Caught by Camera - Alleged moving traffic violation
Discussion
tigger1 said:
Bri957 said:
Signs can be seen here.
It is not a bad piece of road now, just means people have to give way....which can be an issue in S.London.
No!?
Think of the children...
Still think this chap has a case to defend the ticket and it seems very odd the whole thing to me.
Am I missing something here??
Not very smart person in Smart car sits there all day and videos people. People at office then trawl through this footage, and send tickets out to people who can be seen in the same frame as oncoming traffic? Surely they have to show you pass the give way line with oncoming traffic visible?
How far does the sign say you have to give way to oncoming traffic from? Surely if you are stood at the line, then pull forward when no one is coming, someone is very likely to have to slow down to let you complete your manouver if they come round the corner at the speed limit.
Has no one tried to park infront of this idiot? Surely it cannot be obstruction of police, as its only someone sat in it who didnt get enough CSE's, not a policeman.
Not very smart person in Smart car sits there all day and videos people. People at office then trawl through this footage, and send tickets out to people who can be seen in the same frame as oncoming traffic? Surely they have to show you pass the give way line with oncoming traffic visible?
How far does the sign say you have to give way to oncoming traffic from? Surely if you are stood at the line, then pull forward when no one is coming, someone is very likely to have to slow down to let you complete your manouver if they come round the corner at the speed limit.
Has no one tried to park infront of this idiot? Surely it cannot be obstruction of police, as its only someone sat in it who didnt get enough CSE's, not a policeman.
Dwight VanDriver said:
The punishment in this case being under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - failing to comply with the order authorising its presence.
I read this as: being punished for not reading a document you had no opportunity to read at the time of the 'offence'. If so, WTF? My eyes aren't what they were, but the signage I can make out in the photographs with the not-so-Smart scamera car doesn't appear relevant (but I can't read the text on the furthest sign - any chance someone could post close-ups?) - StreakyJGX said:
Hi all,
My name is Jonathan Greatorex and I set up the website in question. Someone emailed the link to this to me over on mini2.com.
I just wanted to clarify the position about the two photos referred to above:
and
The issue with these two pics is that these shots were taken at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME (14:41:41). The cars HAVE NOT MOVED, but the image has been foreshortened by altering the focal length (the zoom on their camera moves extremely quickly) and the cars appear far, far closer together!!!
There's a more in-depth explanation on it on this page of the site, here: http://www.greatorex.org/lambethparking/image_fore...
One other interesting photo is this one of the CCTV camera car, SERIOUSLY illegally parked:
Unbelievable isn't it?
Cheers for now,
Jonathan
I'm sorry Jonathan, but zooming is exactly the same as cropping in its effect - it does not change the relative position of the camera vis a vis the subject and cannot, therefore, change the apparent postion of the cars in this case. There is not a shadow of doubt that those cars have moved and that the frames were taken at slightly different times. Only by physically tracking the camera towards the scene can the effect shown occur. Where I would agree with you is that the telephoto foreshortening effect is very misleading and parallax errors become significant. Just like with VASCAR you should refer the shadow of the cars to a clear transverse line on the road surface - shadow of the bridge for example.My name is Jonathan Greatorex and I set up the website in question. Someone emailed the link to this to me over on mini2.com.
I just wanted to clarify the position about the two photos referred to above:
and
The issue with these two pics is that these shots were taken at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME (14:41:41). The cars HAVE NOT MOVED, but the image has been foreshortened by altering the focal length (the zoom on their camera moves extremely quickly) and the cars appear far, far closer together!!!
There's a more in-depth explanation on it on this page of the site, here: http://www.greatorex.org/lambethparking/image_fore...
One other interesting photo is this one of the CCTV camera car, SERIOUSLY illegally parked:
Unbelievable isn't it?
Cheers for now,
Jonathan
Edited by JGX on Friday 29th June 15:27
Edited by JGX on Friday 29th June 15:28
Here is a well-publicised example of the perspective foreshortening effect of a zoom lens.
Of course the planes are nowhere near one another, but a lot of people were fooled.
Another issue with the extreme zoom technique is that it removes almost all useful reference points from the background, making it even harder to judge distances. All you see in the photo is two cars, which "seem" close to one another, framed against a background which has had all the other information removed.
Of course the planes are nowhere near one another, but a lot of people were fooled.
