UFO Photographed Accidentally, by Ed Annunziata, Creator of Ecco the Dolphin

originally posted by: JamesChessman
This is almost hard for me to take seriously. No offense.

No offence, it's just a case of you not understanding what I mean.

But anyway, like I said, your example is not analogous, to Mr. Annunziata's photo, with its darker lines which you think are reflections. Your example is white reflections, fading / vanishing against a white background. It's pretty substantially different. If you were trying to recreate the same thing, you could certainly force a situation with a dark reflection, and try to make it vanish against a white backdrop. That would at least be trying to recreate the same effect.

And it's probably more difficult to pull that off, which is why you went with the easier effect of white reflection, white backdrop.

I used that white object because it was the one I had handy, but if you want to know how a darker reflection would appear just look to the left of the roughly triangular shape being reflected, everything we see to the left is the same old refrigerator door, just not getting any direct Sun light, so it doesn't show.

You, see, reflections are not the physical object, a bright reflection is light being reflected by the glass, while a darker reflection doesn't show because it's fainter light, too dark to be visible in front on a more illuminated background.

When I have the opportunity I will make the experiment with objects of different colours, so you can see the difference. I will probably do it during the weekend, if we have good weather, as I don't have the time during the day, I have to work.

Plus you don't even have a point there, in terms of semantics. I said you can "manipulate" and "exaggerate" the colors and of course it's true, and it has nothing to do with the semantics of whether the colors are at "maximum value" or not.

It's not semantics.

Lameness.

"Exaggerate" doesn't mean that it's within the colors' "maximum value." How about "exaggerate" the colors, so they're MORE THAN the "maximum value" of the original picture. How about double the damn saturation, so it ends up at TWICE the color saturation, of the original pic's "maximum value."

You cannot exaggerate the colours more than the maximum. If a pixel has all it's components at the maximum value (255 for an 8 bits per pixel image), full white, you cannot make the value higher than 255, as that's the limit for an 8 bpp image. In the same way you cannot reduce a colour to less than 0.
That's what I was saying, and what I meant was that if the "windmill" is already full white (255,255,255) you cannot exaggerate the colour, all the changes you make can only let it as it is or make it darker.

The lines have not been proven either way, whether reflections, or not.

You say it like it's established, but it's not.

I said the reflection explanation is the most likely, only that, don't put words in my mouth.

What's NOT established is that everything you want to be a reflection, is automatically a reflection.

I don't want it to be any thing, I have only been posting my opinion, just that. If you take it for something it is not then that's your problem, but don't act as if I am the one making a big deal about it.

And talk about forcing a biased, close-minded opinion.

You guys are wrong to assume that everything is automatically reflections.

I'm not assuming any thing.

Especially that it doesn't even resemble reflections.

That's your opinion, which I do not share.

The UFO's resemble UFO's, and the lines resemble old airplane exhaust trails, as far as I can tell.


And FFS it's not an "esoteric" interpretation that the lines we're seeing are airplane exhaust trails.

"The UFO's resemble UFO's"? Obviously, an unidentified thing resembles an unidentified thing.

Aeroplane exhaust trails do not change the colour of the sky like those lines do. You can see that the sky above the line is darker than the sky below the same line.

I'd be much more convinced if someone could explain what the reflections are actually reflecting, but no one can.

I don't know about other people, but I cannot explain what the reflections are reflecting because I don't know the guy's car and the reflections are not clear enough (obviously, if they were we wouldn't be having this discussion).

The UFO's are just argued to be random light glare, which does make sense as a possibility, except that the UFO's actually look like symmetrical structures. And the lines don't resemble a reflection of a dashboard or something.

Lines are lines, they could be from any thing with edges.

The question of whether the lines overlap the turbines is an important consideration and when I get the time, I'll try to bring that out in exaggerated, manipulated colors, even though some people seem to want to argue against doing that.

Why are the lines important?

i.e arguing against trying to see the topic AS CLEARLY AS POSSIBLE. What a strange line of thinking to argue.

