My First UFO

Ok. I caught your attention. But when I mentioned UFO, it means precisely that.

Un-Identified

I am posting the pictures here so that other members can review and give their opinion.

Looks like the moon. But it is in one frame and absent in the other. Both frames taken one after the another.

With UFO
Original Image

UFO Absent
Original Image

Thanks in advance

Looks kinda like lens flare...?

grifen.deviantart.com...

Not a UFO. It's lens flare. In the first image, the sun is shining directly onto the camera lens causing the lens flare. In the second image, the sun is behind the tower and not shining on the camera lens, thus not causing lens flare.

Another IFO for the UFO forum.

Yes, another lens flare.


These flares are due to the presence of a bright light source in the field of view and can be easily detected as it's a mirror ghost of the original bright object, with generally the image center serving as a point of symmetry (or point reflection).

All dimensions are perfectly preserved, suggesting that the reflections on flat surfaces are responsible. Otherwise (reflections on concave or convex surfaces), it may be possible to have some differences in geometric measurements; the optical center does not coincide then with the geometrical center, which is the case here:

lens flare are circular in shape. this is semi-circular if you closely observe.I have other pictures taken from the same place in the same time with lense flare...in them.

So I would rule out lens flare here.

Closeup of the image

Originally posted by 0pass
lens flare are circular in shape.

No, the shape of the flare depends of many factors, including the shape of the light source itself and the lens system of the camera:





When the sun (or the moon) is the light source and when there's no obstacle in front of it, the shape is generally circular:



In your case, the sun is partially blocked by the wood structure, thus this "semi-circular" shape.

The UFO is not in the line of sight of the flare of the sun.

Line of Sight not matching

Originally posted by 0pass
lens flare are circular in shape. this is semi-circular if you closely observe.

And if you were to closely observe some images from Google Image Search, you'd notice that many times the lens flare is semi-circular. This point is now moot.

Originally posted by 0pass
The UFO is not in the line of sight of the flare of the sun.

Your statement and drawing make absolutely no sense, and that's not the way lens flare works. I'll say this again one more time:

- First image, sun is shining directly into the camera lens causing lens flare.

- Second image, sun is not shining directly into the camera lens, thus not causing lens flare.


It doesn't get any more simpler than that.



On a final note, if you didn't actually see the UFO with your own eyes, then chances are it wasn't there. You only saw the lens flare after the fact when you started viewing the images on your computer.

All you have to do is click the link I posted above and look at lens flares all day. They all look like your image, and your image looks like all others. You're free to make up whatever you like to describe the lens flare, but it will still only be a lens flare.

edit on 19-5-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)

reply to post by 0pass

So I would rule out lens flare here.

Cool,


then you will never know what it is.

reply to post by 0pass


I tend to agree its just a lens flare but I do have a question.

Could you see the object with the naked eye or was this something you came across after you took the pictures?

Originally posted by 0pass
lens flare are circular in shape. this is semi-circular if you closely observe.I have other pictures taken from the same place in the same time with lense flare...in them.

So I would rule out lens flare here.

Lens flare could be semi-circular, and even other shapes:

Originally posted by 0pass
Ok. I caught your attention. But when I mentioned UFO, it means precisely that.

Un-Identified

I am posting the pictures here so that other members can review and give their opinion.

Looks like the moon. But it is in one frame and absent in the other. Both frames taken one after the another.

With UFO
Original Image

UFO Absent
Original Image

Thanks in advance

edit on 19-5-2013 by 0pass because: image error

Going with lens flare. Not only is the UFO present in the first shot, but so is the sun.

Originally posted by gnarkill1529
reply to post by 0pass

 

I tend to agree its just a lens flare but I do have a question.

Could you see the object with the naked eye or was this something you came across after you took the pictures?

I thought I was taking a picture of the moon. But did not pay too much attention to detail as to why the Moon looks so small and inverted.

I was with my family on vacation climbing to a point called sunset point and I was taking snaps as I went along.

However, I was not aware the second shot did not have the object until I saw it on the computer later on.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Wrong. It is not an IFO, as it is not flying. It is just a reflection.

reply to post by 0pass


A flat bottom UFO.
Might be possible when a ship like Rex Heflin photographed starts to glow in hover.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by 0pass

 

A flat bottom UFO.
Might be possible when a ship like Rex Heflin photographed starts to glow in hover.

...or just a lens flare, as shown above.

reply to post by gavron


That is your opinion.
The OP would not know from a Rex Heflin ship so he had to be told.
Brighten your day and look for some more flares.

Lens Flair

en.wikipedia.org...

Lens flare is the light scattered in lens systems through generally unwanted image formation mechanisms, such as internal reflection and scattering from material inhomogeneities in the lens. These mechanisms differ from the intended image formation mechanism that depends on refraction of the image rays. Flare manifests itself in two ways: as visible artifacts, and as a haze across the image. The haze makes the image look "washed out" by reducing contrast and color saturation (adding light to dark image regions, and adding white to saturated regions, reducing their saturation).

J. J. Abrams, the director of the 2009 version of Star Trek, used this technique. "I wanted a visual system that felt unique. I know there are certain shots where even I watch and think, "Oh that's ridiculous, that was too many." But I love the idea that the future was so bright it couldn't be contained in the frame." Many complained of the frequent use, Abrams admitted it was "overdone, in some places."[6]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Not a UFO. It's lens flare. In the first image, the sun is shining directly onto the camera lens causing the lens flare. In the second image, the sun is behind the tower and not shining on the camera lens, thus not causing lens flare.

Another IFO for the UFO forum.

reply to post by 0pass


It could be a supernova and we were lucky the gamma rays didn't hit us