Starship Asterisk*

Anonymous wrote: I discovered just general info on the web. A typical flash duration is in order of 0.001s. This would result in significant blurring of the "bright spot" along the trail (~1/50 of the total trail lengh) due to the bug motion during the flash. So the question on the flash duration is an important one for the bug theory.

The shortest exposure time on this camera is 1/2000 s.
So it seems very reasonable to assume that the flash
is shorter than this. It could be difficult to determine
the exact length of the flash for this picture, because
many modern cameras vary the length of the flash depending
on the amount of reflected light.

Regarding the flash setting and thus the direction of the bug's flight (if that's what it is), my EXIF program says "Fired(Auto/red-eye)". I assume this means that the recorded flash was triggered when the shutter first opened, meaning that the direction of travel would be upward to the left. I don't know the operational characteristics of this particular camera, but I believe this is how my Sony digital and my Canon T90 film cameras operate in their Auto modes. I'm certainly open to being proved wrong if anyone has opposing data.

Anonymous wrote:If you zoom the pictures by about 400% and look at the base of the pole with the light flash, there is clearly a smoky appearance which does not appear in the before or after pictures. This "smoke" can only be illuminated by the flash of light whereever it comes from.

In addition, the ring of light around the bright flash looks clearly like some halo affect around the flash. Withing the halo ring, the color is more consistent with the water and not an extension of a bug.

Therefore, the bug cause should be ruled out unless someone can explain the smoky affect and why the halo appears more clear than part of a body.

Like all flying insects I know of, the wings of the bug are almost transparent, smooth and shiny (like celophane). They, and the body, are reflecting the camera's flash. Due to the bug's fast movement it is blurred and the wings appears as "smoke". This has been stated in many previous postings.

Harry Law (A) wrote:.

Even if the line is not completely straight. How do you explain it being there at all? The shuttle speed is so fast.. I can't imagine a bug can fly that quickly.

Your problem her is that you're not thinking in 3 dimensions. The flight path captured in 1/20th of a second is less than 25 "bug lengths" long. It is very short. Bugs can move very quickly.

Anonymous wrote:If you zoom the pictures by about 400% and look at the base of the pole with the light flash, there is clearly a smoky appearance which does not appear in the before or after pictures. This "smoke" can only be illuminated by the flash of light whereever it comes from.

In addition, the ring of light around the bright flash looks clearly like some halo affect around the flash. Withing the halo ring, the color is more consistent with the water and not an extension of a bug.

Therefore, the bug cause should be ruled out unless someone can explain the smoky affect and why the halo appears more clear than part of a body.

The smoky artifact "near" the base is one wing of the bug. The bright spot "near" the top of the lamp is a bright thorax. The "halo" to the right of the top of the lamp is the head of the bug. The other wing of the bug is up and to the right of the thorax/head. Look at some of the image enhancements to see the bug's outline. It appears as large or larger than the lamppost because it is so close to the camera and out of focus.

This is a sample photo from a previous post. I see a similarly dark streak behind a flying bug. It's not proof but it certainly is a worthwhile illustration of how a flash and a moving bug can create such an image.

If the focus of the camera were well past the bug in the above photo (ie. at "infinity" like the Canon G3 that took our mystery photo), I imagine that it (the bug) would be sufficiantly blurred as to show a similar image.

Excellent photo. I wonder if you could crop it to emphasize the bug trail. I had difficulty seeing it.

I'm fairly sure that this is a shadow of an aircraft condensation trail. We see this fairly routinely here in AK.
Steve

Anonymous wrote:Therefore, the bug cause should be ruled out unless someone can explain the smoky affect and why the halo appears more clear than part of a body.

The "smoky effect" is a picture of the lighter-colored and fast-moving wings being lit up by the flash. I don't see a halo, but the bright spot is just a blur of a brightly-lit bug's body. I certainly can't see any reason to rule out the bug cause.