I thought the topic was the "UFO", not the lines. I only saw the lines relevant to try to understand if they were a reflection (in which case the "UFO" could also be a reflection) or not, to see if the photo was taken inside a car.
That's the only reason I see to discuss the lines.

What relevance do you see in the lines to try to know if the "UFO" is real or not?

Also like I said, you can't have it both ways, re: The lines being important proof of reflections (as you've been arguing), but also, that it's somehow NOT important, to look closely at the overlapping areas.

That's because I know that a faint reflection does not appear to overlap a bright object. To me, the lines were important to try to find out if the photo was taken inside a car or not. From the moment we knew that the photo was really taken inside a car I don't see why the lines are important.

Yesterday I was able to get a few minutes of sunshine at the right time of day, so I could make four videos showing the reflections of four cables I found.

These are the photos of the four cables.

A white USB cable.


A beige USB cable.


A grey audio cable.


A black audio cable.
(I had to increase the gamma for this photo to make the cable visible, it looked better on the camera)


And these are the videos, in which I moved the cables so the reflection had different backgrounds.

The white cable.


The beige cable.


The grey cable.


The black cable.


I hope this clears a little the case of how a darker reflection is less visible over a white background.

PS: when the camera is in video mode it's automatic, so I couldn't have a fixed configuration and we can see things change a little during each video.

a reply to: ArMaP

No offence, it's just a case of you not understanding what I mean.

^Well OK, that's perfectly possible...

I used that white object because it was the one I had handy, but if you want to know how a darker reflection would appear just look to the left of the roughly triangular shape being reflected, everything we see to the left is the same old refrigerator door, just not getting any direct Sun light, so it doesn't show.

You, see, reflections are not the physical object, a bright reflection is light being reflected by the glass, while a darker reflection doesn't show because it's fainter light, too dark to be visible in front on a more illuminated background.

When I have the opportunity I will make the experiment with objects of different colours, so you can see the difference. I will probably do it during the weekend, if we have good weather, as I don't have the time during the day, I have to work.

^Well do what you want, re: recreating your own reflections, I'm not like asking you to do it. lol. But I just thought your previous example was qualitatively different from Mr. Annunziata's pic that's the main topic we're discussing / referencing. Dark lines over white turbines, is definitely different from any pics of white reflections over white background, lol.

You cannot exaggerate the colours more than the maximum. If a pixel has all it's components at the maximum value (255 for an 8 bits per pixel image), full white, you cannot make the value higher than 255, as that's the limit for an 8 bpp image. In the same way you cannot reduce a colour to less than 0.
That's what I was saying, and what I meant was that if the "windmill" is already full white (255,255,255) you cannot exaggerate the colour, all the changes you make can only let it as it is or make it darker.

Well if this isn't arguing the semantics then I don't really know what exactly you're really getting at. Obviously a photo's colors can be easily manipulated with any basic photo editing software. The colors can be increased, multiplied. Saturation, contrast, brightness, fill light etc. can all be very easily manipulated / messed around with.

Well I guess I'm just missing your point there.

I said the reflection explanation is the most likely, only that, don't put words in my mouth.

I don't want it to be any thing, I have only been posting my opinion, just that. If you take it for something it is not then that's your problem, but don't act as if I am the one making a big deal about it.

^Alright, sorry, maybe I was taking things wrong...

"The UFO's resemble UFO's"? Obviously, an unidentified thing resembles an unidentified thing.

Man come on, this is really just criticizing my phrasing of one particular sentence. Here, I'll say it better:

"The supposed UFO's really do seem to resemble flying craft, more than they resemble the random reflections of the inside of a car."

Aeroplane exhaust trails do not change the colour of the sky like those lines do. You can see that the sky above the line is darker than the sky below the same line.

Yeah Idk, man. Sunlight can streak shadows in the sky with clouds, and airplane exhaust trails. It's not a far-out idea or something.

And it's not like the lines actually resemble anything recognizable from inside a car. Like it doesn't resemble the dashboard edge or something. So I don't agree with assuming that we're just seeing reflections from his car interior. It's possible but it's also not clear and we don't need to assume it...

