It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Just a little something I captured this morning

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Nice photo. I'm just replying since I read through the thread.

I think you caught an alien craft. Maybe the three dots of light could be three separate ships, but I'm more inclined to think it was one triangular ship with lights on the corners, as people have seen and photographed elsewhere.

Maybe the ship was floating by slowly and cloaked invisible, and so only your camera could see it in IR that your eyes couldn't. This is supposed to be a known phenomenon, that there are tons of alien craft flying around but only visible with IR technology.

Such sightings also make me wonder why the craft would let itself be seen. It could be on purpose, or maybe they just don't really care if we see them a little bit sometimes...




posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: onehuman
I did try to bring up the exif data from this one but I got mostly the same thing, but anyone else is more than welcome to try themselves.

Not enough EXIF data to know more about the photo itself.

Three things make me think this may be lens flare:
1 - the lack of blur on the lights;
2 - the shape of the two brighter lights;
3 - the fact they weren't visible to the naked eye.

Edited to add that, if this is lens flare, you should be able to replicate it, by taking a photo of that light on the other side of the house when the light is just becoming visible over the roof(?) and see if those lights appear on the camera again.
edit on 16/10/2015 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP
If I posted all the pics you would see there wasn't any lens flare in any of the photos. That is a fixed light. Here, I have taken a daylight picture from where I was shooting. You can't even see the light from this side of the house so it isn't like I was shooting into it. It was just casting the light from further away which the fog made interesting to see in the tree, and funny enough what I was seeing with the naked eye for that was much more interesting than what the camera caught. Until this last picture of course! I would think taking 6 pictures in two minutes I would have had the flare on a couple of the others or at least one more.




posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: onehuman
If I posted all the pics you would see there wasn't any lens flare in any of the photos.

That's the problem, as you haven't posted the other photos we can only use the one you posted as reference.


That is a fixed light. Here, I have taken a daylight picture from where I was shooting. You can't even see the light from this side of the house so it isn't like I was shooting into it.

That's strange, as it looks like we are seeing, at least partially, the light.


It was just casting the light from further away which the fog made interesting to see in the tree, and funny enough what I was seeing with the naked eye for that was much more interesting than what the camera caught.

It usually is.



Until this last picture of course! I would think taking 6 pictures in two minutes I would have had the flare on a couple of the others or at least one more.

If the camera was exactly in the same position in all photos, yes, but as I haven't seen the other photos I cannot know that.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I'm working at the moment, I will post them later.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: onehuman
a reply to: tsctsc
Welcome to our head scratcher
Couple things I can clear up for you or try too anyway. If you read my op, you would know I was actually out just trying to catch some cool fog swirls around the only light there is. I am in the country and that light happens to be in my front yard. I was in my back yard.

I was only going to take the 5 pictures, but I just happened to notice in the view finder what I thought might be stars. That excited me because I am been trying to catch the star views on my camera here for awhile. So the ONLY thing I did different was just tilt the camera up a smidgen to keep the lights in the view finder. I just went back and look too see the actual timing. I took me from 5:02 am est. to 5:04 am est. to take the 6 pictures. If that little sparkle hadn't of caught my eye, we wouldn't be here right now. I did not see this with the naked eye and trust me, I was looking to see what was causing it.


Yes, that's what I understood from your posts and I appreciate the additional information




You mentioned blur. it is amazing there isn't any really, because I was just sort of popping the pictures off in the dark. I wasn't really expecting to be capturing anything like this if that tells you anything.


It does tell me plenty.

Here is what other things that occurred me:

Youmay know the following, or not, but let me go step-by-step to help us in the thinking process


The time of exposure will depend on how much light you have available in the scenario.
In an snapshot camera, the system usually captures the overall light in a given main area of the view finder, and sets the exposure according to the average light.
That means that if you have a heavy source of light in one spot and a very dark in another point of the same area, the exposure time will be shorter than necessary to expose clearly whatever is in the darker side.

Let me tell you what I think it's tricky in your picture: you have a very luminous area around the trees which in that particular scenario with your particular equipment would decrease the exposure time, thus the difficulty to devise whatever is in the darker parts of the picture. (This is probably why you can't photograph stars with your equipment).

Having said that, it's easy to conclude that the camera would only show those particular spots of light if they were even brighter than the average light.

Now, what we have here are 3 very bright spots of light, no blur, and not visible to the naked eyes. I'm frying my brain trying to figure out why you couldn't see them but the camera against the odds captured it.

I have a picture here I took it myself of a strange blue light that was invisible to the naked eye, but my camera (and it's a semi-professional dslr) captured. I'm yet to find the answer for that. However, thinking about that particular photo, I had a cloudy night, which would more or less be represented by the fog you had that day.

So, I know for a fact that both your 3 lights and my blue light are not flares (which most of the times I can tell almost immediatelly when I see it), and although possible, they don't seem to be refraction either.

It might be a weather phenomenon which I can't (because I don't know) explain, or it's really an unknown object.

Sorry the long post, but brainstorm requires some progressive elimination of the possible, (as the saying goes) until we reach the impossible as the truth.
or... According to a dream I once had where I turned to my sister and told her: they are just floating up there, the thing is that we are not looking to the sky the right way.




Only other thing you missed is the fact that Im a woman.



