Soyuz launch today -- three objects swoop past on way to space

want to take this opportunity to wish everyone a merry xmas

Originally posted by ratskywatsky
Here is a video of the April 4th 2011 Soyuz launch - and there is a UFO - or something - heading upwards in it again - at 2:27 - and it is much clearer in this one. It appears to be a globe.

www.youtube.com...

It's Probably another star (like in the OP), or maybe Venus.

The object in question may be stationary, but the camera was moving downward while tracking the Soyuz as it sped away.

...
It's Probably another star (like in the OP), or maybe Venus.

...

Did you watch it? It sure doesn't look like a star. It appears to be a round object.

Jim must be bored baiting the UFO nutters, shame on you

Originally posted by JimOberg
Check out www.youtube.com...

... and watch the white dots rising past the ascending rocket at 2 min 40 [on left],
at 3 min 50 sec [on left], and at 4 min 00 sec [on rt].

We've seen these kinds of scenes before. What could they be?

Uhm..you tell us?

Birds?

Edit: On a serious note (realizing this is possibly a troll thread ).....that first dot "moves" about the same speed as does the exhaust of the rocket....which leads me to believe that the DOT is actually stationary and only looks like it's moving due to the camera pan. (The cam follows the rocket). So...i am saying it's a star/planet.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by ratskywatsky
Here is a video of the April 4th 2011 Soyuz launch - and there is a UFO - or something - heading upwards in it again - at 2:27 - and it is much clearer in this one. It appears to be a globe.

www.youtube.com...

It's Probably another star (like in the OP), or maybe Venus.

The object in question may be stationary, but the camera was moving downward while tracking the Soyuz as it sped away.

argh..yes..didn't see it has already been pointed out

What are you people going on about? The "globe" in the April 2011 video certainly does not look like a dot or a star. It gives the illusion of rotation

RealPlayer download and replay doesn't allow for brightness controls it used to have viewing in RealPlayer, I was hoping to confirm star movement in respect to the spacecraft. Alas RealPlayer converter fails again to convert the file to QuickTime so I can adjust the brightness. But let me ask one question. Why would UFO's need headlights?

I could however transfer the download to my old computer, that still has the older RealPlayer that gives one control over brightness, chroma, and contrast controls if anyone is interested for results of this lengthy experiment, lengthy because it may require a half an hour for the old Mac tower to fire up.

Maybe I need to reinstall Flash Pro, if I can find the serial number. Seems like a lot of work though for a software I never use.

The government shills on the aptly named Bad Astronomy forum were insisting that the dots, and the globe, were lens flares. I don't think so. Anyway, they don't like people to question anything over there so they banned me, and changed their rules so that you must be signed in to even look. Me, I just noticed the dots, or whatever they are, on the latest Soyuz video that someone posted on another forum on a thread about space exploration. Only later, via google, did I notice that I wasn't the only one whonoticed. Maybe the dots are stars. I don't know. Could the exposure of the film show stars, as the Soyuz is far brighter? I tend to doubt it, but I don't know. I don't think they're lens flares or digital anomalies, but again I don't know what they are. Maybe there's a simple explanation. The "globe" is more puzzling yet. It looks like a balloon. And, as always, from official channels, mums the word. Makes people more suspicious about everything, no?

I was just looking for a forum where subjects like this could be intelligently analyzed. I don't know if this is the place. Maybe I just walked into the middle of some long running feud or something, with talk of "troll thread" and whatnot...

Originally posted by ratskywatsky
The government shills on the aptly named Bad Astronomy forum were insisting that the dots, and the globe, were lens flares. I don't think so.

They were wrong. There was SOME lens flare at the beginning of the video, but the objects being discussed in this thread were stars.

I don't think you even looked at the April film.

As for the dots in the other vids being stars - does the video exposure allow for such great latitude, the very bright rocket and the very dim star field? Are there any stars visible in similar distant shots of the rocket?

Originally posted by ratskywatsky
I don't think you even looked at the April film.

As for the dots in the other vids being stars - does the video exposure allow for such great latitude, the very bright rocket and the very dim star field? Are there any stars visible in similar distant shots of the rocket?

This is a good question. During clear night launches at large ranges -- 50 to 100 miles to the departing rocket -- I recall seeing a few stars occasionally. Not an entire star field -- I think your point about the exposure setting is valid -- but a few brighter ones. There have even been a few white dots 'rising' [that is, staying still, while the camera pans DOWN] past shuttle ascents even during daylight.

So to me it was a familiar visual feature of that particular lighting and WX conditions.

Great thread Jim, and great example of how easy it is for things to look odd.

I also think that they are stars, in fact I would bet everything I own on it if I were a "betting man".

I don't see why a camera would not be able to pick them up (at least the brighter ones) with good lens, and taking the dynamic range into consideration. Broadcast quality TV cameras in general have quite a wide dynamic range, and this looks like it was footage taken with a pro-level camera. Even modern pro-sumer cameras would not have any trouble I suspect.

Originally posted by ratskywatsky
Here is a video of the April 4th 2011 Soyuz launch - and there is a UFO - or something - heading upwards in it again - at 2:27 - and it is much clearer in this one. It appears to be a globe.

www.youtube.com...

That is because it's out of focus. If you watch after that point, between 2:37-38 the camera operator attempts to refocus, and the Soyouz is in focus for a split second, but the camera operator focuses too far the other way now, and the footage ends a couple of seconds later.

