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

reply to post by eeyipes


Your armed moved faster than the speed of light.

Or you're BSing.

No matter how slowly or quickly you turn around, your eyes will never see the back of your head.

*shrug*

Dokzor, that is just another way of saying that the picture was taken by photographing a mirror or reflecting surface, even if you did that you could never take a picture of the front of the phone like that when the when the camera is on the back.

Isn't it obvious? The thought police is spying on you. Protect yourself because they are coming after you.










Does this honestly have to be on the front page?

Its called photoshop I bet.

reply to post by eeyipes
PEOPLE!!!


Look at the SCREEN on the phone in the picture!! It's NOT on the camera, there are words/lettering visible on it. It's obvious the phone in the hand did not take the photo in question.

Cmon people.

The EXIF data presents a conundrum.

Here is the exif data given by the OP again:

LINK

And here is the exif data from another Samsung SGH-T401G, identical to the OP's phone:

LINK

The data is almost identical.

So, since it is impossible for a camera to take a photo of itself without the use of a mirror, and the fact that the lens is facing the palm of the hand.

We are left with one option.

I think the OP is blessed with two Samsung SGH-T401G phones.

Clever.

[edit on 22/6/10 by Chadwickus]

Originally posted by Chadwickus
The EXIF data presents a conundrum.

Here is the exif data given by the OP again:

LINK

And here is the exif data from another Samsung SGH-T401G, identical to the OP's phone:

LINK

The data is almost identical.

So, since it is impossible for a camera to take a photo of itself without the use of a mirror, and the fact that the lens is facing the palm of the hand.

We are left with one option.

I think the OP is blessed with two Samsung SGH-T401G phones.

Clever.

[edit on 22/6/10 by Chadwickus]

Yep, 2 phones of the same model. One to take the picture while whoever is holding the phone in the pic gives it a shake to cause the blur effect.

This is a stupid thread. The OP must think we're all idiots

Eeyipes - This would be massively epic if true - Unfortunately it is physically impossible

I’m not going to dwell or pursue a negative attack on you, even if you have created this with the intention of misleading the forum

But... As a photographer myself, there is just no way this could be achieved unless you have a second camera.
I did postulate for a moment that 'maybe' this was some long exposure trickery... But then it donned that this scenario is still completely and utterly implausible.

If the shutter opened as it fell then it would be capturing an image of the floor (or ceiling if facing up) and if it were to close when your husband caught it, you would again get a snap of where ever the camera were facing, in this case, the inside of his hand.

Even whilst the camera is tumbling in mid air and even if the camera had a very slow response time - There is still just no way that the camera would pick up an image of itself but from the opposite direction!

Then consider factoring in all the other 360 rotation crap that it would have captured as well.

Very crude drawing to illustrate:

img25.imageshack.us...

In order to capture an image of '2' the phone would have had to remain above it. However, '1' IS '2' in the past.. The only possible explanation is two camera's
'3' represents an unknown falling distance.

Like Guavas said:

Originally posted by guavas
No matter how slowly or quickly you turn around, your eyes will never see the back of your head.

*shrug*

There is just no way that it could happen.

And to further disprove what I suggested about it being an exposure trick. If the camera was tumbling during a long exposure (i.e. more then half a second) then the image result would be a complete blur and NOT an almost clear image of the table with food, your husband etc. It would be messy, distorted and unrecognisable.

Fact. Sorry

To prove my point. Consider enabling video on the phone and chuck it up in the air with a spin. If it films itself then please post it on here so that all the meanies will stop being horrible to you!


Edited for crude English



[edit on 22/6/2010 by Kliskey]

If it's an iphone, I know you can take a screen shot of the phone by pressing the Home key and the top key simultaneously. Hope that helps.

Is it a nokia E63? it looks like it - i've got one, and they take FOREVER sometimes to shoot after you press the button, so you can pretty much press shoot, move the camera, and you can get a whole different photo to what you wanted to aim at. hey, for $200, you get what you pay for.

reply to post by bkaust


Yes, but no matter how long the exposure, the camera would still only take a picture of what it is facing and no where in time would it be looking down on itself.

If true, then this is a glitch in the Matrix.

Originally posted by RMFX1

This is a stupid thread. The OP must think we're all idiots

True, very true. However, we are the ones that have allowed this thread to go 6 pages and counting, right?

We could've simply ended this thread-jokery on the first page and then STOPPED posting which would have ended this.

Everytime we post we give this thread new life, just like I did now.

Dorian Soran

Originally posted by eeyipeshe 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.

Normally when individuals attempt to catch something that fell out of their hand, they would use both hands. In this picture, he only used one hand. Not to mention, his right hand is missing in this picture. The angle of the picture would lead one to believe that there was a second phone or camera involved. Now I know you've said multiple times that there was no secondary photographic device involved. However, let's look at the facts and this from a scientific point of view:

1. His right hand is missing.
   
2. The angle of the picture and the absence of his right hand clearly point towards the presence of a secondary photographic device.
   

The evidence presented in this picture clearly indicates the presence of another photographic device. Now, I am not saying that there aren't other possibilities, but this one is clearly the most rational one. You stated numerous times that there was no other type of camera around or reflective device; however, there is no way for us to verify that.

reply to post by eeyipes


does it have flash?

two glossy surfaces could've acted like a periscope

Originally posted by Dorian Soran

Originally posted by RMFX1

This is a stupid thread. The OP must think we're all idiots

True, very true. However, we are the ones that have allowed this thread to go 6 pages and counting, right?

We could've simply ended this thread-jokery on the first page and then STOPPED posting which would have ended this.

Everytime we post we give this thread new life, just like I did now.

Dorian Soran

This is worth reading again...

and again...

and again...

OP, I don't think for a minute you are trying to trick us in any way.

Have you considered you are perhaps the victim of a practical joke by your husband?

He could be giggling with a work buddy right now..."Hehe, the wife STILL thinks our phone took a picture of itself LOL".

I ask because my wife and I kid around all the time playing pranks on one another. Last football season, my wife walks into the room during a game. She asked my why some of the players had a special insignia on their uniform (it signifies they are a Team Captain BTW). I told her it was because they were diabetic, and needed to be identified as such in case of injury/medical emergency.

Although amazed at the number of diabetic NFL players....She still believes this!!!!

Out of curiosity can anyone figure out what the picture is on the screen of the phone.
Second line.

[edit on 22-6-2010 by cmsorrells]

[edit on 22-6-2010 by cmsorrells]

I'm shocked. I've been a member of this site for 6 years and have NEVER seen so many dumb replies in one thread before. It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for a camera to take a picture of itself.....no matter how hard you try or how many times you try it. Yes, you can do tricks with shutter speed/exposure - we've all seen the old class photos with the same kid at both ends of the shot because he ran to the other end. Capturing the device TAKING the picture though....unless you can move faster than light......just laughable.

This is a hoax - and some of you should be ashamed.