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.

 

Odd object in astronomical photo - Need advice!

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by Human_Alien


You also have difficulty understanding sarcasm





And you're obviously egotistical enough to think I was directing my observation towards you!!

All I said is I don't see any resemblance. I was in fact agreeing with you.

Man, where's the love Zorgon?? Forget that, where's your avatar?




posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Actually, on further looking at it, its pattern is reflected many times over, best one is way off to the right, certainly looks like internal reflections on the internal glass lenses of his lens.




Also, if it was a small bump during the exposure (such as say manually pressing the shutter button on the camera body) I would think the red stars would show much more blurring than they showing are (singular points)....

So, I'm left scratching my head a bit. Points to something similar to ISS now, but I'm really doubting that's an iso 80 shot, there's just so much noise in it. Any chance he will give you just the exif data then Ea?
edit on 7-4-2012 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2012 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
If the supposed exposure time and ISO , coupled to the fact that the camera was tripod mounted , are correct , then surely if the image is the ISS , wouldn't it be a whole lot clearer ?

I smell a rat



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnprince
 


There's a fair chunk of atmosphere in the way to the ISS which is moving very fast, its very hard to get a clean shot of it from earth.
edit on 7-4-2012 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Though I am not familiar with the model of camera used for the shot , there does seem to be hell of a lot of noise in the image at ISO 80 .



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Qumulys
reply to post by dawnprince
 


There's a fair chunk of atmosphere in the way to the ISS which is moving very fast, its very hard to get a clean shot of it from earth.
edit on 7-4-2012 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)


Agreed . However , there is still a lot of motion blur for a one second shot if the image is the ISS.
I would say that whatever has been captured in the image is a lot closer to us than than the ISS.
edit on 7-4-2012 by dawnprince because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Why do you keep talking about ISS, there are like 20 000 other satellites out there?

Frankly, it looks like a jet to me but it is weird that it would illuminated like that.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
lenticuler swamp gas


That's cool though.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by User8911
Why do you keep talking about ISS, there are like 20 000 other satellites out there?

Frankly, it looks like a jet to me but it is weird that it would illuminated like that.


20,000 , really ?
I would say a closer estimate would be around 3000.
I don't think for 1 minute that image captured is the ISS . In fact , I doubt the authenticity of the image altogether .



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Zorgon.........no Avatar?


Stealth mode


Learning you are, Jedi

LOL



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
I think its either a millitary plane or possibly some debris from some space mission



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


did you take into account daylight savings time ?

It does look like the ISS if you can think in three dimensions rather than two. You have to rotate it and tilt it back to make a better comparison, but the solar panels are obvious to me.

edit to add. Kudos and thanks for sharing this.
edit on 6-4-2012 by Smack because: (no reason given)

Thank you!


Yes I did take account of the daylight savings time, but we can't be sure of the exact hour unless we have the full EXIF datas and the camera hour/date setting was properly set.


Originally posted by Qumulysalso, there is an aweful lot of noise in that pic, especially for an iso of "80". Perhaps he meant "800"? Even if he doesn't want to post the original, I wish he would at least give the full EXIF data! grrr, spank him EA!

edit on 7-4-2012 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)


Will ask him!!



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by zayonara
A ONE second exposure at that long focal length, the ISS would be a short streak. From my experience shooting the night sky, Follow me: If this is real, and it's at that focal length, a 1s exposure, and it was not being tracked by the mount, it's a geosynchronous or geostationary object. Many of them are up there.

www.oso.noaa.gov...
edit on 6-4-2012 by zayonara because: (no reason given)

You have a very valid point here.

To summarize, I asked some question to the witness:

1- Did you see it with naked eyes?
2- Was it moving? With naked eyes? In the viewfinder?
3- Did you kept the tracking mount in or did you manually point the telescope toward the object?
4- Are you sure it's ISO 80 and not ISO 800?
5- Could you please give us the full EXIFdatas, using for example Jeffrey's EXIF viewer?
6- What is the exact date? (31 March or 1st April [yes, I know, April fool day, but... you never know])

Another info he gave me: the original shoot makes 7Mb.
edit on 7-4-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by zayonara
A ONE second exposure at that long focal length, the ISS would be a short streak. From my experience shooting the night sky, Follow me: If this is real, and it's at that focal length, a 1s exposure, and it was not being tracked by the mount, it's a geosynchronous or geostationary object. Many of them are up there.