I don't know about other people, but I cannot explain what the reflections are reflecting because I don't know the guy's car and the reflections are not clear enough (obviously, if they were we wouldn't be having this discussion).

^Well the natural thing would be for me or someone to try to exaggerate the colors of the photo, to bring out the best clarity of the lines, that we're discussing.

But somehow you were arguing against the semantics or phrasing of that, for some reason...

Lines are lines, they could be from any thing with edges.

Um, including they could be actual lines of old exhaust trails actually in the sky...

Why are the lines important?

^Because the lines have just been argued to be reflections for forever, which suggests dismissing the UFO's as reflections too.

So the whole implication depends on the lines actually being reflections. If the lines are not reflections then it negates the implication that the UFO's are probably reflections too.

Plus the lines grew into their own topic, although it was not at all my original focus, it is somewhat puzzling what exactly the lines really are. Whether reflections or some kind of light / shadow effects in the actual sky, like old exhaust trails...

Anyway if we can get more clarity on the photo overlap between the turbines and the lines, then it should help prove what the lines are, i.e. reflections or actual sky stuff...

That's because I know that a faint reflection does not appear to overlap a bright object. To me, the lines were important to try to find out if the photo was taken inside a car or not. From the moment we knew that the photo was really taken inside a car I don't see why the lines are important.

Well of course a faint reflection can possibly still overlap a bright background. It's possible...

And even though we know the pic was thru a windshield, it's still worth trying to understand what exactly we're seeing: reflections or sky stuff.

And obviously if the lines are assumed reflections then it lends itself to assuming the UFO's must be reflections too. Or not...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Dark lines over white turbines, is definitely different from any pics of white reflections over white background, lol.

It's only different to you because you are not understanding the way it works.

Well if this isn't arguing the semantics then I don't really know what exactly you're really getting at. Obviously a photo's colors can be easily manipulated with any basic photo editing software. The colors can be increased, multiplied. Saturation, contrast, brightness, fill light etc. can all be very easily manipulated / messed around with.

Well I guess I'm just missing your point there.

My point is that if you have an area with full white (255,255,255) then you can only make it darker, you cannot exaggerate a colour that is already at the maximum possible value.
(I'm assuming you know how colours work on a computer screen, maybe I'm wrong)

Man come on, this is really just criticizing my phrasing of one particular sentence. Here, I'll say it better:

"The supposed UFO's really do seem to resemble flying craft, more than they resemble the random reflections of the inside of a car."

Yes, I was mostly joking about the way your sentence was written.
And I do not agree that they look more like flying craft than reflections, that's why I thought they looked like reflections when I saw them.
Different people, different ways of seeing things.

Yeah Idk, man. Sunlight can streak shadows in the sky with clouds, and airplane exhaust trails. It's not a far-out idea or something.

I know, I have seen it several times, but that's not what we see in the photo, as the lines act as a border between areas of the sky with different tones. I think the image below, after using GIMP's Mantiuk 2006 tone mapping, shows it better.



That looks nothing like a contrail shadow.

And it's not like the lines actually resemble anything recognizable from inside a car. Like it doesn't resemble the dashboard edge or something. So I don't agree with assuming that we're just seeing reflections from his car interior. It's possible but it's also not clear and we don't need to assume it...

Just because it doesn't resemble a recognised object it doesn't mean it cannot look like a reflection.
When I looked at it it did look like a reflection, I didn't assume it was because I didn't know if the photo was taken inside a car or not.

^Well the natural thing would be for me or someone to try to exaggerate the colors of the photo, to bring out the best clarity of the lines, that we're discussing.

But somehow you were arguing against the semantics or phrasing of that, for some reason...

I'm not, you are not understand what I mean by being impossible to exaggerate something that is already at its possible maximum.
But don't take my word for it, go ahead and try it, the more tests we do the better.

Um, including they could be actual lines of old exhaust trails actually in the sky...

Hardly, for the reasons I explained above.

