Strange streak discussion: 2004 Dec 7 APOD

[Guest]

It's Cloud picture photography. One photograph trick to make clouds disappear or be more present is the use of a polarizer...

Now what about a slightly damaged polarizing filter, just a small ding on the front glass, that also pulled a little on the polarizing film between the 2 flat glass. The effect could only be seen under a specific filter angle ( when you rotate the filter ).

[rock344]

I am leaning toward the light burning out or sm. transformer blowing at the time of exposure w/ the streak being some sort of flaw in the photo or an unrelated occurance

[Guest]

I used quicktime pro to make of movie of the three frames. The before is really after because the cumulus cloud in the background appears to shrink. This means the wind seen on the water is moving to the top left, which would push the cloud the other way.

Looking at the EXIF info on the photos (note the timestamps):

File name : strangebefore_pryde_big.jpg
File size : 342427 bytes
Camera make : Canon
Camera model : Canon PowerShot G3
Date/Time : 2004:11:22 18:53:07
Resolution : 2272 x 1704
Flash used : Yes
Focal length : 9.1mm (35mm equivalent: 46mm)
CCD width : 7.11mm
Exposure time: 0.050 s (1/20)
Aperture : f/5.6
Metering Mode: matrix
Jpeg process : Baseline

File name : strange_pryde_big.jpg
File size : 341756 bytes
Camera make : Canon
Camera model : Canon PowerShot G3
Date/Time : 2004:11:22 18:52:52
Resolution : 2272 x 1704
Flash used : Yes
Focal length : 9.1mm (35mm equivalent: 46mm)
CCD width : 7.11mm
Exposure time: 0.050 s (1/20)
Aperture : f/5.6
Metering Mode: matrix
Jpeg process : Baseline

File name : strangeafter_pryde_big.jpg
File size : 339061 bytes
Camera make : Canon
Camera model : Canon PowerShot G3
Date/Time : 2004:11:22 18:52:37
Resolution : 2272 x 1704
Flash used : Yes
Focal length : 9.1mm (35mm equivalent: 46mm)
CCD width : 7.11mm
Exposure time: 0.050 s (1/20)
Aperture : f/5.6
Metering Mode: matrix
Jpeg process : Baseline

The one called "strangeafter" was taken first, "strange" was 15 seconds later, and "strangebefore" is 15 seconds after that.

[AA]

This looks like an unscheduled and unauthorized test of the Airborne Laser Ballistic Missile Defense system. The boys were trying to figure out the viability of destroying enemy missiles while on the ground before take off.

Looks like they really have been practising their aim

[bdscha]

While I don't have a final answer, I've noted the following about the picture. The "shadow-line" appears too straight to have been a flying object, plus, the cloudy image looks like the silhouette of a person. I downloaded the photo and rotated the picture and cropped it to show the silhouette, head up. Interestingly, the "streak" is then perpendicular with the image and parallel to the bottom of the 'new' picture, almost like someone was holding a camera at chest height and they took a picture and the flash went off and we can see their image in the photo.

Try rotating the picture yourself, and see what you think.

I don't know photography very well, I suspect it is explainable by a person, standing near the camera lens that shot the 'streak' picture, taking another picture of something even closer, or directly by, the camera mounted to photograph the clouds. What we see is that image super-imposed on the photo.

To say, I'd go with camera or exposure, on this one. Maybe even a flaw in the lens brought out by a bright light being flashed almost directly back into the camera lens, at an angle but fairly close distance.

Just my two cents worth.

[Dorene]

My guess is that the two things, the streak and the flash, aren't related to one another except for this: The flash allowed a crepuscular ray that had previously not been visible to be seen.

According to the site I used to calculate sunset for that location, it was at 5:56 pm. the photographer says the photo was taken at just after six. The light at the upper right is simply the remains of the sunlight peeking out through a gap in the cloud cover.

I played around with the image in Photoshop, and it seems to me that the streak stops (or starts, I suppose) at the horizon. It's nearness to the flash makes it seem as though the streak ends at the flash. The top of the lightpole is obscured by the flash, so I can't tell if the flash is due to the bulb burning out. The photographer said that the flash occurred some distance away from the lightpole, but with this type of event, I imagine it would be hard to tell for certain.

[THYNIZPT]

I believe the streak is in the distance, I have noticed similar shadows coming from very small clouds when at the correct angle with the sun. I have noticed these numerous times late afternoon into sunset. It really comes down to being in the right place at the right time.

As for the flash it possibly is the light bulb burning out, the smoke may be from the filament of the bulb, igniting due to oxygen making it inside the bulb resulting in combustion.

Like the idea of APOD READERS getting a little involvement

THYNIZPT

[Tracy]

I think something fell from an airplane.

[a6a53212]

I go with Brent..comming from the Canadian prairies, I have seen

ball lightning . signed Bob.

[Lone Wolf]

If you look closely at the dark streak, there is a similar distortion at 90 degrees to the obvious one. It is slightly lighter, but it is there. This is typical of optical distortions in such images due to the flash of light.

