It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Help ... How Did My Phone Take a Picture of Itself?

page: 5
22
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:14 AM

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by psilo simon
[..] because a camera can only take a picture of what is in FRONT of the lens, it is a physical impossibility that the camera/phone wasever in front of itself, it cant be done, and also, the shutter speed makes no difference because light travels through air at a constant velocity so even the "image" of the phone could never have been in front of the lens [..]

You really are not sure what you are talking about. Check out this link.
blog.chaselliott.com...

Alas, aching_knuckles, it is not psilo simon who is unaware of what he is talking about.

A slow shutter speed can not explain how a camera can photograph its own screen.

You see - making photographs is just a matter of catching rays of light. Those rays of light originate from an object, travel through air, and then hit the lens & film (chip). No matter how slow your shutter speed is, the screen will never be in front of the lens, so the rays of light will never ever ever originate from and be catched by one and the same object, unless it was reflected (i.e. mirror).

If you manage to catch a ray of light by flipping the camera faster than the speed of light, you will only have radius-of-flip / speed-of-light seconds of photons, which is more or less equivalent to .. well.. nothing.

To break it down; let's say the phone didn't drop, but was lifted and catched the photons it emitted when it was still held in the hand. To get enough photons to show the screen, let's say we need 1/1000th of a second or 1ms (being extremely generous here). To make the phone catch 1ms of light of itself, it would need to travel 299.8 kilometers! Instantly!

Inversely, let's say we could move the phone 1.5 meters instantly; you would be able to get .00009 milliseconds of light from the phone itself. Not quite enough to be registered by the chips, I'd think.

On to the subject of the validity of the photograph; apart from the physical impossibility, there are some discrepancies. According to the story, some fumbling occurred, the phone dropped and was just catched in the photo.

However, the way the phone is held doesn't seem to correspond much with an out-of-control situation. Either your husband has some skills that would make The One jealous, or it was a real lucky catch - or this is not a snapshot of the moment the phone was just catched. If the photo was taken from the point were the phone dropped, then it would have moved in the direction of the couch quite a bit (accross the table if the table were longer) - it would have warranted a frantic movement if I were to catch it, I'm sure ;]. Interestingly enough, the blur of the screen seems to match that movement.

A much bigger discrepancy is that of a sharp photo allegedly made by a dropping phone. Unlike in the realm of cartoons, in the real world gravity takes effect immediately, so there would be no "hanging in the air" when the phone was dropped. Take a look at the plate on the table - it's absolutely perfect in terms of sharpness. The phone wasn't moving when it took the photo.

Other than that, I'm stumped.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:55 AM
a very simple explanation for photography using laymans terms for easy understanding:

a camera works just like our eyes. lights getting absorb in it and the image is processed in our brain.

in a glimpse or even in a dream or in a split second, have you seen the back of your bloody eyes or just the back of your head? if sometime you ever did, then this is possible.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:14 AM

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by psilo simon
aaarrrgghhh! Why are there people saying that is could be possible???

Try and understand that unless the phone broke physical laws, there is no way for it to have happened, simply because a camera can only take a picture of what is in FRONT of the lens, it is a physical impossibility that the camera/phone wasever in front of itself, it cant be done, and also, the shutter speed makes no difference because light travels through air at a constant velocity so even the "image" of the phone could never have been in front of the lens UNLESS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS CHANGED!!

Because the photo has been tampered with, both on the OP and on flikr, I really have to disbelieve this, I think it`s a joke, I wanted to believe, and still would have if the pic was untampered with.

You really are not sure what you are talking about. Check out this link.
blog.chaselliott.com...

Ok, I looked at the link, nice pictures, but I can`t see anything suggesting I don`t know what I`m talking about, see, no matter how long the shutter was open for, the camera/phone would never be in a position where it could be taking a photo of it`s self, unless it wasn`t subject to our current model of physics or there were mirrors used.

Try this as proof, run in front of yourself, you`ll never do it, or try and crash your car into your own car (assuming you only own one car, you`ll never do it).

Perhaps I`m missing your point, but your link shows nothing of any relevance to the topic here, please accept my apology if I`m missing something, and kindly correct me.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:55 AM
The only thing I can think of is this :

As the phone was falling it activated the camera and in the speed the phone was spinning was greater then the fall so as the phone spun it captured an image of itself.

