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.

 

What did I catch on film?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
So the color dots aren't part of the photo?

That means without the anomaly, you'd have pictures of pure blackness?

Sadly, identification of this might be nigh impossible.

It could be some piece of lint (tuck via static) rolling across the lens.




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Now this are some interesting pictures
I have downloaded every picture cropped them. Nothing else, I put them in the Windows movie maker and made a short sequence of them.

(click to open player in new window)

the timeline between the first and the last picture is 19:41:49-19:46:52

[edit on 29-5-2010 by peterfromdk]

[edit on 29-5-2010 by peterfromdk]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tharsis
So the color dots aren't part of the photo?

That means without the anomaly, you'd have pictures of pure blackness?

Sadly, identification of this might be nigh impossible.

It could be some piece of lint (tuck via static) rolling across the lens.


I'm not sure about all of them, but some of them aren't stars. I looked at my picture then I look at a look at www.spacespot.com...

and they seem relatively the same. I'm not an expert. I'm just going on comparison of other deep sky shots. I don't think it's lint because I took 58 pictures total that night and none of them seemed to have dust in the shots. Then again I'm no expert so you might be right

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Rancid-Milk-Man]

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Rancid-Milk-Man]

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Rancid-Milk-Man]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   


Gif animation of the posted images. Strange.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I'd be more than happy to take more pictures tonight in the same spot to see if I can get something. Maybe somebody could help me with my camera settings. Also maybe somebody could explain why I'm getting noise on my pictures

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Rancid-Milk-Man]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Great photos and I like the sequence. Interesting subject, have no idea what it is. I wanted to say as a photographer myself I would have used a macro lens ( use mine for distance sometimes and have better results than without it). Just my 2 cents worth.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Some new lens for digital cameras are macro and zoom, the manufacturers started to really make lens for the sensors instead of reusing the formats they had for chemical photos, which are bigger and farther away from the lens than the sensors on digital cameras.

reply to post by noisemedia
 


The EXIF data for the "pinkish" photo:

dsc0081jp
Exposure Time.........: 8
F Number..............: 8.0
Date/Time Original....: 2010:05:27 19:25:28
Create Date...........: 2010:05:27 19:25:28
ISO...................: 1250


Here you have (some of) the EXIF data for the photos.


dsc0099ok
Exposure Time.........: 24.8
F Number..............: 32.0
Date/Time Original....: 2010:05:27 19:41:49
Create Date...........: 2010:05:27 19:41:49
ISO...................: 1250

dsc0100p
Exposure Time.........: 12.6
F Number..............: 32.0
Date/Time Original....: 2010:05:27 19:42:26
Create Date...........: 2010:05:27 19:42:26
ISO...................: 1250

dsc0101aa
Exposure Time.........: 20.1
F Number..............: 32.0
Date/Time Original....: 2010:05:27 19:43:05
Create Date...........: 2010:05:27 19:43:05
ISO...................: 1250

dsc0102ci
Exposure Time.........: 10.1
F Number..............: 25.0
Date/Time Original....: 2010:05:27 19:43:33
Create Date...........: 2010:05:27 19:43:33
ISO...................: 1250

dsc0103dl
Exposure Time.........: 20.7
F Number..............: 25.0
Date/Time Original....: 2010:05:27 19:44:06
Create Date...........: 2010:05:27 19:44:06
ISO...................: 1250

dsc0104k
Exposure Time.........: 29.4
F Number..............: 25.0
Date/Time Original....: 2010:05:27 19:45:03
Create Date...........: 2010:05:27 19:45:03
ISO...................: 1250

dsc0105bx
Exposure Time.........: 11.6
F Number..............: 22.0
Date/Time Original....: 2010:05:27 19:46:20
Create Date...........: 2010:05:27 19:46:20
ISO...................: 1250

dsc0106gp
Exposure Time.........: 15.9
F Number..............: 20.0
Date/Time Original....: 2010:05:27 19:46:52
Create Date...........: 2010:05:27 19:46:52
ISO...................: 1250



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Rancid-Milk-Man
 


More photos would be great, from that session or taken today.

The noise is probably the result of the very high ISO.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Rancid-Milk-Man
 


More photos would be great, from that session or taken today.

The noise is probably the result of the very high ISO.


img9.imageshack.us...
img217.imageshack.us...
img690.imageshack.us...
img189.imageshack.us...
img227.imageshack.us...
img689.imageshack.us...
img171.imageshack.us...

As Per requested



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo__
It's not a nebulous cloud because, using the back ground stars as a marker, it's obviously moving across the sky.


I agree although not for the same reason, I think you would have to have made a dark subtract frame to be certain what was stars and what was merely sensor noise.

What I am guilty of is not comparing the images and clearly the anomaly changes shape so negating the nebula suggestion.

Looking at the Op's additional photos there seems to be a track centering on coloured points of light and I am not sure what this means as I am no photo expert so I will tactfully bow out of any further conjecture on my part.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Looking at all the photos it looks like some point of light that was moving during the long exposures, but as a tripod was used that would mean that the tripod was not stable and something shook it a little.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Looking at all the photos it looks like some point of light that was moving during the long exposures, but as a tripod was used that would mean that the tripod was not stable and something shook it a little.


The images I just posted were pictures of stars. Those I could see from the menu and after that I tried to make sure I had the tri-pod as steady as I could get it. I was zoomed up pretty close to the star(s).



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Could it be that it is a floating piece of plastic, a bag or something?
It looks very much like it.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Rancid-Milk-Man
 

Is the time setting on your camera correct?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Rancid-Milk-Man
 

Is the time setting on your camera correct?


No it was originally from California



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Hey guys I dont want to come off like one of those know it alls but after looking at OP's EXIF data and shutter speeds it looks to me like a case of motion blur caused by some slight movement of the tripod.

Thats just my opinion. My fiance is a photography instructor and I myself worked as a photographer for some time (make no mistake I do not claim to be a professional) and this looks like motion blur.

I have a feeling you were taking pictures of the stars as you say. I think that in the course of shooting the tripod was moved either by wind or something else...which results in that wispy trail effect.

Obviously its dark so you have it set at a high ISO- That accounts for the noise and the long shutter speeds will make whatever it is youre shooting have that ghost like look to it.

I realize alot of you may already know this and it may have already been mentioned but I thought Id throw that out there. Im no expert or debunker but Ive seen this sort of thing before.

I might even have an example somewhere. Anyway thats just my two cents, and it might be worth less than that....



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I have taken dozen of pics of the same thing, I made a small video on youtube, lets see if we can see the same thing, I also pointed out some of the dots that were made from the camera, but the main object moves. I live in the country and I see these sometimes so much that I dont take pics that much anymore.


www.youtube.com...


The best stuff is at the end of the video. Thanks in advance for any input.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
At first glance (without downloading the photos), i think at Venus (at west in evening) or other bright star, and the shape is from tiny oscilations of the camera during the long exposure, and long zoom setting used, just like Noisemedia explained above. I should pay attention to the photos and exif information, before even talking, but time is my enemy.


post by noisemedia
 





[edit on 30/5/10 by depthoffield]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


From the animated pic, it looks like a bird.

Or maybe a bat. But, my first impression was a bird.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join