Agreed, it is absolutely not the ISS for the reasons you mention.
A still tripod shot of the ISS would merely show a bright line, for a one second exposure. (And yes, I've been there and done that.) So would a shot where the stars were being tracked.
To get the ISS photographed properly, it has to planned beforehand and the tracking specifically optimised for its pass on that particular orbit. One has to go to quite a bit of trouble to get it right. Cant be done at all just by accident.

But its also said on the previous page that the photographer had the telescope pointing NNE, and slightly to the left of polaris. That also completely totally rules out any geostationary satellites.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Update:

He gave me some more infos:

1- Did you see it with naked eyes?
2- Was it moving? With naked eyes? In the viewfinder?
3- Did you kept the tracking mount in or did you manually point the telescope toward the object? I first saw it in the telescope eye-finder, then I put the camera on the telescope, took the shoot and let the automatic track on
4- Are you sure it's ISO 80 and not ISO 800? ISO 80
5- Could you please give us the full EXIFdatas, using for example Jeffrey's EXIF viewer? Yes, see below
6- What is the exact date? March 31st

He also said that camera hour was wrong: it said "00h14" but it was in fact "01h14" as daylight savings time wasn't properly adjust.
He also gave a link to an original photo taken with the same settings 5/6 seconds later ----->Here

EXIFs datas taken off the photo with Jeffrey EXIF Viewer:

Exposure Time 5
F Number 0.00
Exposure Program Manual
ISO 80
Sensitivity Type Recommended Exposure Index
Recommended Exposure Index 80
Exif Version 0230
Date/Time Original 2012:03:31 00:14:51
7 days, 1 hour, 15 minutes, 36 seconds ago
Create Date 2012:03:31 00:14:51
7 days, 1 hour, 15 minutes, 36 seconds ago
Components Configuration Y, Cb, Cr, -
Compressed Bits Per Pixel 3
Brightness Value -9.03359375
Exif Image Size 6,000 × 3,376
Exposure Compensation 0
Max Aperture Value 1.0
Metering Mode Multi-segment
Light Source Daylight
Flash Off, Did not fire
Contrast Normal
Saturation Normal
Sharpness Normal
Exposure Mode Manual
Maker Note Sony (38,970 bytes binary data)
User Comment
Flashpix Version 0100
Color Space sRGB
Interoperability Index R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)
Interoperability Version 0100
File Source Digital Camera
Scene Type Directly photographed
Custom Rendered Normal
White Balance Manual
Focal Length In 35mm Format 0 mm
Scene Capture Type Standard
Lens Model ----
Padding (2,060 bytes binary data)
Padding (2,060 bytes binary data)
Offset Schema 4,080
Print Image Matching (106 bytes binary data)
Compression JPEG (old-style)
Image Description
Make SONY
Camera Model Name SLT-A77V
Orientation Horizontal (normal)
X Resolution 72
Y Resolution 72
Software Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385
Software SLT-A77V v1.04
Modify Date 2012:04:05 01:13:06
2 days, 17 minutes, 21 seconds ago
Modify Date 2012:03:31 00:14:51
7 days, 1 hour, 15 minutes, 36 seconds ago
Resolution 350 pixels/inch
Thumbnail Length 1,092
Y Cb Cr Positioning Co-sited
Sony Panorama 0x0000 0
Panorama Full Width 0
Panorama Full Height 0
Panorama Direction Right to Left
Panorama Crop Left 0
Panorama Crop Top 0
Panorama Crop Right 0
Panorama Crop Bottom 0
Panorama Frame Width 0
Panorama Frame Height 0
Panorama Source Width 0
Panorama Source Height 0
Sony Panorama 0x000c 0
Sony Panorama 0x000d 0
Sony Panorama 0x000e 0
Sony Panorama 0x000f 0
Sony 0x2000 0
Sony 0x2002 0
Sony 0x2003
Contrast 0
Saturation 0
Sharpness 0
Brightness 0
Long Exposure Noise Reduction Off
High ISO Noise Reduction Normal
HDR Off
Sony 0x200c 0 0 0
Sony 0x200d 1
Sony 0x2014 0 0
Sony Shot Info 0x0000 73
Sony Shot Info 0x0001 73
Face Info Offset 94
Sony Shot Info 0x0004 2
Sony Shot Info 0x0005 1
Sony Date Time 2012:03:31 00:14:51
7 days, 1 hour, 15 minutes, 36 seconds ago

