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

originally posted by: Phage
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.

Well I don't think the UFO are windshield reflections. I do think it's lens flare, based on the structure seeming to match up with the turbine knob, upside-down.

Now you're arguing that it's impossible that it's lens flare from the knob, that it resembles, and that it is close to, in the pic.

Well you're saying it's impossible based on assuming you know exactly how lens flare would appear, given a moment of unusual circumstances' producing a certain piercing glare, which would be flipping and reflecting inside a round camera lens, that you surely don't know the exact structure of.

Also for goodness' sake, a lens flare effect moves around a lens... based on things like angle of the light, shape of the lens etc. There's no such thing as assuming exactly WHERE a lens flare would show up in such an image.

Haven't you ever played a videogame that recreates lens flare effects, which move around the screen, as your character and the simulated camera lens moves around. You can see this in actual videos too, the flare moves as the camera moves.

You're assuming way too much about knowing exactly how lens flare would form, on a lens that you surely didn't design yourself, and with factors that you can't know, like the exact angle of the light, and the exact structure inside the lens, etc.

Also how ironic that I've basically come to the most mundane explanation of the UFO's and the same people are just always arguing against everything lol.

a reply to: JamesChessman

There's no such thing as assuming exactly WHERE a lens flare would show up in such an image.

Incorrect. Geometry determines exactly where a lens flare will appear. It will always be directly opposite the light source which produces it. How do you think video games can simulate the effect?

Change where the camera is pointed and the the apparent location of the light source changes. At the same time, any lens flare displays a corresponding relocation. Every time.

It's pretty discouraging when someone doesn't bother to read the sources they are presented with though.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

There's no such thing as assuming exactly WHERE a lens flare would show up in such an image.

Incorrect. Geometry determines exactly where a lens flare will appear. It will always be directly opposite the light source which produces it.

Change where the camera is pointed and the the apparent location of the light source changes. At the same time, any lens flare displays a corresponding relocation. Every time.

It's pretty discouraging when someone doesn't bother to read the sources they are presented with though.

Man how can you be serious. Yes geometry determines where a lens flare appears, but the missing part is the unknown geometry of the lens itself, which you're assuming that you know exactly how it would be reflecting light inside itself, and exactly how it would be creating accidental artifacts. That would be based on the exact structure inside the lens, interacting with the exact angle of the light hitting it, etc.

If you actually think that you can just glance at different photos and you can understand exactly where / how they'd create lens flare artifacts, then you're just severely over-confident in that ability, lol. Like in this case, you obviously don't know the exact shape of the lens, its internal structure, the exact angle of the light etc.

And if you've ever seen lens flare effects in a video then you know the artifacts travel around the image, as the lens moves, and the angle of the light changes, the artifacts can basically fly over the image, with very slight movement of the hand / angle of the light. You can basically make the artifacts fly over any part of the image that you want.

There's no such thing as what you're doing, stating that one seeming lens flare is impossible, because it should be from the bottom right corner. You're wrongly assuming things, more than you're actually understanding it.

And apparently people must not be seeing the resemblance that I pointed out. Hey, oh well. I doubt you guys are trying to see it.

a reply to: JamesChessman

You can basically make the artifacts fly over any part of the image that you want.

And they are always directly opposite the apparent location of the light source which produces them relative to the optical center of the image. Always. If the simulation is accurate.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

You can basically make the artifacts fly over any part of the image that you want.

And they are always directly opposite the light source which produces them relative to the optical center of the image. Always. If the simulation is accurate.

I'm sorry but that's just not accurate. If you're filming the sky, with the sun in the sky, and if you're getting lens flare artifacts, then you can slightly move and make the artifacts fly all over the image. You can make them far from the sun, you can make them close to the sun, you can overlap them on the sun.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Tell me, does the location of the Sun relative to the frame not change while you are doing this?

you can overlap them on the sun.

Yes. Center the Sun in the frame and the flare will overlap it.

You're probably too young to be aware of all the "second Sun" claims about Nibiru and lens flares. You're just rehashing them.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

Tell me, does the location of the Sun relative to the frame not change while you are doing this?

you can overlap them on the sun.

Yes. Center the Sun in the frame and the flare will overlap it.

You're probably too young to be aware of all the "second Sun" claims about Nibiru and lens flares. You're just rehashing them.

Of course the sun location changes when moving the camera.

I will be looking into your statements about exactly how lens flare works. I'm going to be recreating lens flare with my camera and a light bulb.

Though without knowing the inner structure of the lens being used, in a particular image, I can't imagine how anyone can believe he can pinpoint lens flare effects, as you believe you can do.

