Intricate Lens Flare UFOs

First off, this is not a debunking thread, more of an example thread of how intricate some lens flare images can be.
A hot topic in the study of UFOlogy is lens flare and other camera induced effects. Many debunkers are quick to dismiss a photo of a UFO as photoshopped or otherwise intentionally superimposed or staged, but a lot of videos and photographs of UFOs are actually "unintentional" fakes, where the photographer or finder of the image/video genuinely believes what they've seen on film to be a UFO.
I've seen a lot of these, but today, I found perhaps one of the absolute best (lens flare?) UFO photographs I've ever seen.
This one came from Google maps on street view. I won't post the address here to protect the privacy of its occupants, but it's in Amery, WI. It's still there on google maps.
I was lead to this spot on the map by a Wisconsin NUFORC report.


Not your typical round blob or sphere of light--this thing genuinely, in every way, shape, form, and matter, looks like an almost caricaturistic flying saucer, complete with the dome on top and a bubble of thrust(?) beneath it. It's actually a relatively common phenomenon, and one thing these lens flare saucers all seem to have in common is pinkness:

abcnews.go.com...
www.express.co.uk...
nypost.com...

Or maybe... just maybe... one of these sightings isn't lens flare at all...?
It's amazing how a natural photographic phenomenon can do a better job than a geek with some photo manipulation software.

I know I keep going back to this, but I read about another case in the 70s in Surrey, BC that actually triggered an MIB event. There was a group sighting of an object that appeared to "drop" from the sky, it was an orange (orange, yes, no pink) ball with another small ball on top of it. Several people saw it and it was photographed (also by several people, I think?). Depending on the sun's angle and other terrain features (water reflections, etc), I could see it being very possible for multiple photographers to capture roughly the same flare, and if it was a sun dog like phenomena, see it with the naked eye.

Once again, my goal isn't to debunk all the images, just to bring up awareness of how intricate some lens flare and other photographic effects can be, so we can all better spot fakes and have a better chance at finding the real UFO photos and videos... if it's pink, be skeptical. Unless I'm wrong, and somehow there really is a trend of pink flying saucers flying around. Perhaps the Pink Panther ordered a fleet of space ships... or maybe, just maybe...

a reply to: Crosswinds

Excellent, rather unique thread with essential information to help in our never-ending goal to separate the wheat from the chaff in the weird, wonderful, wacky world of Woo and UFOs.

S&F.

The image you posted as an example is particularly cute - I'd love a lampshade like that.

a reply to: Crosswinds

pretty cool, appreciate the picture. One point of interest that popped into my head was "color opposites"

Rods, cones..I cant remember, but I do remember reds being opposition to blues...so the lens curve, angle and blue light in that pic...could they conspire to create a reddish artifact?

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

Excellent, rather unique thread with essential information to help in our never-ending goal to separate the wheat from the chaff in the weird, wonderful, wacky world of Woo and UFOs.

Perfectly put - another great thread Xwinds

Always wondered about intricate lens flare on this live video:



Cheers

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

The image you posted as an example is particularly cute - I'd love a lampshade like that.

No kidding! I'd buy one. Thanks, by the way. I'm a firm believer of the idea that one of the most important things researchers can learn in the woo-world is trick to differentiate the real from the not-so-real. Sometimes the best way to find true evidence is deduction and filtering--so the better our "filters" get at weeding out BS, the closer we get to finding the truth.

a reply to: karl 12

Thanks, and that's an interesting one. It definitely has the same "reflective" qualities of the ones I linked to. The item itself isn't pink, but there's that same tell tale pink color in the "trail" it appeared to cast.

a reply to: BlueJacket

I remember reading somewhere that the reds and greens often seen in lens flare are actually a product of the anti-reflective coating on lenses ironically meant to prevent lens flare.

I get loads of lens flare images sent to me through MUFON Canada.
Often it's blatantly obvious.
Other times they are pretty eye catching.

I should make a thread showing all the sorts of natural phenomenon and interesting lens flare/ IFO stuff we get.

a reply to: Macenroe82

I think you should.
It would be of great aid for other people looking for legit UFO images--a field guide of sorts to help people recognize lens flare and related phenomena.

I'd contribute as well if I find any more like this one. It would be good too to add a summary of each image, and a list of common traits of most of the lens flares (i.e. pink hue, shape, green circles, etc).

Its just a lensflare with a hat.

Even lensflares have a right to be classy.

I wouldn't say that most lens flares are pink. I think it depends on the camera and the color of the light source. A lot of the obvious lens flares on the MUFON site are blue or blue green blobs.

a reply to: Crosswinds

I think your onto something there!