^Because the lines have just been argued to be reflections for forever, which suggests dismissing the UFO's as reflections too.

So the whole implication depends on the lines actually being reflections. If the lines are not reflections then it negates the implication that the UFO's are probably reflections too.

Not to me, as I think the UFO looks like a reflection regardless of the lines.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Well of course a faint reflection can possibly still overlap a bright background. It's possible...

It's not, as that's not the way things are.

Did you watch the videos I posted above? In them you can see that the most visible reflection was the one from the white cable, and the darker the cable the less visible was the reflection.

a reply to: ArMaP

It's only different to you because you are not understanding the way it works.

^ Or that you don't really have a point. We're discussing that the lines are supposedly glass reflections, according to you and others. And someone else stated that the lines seem to be actually part of the sky (like old plane exhaust trails) because the lines are apparently going behind the turbines.

If the lines were windshield-reflections then they'd be expected to show some overlap over the turbines. Because that's what a reflection would be, imagery on the glass, which is overlapped over the background imagery (like the turbines).

Now that's all legit, and it's rather a separate argument for you to say that in such a scenario, it wouldn't show up.

Well maybe it would, or maybe it wouldn't. My main point was that it's worth looking at more closely, in case we can see it more clearly.

There's no real sense in saying that we shouldn't look more closely, because you're convinced that it wouldn't show up, because the background imagery is too bright.

My point is that if you have an area with full white (255,255,255) then you can only make it darker, you cannot exaggerate a colour that is already at the maximum possible value.

Alright well thank you for the greater detail, so I can better understand what you're getting at.

Well ok you gave a very specific example that's true: "full white (255,255,255) then you can only make it darker, you cannot exaggerate a colour that is already at the maximum possible value."

Well OK but we were discussing trying to see the faint dark lines, and to exaggerate THAT, which is certainly possible. The lines are obviously not at any kind of maximum value, they're faint and hard to see, and we could certainly oversaturate the darker colors, to attempt to see the lines better.

Nobody was proposing trying to change the full white value of the turbines (if they are, in fact, full white). Rather, the idea is to darken / manipulate the darker lines so much, that we can see them better, especially if they're crossing OVER the turbines, or not.

And again, yeah it's possible that the turbine light is too bright for such reflections to show up anyway, but I still think it's worth looking at.

And also I still don't know if there's a misunderstanding somewhere here because I still don't really see why you're basically pointing out that the turbines may be at full white saturation. It's not directly related to the topic of discussing the faint, dark lines running over the photo.

a reply to: ArMaP

(I'm assuming you know how colours work on a computer screen, maybe I'm wrong)

Well, I've got a layman's grasp of it, at least. I did make the vid in the OP of manipulating the colors to attempt the best visibility of the UFO's in the photo. So I'm familiar with actually manipulating the colors in digital photos, at least.

Though I'll admit that I'm not usually looking at the numbers of the color values...

a reply to: ArMaP

Yes, I was mostly joking about the way your sentence was written.
And I do not agree that they look more like flying craft than reflections, that's why I thought they looked like reflections when I saw them.
Different people, different ways of seeing things.

Ah OK thanks, I'm glad to know you were joking then. lol. It's much better than busting someone's phrasing in a serious way.

Yeah I wrote the sentence a bit poorly, and redundantly.

The aspect that seems compelling to me (about the UFO actually being craft) is the seeming symmetry and structure. Sure the UFO could be random reflections but then, we wouldn't expect to see symmetry or structure, in the random shine of sunlight gleaming on the glass...

And even that's not impossible, but most sunlight reflections are not small, symmetrical images, like the UFO in the pic.

a reply to: ArMaP

I know, I have seen it several times, but that's not what we see in the photo, as the lines act as a border between areas of the sky with different tones. I think the image below, after using GIMP's Mantiuk 2006 tone mapping, shows it better.




That looks nothing like a contrail shadow.

Alright, well I have yet to attempt to bring out the lines' visibility, myself. Your manipulated pic might not show better clarity of the lines, but I still want to attempt it myself. We should at least be using the full-size photo (instead of the smaller version you posted) but that's probably unintentional that you're posting a reduced version of the original pic.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Try right clicking on the image.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

Try right clicking on the image.