< snip > the tags "Sony shoot info"

Color Reproduction Standard
Color Temperature Auto
Color Compensation Filter 0
Scene Mode Standard
Zone Matching ISO Setting Used
Image Stabilization Off
Color Mode Standard
Full Image Size 6000x4000
Preview Image Size 1920x1080
File Format ARW 2.3
Quality Extra Fine
Flash Exposure Compensation 0
White Balance Fine Tune 0
Sony Model ID SLT-A77V
Teleconverter None
Multi Frame Noise Reduction Off
Sony 0x200e 0
Sony 0x200f 0
Vignetting Correction Auto
Lateral Chromatic Aberration Auto
Distortion Correction Auto
Sony 0x2015 65,535
Lens Type E-Mount, T-Mount, Other Lens or no lens
Lens Spec Unknown (00 0 0 0 0 00)
Exposure Mode Manual
Sony 0xb045 0
Sony 0xb046 0
Flash Level Normal
Release Mode Normal
Sequence Number Single
Anti-Blur Off
Sony 0xb04c 1
Sony 0xb04d 0
Dynamic Range Optimizer Off
Sony 0xb050 65,535
Sony 0xb051 0
Intelligent Auto Off
Sony 0xb053 0
Sony 0x9400 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9401 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9402 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9403 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9404 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9405 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9406 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9407 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9408 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9409 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x940a (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x940b (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x940c (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x940d (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x940e (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0xa100 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x2010 (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x940f (60 bytes binary data)
Sony 0x9050 (60 bytes binary data)
White Balance Daylight
edit on 7-4-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Good work getting the info elevenaugust

But more information leads me to more questions , like he says the original picture in your OP is 7MB but the second picture taken with the same settings 5/6 seconds later 13.31MB , do we know why that would be ?

I know I'm a suspicious Sob but how do we know that the EXIF data provided is from the picture with the anomaly in it ?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   
More questions indeed!

That second image you linked with the "same" settings as he says, makes me wonder more.

The exif data is saying 5 secs exposure, which sounds more likely than the 1 second he claimed. I'm amazed at the amount of noise...??? Normal when my camera is up at 1600 it looks like that. *confused*

Then, most tellingly for me, is the direction of the star trails.... seemingly lining up identically to the main direction of light on the 'artefact'.

I'm left to conclude it might be a polaris shot, with a small bump during exposure.


Interesting none the less! Thanks for getting some more info out of him, of course, the original photo would help immensely to sort it out better.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
cant really understand y this thread is still going on...to me its quiet clear its the ISS as proven by the OP in his post


edit on 7-4-2012 by heineken because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Good work getting the info elevenaugust

But more information leads me to more questions , like he says the original picture in your OP is 7MB but the second picture taken with the same settings 5/6 seconds later 13.31MB , do we know why that would be ?

I know I'm a suspicious Sob but how do we know that the EXIF data provided is from the picture with the anomaly in it ?

You're welcome!

That's a good question, I only have its words, while waiting for the original photo to be released. But I forgot to add that he increased the brightness in the second photo, thus probably the 13.31MB weight...
A 6000x3376 resolution is of 16:9, not sure about the "normal" weight of such a resolution, need to look around for some examples taken with the same camera..



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Yep

Its Polaris, or another star, he just bumped it :-)

Maybe a tracking motor caused a tiny jolt? but overlaying the 2 images in photoshop, and flicking between layers indicate the same position, same direction of light as well.

Here is his 2 images, one has been overlaid, just dropped down vertically an inch so you can see the same positions etc. (if someone can make it in a changing animated gif, you would see it better)



problem solved


edit (yeah, he's fiddled with the blacker image to reduce the brightness/contrast of the other stars, perhaps to make it harder to pinpoint the exact star thus giving his game away?)
edit on 7-4-2012 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join