I don't know why you're calling me young, besides just being obnoxious, and sure I remember the Nibiru craze. Not even sure what years that was, but I remember it happening. I looked into it and didn't find it realistic, and that was about it. And sure there were some Nibiru vids that were just showcasing lens flare artifacts or sun-dogs, or other types of illusions / artifacts.

But that has really nothing to do with me...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

You can basically make the artifacts fly over any part of the image that you want.

And they are always directly opposite the light source which produces them relative to the optical center of the image. Always. If the simulation is accurate.

Well I spent a few minutes with my phone camera, creating lens flare effects on purpose. I can confirm that you're right that the effect is based on the center of the image. Which I had not realized before.

However, I was also not getting my reflections as flipped. Like I was getting the ghost image of a light bulb, floating around, but it was still right-side-up, i.e. consistent with the actual light bulb.

So I wouldn't really know exactly how to recreate lens flare reflections which were flipped vertically, and I'd expect that to come down to the factors of the inner structure of the lens, combined with some unusual light effects.

Re: OP's photo: Well I thought I had a good point in the UFO structure seeming to match the turbine part, upside-down.

But I can't really argue against it being impossible, since I can't really recreate flipped reflections, myself. I'd expect it to be a complicated, unpredictable effect, based on the exact structure of the lens. Which neither of us is an expert on...

But I can agree that it's not a typical flare effect, because that wouldn't flip the image, nor would it work in that exact position, apparently.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Well I spent a few minutes with my phone camera, creating lens flare effects on purpose. I can confirm that you're right that the effect is based on the center of the image. Which I had not realized before.

It's great that you tried it yourself, it's always better seeing things with our own eyes to understand how they happen.

I hope that this second case of you being wrong when you were so convinced of being right shows you that you should get more information about things you don't really know before choosing them as the best answer to some problem. But you are on the right track by looking for explanations and trying for yourself. And you are surely doing it right when you admit that you were wrong.

However, I was also not getting my reflections as flipped. Like I was getting the ghost image of a light bulb, floating around, but it was still right-side-up, i.e. consistent with the actual light bulb.

That probably means that you were getting a double reflection, one that made the lens flare and another that flipped it. Most lens are made of several elements, and you even have to consider the reflection on the sensor surface and that even a single lens element can have two reflections, one for each face of the lens, as any change in medium that light crosses can create a reflection.

So I wouldn't really know exactly how to recreate lens flare reflections which were flipped vertically, and I'd expect that to come down to the factors of the inner structure of the lens, combined with some unusual light effects.

Try with a weaker light source, that may create less internal reflections.

Re: OP's photo: Well I thought I had a good point in the UFO structure seeming to match the turbine part, upside-down.

I never thought it was a match, as the shape looks slightly different.

But I can't really argue against it being impossible, since I can't really recreate flipped reflections, myself. I'd expect it to be a complicated, unpredictable effect, based on the exact structure of the lens. Which neither of us is an expert on...

It's not unpredictable, but we do need to know the lens internal constructions to calculate it. After that it's just maths and geometry (they are really two different ways of representing the same thing), as reflections and refractions are based on a just a couple of rules, so they easily predictable.

a reply to: ArMaP

It's great that you tried it yourself, it's always better seeing things with our own eyes to understand how they happen.

I hope that this second case of you being wrong when you were so convinced of being right shows you that you should get more information about things you don't really know before choosing them as the best answer to some problem. But you are on the right track by looking for explanations and trying for yourself. And you are surely doing it right when you admit that you were wrong.

Thanks, well learning is a process of changing our ideas, so I'm glad that I learned that lens flare is normally based on the center of the lens, which I had not known before.

Though I'm not totally convinced that the UFO are not a more unusual reflection artifact...

That probably means that you were getting a double reflection, one that made the lens flare and another that flipped it. Most lens are made of several elements, and you even have to consider the reflection on the sensor surface and that even a single lens element can have two reflections, one for each face of the lens, as any change in medium that light crosses can create a reflection.

^Thank you, that's along the lines of how I was thinking of the UFO being a flipped reflection... I know that camera lenses contain multiple reflections inside themselves, mirrors / multiple surfaces reflecting and flipping the image, etc.

So I didn't think it was absurd to suggest the UFO was a flipped reflection artifact, since inside a camera, we already know that images are being reflected and flipped multiple times afaik.

So it would seem for the UFO, we're just seeing an artifact created somewhere along that process.

I'm also assuming the turbine knob was shooting light into the lens in an unusual, piercing way, that was messing up the normal process of the camera, and producing the artifact. Like if we were shooting a laser into a camera, then I'd expect that to mess up the process and produce artifacts.

I never thought it was a match, as the shape looks slightly different.

^Yeah it looks slightly different, but if it was the true source of the UFO reflection artifact, then it looks different because the turbine is glaring too much light, and then the UFO reflection is a dimmer reflection, so it's showing the structure more.

