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.

 

Morphing UFO Pictures you can even see the stars around it!

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 12m8keall2c
 


Yes no matter what the distance is between the objects they still produce light and light moves when a shaky picture is taken no matter the distance of the lighted object.




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Another animation but with a line of reference...

i365.photobucket.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I think what people are saying about stars is that they are too faint--it doesn't matter how far away they were. Keep in mind, when you press the trigger on a camera, the camera and tripod will shake for only a fraction of a second, too short a time to pick up the very faint light from a star; however, the exposure may continue for several seconds after the shaking has stopped. This remaining exposure time is long enough to distinguish the faint light from the stars, while the camera and tripod have then stopped shaking and are stationary. Brighter objects, such as the moon, in contrast to stars, are bright enough to show up during the brief time that the camera is shaking.



EDIT: However I'm not convinced this is what happened in these pictures. For one thing the moon was not in the sky at the time.
sugarcookie1, what angle above the horizon was the object?


edit on 16-1-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Anyway, why are we looking at the stars? we are suppose to be looking at the big bright object in the center of the photo...



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnieG
Yes no matter what the distance is between the objects they still produce light and light moves when a shaky picture is taken no matter the distance of the lighted object.


Yes.

BUT...

given the stars distance their movement will be merely that of a slight blur or fuzziness.

An object Much closer to the lens, as this is, will show repeated 'reports' throughout the exposure - 2 seconds, mind you.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sugarcookie1
 


Hi, this is from a photographer. This is just a case of long shutter speed, when taking a photo initially at night, be it a cheap camera or expensive one if dark the sutter stays open longer (to let more light in). When you first click the camera, or tripod will shake, creating an initial shake of the object, then subsequent stead movement of the object will appear in a straight line... well, a straight line if your taking pictures of something that moves in a straight lines... eg stars. I would bet that this is a bright star. Its funny seeing this because I took pictures myself recently of stars after watching bbcs stargazing live on my Nikon D90 and achieved very similar results. To avoid the initial shake photographers place a card over the lens for the initial click, then remove the card, another 20 secs of steady shutter opening produce great results. If you have ever seen those pictures of stars that look like the trail goes around in a full 360, this is just an open shutter for longer, the ops picture is a 30 second open shutter picture. Either way its a nice picture.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
thanks Jed1Knight
at least you didnt eat me alive
Im no photographer and i dont understand half of what you people are saying i just took the pics thought wow these are neat ..what your saying may very well be true i just dont know ..but thanks for the nice reply...sugar~



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Itop1
 


We are looking at the stars (and/or hot pixels) because you use them as a reference for your animation.


Using a fixed line on the animation doesn't help either.

What I mean is that, if the two faint lights to the left are stars and all the smaller bright points are hot pixels, then you cannot use the other bright points as references, because they are always in the same spot, even when the camera moves, because they are on the camera, not on the scene being photographed.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Hi yet again sugarcookie,

I don't mean to interrupt the hi-tech discussion regarding the validity of your photos (which I think I believe to be real and of something unexplained), however, you didn't answer my question properly. You gave me the time of day, I was looking for which day of August did this happen, or, if you don't remember an exact date, at least, some direction to a time period in which you might have taken the photos. Believe me, I have very good reasons to ask this


Cheers!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jed1Knightthe ops picture is a 30 second open shutter picture. Either way its a nice picture.

The photos from the opening post are 2 seconds exposures.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I just took some photos of the sky with my camera and the same thing happened, different stars show up in each photo, sometimes the stars show and sometime they dont and other stars are there permenantly... in my honest opinion, the small white dots in the OP's photo are stars and not hot pixels, eather way there is no definitive way to know for sure...



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ch1n1t0
 


Hello again ch1n1t0

all i know is they were taken around 11 pm i would say probley on a wed just not sure ..i cant rember what i did yesterday half the time
and im not sure what your asking for..



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Itop1
 


There's a way of knowing, for someone with access to the camera.

They just have to take a photo they will know will be completely black, like a photo with a short exposure time taken in a dark room. If the same spots appear in the same places then they are hot pixels.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ch1n1t0
 


According to the Exif data posted by greeneyedleo here, the photos were taken on 2010-08-15 at 22:13:16.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
S&F good find



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bian101
 


thank you bian101

that was very nice of you



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
i51.tinypic.com...
This animated gif should help clear up which dots are stars and which are hot pixels. It's kind of a large file ~460k, so I didn't post it directly into the forum. (Suspected stars are indicated with yellow arrows. Question marks indicate uncertainty. )

I would like to out that on the frame where the object appears more blurred, the stars also appear less distinct, fuzzier.
edit on 16-1-2011 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
ArMap I agree the 3 bright pixels on the right half of the image look more like hot pixels, but there are a few other spots of varying brightness which remain in the same spot.

Blue arrows indicate potential stars.
Green arrows indicate potential hot pixels.

Animation is too large to host on image hosting site, so I've posted it to rapidshare in a .zip file: Star/Hot Pixel animation about 7mb



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by tetsuo
 

Oh my gosh, tetsu, we both made pretty much the same post, at pretty much the same time.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Yeah haha cool. Glad somebody else is workin on it
teamwork!
edit on 16-1-2011 by tetsuo because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join