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

Excellent, rather unique thread with essential information to help in our never-ending goal to separate the wheat from the chaff in the weird, wonderful, wacky world of Woo and UFOs.

Perfectly put - another great thread Xwinds

Always wondered about intricate lens flare on this live video:

Cheers

I don't think those are lens flare per se in that Space Shuttle breaking up video (at the :11 mark and the :27 mark). I think the shape has something to do with the shape of the video camera aperture, similar to how an out-of-focus Venus/bright star can look diamond-shaped.

I realize this doesn't match that exactly, since the diamond shape looks split and one half is markedly brighter. However, I bet it is associated with the shape of the aperture just like the Venus/star videos.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I wouldn't say that most lens flares are pink. I think it depends on the camera and the color of the light source. A lot of the obvious lens flares on the MUFON site are blue or blue green blobs.

Yes, I've seen more that are blue-green than pink but I don't think there's a set color, depends on hardware and conditions, light sources, etc.

I made a thread about the "UFOs" over Washington DC being lens flares and they are NOT pink, nor are some of the other lens flare examples here:

The "UFOs" in the famous photo showing lights over Washington DC have been identified
Those are whitish, from artificial light sources. There are several different colors seen here, one white, some blue or blue-green as you said:

Caelestia explains the textbook geometry we see in the subject photo and they provide other examples:

www.caelestia.be...

Lens flares can make very convincing UFOs. Fortunately, they are easy to identify as both the light source and its reflected image are usually located on a line that crosses the centre of the photograph and at equal distances from that centre (how lens flares can be identified is illustrated in some of our case examples).

www.ipaco.fr...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: elevenaugust

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
But until I see detailed explanation to explain HOW it happened, then it's just a hypothesis...no matter who offers it up. At least that's how I roll....

Here you go:

Extracted from "analysis methodology" here

If we apply this to your photo, it's evident that this is a lens flare with picture’s optical center matches its geometrical center:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: elevenaugust
reply to post by againuntodust

 

Yes, it's a lens flare.

One simple way to detect such flare anomalies is to draw two diagonal lines to determine the center of the photo, the flare is generally located at the opposite side of its source, through the central point, also called point reflection (or inversion through a point, or central inversion).

Similar samples:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Macenroe82
I should make a thread showing all the sorts of natural phenomenon and interesting lens flare/ IFO stuff we get.

There's already an atmospheric phenomena thread so you can add to that one, I thought it was a "sticky" thread that always shows up in the list of UFO threads but it doesn't seem to anymore or I'm missing it:

Atmospheric Phenomenen Identyifying- List

But there's not a sticky thread for camera artifacts that I know of, so making a thread of those like lens flares, or out of focus diamonds or donuts would be helpful if it's good enough to make a sticky. That Atmospheric Phenomenen Identyifying thread should be put back on the sticky list if it was removed.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
I don't think those are lens flare per se in that Space Shuttle breaking up video (at the :11 mark and the :27 mark). I think the shape has something to do with the shape of the video camera aperture, similar to how an out-of-focus Venus/bright star can look diamond-shaped.

I realize this doesn't match that exactly, since the diamond shape looks split and one half is markedly brighter. However, I bet it is associated with the shape of the aperture just like the Venus/star videos.

Correct, the diamond shape results from the aperture on an out of focus object, so it's a different camera artifact, not lens flare.

A famous set of out of focus UFOs appears on the NASA tether video. They are just out of focus ice particles but they look like donuts because a telescopic reflector lens was used where the reflector blocked light in the center, making the "hole" in the donut shape.

Here's another good video on the out of focus diamond shape, where once it gets in focus, you can tell what it actually is.

CAUTION: to all UFO videographers

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you for the great info.

I never knew the rule about the lens flares and the optical center of the image, but it makes complete sense. That's a great thing to look for and check in any UFO-on-film. I'll be sure to use it and pass it along.

Also, that caution video is also real eye opener. Definitely worth the watch.

I agree that there should be a sticky on camera effects and definitely re-sticky the atmospheric phenomena thread, that's a crucial one.
The more information on how to spot a non-UFO, the better, in my book.

I am not an expert on photography and lenses etc but have done lots of photography work over the last decade. I am one of those who flout the laws and point at the Sun, deliberately to cause lens flares and spikes and rings. I have used a polarising filter and a lens hood but prefer to go 'commando'.

I do think lens flare can be attractive and artistic, as used by director JJ Abrams...or those nutty Nibiru protagonists who like to show us how there two suns in the sky.

