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.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman
An object outside of the car could not appear as reflection on the windshield in an image taken from inside the car. Only something inside the car could do that. Something which may not be visible in the image since it may be something reflected by the windshield and not an internal reflection (lens flare).
Nor can it be lens flare, as has been explained.
Incorrect. Geometry determines exactly where a lens flare will appear. It will always be directly opposite the light source which produces it. How do you think video games can simulate the effect?
There's no such thing as assuming exactly WHERE a lens flare would show up in such an image.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman
Incorrect. Geometry determines exactly where a lens flare will appear. It will always be directly opposite the light source which produces it.
There's no such thing as assuming exactly WHERE a lens flare would show up in such an image.
Change where the camera is pointed and the the apparent location of the light source changes. At the same time, any lens flare displays a corresponding relocation. Every time.
It's pretty discouraging when someone doesn't bother to read the sources they are presented with though.
You can basically make the artifacts fly over any part of the image that you want.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman
You can basically make the artifacts fly over any part of the image that you want.
And they are always directly opposite the light source which produces them relative to the optical center of the image. Always. If the simulation is accurate.
Yes. Center the Sun in the frame and the flare will overlap it.
you can overlap them on the sun.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman
Tell me, does the location of the Sun relative to the frame not change while you are doing this?
Yes. Center the Sun in the frame and the flare will overlap it.
you can overlap them on the sun.
You're probably too young to be aware of all the "second Sun" claims about Nibiru and lens flares. You're just rehashing them.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman
You can basically make the artifacts fly over any part of the image that you want.
And they are always directly opposite the light source which produces them relative to the optical center of the image. Always. If the simulation is accurate.
originally posted by: JamesChessman
Well I spent a few minutes with my phone camera, creating lens flare effects on purpose. I can confirm that you're right that the effect is based on the center of the image. Which I had not realized before.
However, I was also not getting my reflections as flipped. Like I was getting the ghost image of a light bulb, floating around, but it was still right-side-up, i.e. consistent with the actual light bulb.
So I wouldn't really know exactly how to recreate lens flare reflections which were flipped vertically, and I'd expect that to come down to the factors of the inner structure of the lens, combined with some unusual light effects.
Re: OP's photo: Well I thought I had a good point in the UFO structure seeming to match the turbine part, upside-down.
But I can't really argue against it being impossible, since I can't really recreate flipped reflections, myself. I'd expect it to be a complicated, unpredictable effect, based on the exact structure of the lens. Which neither of us is an expert on...
It's great that you tried it yourself, it's always better seeing things with our own eyes to understand how they happen.
I hope that this second case of you being wrong when you were so convinced of being right shows you that you should get more information about things you don't really know before choosing them as the best answer to some problem. But you are on the right track by looking for explanations and trying for yourself. And you are surely doing it right when you admit that you were wrong.
That probably means that you were getting a double reflection, one that made the lens flare and another that flipped it. Most lens are made of several elements, and you even have to consider the reflection on the sensor surface and that even a single lens element can have two reflections, one for each face of the lens, as any change in medium that light crosses can create a reflection.
I never thought it was a match, as the shape looks slightly different.
It's not unpredictable, but we do need to know the lens internal constructions to calculate it. After that it's just maths and geometry (they are really two different ways of representing the same thing), as reflections and refractions are based on a just a couple of rules, so they easily predictable.
originally posted by: JamesChessman
^Yeah it looks slightly different, but if it was the true source of the UFO reflection artifact, then it looks different because the turbine is glaring too much light, and then the UFO reflection is a dimmer reflection, so it's showing the structure more.
But it's unpredictable unless we know the ins-and-outs of the camera lens, exactly its shape, its internal structure, etc.
This whole topic kind of highlights how unpredictable light effects can be, to people analyzing a photo from a situation that we were not present in...
That's another thing that makes me think the UFOs are not lens flares. If the centre of the turbine is bright enough to create a lens flare effect then we should see lens flares from other areas that are as bright as that, but we don't see them.
More semantics: it's not unpredictable, it's predictable but we do not have enough data to make a prediction.
Exactly, this is one more for the "impossible to be sure" category.
originally posted by: JamesChessman
^Very good point, that I've thought about, all along. The answer would have to be: That only the one particular knob of the one turbine, happened to be shooting light into the camera lens, in this one particular way, that it messed up the camera's internal processes, and produced the artifact inside the camera.
I mean for example, I wonder how many times the image is flipped vertically inside the camera. AFAIK every camera flips its images at least twice, once to make it upside-down (in the process of the lens viewing / capturing images), and once to make it right-side-up for the final product. And this involves tiny mirrors to bounce around the image multiple times, flipping it in the process.
But that's about the extent of my personal knowledge of cameras, I just know that they all repeatedly flip their images, and bounce it around several tiny mirrors, just in the normal process of taking a photo. I believe this is the process involved in all cameras.
Thank you, I appreciate you saying that. "Impossible to be sure" category, is a fine category.
Also I'm surprised that no one got on board with my mundane explanation of the turbine knob causing the UFOs as reflections. I thought people would get on board just because it's such a mundane explanation.
originally posted by: JamesChessman
Cameras I stated that I only have a very basic familiarity with their structure but you did acknowledge my main points that they usually involve mirrors and flipped reflections inside them. Which I thought might be part of a strange glare artifact of such characteristics.