Late to the party again!
I took a long hard look at the original, full-size image with EXIF, claimed as being straight off the camera. I found nothing to suggest that it had
been edited. (Only by getting access to the original media can one be reasonably sure of that, but suffice to say it would take a fairly high level
of knowledge to be able to get one past me..
Anyway, according to the EXIF data, it is a no-brand camera (ie a cheapie, sorry!), and the image was taken at 1/270 second. This is where things get
a little tricky. Being a no-brand camera, we have no idea about the electronics, type of shutter, etc, so the exif may not be very accurate. It also
means that the lens may be quite substandard.. Now the buildings etc are quite blurred, and it *looks* like motion blur with a strong vertical
component. But if that 1/270 shutter speed is correct, then that camera was being moved quite violently to achieve that amount of blur so I'm
wondering if it is more of a defective lens, than true motion blur..?
The relevance of this is that the object has significant blurring at the top, but much less at the bottom. Puzzling, but again, could this be a lens
Now, onto the object...
As I mentioned, it has the odd blurring effect. I'd like to see other images from this camera showing contrasty detail in the same are of the frame,
I see NO evidence of a cutnpaste. I find it rather alarming that some responses here have made that judgement from a very obviously REDUCED (and
therefore re-saved) initial image. Such an image will, unless very carefully created, have jpeg block boundaries added, and these are often confused
(by amateur investigators) as copy-pastes, when they are no such thing. I see NO evidence on the original of any cut and paste, and if it was
'photoshopped' in, it was done quite professionally (begging the question of why you wouldn't use a better image and better 'ufo', if you were that
BTW, I won't be elaborating on how you can quite easily tell the difference between a cut-paste and jpeg boundaries, as it may play into the hands of
future hoaxers, but if you know the topic, you can easily see which is which. U2U me (with your credentials
) if you wish to know how, but really,
if you knew the topic you wouldn't be asking me...
There are minor artefacts around the object in the original, but they are quite consistent with the level of JPG compression in use.
The RGB colour readings (comparing object versus other similarly lit areas) don't really reveal much of use, but I may revisit that aspect later.
There is a slight halo around the object, which can be emphasised by careful level adjustment, but this may simply be crude oversharpening artefacts
created as the camera captures the image. Cheaper cameras are notorious for overdoing the sharpening and contrast enhancement.
However, the halo effect plus the fact that the object seems a little clearer (at the bottom) than most of the remainder of the image, introduces a
new possibility - this could be something that was in fact on the sensor... ie a small piece of dust or debris. Diffraction effects and the microlens
design of digital sensors may cause this halo on such objects. that would explain why the object seems to be suffering different clarity issues to
the rest of the image (which came via the lens)..
To eliminate (almost) that possibility, I'd like to see the images immediately before and after this image, and as above, to determine the true
resolution of that camera in the region where the ufo appears, I'd also like to see some images taken by it, that show contrasty detail in that
No, I don't want much...
Oh, and how's about full details of what camera it was..?
As to what it is, I wouldn't hazard a guess at this stage. There is not enough meaningful information to be gleaned from the image, so far..
edit on 3-10-2010 by CHRLZ because: added sum brakets for emFAsis