The parts that seem to match are the "bumps" on the sides of the UFO, the center bit, and the top / bottom being lit up. It matches with the turbine knob upside-down, and dimmer (so we see more structure in the reflection than in the actual knob).

At least, that's how it looks to my eyes and my interpretation of it...

It's not unpredictable, but we do need to know the lens internal constructions to calculate it. After that it's just maths and geometry (they are really two different ways of representing the same thing), as reflections and refractions are based on a just a couple of rules, so they easily predictable.

Yes, this is basically what I was telling the other guy. It's predictable... only if someone knew the exact structure and functions of the camera itself, and could work out the reflections, refractions, geometry etc. happening inside the camera.

But it's unpredictable unless we know the ins-and-outs of the camera lens, exactly its shape, its internal structure, etc.

So maybe the hardware designers of the iPhone could have a definitive answer about what kinds of reflections are possible or not.

But not many others could have a definitive answer about the inner workings of a camera lens... such as all of us, in the forum, lol.

...

Also I think we've really exhausted the topic by now. I'm mostly settled on it being a flipped reflection artifact. Others argue it's impossible, but it's impossible to argue that, without being intimately familiar with the camera inner structure.

Regardless, we have seemingly a structured object in the sky... which I now think is a flipped reflection artifact.

If not that, and if not an actual spacecraft in the sky, then I'll consider it an open mystery, because I still can't believe it's raindrops, nor does it fit as windshield reflections in any kind of recognizable way.

I also never completely decided what the lines are, first I thought some kind of random sunlight effects, then I thought probably old plane exhaust trails, but I really don't know. It could be random light effects inside the camera, or even some glitchy software process in the camera, which was something I suggested a long time ago.

I'm not against the lines being windshield reflections except that I just can't see it that way. So I'm more inclined that it's something in the camera. But really who knows. This whole topic kind of highlights how unpredictable light effects can be, to people analyzing a photo from a situation that we were not present in...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
^Yeah it looks slightly different, but if it was the true source of the UFO reflection artifact, then it looks different because the turbine is glaring too much light, and then the UFO reflection is a dimmer reflection, so it's showing the structure more.

That's another thing that makes me think the UFOs are not lens flares. If the centre of the turbine is bright enough to create a lens flare effect then we should see lens flares from other areas that are as bright as that, but we don't see them.

But it's unpredictable unless we know the ins-and-outs of the camera lens, exactly its shape, its internal structure, etc.

More semantics: it's not unpredictable, it's predictable but we do not have enough data to make a prediction.

This whole topic kind of highlights how unpredictable light effects can be, to people analyzing a photo from a situation that we were not present in...

Exactly, this is one more for the "impossible to be sure" category.

That's another thing that makes me think the UFOs are not lens flares. If the centre of the turbine is bright enough to create a lens flare effect then we should see lens flares from other areas that are as bright as that, but we don't see them.

^Very good point, that I've thought about, all along. The answer would have to be: That only the one particular knob of the one turbine, happened to be shooting light into the camera lens, in this one particular way, that it messed up the camera's internal processes, and produced the artifact inside the camera.

Reasons that that's possible:

Because the angle of the light would matter.

It would presumably need to be an extremely bright, and small, glare (hitting the lens in just the right angle).

So apparently, only that one tiny part of that one turbine, is catching the light in such a way: hitting that certain specific angle of sunlight, in relation to the camera.

Along those lines, it's possible that this one knob (of this one turbine) might even have a slightly different shape, or slightly more reflective material, which could help explain why only this one part is hitting the camera, like that.

Also, it's obviously the nearest turbine, so that's another reason that it's just generally reflecting more sunlight, overall, into the camera. So maybe only this one tiny part, of the brightest turbine, is actually shooting the MOST light into the camera, out of everything in the picture. And that may explain why it's the only tiny spot, to cause such effects.

(These are all just possibilities, so people don't need to say I'm pushing these ideas or whatever, I'm just discussing possible explanations.)

More semantics: it's not unpredictable, it's predictable but we do not have enough data to make a prediction.

^Yes, this is completely harmonious with what I was saying. None of us are designers of the iPhone camera, so none of us really know exactly its inner structure, which would be necessary for anyone to make definitive statements about what kind of accidental image artifacts are possible.

I mean for example, I wonder how many times the image is flipped vertically inside the camera. AFAIK every camera flips its images at least twice, once to make it upside-down (in the process of the lens viewing / capturing images), and once to make it right-side-up for the final product. And this involves tiny mirrors to bounce around the image multiple times, flipping it in the process.

But that's about the extent of my personal knowledge of cameras, I just know that they all repeatedly flip their images, and bounce it around several tiny mirrors, just in the normal process of taking a photo. I believe this is the process involved in all cameras.