My mistake, if it is the full-size image already.

But man, what an obnoxious way to say it, lol. Why don't you try right-clicking yourself, and maybe you can study the art of right-clicking, maybe there are online classes about it.

On my end, the image was blowing up differently from usual, apparently because of my current desktop settings, that I won't bother explaining to you...

OK I was just looking at ArMap's darker version of the photo.

...And your darkened pic doesn't seem to help bring out any better clarity of anything.

If the lines and the UFO's are reflections: It's still not clear what they're reflections of. So I'm less than convinced, at this point. But I'm going to look more at your darkened pic...

I'll admit, the same as I've admitted all this time, that sure everything COULD possibly just be reflections. It's just still not a clear thing, either way. imo.

...

At some point, do you guys think I should ask Mr. Annunziata if he thinks the lines and the UFO's might just be reflections?

This is still looking at ArMaP's darkened image.

You know what, the UFO has some striking similarity to the knob of the biggest turbine in the photo.

I mean, upside-down.

The UFO seems that it might just be a peculiar glare, from the knob of the turbine, but this only works if the glare image is upside-down.

And I'm not sure why exactly the reflections would work out that way, but I do know that it's possible for reflections to be upside-down in certain situations.

Putting that aside, the UFO seems to match up with the knob of the turbine.

This explains the seeming structure of the UFO. It has structure from the knob's structure, which is somehow glaring upside-down, in the picture.

And the second UFO, which is fainter, may just be another reflection of the first reflection. This may explain for the most part, the streaks of light between the two UFO's, and the streaks of light going off to the side, from the UFO's.

...

While I don't know the exact factors of reflections flipping upside-down, like I said, I do know it's possible under certain factors.

So that's a small mystery, why this particular image was flipped.

But otherwise, I think the similarity of the structure of the UFO, and the knob of the turbine, is all but convincing that it's a reflection of that, flipped.

The structure is too similar to think otherwise. It's the same structure, just with the actual knob glaring too much light, so we can't see it as clearly. So the flipped reflection shows the structure more than the actual object does.

But that's got to be it. It's just the same structure, flipped. End of thread.

...

Also the question of why the reflection is flipped... may indicate that this is a glare reflection INSIDE THE CAMERA, because the windshield itself wouldn't be flipping its reflected images, I think?

But a round object can flip images... so I think we're seeing the glare reflected and flipped within the roundness of the lens, of the camera on his iPhone.

So I don't think the UFO's are windshield reflections, I think they're glare reflections happening right inside the lens of the camera. Which could explain why they're flipped.

AFAIK the UFO's can't really be windshield reflections because that would not explain why the reflections are flipped. That would require some strange glare effects inside the camera, I believe.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
If the lines were windshield-reflections then they'd be expected to show some overlap over the turbines. Because that's what a reflection would be, imagery on the glass, which is overlapped over the background imagery (like the turbines).

Your idea of how reflections work is wrong. Yes, the image reflected in the glass is overlapped on the image behind the glass, but a darker reflection means less light being reflected, so the reflection of a darker object is less visible, regardless of the colour of the background. A full black object is not reflecting any light, so it doesn't have a reflection.

Did you watch the three videos I posted? They show that the reflection of the white cable is visible over the white wall, the beige cable is harder to see, the grey cable even harder and the black cable is not visible at all.

There's no real sense in saying that we shouldn't look more closely, because you're convinced that it wouldn't show up, because the background imagery is too bright.

I didn't say we shouldn't.

Well OK but we were discussing trying to see the faint dark lines, and to exaggerate THAT, which is certainly possible. The lines are obviously not at any kind of maximum value, they're faint and hard to see, and we could certainly oversaturate the darker colors, to attempt to see the lines better.

Nobody was proposing trying to change the full white value of the turbines (if they are, in fact, full white). Rather, the idea is to darken / manipulate the darker lines so much, that we can see them better, especially if they're crossing OVER the turbines, or not.