Sorry it escaped me, but for the records, so am I.





posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP
I didn't forget you ArMap! I actually tried to upload them earlier, but since I didn't bother to name them all separately they ended up as the same one. Silly me.
So top to bottom the order I took them in:
Im pretty sure I had taken a step back for the last two, but didn't really move for the "money shot or number 6."








posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: tsctsc

Nice to meet you, sorry it took so long for a response, busy day for me. If you have any idea what the default setting is for a iphone 5c as far as exposure goes, you will have one answer at least. I have never fiddled with that. Haven't really had any reason too.

For something like this , I actually appreciate a long post.. not that I really considered this long, and the good news is you actually had something of substance to say... Tells me you are thinking bout it as much as I am.

Im really super tired right now, but maybe the pictures I just posted for ArMap might help you in some sort of way. Will pick up with you tomorrow



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: onehuman

Thanks, that does give a better view of the whole event.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

So Id like to ask now that you have a better view of the whole event, what is your opinion now?



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 02:45 AM
link   
I honestly do not think it is lens flare.

As someone who has to constantly work to avoid it every day for a living. (I'm a full time photographer) this does not remind me of lens flare.

I say this because it was one of the first things I looked for.


This is not me in denial.... Just my opinion




posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: onehuman

I still think that lens flare is the most likely explanation.

If I were you I would go there again to try to see if those small lights appear on the screen again while making slight changes in position (both of the phone and of yourself). If those lights appear again then they are lens flare and case closed, if they do not appear again then the possibility of them being lens flares are reduced.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP
Actually I did do that the same night a hour later which I posted back in the beginning, 1st page or so. I was actually trying to catch a plane that was flying over from the same spot. I think with the 6 pictures taken, three from one spot, three including the one with the object from a mere step back, has basically eliminated the lens flare thought. This is a repost of that picture I took a hour later:




edit on 10/18/15 by onehuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: onehuman
I think with the 6 pictures taken, three from one spot, three including the one with the object from a mere step back, has basically eliminated the lens flare thought.

The problem is, even if you couldn't replicate it, it doesn't mean it's not a lens flare, only that you couldn't make one, that's why I said that the probabilities would be reduced, not eliminated.

I suppose this case will remain in the unknown category.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: onehuman

Thanks for posting those shots, the exif data was atttached

1/15 sec 3200 iso f2.4 muti-segment metering.

The iphone 5c employs pixel binning when the light levels get low, what it means is at 1250 iso and above adjacent pixels are combined to produce an increase in light level and the picture is resized to create the image.


Based on what we've seen here, and in our real-world shooting, it does look like the iPhone 5 employs pixel-binning at ISO settings higher than ISO 1000, and subsequently upsizes the resulting images to 3264x2448 pixels (8MP). Notice how sharpness drops signifncantly between ISO 800 and ISO 2000. This appears to be more than just increased noise and more aggressive noise-reduction.


So image quality suffers greatly, ArMaP may be correct those lights could be a flare of the main light and due to the process the camera uses to capture in low light that was the result.

They also could be fainter points of light in the distance that the pixel binning and effective digital enlargement back to an 8mp image makes them look the way they do.

The main point is phone cameras, small sensors and low light are not the best combination whatever the manufacturer claims.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Well, I don't believe it is lens flare at all, because flare is an effect usually due to light reflection usually present in type of lenses that have multiple elements or surfaces where the light can scatter, such as a zoom lens. Not saying it's impossible, but I dont think the lens IPhone uses has what it takes to flare.
It's more likely to be a weather phenomenon, where light is refracting in the water particles that are suspended in the air due to the fog.

At the moment I really ran out of ideas. Will keep this in mind, and will come back later if anything else occurs me


I love a good brainstorm, and will not forget this case.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: tsctsc

If you search on the Internet you will find many photos taken with Iphones with lens flare, so I suppose it happens.

As I don't have one I cannot try to reproduce it.

As for the lights being a weather phenomenon, why would it be invisible to the eye?



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: tsctsc

If you search on the Internet you will find many photos taken with Iphones with lens flare, so I suppose it happens.

As I don't have one I cannot try to reproduce it.

As for the lights being a weather phenomenon, why would it be invisible to the eye?


Well, I guess (and this is really my guessing) because you don't have the necessary hability to see it.
Let me put it this way: the camera stays focused at the exact same point let's say for half a second, with a large aperture, it then captures the light reflecting in the water particles.
By nature our eyes don't have the same aperture capacity and we don't stare long enough to see it. I have here many pictures of the blue light I mentioned previously. I couldn't see it at all, but the camera captured it time and time again. It got to a point I thought it was something like a spirit LOL, but it was a cloudy night, there were other sources of light coming from around, pretty much the same condition of this case. I was led to conclude that the only reason the camera captured it and I didn't is because it took a longer time to the light "build up" enough to be seen.

Dunno... just a thought



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsctsc
Let me put it this way: the camera stays focused at the exact same point let's say for half a second, with a large aperture, it then captures the light reflecting in the water particles.
By nature our eyes don't have the same aperture capacity and we don't stare long enough to see it.

Our eyes are very sensitive, but have limitations, the exposure time is obviously limited in our case, but in similar situations we can, for example, see stars near a full Moon, while a camera can only either photograph the stars while overexposing the Moon or photograph the Moon while underexposing the stars.

And I don't think that's what happened here, as a longish exposure time would result in motion blur of the water particles, unless the particles were stopped in the air.


I have here many pictures of the blue light I mentioned previously. I couldn't see it at all, but the camera captured it time and time again.

From your description those blue lights look like some kind of camera artefact, could you post one?


Dunno... just a thought

That's how all things should start.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join