Another issue with the extreme zoom technique is that it removes almost all useful reference points from the background, making it even harder to judge distances. All you see in the photo is two cars, which "seem" close to one another, framed against a background which has had all the other information removed.
motco said:
I'm sorry Jonathan, but zooming is exactly the same as cropping in its effect - it does not change the relative position of the camera vis a vis the subject and cannot, therefore, change the apparent postion of the cars in this case. There is not a shadow of doubt that those cars have moved and that the frames were taken at slightly different times. Only by physically tracking the camera towards the scene can the effect shown occur. Where I would agree with you is that the telephoto foreshortening effect is very misleading and parallax errors become significant. Just like with VASCAR you should refer the shadow of the cars to a clear transverse line on the road surface - shadow of the bridge for example.
Sorry motco, but you are completely wrong.From my site. . .
An expert (a television cameraman and expert in this field) contacted me and this is what he said:
The crucial photographic trick Lambeth are playing with is called "depth of field".
Put simply, when a camera zooms in, it compacts the depth of field, ie, the distance between objects, making them look much closer than they really are.
This trick is used all the time in TV, especially when for example, they want to make roads or motorways look heavily congested. Zoom in from a long distance, this reduces the depth of field by a vast amount and makes the traffic look really dense. Cars spaced out over a quarter of a mile can look as if they're all bunched up together.
In the summer it's used to get good pictures of heat rising from the ground. Zoom in from a distance, and instead of just getting the barely noticeable effect of the heatwave rising from one part of the road, you get a heavily multiplied effect.
It's used to show an exaggerated view of pollution on a hazy summer's day too. Zoom in on a hot city skyline from a distance, and several miles worth of haze gets compacted together by the lens to give the impression of smog over the city... handy for all those 'global warming' scare stories.
The same is down to show vast crowds of people.
Lambeth's zoomed in camera reduced the depth of field. Oldest trick in the photographic book.
All the best,
JGX
JGX said:
Sorry motco, but you are completely wrong.
I don't think he is, but then neither are you. There's no doubt that the foreshortening effect is playing a big part in making these stills looks far worse than they really are, but your claim that the cars haven't moved at all between those two stills, simply because the timestamp is the same, doesn't stand up. The timestamp you're referring to on those stills is just a basic HH:MM:SS timestamp, but a standard PAL camera will spit out 25 frames every second, and each of those 25 frames will have the same HH:MM:SS timestamp... The figure at the lower-right corner appears to be a framecounter, showing an apparent difference of 9 frames between these two stills. For every 10mph you'd cover 4.47 metres/second, which equates to 1.6 metres over 9 frames. So for zooming alone to be responsible for the apparent motion between the two vehicles, both vehicles would have to be moving really slowly, or stationary.
What your tv cameraman said is right but you have misinterpreted it to say that it will alter the respective positions of the subjects, which it will not. All it will do is to compress the perspective but that is possible by simply selecting a rectangle in the standard view and closing in on it. I will demonstrate with pictures when I have time. BTW my knowledge is gained from many years of photography - amateur admittedly, but remember x=unknown and spurt is a pressurised drop of water, therefore an expert is an unknown drip under pressure. 
Right, here we go, apart from the poorer definition, masked when reduced in size, you cannot tell the cropped wide angle shot from the 'real' zoomed shot:-
Original size
Reduced
Simulated long focus shot from cropped wide angle view
Wide angle view from which above was taken
Right, here we go, apart from the poorer definition, masked when reduced in size, you cannot tell the cropped wide angle shot from the 'real' zoomed shot:-
Original size
Reduced
Simulated long focus shot from cropped wide angle view
Wide angle view from which above was taken
Edited by motco on Saturday 30th June 14:18
I do see what you are saying motco. The problem is that this is a contravention that relies on seeing the 'Whole picture' and it is this that we are all having a problem with. Lambeth are zooming in with their little CCTV cameras and therefore altering the evidence. Here's what I mean:
and
Best wishes,
JGX
and
Best wishes,
JGX
Ah yes, I agree there. By selecting a part of the view only, they are able to construct a possible, not proven, scenario. It seems to me that as long as there is space for two cars side by side, there is no conflict. In one shot it seems that the 'offender' is challenging the uncoming car for the right to pass when, in fact, there's room for both, or there will be once the 'offender' has moved a lesser distance forward, than the 'victim' has to move in the direction of the viewer. <wibble> ...not making much sense... <wibble>
Edited by motco on Saturday 30th June 16:16
Is it just me or does that BBC video link no longer work?
I wanted to go back and check from which side they filmed.
Thinking about the shot mentioned earlier right at the end of the piece where the cars come through the bridge and the motorbike accelerates overtaking on wrong side of road and trafffic island, I'm having difficulty picturing that along with the shot by JGX showing the CCTV car, traffic island and bridge.