First of all, I didn't understand that by "exaggerating" you meant making them darker.
I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, but as for darkening the lines, you need to darken everything, not just the lines, otherwise you are going to create a new line over the area that is not darkened.

And again, yeah it's possible that the turbine light is too bright for such reflections to show up anyway, but I still think it's worth looking at.

Well, then do it.

And also I still don't know if there's a misunderstanding somewhere here because I still don't really see why you're basically pointing out that the turbines may be at full white saturation. It's not directly related to the topic of discussing the faint, dark lines running over the photo.

If they are full white then there's no detail in them and darkening them will also show nothing.

a reply to: JamesChessman

If the UFOs are lens glare then they are reflections of something on the scene on the opposite position from where they appear, being a flipped reflection, as you said, so we need to look at the full image.

To make it clearer, lens glare appearing on the top left corner of a photo are reflections of something on the bottom right corner of the scene.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JamesChessman

If the UFOs are lens glare then they are reflections of something on the scene on the opposite position from where they appear, being a flipped reflection, as you said, so we need to look at the full image.

To make it clearer, lens glare appearing on the top left corner of a photo are reflections of something on the bottom right corner of the scene.

Look, I'm basically pointing out that the UFO structure seems to match the structure of the closest turbine knob, upside down.

It seems to match up, and that's it.

The question of why it's flipped would need to be explained by the glare getting flipped inside the lens. Because a round clear object can flip images.

For example, if you look through a clear marble, it will be flipping everything upside-down. So I'm concluding that this is the same flipping process, within the presumably round camera lens. A strange glare shooting into the lens in such a way that it's causing the strange UFO artifact, it's the reflection flipped and reflected, inside the lens, apparently.

But anyway, no, it wouldn't need to come from the bottom-right corner of the photo... or at least, we don't need to assume that, as we don't need to make assumptions about exactly how accidental artifacts might be created by a small bright light glaring into a camera lens, like this. These are accidental / unintentional artifacts, after all, so it's not like there's a normal or proper way that artifacts are supposed to happen. They're just not supposed to happen in the first place.

Anyway I'm mainly just matching the UFO to the structure of the knob, upside down, unless someone can match it to something better.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Lens flares do present as an inverted image (and often distorted).


However there is also a characteristic of lens flare which is not present in this image. As Armap said, the flare is always directly opposed to the light source which produces it. Therefore, a line drawn from the flare to its source will usually pass through the center of the image.
www.ipaco.fr...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

Lens flares do present as an inverted image (and often distorted).


However there is also a characteristic of lens flare which is not present in this image. As Armap said, the flare is always directly opposed to the light source which produces it. Therefore, a line drawn from the flare to its source will usually pass through the center of the image.
www.ipaco.fr...

Lol well, again, my point was that the UFO structure seems to match that of the knob, upside-down. So that observation simply suggests that it's the knob. It's not really going to resemble one thing, but somehow suggest that it's something different, that it's not resembling.

And I'm not really seeing anything else that the reflection seems to match.

And assuming that the lens glare / flare / artifact needs to be from the different part of the photo, just is assuming way too much about how accidental artifacts would be created. This gets into the structure of the lens, and how exactly it would be bouncing around light, including with accidental glares that are too bright and piercing, so that they're basically ruining the lens' image... This is an unpredictable process, based on the lens structure, that you can't assume you know exactly the results of.

Also, do you guys not see the resemblance of the UFO to the closest turbine knob? For example the sides of the knob have two brighter spots, which correlate to the UFO's brighter spots on its sides.

The knob's top is brightly lit, while the UFO's bottom is brightly lit. Looks like a match imo.

a reply to: JamesChessman

An object outside of the car could not appear as reflection on the windshield in an image taken from inside the car. Only something inside the car could do that. Something which may not be visible in the image since it may be something reflected by the windshield and not an internal reflection (lens flare).

Nor can it be lens flare, as has been explained.

I'm still not convinced that it isn't something on the windshield itself, btw.