight to gage that question of what DOES a helipcoter look like at 100, 200, 300 feet etc... with a good (identifyable, known specs ect...) photo target hanging below it for reference.

[xpoq47]

I was hoping MUFON would have some people who could give me some advice on what cameras to support. But even with cheap cameras the results will be better than anything we've gotten over the past 60 years.

Anyway, here's a screenshot of a test of the control program's core function, which is to figure out camera alignment once a target is detected. This indicates that the system could work once all the little support features are programmed and debugged.

i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm309/LCARS24/DDCAP-control.png

[avalonswan]

Tag your it!!!! it would seem we are alone in our quests :-(

[xpoq47]

Well, there should be MUFON involvement--the earlier, the better--certainly before the system is up and running. Ifm doing 99% of the work by developing the software. But there has to be someone in charge in the area to make sure the cameras are set up properly and that the camera information is correctly registered with the software. Once the camera locations are known, someone has to draw a grid on a map based on those locations then measure the camera coordinates on the map in relation to the grid and input that information, plus set the home orientations of the three cameras according program protocol. And when and if a UFO is photographed simultaneously by all three cameras and judged to be truly exotic, someone has to file FOIA requests within 15 days for FAA and weather radar data.

I just checked the top of the page. These are the official MUFON forums. And I also see gTHE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF UFOS FOR THE BENEFIT OF HUMANITY.h I would guess that setting up an ambush with three computer-controlled cameras to enable triangulation in a manner that canft be called fake and then backing up the results with radar data fits into that category.

[avalonswan]

Well XP this is a sore point with me, but MUFON seemingly is nothing more than a data repository of others field work. More like a library than a field organization. Don't get me wrong, libraries are much needed, but I think their needs to be a field organization and all attempts at creating a serious scientific organization seem to be stifled at present. (Insert evil laugh/ organization or both here)

[xpoq47]

I'll check with the local branch in the target area for signs of life. I just looked at the Wikipedia article on MUFON, and it doesn't paint the kind of picture you've described. Whatever. What I'm doing should be done now that the hardware is easily available and it only requires software that can be compiled with free tools, which I'm using to make it easy for anyone to check my work if they have doubts.

If people really don't want the lid blown off the basic question and want to keep things as they are, well, I needn't bother. But whatever the phenomenon is, this is the best chance to get a good look at it, plus have data to get an accurate calculation of its size, plus radar confirmation and methodology that's squeaky clean open to public scrutiny. But the system requires participation of three people in the target area plus a local supervisor to make sure it's set up correctly.

[xpoq47]

This project has just become a lot easier. The best camera for the job, surprisingly, sells for $50 or less, and the new version of the program requires only two of them and only one location, albeit within 2 km of a UFO hotspot and with a big back yard (so the cameras can be at least 20 meters apart). It also requires only one dedicated computer, which speeds data transfer, since both programs are integrated into one. And the last process that was a tad slow has new lightning-fast methodology. I just have a lot of programming to do to produce a commercial-quality yet free program that will be used by very few people. What kind of idiot would do that? Kidding. Programming is fun.

[avalonswan]

Go for it Xp, this sort of thing gets going and everyone will sit up and take notice. An interested sideline is that there is a new Symposium video link you may be interested in that says a few things about the future.

[isaackoi]

Sept 3, 2012 19:51:43 GMT -5 xpoq47 said:

This project has just become a lot easier. The best camera for the job, surprisingly, sells for $50 or less, and the new version of the program requires only two of them and only one location

That's good news on the costs front. (I thought I'd posted something here or elsewhere expressing some concern about whether it was realistic to expect someone to spend the necessary amount of money on this project - but I can't find that post...).

However, would cameras at such a low price give low resolution/quality pictures?

Could such cameras be paired to produce a stereoscopic image (like the camera Hynek carried with him, and used to take his own photo of a "UFO")?

By the way, back in 2005, I posted some references to discussion of prior instrumented sky searches (including in Project Twinkle, Project Hessdalen, Project Starlight and Project Identification) in Section B of my email at:
ufoupdateslist.com/2005/jan/m02-008.shtml

Most of those discussions are fairly limited and, of course, the specifics of cameras used etc are probably a bit dated.

I can probably put you in touch with someone that worked on Project Hessdalen if that would help.

Probably not directly relevant to your project, I did post a brief summary of some of the discussions of equipment for UFO field investigators as an entry on AboveTopSecret's wiki ("Tinwiki") before the plug was pulled on that project. That brief entry is in the Internet Archive at:
web.archive.org/web/20090107051859/http://www.tinwiki.org/wiki/Field_Equipment

I just have a lot of programming to do to produce a commercial-quality yet free program that will be used by very few people. What kind of idiot would do that? Kidding. Programming is fun.

What kind of idiot would spend any time on UFO research...

All the best,

Isaac

[xpoq47]

Thanks for posting, Issackoi. Itfs always good to hear from you. The model of camera I have found most suitable was a high-end camera when first introduced but has been superseded by several subsequent models, the latest of which is priced just under $4,000, making my choice obsolete and dirt-cheap on eBay or in shops. But it has the right specs for the job. And the two cameras will be placed at least 20 meters apart, both aimed straight downrange at the sky over a traditional UFO hotspot. When recording, their shutters will be synchronized. Detection is automatic. In this configuration, both cameras will have an object in frame if itfs not just a bug on the lens of one camera, and upon detection and verification that itfs a sizable hovering object, pan/tilt will only be used if needed to keep the target in frame of both cameras when zoomed. And every one of the several potential speed bottlenecks has been slapped down. An object can appear and depart so fast that ground witnesses would be out of luck, but this system should be able to start recording within a second after detection. And every frame will be shot by both cameras, with a data stamp below the image. Ifve also looked at the distance and sizes of back yards of a neighborhood adjacent the No. 1 hotspot, and theyfre perfect for this configuration, as many others probably are.

I just have a lot of work to do to get the software perfect.

[xpoq47]

Here's download link for the demo version of this software:

lcars24.com/DDCAP.zip

It just generates demonstration targets and shows how the software reacts but also lets you control it a bit in steps, because in AUTO mode it's pretty fast. And the viewport is the actual size of output from the cameras I mentioned that used to be the latest and greatest but are now very cheap used.