So while I don't have any special knowledge of iPhones, I expect that it's also doing the same things I just described.

Which means that my idea / interpretation of a flipped reflection is not far-out. We already know that cameras in general, are flipping and reflecting images inside themselves, multiple times. My idea is basically that that process got messed up with the unusual light effects, too bright from that one tiny object. And we're seeing artifacts from the inner structure of the phone, as it repeatedly reflects and flips the image, inside itself.

Exactly, this is one more for the "impossible to be sure" category.

Thank you, I appreciate you saying that. "Impossible to be sure" category, is a fine category.

It's much better than when some folks are arguing something as if it's perfectly established, when it's not. Like everyone who argued that it's definitely this, or definitely that. Raindrops, reflections, etc. No, it's not definitely anything. There are only possible explanations at this point.

Also I'm surprised that no one got on board with my mundane explanation of the turbine knob causing the UFOs as reflections. I thought people would get on board just because it's such a mundane explanation.

...

Also now with all this talk of what kind of artifacts are possible or not... Hmmmm now it's got me wondering if maybe someone should actually attempt contacting Apple, and try to get their camera division, to give some input.

This sounds absurd at first, but I just might do this, lol. They do design and manufacture the cameras in the iPhones, after all, and I know I've heard cases of people contacting camera companies to ask about particular photos' artifacts. (For example, that one case of the spaceman photo with the little girl, they definitely asked Kodak about that photo IIRC.)

Also I could think of some other questions re: my desktop iMac, which I could ask about. Apple is supposed to have a pretty responsive customer support, so I'm going to consider this...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
^Very good point, that I've thought about, all along. The answer would have to be: That only the one particular knob of the one turbine, happened to be shooting light into the camera lens, in this one particular way, that it messed up the camera's internal processes, and produced the artifact inside the camera.

But that's not what we see in the photo, that particular knob is not the brightest thing in the photo, so we should also see those other areas appear as lens flare.

I mean for example, I wonder how many times the image is flipped vertically inside the camera. AFAIK every camera flips its images at least twice, once to make it upside-down (in the process of the lens viewing / capturing images), and once to make it right-side-up for the final product. And this involves tiny mirrors to bounce around the image multiple times, flipping it in the process.

There's no need to flip the image back, they just have to read it from the sensor in the right order.

But that's about the extent of my personal knowledge of cameras, I just know that they all repeatedly flip their images, and bounce it around several tiny mirrors, just in the normal process of taking a photo. I believe this is the process involved in all cameras.

If I'm not mistake, mirrors are only used on the cameras that use the same path for the viewfinder and the sensor/film, moving the mirror just before capturing the image. Mirrorless cameras, obviously, do not have the mirror.
Also, using a mirror wouldn't solve the problem created by a lens, as a mirror only inverts the image on one axis, while a lens inverts it on two axis.

Thank you, I appreciate you saying that. "Impossible to be sure" category, is a fine category.

Naturally, most cases end up on that category.

Also I'm surprised that no one got on board with my mundane explanation of the turbine knob causing the UFOs as reflections. I thought people would get on board just because it's such a mundane explanation.

It looks like a mundane explanation but when we look at the photo it doesn't make sense, so it ends up not being an explanation.

a reply to: ArMaP

Well what can I say, lol. If you guys really think it’s impossible that the ufo is an artifact caused by some peculiar glare from the turbine... If so then you’re keeping it more as an open mystery, what exactly the photo is showing.

And that’s fine because that’s actually a lot more interesting to have a mystery, than just assuming it’s a weird artifact.

Cameras I stated that I only have a very basic familiarity with their structure but you did acknowledge my main points that they usually involve mirrors and flipped reflections inside them. Which I thought might be part of a strange glare artifact of such characteristics.

a reply to: ArMaP

Also I just may ask Apple about this photo at some point. (As the camera designers / manufacturers.)

I’ve been wanting to get more familiar with their support website in general because it doesn’t look like a regular forum and so it’s always a weird website to look at.

And I know they have phone support that I could certainly think of different questions for...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Cameras I stated that I only have a very basic familiarity with their structure but you did acknowledge my main points that they usually involve mirrors and flipped reflections inside them. Which I thought might be part of a strange glare artifact of such characteristics.

The cameras I know that use mirrors remove the mirror from the path of the light when taking the photo, mirrors are not used on the photo, only to show the image to the photographer what the film/sensor will capture in exactly the same way.

Similar effect, different photo. Contrast and color enhancement of "UFO" in the upper left shows a bit of the objects inside the car where the reflection is coming from.

a reply to: ArMaP

I forgot to say that there are also some lens that use the Cassegrain method, similar to some telescopes, with a parabolic mirror that reflects the light to another mirror that then reflects the light to the film/sensor.