Ferrell aiming

One Pocket John said:
From Paultex
Can you tell me what you see in the picture about each ball?

Here is what I see.
1. Ball shadows
2. The darkest shadow edges are at the 1/4 ball edge (where the ball and the shadow meet.) The ghost (lightest) shadow is the ball edge.
3. The center of the darkest shadow is the center of the ball.

Just noticed in Paultex pics That the white ball shadow is smaller than the red ball shadow. (the red ball being further away)

As the square is moved around the cue ball the opening between the square and the cue ball gets smaller and smaller.

This is what I see.

John :)
Click to expand...



Dam John you done practiced the hell out of that table partner!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
greyghost said:
It is jibberish ish ish 🤣 when some one brings black science man over to give us the correct nomenclature , then I’ll use those words.

If you think those are wild you should see some of the initial brainstorming thoughts I’ve written on it over the years.....total retard savantry


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

PSSSSS.....IZ YOU CRAZY??? GIT BAK ON YO MOP. IF DUH MAN SAY IT BE GIBBERISH, DEN DO WUT DUH MAN TELL YOU BWOY.

Ummmmm (sqwirm) uhhhh mastuh vorpul.....suh'r......(sqwirm) please suhhh, spare ghost the lash, he young an'still FOO'lish. He dun tol'meee ware spi'duh iz......i knows where he at.

Ok, back to business.

I did not get the answer i was looking for. There are 3 concentric spheres in the pic. In a vacuum, nobody has ever seen spheres except for me and im telling you they are and showed a pic with 3 of them to prove it.

Based on the picture alone, remember, you only heard of spheres but never seen one and you know for a fact that a sphere is concentric.

Don't concern yourself with what "is" and concern yourself with what you "see". That's the only thing that matters when it comes to perception.

Are they spheres? The crazy guy says they are, yet you don't question him or claim he's talking jibber'ish now. Why is that? The question is in a vacuum, being the equivalent of a bigfoot picture and paultex is saying so.
 
greyghost said:
Why because it changes from table to table would that not make it a good reference for the ob?

Ever ponder on how it moves in ratio in our perception as we move around the shot and away and toward it , is exactly the same table to table

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your perspective shouldn't matter. The direction of the light casting the shadow is what matters. Sure, you can walk around the table and find the perfect perspective that gives a nice centered view of the OB's shadow, but it won't necessarily provide a solid reference for pocketing the ball. If the table light provides full overhead lighting on each ball anywhere on the table, then the shadows may very well provide good reference points for pocketing balls. In this situation your view point/perspective wouldn't matter -- the shadow of the sphere with light emanating from directly above would look the same (centered under the ball) regardless of your perspective.
 
BC21 said:
The ball shadows in paultex's image are not centered under the ball like in your photo. It's obvious in his image that the light is emanating from a light fixture somewhere above center table. The only time the balls will have a perfectly centered shadow is when they are sitting under the light source, as shown in your photo, or if you have a wide light with parabolic louvers/lenses, like the Diamond lights. So the shadow may not always be a good reference for aiming.
Click to expand...

Even with a Diamond light the shadows won't be the same. I have a Brunswick light, which is pretty much the same thing. The light box is only about 2' wide and spans from around the first to the third diamond on the short rail. So balls outside of that range have different shadows.
 
Dan White said:
Even with a Diamond light the shadows won't be the same. I have a Brunswick light, which is pretty much the same thing. The light box is only about 2' wide and spans from around the first to the third diamond on the short rail. So balls outside of that range have different shadows.
Click to expand...



It’s a non issue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BC21 said:
Your perspective shouldn't matter. The direction of the light casting the shadow is what matters. Sure, you can walk around the table and find the perfect perspective that gives a nice centered view of the OB's shadow, but it won't necessarily provide a solid reference for pocketing the ball. If the table light provides full overhead lighting on each ball anywhere on the table, then the shadows may very well provide good reference points for pocketing balls. In this situation your view point/perspective wouldn't matter -- the shadow of the sphere with light emanating from directly above would look the same (centered under the ball) regardless of your perspective.
Click to expand...



No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
greyghost said:
No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ok. I don't know how to use ball shadows for aiming. But it's obvious from my experience, playing on different tables with different lighting, that the ball shadows are not consistent. So maybe there's a trick to account for that, I don't know.

I have a 4×8 light with three sets of 8ft bulbs -- 1 set down the middle and a set on each side about 15 inches from the middle set. I only use the middle set because there's too much buzz noise with all 3 sets lit. I have parabolic louvers so the one set lights the table just fine. So here's a couple of examples showing varying ball shadows depending on which lighting fixtures I use.

First pic is center table bulbs. The shadow is centered under the 13 and very much off-centered under the 1. In the second pic I have only the two outer light fixtures working and the center bulbs are off. The 13 ball shadow is still centered, and the 1 ball shadow has shifted about a quarter inch from where it was when using just the center light fixture. This is why I don't understand aiming with ball shadows. The 1 ball hasn't moved, and my perspective of it hasnt changed, but the shadow has changed. How does this not become a factor?



picture.php

picture.php
 
Last edited:
greyghost said:
Nope the balls never change
Click to expand...

In Brian's photo the 1 ball gets cut into the left corner pocket. On the right side of the 1 ball if you follow the curving edge of the ball down to the table there is a point at about 4:30 on the ball where it meets up with the shadow. In both photos that point is in about the same spot. Is that the reference point you are using?
 