This tells me that when your hubby tried to catch it the camera took the pic.

Delayed picture response. If taking a photo while the phone is still it takes about 2 seconds for the camera and the phone to synch up. Another 2 seconds is needed in order for the phone to acquire the pic from the camera. By the time the camera processed the pic the phone itself was already on the floor.

Anything shiny, reflective metal could easily redirect the line of sight to the phone and could've easily bounced the pic off of say, a window, a tv, a glass cabinet door, another electronical item, a metal ceeling, aluminum foil. All you need is something reflective to bounce the line of sight back to the phone and a camera could in effect take a pic of itself. It doesn't nessecarily have to be a mirror just something flat and reflective.

Your average mid priced cellphone is technically 10 items in one :

Camera (still images and motion movies), phone, mp3 player, a mini laptop computer, a rolodex, a data organizer, external harddrive, portable video player, portable television, and a voice recorder.

Each of those 10 runs independently to the rest. All connected to one another via the motherboard.

Simple experiment anyone can do at home :

Take your right hand, have your fingers slightly bent. Now with your hand flush to your wrist. Fast twist your hand back and forth very fast at the wrist but do not allow your wrist to bend or move (like the spin cycle on a clothes dryer) you will notice you see phantom images of all parts of your hand in the little vortex. The camera was able to take a pic of itself using this exact method.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:11 AM

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

...you will notice you see phantom images of all parts of your hand in the little vortex.

That's due to the response of your eyes. And with a long shutter speed you will get a similar effect as your example.

But have you ever tripped over and caught a glimpse of the back of your head because of the response of your eyes? ~As per gods418's example.

[edit on 22/6/10 by GobbledokTChipeater]

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:31 AM

I think that your husband caught the phone again when it was in mid flash.

You said that he dropped it and caught it again, so when it dropped the camera took a photo and he just happened to catch the phone in the split second of it taking the picture, you could try it thousands of times and would not get the same result but it is not impossible and thats what I think happened. The time it took the phone to take the photo he had caught it back in his hand.

edit to add,: what im trying to say is the action of taking the photo was up in the air so to speak, or mid flash.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
This one is easy. Its a very slow shutter speed on your crappy camera. This is why most cell phone pics are blurry and crappy, because most people cant stand perfectly still for as long as the shutter needs to stay open..

You can probably recreate this by clicking the "shutter" button while simultaneously flipping the phone, it will eventually happen again...

EDIT: Just looked at the pic again, and forgot to mention, notice how all the things that were moving (the phone, the persons hands) are extremely blurry, and the static objects (couch) are relatively in focus. I think this bolsters my claim.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by aching_knuckles]

[edit on 21-6-2010 by aching_knuckles]

Those two solutions and every solution proposed based on this kind of theory is TOTALLY, CLEARLY, OBVIOUSLY, LOGICALLY, INDISPUTABLY, IMPOSSIBLE.

So please stop looking this way.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 04:58 AM
For the phone to take a picture of itself , then it would have had to bend time and space, so far nobody has been able to do that , but if you are willing to state it for a fact. Then congratulations u have discoverd the way to make the first time machine. Me and the rest of the human race would like to thank u and im 100% sure that u just won the nobel price for the most outstanding achivement of the human race.

And to imagine , all this just from some fella who had a wierd phone that fell unto his hand , and therefore blew the mind of every sientist in the world.

Wish we had more geniuses like u around,, Can i get a golfclap for this outstanding announcment!

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Spacedman13]

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:09 AM
to me its obvious.
your husband has an identical phone you don't know about, this photo is proof of his possible infidelity.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:11 AM
I considered using Akkams razor here by just assuming that there had to be a really rational answer, such as a reflective surface or maybe human error in analyzing the events. But then it occurred to me that multiple dimensional inclusions was way more fun to consider.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:11 AM
The only scenario I can see where this is not a hoax is that one of the two people involved are making a total mistake about what they believe happened such as there being a Nintendo DS in the pictured man's hand rather than a phone.