Though this could have been a very weak form of lightning (local static discharge) of very low yeild, I think it is more mundane than that. When these type of lights burn out or "blow" they often tend to do so with a very brief burst of light that is much like a flashbulb. The result is that we have an image of the burst of light with refracted corona and associated lens flare streaks of a accidentally timed snapshot right when it decided to die. The shape of the refracted corona to the right of the light is actually in the shape of the fixture, and is a logical result. Noting the dim light, it was likely that the light was just attempting to turn on. Add to this that the timing was perhaps 1/1000 of a second too late or it would have been an even more spectacular shot. The negative image of the lens flare streak would have appeared as a very bright spear of light across the frame, making it look even more like some meteor strike than ever. Finally, the inspection after the event confirming that the light was burned out should put this to rest.

[Guest]

Okay, I've only read 500,000 of the million posts so far, but I've not seen my guess yet.

Could this be a cosmic particle striking the CCD edge-on?

The trail could be some pixels put slightly off before the ray hits a molecule dead-on and causes the flash. The "shock wave" could be the dissipation of charges created in a collision.

I'm impressed that the flash is so much brighter than any sunlit objects in the photo, save the clouds. There seems not to be any direct sunlight anywhere in the shot.

[bocab]

take a look at the first picture (the one just before the picture with the flash) in the sequence in the link below, it looks to me like there is a partial shadow there as well, just above the well defined shadow in the picture with the flash

http://the-light.com/Photography/Discussion/meteor.gif

[Guest]

But I'll ask anyway. It looks to me like the streak is a trail which begins, not ends, at the light pole.

You say the lamp inside the light pole fixture isn't working. Was the lamp globe burst, or whole and just not working? If the lamp was burst, I'm wondering, if it burst precisely at the moment of exposure, maybe the whitish cloudy looking stuff is the gas exploding out of the lamp and the streak is the trail of some lamp debris shooting from it. I realize that it would have to be some kind of powerful explosion to make a streak that long, but there is a lot of pressure in streetlight lamps, so maybe it's possible.

Please forgive me if this is indeed silly; I'm not a scientist, not by a long shot!

[lstrauss]

Shall we review the bidding?

As careful thread-readers know, thederek was the first to suggest a flying insect about 16 hrs ago [pg 3; he said "bug", but we all know that's a entomologically-specific term].

The studio enhancements by Googlemeier and by DC and the differential by Douglas were all highly suggestive, yet these authors did not to my knowledge echo his proposal. Astro posted a fairly convincing enhanced image, and also pointed out what it showed. Bob, Cloudbait, & Dan B. had already agreed with their findings when Decoder produced a very professional (by providing his settings) image recovery.

As far as I can tell, no supporting work has been tendered in favor of any of the diverse other hypotheses.

Bob's comment [pg 6] remains to be addressed:
A trajectory for an insect consisting of a dark streak against sky during a 0.05 s exposure, illuminated by a 1 ms flash is reasonable. Since the flash presumably occurs at the beginning of the exposure, this implies that its path was up and to the observer's L.

BTW, Don't insects usually fly around in the early evening?

[maximumverbosity]

I don't believe the bright point of light is from the lamp, which appears to face away from the viewer in the before and after shots, while the light source seems aimed at the viewer. It looks too far into sunset for it to be a reflection off the fixture, and also that would not explain the haze or smoke... that is overall very hard to explain.

Where the streak is concerned, enhancing the image in Photoshop suggests that the streak does not extend all the way to the lamp - there is no apparent density change in that portion of the image, unlike the area of the sky where the streak is visible. After playing with contrast, and color, I think it must be a shadow; it is not changed much in apparent density by making density shifts to individual colors...

As a former QC technician at a high-volume photo lab (not an hour lab, mind you, but a factory that produced literally thousands of prints every day), I am tempted to think that this is somehow directly related to the photographic process. Lens flare seems unlikely given the lighting conditions, but it could happen. Some other possibilities, all of which I have seen before:

• >Maybe the streak is a development artifact (if this is a film image, the film could have a crinkle which did not develop evenly);
  >It could be a hair in the shutter (but, this sort of thing tends to repeat itself);
  >Fogged film? Maybe a minor light leak in the camera or film canister (again, only if it is not a digital image);
  >Something introduced during scanning or reproduction;
  >As some have suggested, something briefly in front of the lens.

At any rate I don't think it is a meteor or lightning, as I have been viewing such things all my life. I HAVE seen things like this in the sky and usually decided they were shadows. So, I say it's a shadow, either in the camera mechanism or in the sky (a contrail shadow?), most likely.

I have no idea what the bright light source is, but I think the two together are coincidental. I would like to know if this is a digital or film image, and if we looking at the absolutely original image, or a duplicate? Any reproduction could introduce artifacts into the image without the photographer's permission... only careful examination of the original, unaltered negative/slide/raw file would decide this.

bocab says that there is a shadow also visible in the before image (I almost see it, not sure); if that's the case it could WELL be a light leak in the camera. By the way, a light leak will show up on a digital camera too, it's still light-sensitive.

[the mcwillister]

I think its a glitch in the matrix. I see some agents running toward it in the woods.

No, I think its something wrong with the film since there was no damage to the light pole.

[Siep]

I like the bug-theory. If the line seems too straight for a flying insect, what about a small spider that travels by wind on an (invisible) silken thread (it's called ballooning). That should create a much straighter line.

[Guest]

What is the strange streak and flash on the 2004 Dec 7 APOD found here: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041207.html ?

In an email from the photographer who took the picture, Wayne Pryde, Wayne said:

I had taken 38 shots at 15 second intervals at a shutter speed of 1/20 and aperture of 5.6. I can confirm that there were definitely no fireworks happing on that evening.

As stated in the APOD, I am not sure what caused the streak and flash. My hope is that this discussion will zoom in on the correct answer or narrow the realistic possibilities.

- RJN

[jose suro]

I did some searching on the web as well as some work on the images and this is what I've come up with. You might have to hit refresh on your browser to see the images.

This is an image of the warf. The important thing here is that it's a tall warf. Notice the tugboat on the right opposite side of the warf from the cruise ship. The stack is below the level of the warf.

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/jsuro/images ... arwin1.jpg

The next image is an aerial view of the part of the warf covered in the APOD image. Notice that it is pretty wide. I believe the light pole in question is on the right side of the image farthest from the ship side of the warf.


http://web.tampabay.rr.com/jsuro/images ... arwin2.jpg

The next image was taken at ground level on the right side of the image above. I think these are the light poles. My best guess is that it is the first one on the left. Notice that the poles seem to have two lights - a regular street light lower on the pole and a reflector type light on the top.


http://web.tampabay.rr.com/jsuro/images ... arwin3.jpg


The next image is a closeup of the flash that was put through a high pass filter.

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/jsuro/images ... arwin4.jpg


The flash is not directly on the light pole. Moreover, it is much brighter towards the bottom center and is radial in nature. It is not a moving object, especially one photographed at 1/20th of a second (EXIF data).

This next image is IMHO very important. It is the same light pole enhanced by using only the positive of the green channel with the negative of the blue channel subtracted from it. Notice the "smoke" or "steam" (preferred) seems to be coming from the bottom of the pole. Remember the tugboat in the first image?

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/jsuro/images ... arwin5.jpg


The next image is the same as above but enlarged and enhanced. Notice that the "steam" is quite dense and pretty reflective compared to most other things in the image.

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/jsuro/images ... arwin6.jpg


Conclusions:

Everyone is welcome to draw their own. My pet one is that the Reflector type lights either came on or were on already when the "steam" was produced. This "steam" got very close to the light and resulted in a very bright reflection from the reflector light. This in turn created the "shadow" coming from the light pole and towards the camera. The steam quickly dissipated and was not visible in the subsequent image. The lights themselves are not seen as "on" from the camera's vantage point because they are directional reflector types.

My best guess .

Take Care,

Jose Suro
Tierra Verde, Florida

[lstrauss]

Shall we review the bidding?

As careful thread-readers know, thederek was the first to suggest a flying insect about 16 hrs ago [pg 3; he said "bug", but we all know that's a entomologically-specific term].

Studio enhancements by Googlemeier and by DC and the differential image by Douglas were all highly suggestive, yet these authors did not concurrently echo his specific proposal.

Astro posted a fairly convincing enhanced image, and also pointed out what it showed. Bob, Cloudbait, & Dan B. had already agreed with these observations when Decoder.de produced a very professional (by providing his settings) insect image recovery.

As far as I can tell, no supporting work has been tendered in favor of any of the diverse other hypotheses.

Bob's comment [pg 6] remains to be addressed:
A trajectory for an insect consisting of a dark streak against sky during a 0.05 s exposure, illuminated by a 1 ms flash is reasonable. Since a camera flash presumably occurs at the beginning of exposure, this implies that its path was up and to the observer's L.

BTW, Don't insects usually fly around in the early evening?

[Michael Covington]

One or two people have posted enhanced versions of the "explosion and steam" that make it look a LOT like an insect.

I think that's what it is. Note that the flash fires at the beginning of the exposure, so the fly would need to be flying toward the upper left, leaving the dark streak AFTER being caught by the camera's flash at the beginning of the exposure.

As for its reddish appearance, overexposures on CCDs often look reddish.

[opsrus@earthlink.net]

Ice Meteorite? Something dropped from an airplane?

[Pete666]

Bah! The simplest answer is the most probable. It's "Ball Lightning"

[Sleepy]

I think Smith below has the answer, the light exploded casting a shadow. But isn't that dreadfully irritating when you would like to have mystical meteors for once?

[Why not]

The dark streak is a diffused rainbow. The flash is the bulb burning out.

Seems like a busy harbor area. No persons around other than the photographer??? Anybody in the area interviewed?