"That is because it's out of focus. If you watch after that point, between 2:37-38 the camera operator attempts to refocus, and the Soyouz is in focus for a split second, but the camera operator focuses too far the other way now, and the footage ends a couple of seconds later. "




4April2011 Soyuz, 2:32 of youtube video

The globe does not at all appear to be an out of focus point of light/star (if anything looks like an out of focus star it's the rocket!). It appears to be rather sharply defined - and the refocusing you mention occurs after it is off screen. (Note: The "globe" is the dark-colored object on the upper left)

As for the dots on the other videos, you might well be right about them being stars, but this globe ufo is more puzzling.

reply to post by ratskywatsky


Yes, the refocusing does occur while the "globe" is off screen, but since the Soyuz rocket is constantly in view, you can tell that the focus has not been changed since then.

Watch the footage again. Everything, including stars, is in focus up till 2:24-25. Then the camera operator refocuses, and everything after that remains out of focus till the next attempt at 2:37

Having spent the past 14 or so years trying to photograph stars, I can assure you that a star that is defocused can easily look like the object you are referring to as a "globe", and it will appear to be round and sharply defined as in this example.



Source: Bokeh and Background Blur

The shape (round in this case) of course indicates the shape of the aperture. Quite a few lenses have apertures which when set to their widest setting, are perfectly round, just like the example I posted above. You would expect the lens to be set at it's widest aperture - it would need to be in order to capture the background stars. A wider aperture gathers more light.

Hi, CHUD. I respect your experience in the field of astrophotography. Yes, I see how the rocket goes out of focus at 2:24 - and it then becomes a mono-colored featureless "blob", as out of focus small bright objects will - but the "globe" does not appear that way. It seems to have some definition and differentiation in color, and it does have color, and appears to be shaded on one side, and gives the illusion of rotation. I don't think it resembles your "defocused star images".

Originally posted by ratskywatsky
It seems to have some definition and differentiation in color, and it does have color

Why shouldn't it have definition and colour?

Any distant light or point source (eg a star) that is out of focus will be well defined. Try it for yourself, or look at the thousands of examples of bokeh that can be found on the interweb.

As for the colour, that will always depend on the light source. Defocusing does not change the colour of the light, although it does distribute the light over a wider area making it seem dimmer in the case of an our of focus point source.

I guess you did not know that stars come in a variety of different colours?

Not only that, but the atmosphere can also have an effect on the color we see. Scintillation can separate the colors in the light, and the effect can be quite dramatic


Source: Astro Bob

Either way, I would say that there is only a slight hint of color, but color is a subjective thing and everyone perceives color differently, so without an objective scientific analysis I don't think we will get anywhere talking about it.

Originally posted by ratskywatsky
and appears to be shaded on one side.

You mean like this?
I've marked the two best examples with red dots to the right of them.

Source: gold-bokeh

or this?
I've used green dots this time.

Originally posted by ratskywatsky
and gives the illusion of rotation.

You said it, not me, and you are correct. Illusions are everywhere. The footage we are discussing here is an illusion to start off with. Things appear to be in motion, but film/motion pictures are just a series of still images that when played back at a high enough frame rate, give the illusion of motion.

Ultimately, camera systems today although very good for entertainment, have lots of flaws, and they don't render the accurate picture of reality that we'd always like. For example, when a lens is designed with the intention of being used under low-lighting conditions, you need to have much larger elements, especially the front element, since the larger the diameter, the more light it can gather. That makes things more complex and expensive, since it's harder to design and build large diameter elements whilst keeping the lens free from distortion and aberration.

As a result, most lenses are no where near perfect, and light is not evenly distributed evenly across the whole image that the lens produces, especially when the lens is used at it's widest aperture setting, which is almost certainly the case here as I explained in my last post.

Now I'm not 100% sure if that's the reason the "shading" to change and give the illusion of rotation, but I suspect it could well be.

Originally posted by ratskywatsky
I don't think it resembles your "defocused star images".

That's a little like saying "I don't think president Obama resembles the pope"... of course he does not, but both are still human.

Every light/point source will be different and unique, and every lens also renders them differently, depending on design, settings, and even the position of the light source in the frame.

Anyway, I think you are being a bit hard on me, they weren't that far off IMO.

I'm not trying to be hard on you or anyone else, CHUD, just trying to sort things out.

"...both are still human"

I'm not so sure about that, but that's another subject.

Star colours? I don't perceive very much, if anything at all, in the way of star colours up in the sky, but I'm partially colour blind (the common red-green thing), and - argh! - your bubble charts resemble my nemesis, colour blindness tests! (the only thing I can make out in those is the one they stick in to catch malingerers.)

Those "globe" pictures you posted on top are the star Sirius taken slightly out of focus, and the photographer says he used a 200mm lens to take them, and yes, they do resemble the "globe" in the Soyuz vid - BUT they must have been enlarged tremendously to make them appear so big, and in the slightly out of focus Soyuz video the mystery globe appears to be about 60% the size of the rocket. Maybe the rocket was so far away at that point that it only appeared as a point of light to the naked eye, but if you looked at it through a telephoto lens could the star appear that large in comparison? When i look at the night sky with 12X binoculars (or a NV scope) the stars still remain only points of light.

You have much more experience with this sort of thing than I do. So then are you convinced that both the dots and the globe are nothing but stars?