Strange streak discussion: 2004 Dec 7 APOD

[Michael Covington]

I should explain how a camera flash works.

The flash lasts maybe 1/2000 second or less. It occurs at the *beginning* of the exposure, which totaled 1/20 second in this case.

That was plenty of time for a fly to streak upward to the left after having been photographed near the center of the picture.

So I stand by my opinion that it was a fly.

[jeremy]

Point #1: This is certainly not a meteorite impact.

This implies the fireball is somewhere near the lamp post in image 3 and is providing illumination for the lamp posts in question. Therefore the fireball is NOT an insect near the camera lens being lit up by the camera flash.

So, this leaves us with hypotheses about the lamp post. Exploding bulb? Other? Direct inspection on-site should yield clues.

Hope this helps - write me for clarification - ccouch@insightbb.com

I have worked a lot with images, retouching film, and post production. The streak looks like a lens flare to me. Depending on where the shutter was when the bulb blew, it will cause a flare. I've seen flares like this before, particularly on digital cameras.

[PassingBy.ZA]

On the far right and far back of the pic, there’s a light that goes off on off, like a ‘rotating!’ lighthouse, just above the speeding boat, angle the light shining to the region of water in front of the light pole and reflect at the correct angle of incidence, the light up of the water, through the light of the pole, two things happen, 1. The light, and anything in front of it “glows” brightly and two, a shadow is cast into the moisture (air).
Is that a lighthouse?

[Michael Covington]

I should also add that, as others have pointed out, the .JPG file contains intact EXIF data from a Canon digital camera. (You can view some or all of this in Windows by right-clicking on the saved file and viewing Properties, Advanced.)

My understanding is that Photoshop discards the EXIF data when you draw on a picture. (Can someone confirm this?) If so, either it wasn't faked with Photoshop, or the faker was very careful to fake the EXIF data also.

Anyhow, if it is fake, our whole discussion is pointless. Personally, though, if I were going to fake a meteorite impact, I would probably have put a bright streak (not dark) behind it, and the "after" picture would have shown a plume of steam or something coming up from the water...

[Guest]

I should explain how a camera flash works.

The flash lasts maybe 1/2000 second or less. It occurs at the *beginning* of the exposure, which totaled 1/20 second in this case.

That was plenty of time for a fly to streak upward to the left after having been photographed near the center of the picture.

So I stand by my opinion that it was a fly.

Canons actually fire their flashes at the end of the exposure, so the bug was headed toward the center of the image rather than away, but you have the right idea.

[Kuatto]

The first thing that poped into my head was somehting that I read years ago about seismologists registering small tremors as a certain type of particle blasted through the earth.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... nugg12.xml

[Jimbo]

We was docked there, awaiting the crew to reboard at the Esplanade whens I heard Capt Stumby yell out. He said he saw a bumble bee dive at the Fort Hill wharf at about mach 30. That bee broke the sound barrier, then hit a light on the wharf... Blimey!! The whole thing blowed up! I was surprised to hear someone caught it on a camera!!

If you go out there right now, you'll see that lamp with a little bee shaped dent in it...

[celestron8g8]