Dan White said:
In Brian's photo the 1 ball gets cut into the left corner pocket. On the right side of the 1 ball if you follow the curving edge of the ball down to the table there is a point at about 4:30 on the ball where it meets up with the shadow. In both photos that point is in about the same spot. Is that the reference point you are using?
Click to expand...

The shadow on the cut side is close to in each picture, but in the 1st pic it's about 1/16" farther out than the same shot in the 2nd pic, which means it would be cut thinner in the first shot and thicker in the second, a difference of about 3°.
 
BC21 said:
The shadow on the cut side is close to in each picture, but in the 1st pic it's about 1/16" farther out than the same shot in the 2nd pic, which means it would be cut thinner in the first shot and thicker in the second, a difference of about 3°.
Click to expand...

You have the original pic so it is easier for you to see. If I put a cursor at the point where the edge of the ball first "touches" the shadow" it looks like a vertical line from that point will just touch the tip of the number 1 on the ball. It looks to be in about the same place on the second pic of the 1 ball even though the overall shadow looks smaller on that side. Is that what the originals show if you blow them up? Logically it would seem that the shadow positions would have to be different, but maybe the differences are much less when looking at that particular intersection. I'm not sure if that is what you were looking at when you mention the 3 degrees.

Oh, and a prediction: Sadly, productive discussion in the aiming forum will soon be a scarce commodity.
 
Last edited:
Dan White said:
You have the original pic so it is easier for you to see. If I put a cursor at the point where the edge of the ball first "touches" the shadow" it looks like a vertical line from that point will just touch the tip of the number 1 on the ball. It looks to be in about the same place on the second pic of the 1 ball even though the overall shadow looks smaller on that side. Is that what the originals show if you blow them up? Logically it would seem that the shadow positions would have to be different, but maybe the differences are much less when looking at that particular intersection. I'm not sure if that is what you were looking at when you mention the 3 degrees.

Oh, and a prediction: Sadly, productive discussion in the aiming forum will soon be a scarce commodity.
Click to expand...



Yes sure looking at the ball from that angle yes that’s what I would see


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
greyghost said:
Yes sure looking at the ball from that angle yes that’s what I would see


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



And those relationships never actually change distance just changing in ratio vs perspective. Like imagine the balls clear and the spot had a dot to the contact. And the round edge was highlighted to each spot and around the balls outer edge like a big curved v.

As you would rotate it would skew and elongate or shorten but it would still be it’s original shape.

I do not know any terminology for the visual phenomenon.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Dan White said:
You have the original pic so it is easier for you to see. If I put a cursor at the point where the edge of the ball first "touches" the shadow" it looks like a vertical line from that point will just touch the tip of the number 1 on the ball. It looks to be in about the same place on the second pic of the 1 ball even though the overall shadow looks smaller on that side. Is that what the originals show if you blow them up? Logically it would seem that the shadow positions would have to be different, but maybe the differences are much less when looking at that particular intersection. I'm not sure if that is what you were looking at when you mention the 3 degrees.

Oh, and a prediction: Sadly, productive discussion in the aiming forum will soon be a scarce commodity.
Click to expand...


Maybe this video will explain my question/point better about the shadow being different on the same shot with different table lights. I used the coach's eye app. The 1 ball is exactly where it was when I took the pics the other day. I know.....that's sad. Lol. Anyhow, I placed a cb on the table for a 1/2 ball shot and set the camera up to record the changing shadow with the different lighting options.

https://youtu.be/NaGhSq8oYHg

I believe it's time for a lesson from greyghost....I do believe a phone call lesson is in my future, as soon as I remember to do it. :grin:
 
BC21 said:
Maybe this video will explain my question/point better about the shadow being different on the same shot with different table lights. I used the coach's eye app. The 1 ball is exactly where it was when I took the pics the other day. I know.....that's sad. Lol. Anyhow, I placed a cb on the table for a 1/2 ball shot and set the camera up to record the changing shadow with the different lighting options.

https://youtu.be/NaGhSq8oYHg

I believe it's time for a lesson from greyghost....I do believe a phone call lesson is in my future, as soon as I remember to do it. :grin:
Click to expand...



ba4b1c0adf5e2e41843477b95cbea583.jpg
491c5b660e947d29af1d51d8287d2123.jpg
7adc682c59fa84dc05c39c9745f98ebd.jpg



No change. Magic strong....even showing with fat finga red dot on iPhone1



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
greyghost said:
No change. Magic strong....even showing with fat finga red dot on iPhone1



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Lesson learned! Now I know where to look if I want to experiment with it. Thanks ghost.
 
Last edited:
What "V" are you talking about? If we are looking at BC's picture?

Screen_Shot_2018_02_07_at_1_21_17_PM.png




(added reference lines for; 12 o'clock ball to pocket, 6 o'clock ball to pocket, shadow exit ball to the pocket / vertical, center ball vertical / center)


greyghost said:
And those relationships never actually change distance just changing in ratio vs perspective. Like imagine the balls clear and the spot had a dot to the contact. And the round edge was highlighted to each spot and around the balls outer edge like a big curved v.

As you would rotate it would skew and elongate or shorten but it would still be it’s original shape.

I do not know any terminology for the visual phenomenon.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top