Nice topic and a refreshing change.

originally posted by: Crosswinds
I never knew the rule about the lens flares and the optical center of the image, but it makes complete sense. That's a great thing to look for and check in any UFO-on-film. I'll be sure to use it and pass it along.

It's a general rule that applies in many cases like the examples cited in my post. However, it's not completely impossible to get a lens flare if the source is outside the image. It's possible in some cases that light can enter the lens from a wider angle than the recorded image encompasses, and bounce around a bit among multiple elements in more complicated lenses, but the symmetry about the optical center is far more common.

Here's an image where you can see the light has bounced around a bit and not all the reflections are exactly at the same distance from the optical center as the source, because they bounced around inside the lens:

www.discoverdigitalphotography.com...


One way to reduce lens flare from outside the image area is to use a lens hood as this illustrates:

A hood won't have any effect if you are shooting into the sun, where the sun appears in the image. But it does prevent flare when the sun (or any light source) is outside the frame, where light would be hitting the front of the lens at an angle. The hood protects the lens by blocking light from more oblique angles, so it can't enter the lens and create flare.

So, it can get a little more complicated than that simple rule about the optical center, but still, that does apply to many lens flare cases.

By the way, if the image in your opening post is the result of such symmetry about the optical center, that means the image has been cropped. You would need to find the full, uncropped image to see the light source on the other side of the optical center.

Also, that caution video is also real eye opener. Definitely worth the watch.

Can you believe I searched "caution UFO videographers" without the quotes, which is very close to the title, and it didn't show up on youtube search anymore? They have really hosed their search function, because that used to work. Fortunately, I had the link saved, since I couldn't find it with search, and yes it's well worth a watch.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
I am not an expert on photography and lenses etc but have done lots of photography work over the last decade. I am one of those who flout the laws and point at the Sun, deliberately to cause lens flares and spikes and rings. I have used a polarising filter and a lens hood but prefer to go 'commando'.

I do think lens flare can be attractive and artistic, as used by director JJ Abrams...or those nutty Nibiru protagonists who like to show us how there two suns in the sky.

Nice topic and a refreshing change.

A little bit of flares can be artistic, but JJ Abrams way over did that in the Star trek movie, he even apologized for it:

J.J. Abrams apologizes for overusing lens flare: 'I know it's too much'

The director tells Crave that he showed his wife an early cut of Star Trek Into Darkness, "and there was this one scene where she was literally like, 'I just can't see what's going on. I don't understand what that is.' I was like, 'Yeah, I went too nuts on this.'"

"This is how stupid it was," Abrams said. "But I think admitting you're an addict is the first step towards recovery."

So yes, a little is artistic, just don't go nuts like Abrams did.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Interesting example. You can clearly see each of the bounced flares, and they're purple and green as opposed to the pink ones. I did a little more research on the phenomenon of pink UFO shaped lens flares and I've come to a weak conclusion that it's probably because the google maps street view photographers must use a similar set up (?), as all the street view UFOs seen have the pink hue.

I'd love to post an uncropped image but the one in my OP is actually cut from one of those google street view 360 degree pano projections. I don't know about posting the address on here due to privacy, but the sun is almost directly at the top of the images where they stitch together, and the flare UFO is about half way between the sun and the ground, if that helps.

RE: JJ Abrams and his overuse of lens flare... I always liked that effect, it gives an ethereal outer-space vibe that almost makes the viewer feel like they're watching a dream. On the other hand, yeah, no, you can't see what's going on. lol

originally posted by: Crosswinds
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Interesting example. You can clearly see each of the bounced flares, and they're purple and green as opposed to the pink ones.

I found an interesting lens flare example, from the BBC TV show "Planet Earth" from around 2003:


The shape and colors of the lens flare in the lower right show a green dot, then a pinkish-purplish horn shape pointing back toward the source. That lens flare also is the classic type which is reflected about the optical center.

The image shows that textbook type is not the only possibility, since there are two other flares near the sun on the same side as the optical center.
-A white image closer to the optical center.
-A faint purplish, larger image further from the optical center, but all are roughly along a line that passes through the sun and the optical center.

However, I am at a loss for an explanation of the pattern of the sun's rays. I don't know if it's an atmospheric phenomenon or lens optics phenomenon or some combination. The pattern where the rays are interrupted by 13 darker bands around the sun is likely a phenomenon related to the camera's optics but I'm not familiar with that. However they are using high end professional grade cameras and I'm more familiar with consumer grade cameras.