There is no question that a camera (in one whole piece and not broken in two) can not ever take a photo of it self. Therefore, it didn't. People have mentioned faster than light travel. Faster than light travel would not at all produce the photo in question, not only because phones fall down and not up, but also because the number of photons reflected off the phone and then re-captured by itself after traveling FTL would be trivial and not add any significant details to the picture.

And of course the shutter speed is not relevant as many have mentioned, since however fast the shutter is, it still never faces any direction but away from the phone at any given time... just like regardless of how long your eyes take to process your vision you'll never directly see the back of your head through them. You can see parts of your face especially if you close one eye, however

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:21 AM
If the camera was falling at the speed of light then this phenomenon is easily explained.....if not then I don´t have a clue.

Peace

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:39 AM
This is a very easy one to explain!

Ok, here I go: The phone was having an out of body experience!

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:00 AM
An automatic reaction is to use both hands to catch the phone....

The picture is taken from the right at just above eye line at about 90 degrees,
the camera that took this photo was moving horizontally,

the picture you describe in your OP would only be at the most 5 to 10 degree to the right, moving vertically and below the eye line.

What i would like to know is: why would you try and convince us otherwise?
although unfortunately some people need no convincing.

You've taken a picture of a phone with another phone

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:30 AM
In the seconds that he pressed the button to take a picture, the phone flipped out of his hand and he took a picture of him holding the phone. It's amazing that it happened, but it can happen, depending on the picture delay.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:33 AM

I may be misunderstanding this entirely, but wouldn't a time delay actually, then, take a picture of the hand without the phone? I've been awake too long at this point but it seems to me to be kind of a paradoxical interpretation.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:42 AM

Originally posted by eeyipes
Something a bit odd happened on our camping trip a couple weekends back that we can't come up with a reasonable explanation for ...

We were camping in our pickup camper over the weekend. The kids were goofing off in the bunk bed and my husband grabbed the camera phone to snap a photo of them. While in the process of aiming and shooting, he fumbled with the phone, lost hold of it, but managed to catch it again as it fell. The result was this unusual motion blurred photo of the very same camera phone about to be caught in his hand.

So how on earth did this camera phone manage to snap a picture of itself? In the photo it is clearly the phone in his hand, buttons and all. My first thought was that it somehow caught a reflection of itself while falling, but there were no reflective surfaces in the area where this happened. The only reflection in the photo is shown on the glossy view screen of the phone, in which I think is reflected the ventilation fan on the ceiling directly above it.

The phone is a cheap Net 10 prepay phone, Samsung model t401g. Camera lens is on the back.

Can anyone come up with a logical explanation for this?

There are other timelines-alternative realities-extra dimensions. I think, that those moments "opened" a rift through time and space, and some how... just those few moments a nother (timelines-alternative realities-extra dimensions) "linked" with that fabric of space and somehow it showed a picture of the event.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:44 AM
Heres my explanation that allows everyone to save face,

Sometime prior to the incident in question occurring and unbeknown to the phones owner the picture was taken (of another phone the owner has)

On dropping the phone the picture was accidentally selected and the owner thought it was taken just as they caught the phone.

No need for time travel / mirrors etc, it is just the combination of 2 unrelated incidents that humans like to think are related.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Draker]

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 06:45 AM
Good point actually, the phone in the pic is blurred by its own motion, yet other objects that it supposedly took a pic of are perfectly sharp, you simply do not take sharp pictures while moving the camera around. And I won't even go into the whole slow shutter wormhole technique of taking pictures faster than the speed of light.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Rogue NerD]

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Rogue NerD]

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:45 AM
OP:

With all due respect, if you are stating the facts as you truly believe them to be, then you are mistaken. Happens to the best of us.

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 07:46 AM
Forgive me if the question has been asked before but is there a screen of plastic/glass on the front of the phone that could have come loose as it was falling?

What I think may have happened (if this isn't an exercise in chain-yanking) is as the phone was falling, some attached screen or something may have come loose, reflecting the image of the phone briefly at the exact moment the picture was taken. Said screen was then somehow put back into place during the process of catching the phone leaving all involved none the wiser and suitably freaked out!

That's the best I have, hope it helped.

Edit: Just read a couple of posts up and my theory would account for the blurred phone and crisp background as the screen/attachment would be moving independently of the camera.
[edit on 22-6-2010 by Dookzor]

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Dookzor]

22