I'm no expert but I have seen an early morning meteor (or earthgrazer) just after 7:00am when the sun had not peaked above the horizon but it was plenty of light to see everything in my neighborhood . I saw it enter earths atmosphere just west of Polaris and about 20-deg above the horizon and it shot eastward toward the sun then broke up into several parts and some fell to earth and one big chunk continued toward the sun rising and disappeared . This covered an area stretched about 105-degs in length . It was bright orange almost yellow in color and there was very little widening of the streak from begining to end and there was no curvature of the streak . So if this had of been even a speck of space dust entering earths atmosphere and hitting the light post there would have been a light streak and not a shadow just the same as a meteorite . November 19 , 2002 I was up at 4:00am for the Leonid Meteor shower event which I was imaging til sunlight . Just before 6:00am the ISS came over my location and I exposed for the image and a street light from approxiamtely 1 block away made a high light streak in my image . You can see this image and compare it to the APOD image on my website : http://users.apex2000.net/ronlhodges/ . Look for the "Strange image" link I put on the first page that will take you to the image . It will be marked as Strange image for comparison with APOD image . You can see that the light reflection started at the bottom of the picture very skinny and expanded upward and increased in width rapidly . If any type of light came from a street light of any kind I believe it would be of similiarity to my image . Therefore in conclusion to what I believe is that the APOD image definitly has a shadow streak from the light post and upward at a climbing altitude up past the high clouds but it disappears afterwards . My belief that this is not a meteor even a speck that hit the light post cause there would have been some type of lighted streak and not a shadow beam and it could not have been a shadow produced by the light cover if the light exploded cause the light from the bulb would had to of been as bright as the sun to project a shadow the distance it shows in the picture . The only shadows I have seen that long were sun rays when the sun was going down and there was clouds blocking the sun from my point of view . What does puzzel me is the area size of the drifting smoke from around the light post . What I would like to know is how far was the light post from the camera itself . The light bulb could have exploded and caused this amount of gas but there would have had to be a larger circumference of bold light around the light post than what is shown in the image and with that kind of brightness there would have been a gap in the shadow from the light for a good distance from the light post . So I don't believe it to be a meteor or a shadow produced by the light post . It had to be produced by other means .

[Prometheus Bound]

All that was stated was that the lamppost did not work. How often do you see any manner of public lighting, including far more important things like traffic lights, not in a working condition. It wouldn't be unusual for the light to have already been burned out. Moreover, the after picture does not show any of the other lights being illuminated. If initial start-up caused the failure, why aren't the other lights in the 'after' picture on?

I think the lamppost is a red herring.

Along a similiar vein, why assume a fireball or explosion. I may be off base here, but something moving through the atmosphere at any kind of speed is going to generate a significant amount of heat. Couldn't this be light due to heat? That would allow for a smaller object, so we wouldn't nead to have the entire area decimated to support a meteor.

[Guest]

My understanding is that Photoshop discards the EXIF data when you draw on a picture. (Can someone confirm this?) If so, either it wasn't faked with Photoshop, or the faker was very careful to fake the EXIF data also.

Anyhow, if it is fake, our whole discussion is pointless. Personally, though, if I were going to fake a meteorite impact, I would probably have put a bright streak (not dark) behind it, and the "after" picture would have shown a plume of steam or something coming up from the water...

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately for some people), Photoshop (CS at least) does hang on the the EXIF info even if you edit the shot. But then it does change the EXIF data to say that it was edited in Photoshop. So the real question here is whether ACDSee (the software listed in the EXIF data) would keep the data if you edited it in that.

[howdy stargazers]

It is *so* obviously superman.

[phule]

Given the other long-exposure images of insects flying that one can find on the web, I think this is indeed the answer. This is a bug that was illuminated by the flash at the beginning of the exposure.

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.

[HawaiiArmo]

THe flash could not possibly have been a meteor. Seems as though nobody purporting to the meteor theory has ever seen one close to the ground. When I was in Arizona, I saw a meteor streak towards the ground, and let me say, the flash was extremely bright, and it most definately would have caused some ripples in the water, as well as being noticed by the photographer.
Further, it cannot have been a bug, this theory is just absurd, the flash would be too bright for a bug. Besides, try explaining the smoky cloud around the lightpost, it's not very likely.
I stick to my original conclusion, what seems to be a contrail, is nothing more then an artifact produced from the photographer's position and the camera angle upon the flash. Nature, would certainly not produce a phenomenon so straight.
My conclusion is either something as simple as the light burning out, captured at the proper moment (besides, if you look at other lamposts, they were on at the time of the flash), or the more exotic theory: it was ball lightening. Ball lightening is strange in that few aftereffects are noted. Considering the cloud cover, perhaps the atmosphere was rife for an electrical discharge. It would certainly account for the burnt bulb, lack of evidence on the lightpost, as well as a minimal intensity to where the photographer was not well aware of the flash.

[Amber Gerbun]

Daylight seems to come from the right side, where clouds are illuminated. Note sun to the right of that, seen dimly behind clouds in a magnified view. An object in the water momentarily reflected that light directly into the camera. The moment before and the moment after this event, light was reflected from the sea surface and dispersed through atmospheric haze. The streak is the result of the reduction in the amount of light going through the haze in that particular direction, due to the momentary deflection of light toward the camera. Proof: Notice that the angle above the sea surface of a line drawn from the sun to the flash equals the angle of the streak above the surface on the opposite side of the picture.

[GG]

Well.. I just tested this out on a few photo manipulation programs... Paint Shop Pro, PhotoImpact, PhotoShop.. they ALL save original Exif data even when you manipulate the file if you do a SAVE AS and then select to save as a JPEG. It keeps original Exif data...


If you "save for web..." in Photoshop it deletes the EXIF info. You have to "save as..." and select JPEG for the EXIF info to be preserved.

[Guest]

I took one look at this picture and I realized we needed to eliminate some of the background so we could see what we're looking at. I used the before picture as a bias and I subtracted it from the image somewhat to dim the background a little. What emerged is a much clearer image of what we are looking at. Some important points about it: 1. the black streak is straight, not wispy like a contrail. 2. All aspects of the phenomenon are in the foreground. 3. Most important: The black streak suddenly starts in the upper left hand corner and goes in a straight line following the phenomenon. (click here to see:http://home.comcast.net/~lancaste/Photo ... is_big.jpg) 4. at the "front" of the black streak you can see an orange piece at the middle with wispy white to either side. 5. The event is slightly blurred. In conclusion, I think it is obviously an out of focus insect with wings that is flying in front of the camera.

[Guest]

i don't believe its an insect, for where would the shadow have come from? considering how large it is in respect to how close it would have to be to the lense. did the person who got out of that car down in the picture, closer to the buildings see anything?

[Guest]

Further, it cannot have been a bug, this theory is just absurd, the flash would be too bright for a bug. Besides, try explaining the smoky cloud around the lightpost, it's not very likely.
I stick to my original conclusion, what seems to be a contrail, is nothing more then an artifact produced from the photographer's position and the camera angle upon the flash. Nature, would certainly not produce a phenomenon so straight.

What does "the flash would be too bright for a bug" mean? The smoky cloud around the lightpost has already been explained time and time again as the flash illuminating the bug. The streak is the portion of the exposure that caught the bug flying before the flash went off. Naturally, being a landscape shot, the bug was too close to be in focus. Due to the exposure mode, the places on the bug where the flash did not illuminate it were partially or totally transparent. This is not an absurd theory, it's very simple and a very easy effect to duplicate.

The claim that nature does not produce straight phenomena is somewhat unfounded. I've seen a number of fast-flying insects travel 20-30 feet in a sec. We are looking at a 1/20th sec. exposure here. It is quite possible that an insect will move in a relatively straight path for 1/20th of a second.

[twocents]

To add to my earler comments doubting the fly theory. (straight line, dark trail, ...) does anyone think a bug flying in such a straight line is going to be flying sideways so that you'll see a top (or bottom) view from the cameras viewpoint? Doubt it.

[chromian]

The arc of the dark line intersects precisely with the light at the top of the lamp post, but the whitish line, which is also centered on the lamp and extends across the water, does not have the dark line as its origin.

The dark streak ends before the edge of the frame.

I think that the lamp flashed, possibly by the filament or tube arcing momentarily, causing a flash, which could have high intensity.

The dark streak is a camera artifact.

I do not think that this is an inbound event, rather the result of a momentary event at the pole. If the observer reports that the light was off, how is it that the lamp shows an intense incandescence? A momentary flash would be consistent with the observed effect. The rest is down to the vagaries of ccd camera recording?

Just a thought from a complete novice.

[Guest]

You've got the insect hypothesis wrong. In the insect hypothesis, there is NO FLASHING of the lamp. It is only the camera that flashes. It is no coincidence that the camera's flash goes off when the shutter goes off, by the way.

Flash is not used for landscape photography (it is disabled when "infinity focus" is selected on my camear). You cannot use flash photography with such extreme depth of field unless you have flash energies in the megajoules, and a flash picture would not have the lighting and deepening shadows which are so blatantly obvious in the series.