Seems a lot of photography and film work distorts the depth perception.
All I can say about this is that some video I took when behind a heavy vehicle, purpose of filming irrelevant for this discussion, my following position was criticised as being too close. I admit on the video it looked too close especially as rain falling at the time. Using marker posts and timing rapidly became clear that was actually 4 seconds behind at 60 mph, which is not that close in distance though right for the conditions at the time..
I wanted to go back and check from which side they filmed.
Thinking about the shot mentioned earlier right at the end of the piece where the cars come through the bridge and the motorbike accelerates overtaking on wrong side of road and trafffic island, I'm having difficulty picturing that along with the shot by JGX showing the CCTV car, traffic island and bridge.
Seems a lot of photography and film work distorts the depth perception.
All I can say about this is that some video I took when behind a heavy vehicle, purpose of filming irrelevant for this discussion, my following position was criticised as being too close. I admit on the video it looked too close especially as rain falling at the time. Using marker posts and timing rapidly became clear that was actually 4 seconds behind at 60 mph, which is not that close in distance though right for the conditions at the time..
JGX said:
and
The issue with these two pics is that these shots were taken at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME (14:41:41). The cars HAVE NOT MOVED, but the image has been foreshortened by altering the focal length (the zoom on their camera moves extremely quickly) and the cars appear far, far closer together!
.) - StreakyEdited by streaky on Sunday 1st July 06:28
It's clear that the vehicles are in different positions in the two shots, but the two shots aren't claimed to be simultaneous, all we know is they're supposed to have been shot within a second of each other. A second is quite a long time, both cars could have moved up to 10-15 meters and this could easily account for the differences in their positions.
twister said:
The timestamp you're referring to on those stills is just a basic HH:MM:SS timestamp, but a standard PAL camera will spit out 25 frames every second, and each of those 25 frames will have the same HH:MM:SS timestamp... The figure at the lower-right corner appears to be a framecounter, showing an apparent difference of 9 frames between these two stills. For every 10mph you'd cover 4.47 metres/second, which equates to 1.6 metres over 9 frames. So for zooming alone to be responsible for the apparent motion between the two vehicles, both vehicles would have to be moving really slowly, or stationary.
Ok so over 9 frames at 30mph a car will travel 1.6 metres, assuming 2 cars are driving towards each other at 30mph that means they would close the gap between each other by 3.2 metres. In the 1st shot the BMW appears to be about to drive under a bridge in the second shot it still looks like he is not fully under the bridge. In the 1st shot the approaching car also look as if it is about to pass under the same bridge from the other side, in the 2nd shot he still hasn't quite got to the bridge, yet the apparent distance between the cars in the 2nd shot makes it look as if they are very close to collision even though there is almost the entire width of a railway bridge between them. I'm not sure how it can be argued that the effect of zooming is not distorting the way the facts in these pictures will be read. Would it be admissable if the pictures were being taken by a speed camera where 2 shots are taken over a fixed distance however instead of zooming in the camera pulls out to wide angle so the car appears to have travelled further which will make it look like the driver is driving faster than he really is.
TheKeyboardDemon said:
twister said:
The timestamp you're referring to on those stills is just a basic HH:MM:SS timestamp, but a standard PAL camera will spit out 25 frames every second, and each of those 25 frames will have the same HH:MM:SS timestamp... The figure at the lower-right corner appears to be a framecounter, showing an apparent difference of 9 frames between these two stills. For every 10mph you'd cover 4.47 metres/second, which equates to 1.6 metres over 9 frames. So for zooming alone to be responsible for the apparent motion between the two vehicles, both vehicles would have to be moving really slowly, or stationary.
Ok so over 9 frames at 30mph a car will travel 1.6 metres, assuming 2 cars are driving towards each other at 30mph that means they would close the gap between each other by 3.2 metres. In the 1st shot the BMW appears to be about to drive under a bridge in the second shot it still looks like he is not fully under the bridge. In the 1st shot the approaching car also look as if it is about to pass under the same bridge from the other side, in the 2nd shot he still hasn't quite got to the bridge, yet the apparent distance between the cars in the 2nd shot makes it look as if they are very close to collision even though there is almost the entire width of a railway bridge between them. I'm not sure how it can be argued that the effect of zooming is not distorting the way the facts in these pictures will be read. Would it be admissable if the pictures were being taken by a speed camera where 2 shots are taken over a fixed distance however instead of zooming in the camera pulls out to wide angle so the car appears to have travelled further which will make it look like the driver is driving faster than he really is.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff