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 is this weird thing appearing on my photos ??

page: 20
25
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
uk today has given this information: the first two photos (the yellow orb and the no-arms) were taken with a Samsung Tocco lite phone and the third photo (indoor shot) was with a Sony ericsson Z750i. I don't know about the last photo (the reference photo of the open door so we can see there's no glass).


Ack I was too excited to see the pictures! I must have skipped the first page of the thread when I was looking for them.
Sorry.



I admit I don't know anything about how camera phones work, I did try to look it up and the sources I found didn't say anything about "caching". It was more like building charges over the course of a digital "shutter release" time that could then be measured.

If it works like you say, how many frames per second are captured, or does that vary by phone model? How is "shutter speed" varied -- by capturing more or fewer frames? Honest questions here, I'm just trying to figure this out.


I suppose I should have added a disclaimer about some of my comments.

My experiences have come from doing a video many years ago where some film makers put many phones together on a side by side rig type thing (I'm not a grip!) and I was helping stitch the footages together in post. One of our main issues was the blurs and hazings.

I'm not a camera nor a phone expert really. Mostly I just work with images I'm given.

Normally having a shutter speed number is a good reference for post work, and this is how some of the reasons we didn't have shutter speed was explained to me. The camera phones were all the same models, but the blurs were inconsistent. I imagine sometimes this was from auto focus or exposure perhaps, but I didn't work directly with these model phones. We were also told that the blurs got worse if the phone was busy sometimes and some horrible things happened such as dropped frames. We worked with stills and with video, but sometimes we had to turn normal video footages into phone style footages. Some of the work was repair work, and some was adding new elements and the best way for us to do this was averaging opacity and scripts over perhaps 4 - 8 frames so I've never had any reason to doubt this explanation.

Perhaps phones work differently these days or the information was 'dumbed' down, but to me the results seem muchly the same, and the director/camera persons had no reason to lie to us I suppose.

I wouldn't be able tell you huge amounts about all phones, but there are some user statements about UK's phone being laggy and such. The phone going between video and camera mode to take the photo ... when the snapping sound came and it begins capturing informations she could have already been moving.

So yes, I may be guilty of relaying 3rd party information I am not completely connected to, but my reasoning I think is sound and my tests produced the same results I had to work with many years ago.


Edit: Again apologies for not making clearly how I came by this info, but if I've learnt one thing from ATS its that no one is interested in you are really - just infos. That and everyone thinks you should know everything.




[edit on 5-8-2010 by Pinke]




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I cannot believe there's twenty pages of discussion about this one dodgey picture.

Going back to the original title, it say photos - plural.
So where are the other photos?

I say delete this whole topic - it's wasting everyone's time.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
OP im still confused that you state the 'red paint' on the door is what most of us take to be a 3d object, namely a hand. examine closely the location of both, do you see the inconsistency? I am in now way calling you a hoaxer and am just as mystified as you are, but that single statement from you gives me pause for thought.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ommadawn
 


She has already stated what happened to the other photos. It was out of her control.

The only one wasting their time here is someone replying to something they don't feel is worthwhile. The OP has done nothing wrong in making this thread, and if any solution is found, great. So far, no one has been able to come with anything 100% which correlates with the "orb" picture and the information provided by UK Today, ergo this is still something that some people are interested in hearing the answer to, if there ever is one. If not, so be it.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


No worries on missing the phone info and stuff -- it was kind of buried in the thread. I only remembered about it because I've been following the thread since the beginning; if I was just catching up I might have missed the info too.

And thanks for clearing up how you got the info. People here do sometimes seem to assume that you either know everything or nothing


I still think the answer is in how a camera phone captures and processes information (both hardware and software). I just still haven't seen an explanation that fully satisfies me for all the characteristics of the first picture.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Yeh, i agree with the above post.

Been following this one from page 1!

The image could have been caused by artifacts created during capturing the image into the phone. If was slow during the picture taking...

but dang, 20 pages....


i wanna see more of those orb fotos!



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ommadawn
I cannot believe there's twenty pages of discussion about this one dodgey picture.

Going back to the original title, it say photos - plural.
So where are the other photos?

I say delete this whole topic - it's wasting everyone's time.





Read he whole thread; you'll see both the rest of the pictures, and the discussion so far thereon.

Ta.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I must have looked at that first picture at least a hundred times...

And I'll be damned if I can see a child in it. The shape is totally off, it's far too smooth and shiny, looks nothing like hair..

The so-called hand is clearly a blotch of paint - uk today has already posted a picture demonstrating that...

The yellow-orange orb/egg/blob is not a human being. Categorically not.

I really wish we can find a logical solution here - for ukt's peace of mind, and to pique my own curiosity!

Things that make you go 'hmmmmmm...'



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FunnyLittleFrog

Originally posted by ommadawn
I cannot believe there's twenty pages of discussion about this one dodgey picture.

Going back to the original title, it say photos - plural.
So where are the other photos?

I say delete this whole topic - it's wasting everyone's time.





"Read he whole thread; you'll see both the rest of the pictures, and the discussion so far thereon."



Ta.



I have, and that is why I say delete it.

Norway Spiral was epic in terms of the material and the very efficient investigation of it's true nature.

People drifting into the realms of imaginative camera phone technicalities whilst at the same time not claiming to be a camera phone expert... come on people.

This is random tumble-weed, let's move on.
Nothing to see here folks.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FunnyLittleFrog
The so-called hand is clearly a blotch of paint - uk today has already posted a picture demonstrating that...


The 'blotch of paint' can clearly be seen below the second door ridge.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

However, the 'hand' is clearly above the top ridge.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

So definitely 2 separate things in my opinion...



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by uk today
Btw, dudez, if you read this, is there any way you could use your technique on that last picture please.
Thanks.
[edit on 2-8-2010 by uk today]


Sorry for being so late, i'm still reading what i missed and noticed the request, sure i can do.
Just a side note, this photo is really interesting: the wall corner and the painting behind you seems still, while the glass you hold with your right hand clearly leaves a trail:



You may notice various faces in this photo, but keep in mind we as humans, our brain automatically try to recognize faces in these occasions.
However, my brother (who's a skilled photographer and may join this thread if time permits) recognized what appears to be two eyes and a forehead, quite bigger than your face in the background: too bad he got to go, maybe tomorrow he'll take another look at this picture with more calm since he was in a hurry.

I just don't know what to say uk, i'm quite impressed by that; it took me a while to really see those eyes btw: one of them seems overimpressed upon the lower left corner of the painting behind you, the other one, instead, it looked like some sort of forniture (lamp in a corner) but once you see them you can easily spot the white and the pupil in both of those eyes.
Reducing the size can help you see them better, but i may have an explanation for that all:



In the bottom part of the shape i draw you can spot both eyes, at left and right, but let me ask you the following: is there any type furniture, behind you in that corner, that is black or darken? Because look at that:




By removing the fine details, now you can see that there is something firm in the corner, casting some shadows on the left of the photo, as well as the glass trail seems to have the same angular velocity and motion of the lower right painting (certificate?graduation?): while you could be moving, but you didn't, the painting sure didn't, but since both the glass and the painting leave the same motion trail, then it could be very plausible Julie pushed the button to took the photo and moved away in a quarter of circle counter-clockwise from her starting position, a really tiny movement could have caused this: to be precise, i suppose she moved slightly forming an arc, from right to top.

Keep in mind this is just my own opinion: i cannot explain, however, why the upper right painting doesn't show the same trail.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by dudez]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by dudez]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ommadawn
This is random tumble-weed, let's move on.
Nothing to see here folks.


No one is keeping you here


I assume the snipe about "imaginative camera phone technologies" was directed at me?

I assure you I'm not looking for imaginative ones, just real ones. This thread made me realize how little I know about how a camera phone works, and I'm interested. That's a lot of the draw of ATS for me -- I find topics here that I don't know much about, and I look into them.

This thread would be a lot shorter and easier to follow if it didn't keep getting bumped by people insisting it's a child when uk today has clearly said there was no child between her and the photographer.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
Firstly, not sure why people are using HDR style techniques etc ... on a mobile phone photo. There isn't enough data there - it's already a mess to begin with. The kernal/filter thingo I saw before would just introduce more contrast and confusion??? I don't know, maybe am missing something.


It simple, really: it doesn't matter whether a photo comes from a mobile phone or an Hasselblad, you capture both low and high frequencies anyway.
The thing is we can do something with them, and this is why image analysis techniques exist for, just look at this image being used as our source:



By performing frequency analysis on this source image, i can produce a resulting image while gaining control over precise frequency windows, so that i can boost and attenuate them at will.
The following image shows what you can obtain on the source image by only boosting the fine details frequency window, modulating by a sigmoid function to prevent early saturation or "burning" the image:



The thing is, this type of processing doesn't add or invent or produce additional detail or anything at all: basically, it just permits to modulate specific frequency windows in the source picture and amplify them.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


I completely agree with you. Camera phones are sketchy, and I have experienced times where it clickes and you think the photo has snapped but it hasn't. And is your last picture the nozzle to flush a toilet?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ir0nM0nkey

Originally posted by FunnyLittleFrog
The so-called hand is clearly a blotch of paint - uk today has already posted a picture demonstrating that...


The 'blotch of paint' can clearly be seen below the second door ridge.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

However, the 'hand' is clearly above the top ridge.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

So definitely 2 separate things in my opinion...


I concur and until this issue is addressed by the OP, the whole thing's a non-issue for me. it's been interesting tho, cheers



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by nexusferox
 


It has been addressed by the OP, in this post.

She made a mistake; she thought that the red splotch on the door was higher than it is. She agrees that the thing that looks like a hand or handprint in the first photo is not after all the red paint splotch she remembered being on the door, she doesn't know what it is.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


ok thanks for that I missed it, clearer now.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
This thread would be a lot shorter and easier to follow if it didn't keep getting bumped by people insisting it's a child when uk today has clearly said there was no child between her and the photographer.


There was no child between her and the photographer to her naked eyes.

There're artifacts on her pictures therefore she ask for our opinions.

We give our input base on the picture and accordingly to what the title says.

The "orb" clearly just the artifacts created by the mobile phone camera be it look like a fetus, a ballon, a candy, a child or whatever things our minds can think of logically.

The truth is we all aware there is nothing out there and her arms does not disappear when the pictures are taken.

To me the case is pretty much closed but I'm interested on how the images are processed in such way.



[edit on 5-8-2010 by EasternShadow]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
"What is this weird thing appearing on my photos?"

I don't know how about you tell us?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dudez

Originally posted by Pinke
Firstly, not sure why people are using HDR style techniques etc ... on a mobile phone photo. There isn't enough data there - it's already a mess to begin with. The kernal/filter thingo I saw before would just introduce more contrast and confusion??? I don't know, maybe am missing something.


It simple, really: it doesn't matter whether a photo comes from a mobile phone or an Hasselblad, you capture both low and high frequencies anyway.
The thing is we can do something with them, and this is why image analysis techniques exist for,


I agree. I assume Samsung Tocco lite is using CMOS image sensor technology as i can't find details of it's camera technology.

I think there're just too much noise disturbing the the signal. Electronic noise, wind, vibrations, gravitational attraction of the moon ( if present ), variations of temperature, variations of humidity, etc... and CMOS image sensor is notoriously poor with motion pictures.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by EasternShadow]



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join