The EXIF data from the camera clearly shows that the flash fired when the shot was taken.

It doesn't matter what you're supposed to do, what matters is what HAPPENED. The flash went off. Period.

[Guest]

[quote="twocents"]Could this be simply an artifiact of an event that affectd the film directly? It sounds as though it was taken on film, not digitally. How was the film handled/processes. It's likely not something that happened while in the film can or other frames would have been affected, but something could have happened at almost any other time in the exposure / development process.

Zooming in on the image, the halo could possibly be a lens flare, but not likely being it's relatively close to the center of the image, and that it's not in the shape any common aperture. It is vertically symetrical implying it's not a splash. If it were a lamp imploding, it would likely be spherical as well.

I'm banking on a film artifact.[/quote]

What if it is an artifact of the camera focal plane shutter. Does this camera have a vertical travel curtin or a horizontal travel curtin?

[barrym]

I think this is a great picture in and of it self just to get a shot of a light bulb burning out. But that light fixture seems to be arching a whole lot of voltage. Much too high of a voltage to use in a public light fixture by a boat dock etc.

My bet is that there is some accidental or trick photography involved. Its no longer enough to get a good shot but it is necessary to jazz it up to get this many intellegent people involved-which is the psycological motive behind this photo. To get 15 minutes of fame!! The assumtion that someone would use processed film to do a cloud study should be a dead giveaway to a possible hoax. It would be way too expensive and the need to shoot film that frequently would be unnecessary etc. Your not studying the beating of a humming birds wings!

There is a possibility that there is accidental double exposure or even a wrinkle in the film resulting in some neat image noticed upon development. Its easy to get into peoples heads when you plant an expectation without enough data to study in detail. Also I think that we have to remember gravity and mass. If it was a physical object then there should be a curve in a falling object. If its some energy source then it would have to be on the order of a very intense laser coming from the land mass in the distance. There would probably be some type of visable color to a laser and hot enough to heat the water vapor in the air to make a visible trail.. etc., etc, Call me anything but gullible and suggestable.

[phule]

Canons actually fire their flashes at the end of the exposure, so the bug was headed toward the center of the image rather than away, but you have the right idea.

No they do not.

[xstreamstudio.com]

When I first saw this I thought it was a contrail from a jet airplane. Superimposed in the film process. It happens often that in Fuji or Kodak one hour photo machines that negatives get caught and torn and many rolls of film get destroyed as a negative frame is caught in the conveyor. This is definitely not an anomally but a a digital anomally.

The bug flying is a good theory.

The photo was taken on Monday November 22, 2004 at 6:52:52 PM. It is a digital photo it was taken with a Canon Powershot G3 and processed through ACD Systems Digital Imaging
Now the After photo was taken on the same day but at 6:52:37PM Which would put it before the the so called "anomally" photo was taken not after.

The Before photo was taken After the anomally photo at 6:53:07 PM Which is really way after and is the last photo he took. The anomally photo was the middle. So kiddies the photographer is incorrect and has hornswoggled you all. EXIF jpeg data does not lie. Its built into his little camera and records the information like a good computer does into the jpeg photo file this for all you that are amazed at this is how photo viruses travel in the EXIF code.

This really looks like his CCD is malfunctioning on his imaging. It happens when you are around ocean water. The salt is in the air and it starts to corrode very fast within hours. The other is the constant pink dot in the water in the same location in all three photos its in the lower left of the picture in the water. There are several others in the photo. This is another tell tell sign of corrosion. That shadow up top is a flare caused by the CCD and its flaw I have had it happen to me many times with several cheap digital cameras such as Canon and all so Epson. Another culprit is batteries going dead. With digital its either on or off when a battery starts to die it can cause wierd things to happen to digital photos as most of us that use them know.

By the way I am an Amature Astro-photographer, Internet Engineer, and Independent filmmaker and I can make a photo be anything and do anything I want. Don't be fooled so easily. Just get Paint Shop Pro Download the photos with out changing them and click on VIEW/Image Information menu and read the EXIF tab in the box it will tell you all.

Kelly Cooper
CEO
http://www.xstreamstudios.com

PS I know I spell horribly