Ernst Lippe wrote:The shortest exposure time on this camera is 1/2000 s.
So it seems very reasonable to assume that the flash
is shorter than this. It could be difficult to determine
the exact length of the flash for this picture, because
many modern cameras vary the length of the flash depending
on the amount of reflected light.

Electronic flash times are typically in the range of 10s of microseconds to a few milliseconds. Since you can't control the brightness of the flash directly, you control the flash time. In this case, the camera reports that no flash return signal was detected, which may mean that the maximum time was used (since there would be no brightness feedback). Unless someone can decode some of the more camera specific data (like the value for FLASH of 89) I would assume a flash time of 1mS to be reasonable.

Ernst Lippe wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I discovered just general info on the web. A typical flash duration is in order of 0.001s. This would result in significant blurring of the "bright spot" along the trail (~1/50 of the total trail lengh) due to the bug motion during the flash. So the question on the flash duration is an important one for the bug theory.

The shortest exposure time on this camera is 1/2000 s.
So it seems very reasonable to assume that the flash
is shorter than this. It could be difficult to determine
the exact length of the flash for this picture, because
many modern cameras vary the length of the flash depending
on the amount of reflected light.

======
I am not sure that the flash can be short enough to explain absence of the bright spot blurring (demands duration << 1/2000 s). The problem of the
bug theory can be cleared up just by checking technical info.

Anonymous wrote: If the focus of the camera were well past the bug in the above photo (ie. at "infinity" like the Canon G3 that took our mystery photo), I imagine that it (the bug) would be sufficiantly blurred as to show a similar image.

The only catch that nobody seems to have pointed out is that if the bug was so close to be so blurry, there would practically no visible trail in the image.

Caught up to this thread from the local newspaper. Certainly was something since the head of the streetlight was simply in a bad way and had to be fixed which was in the newspaper a few days later.

Typical flight paths for aircraft run behind from where the Camera is pointing parallel to the wharf, and I'm sure the aircraft heading in the direction of the photo would have left going the other way rather than pull a 180. Besides a contrail shadow woudn't come out like that.

Interesting. I just upgraded my version of Breezebrowser. The new version now says Flash: Off. The previous version said Flash: Off. Thumbsplus 6 reports Off. Thumbsplus 4 reports Flash: 89. Irfanview reports Flash: Fired, auto mode, red-eye reduction mode. It also says Flash mode Not fired Additionally, here is the exteded EXIF reported by Thumbsplus 6:

Original date/time: 2004:11:22 18:52:52
Exposure time: 1/20
Shutter speed: 1/19.87
F-stop: 5.6
Focal length: 9.0938
Flash: Fired
Exposure mode: Auto
White balance: Auto
Orientation: Top-left
Aperture: 4.9688
Exposure bias: 0.0000
Metering mode: Pattern
Digitized date/time: 2004:11:22 18:52:52
Modified date/time: 2004:11:25 15:20:49
Modified date/time subsecs: 834
User comment:
Custom rendered: Normal
Scene capture type: Landscape
Digital zoom ratio: 1.0000
Canon macro mode: 0
Canon self-timer: 0
Canon quality: 0
Canon flash mode: Not fired
Canon drive mode: Single
Canon focus mode: One-shot
Canon image size: Large
Canon easy shooting mode: Full auto
Canon digital zoom: None
Canon contrast: Normal
Canon saturation: Normal
Canon sharpness: Normal
Canon metering mode: 0
Canon focus type: Manual
Canon AF point: 0
Canon exposure mode: Easy shooting
Canon long focal length: 0
Canon short focal length: 0
Canon focal length units: 18688
Canon flash activity: 30575
Canon flash details: 29285
Canon G1 focus mode: 18208
Canon white balance: Auto
Canon burst sequence: 0
Canon subject distance: 0.384000
Canon flash bias: 544.000000
Canon firmware version:
Canon image number: 1191994
Canon owner name:
Camera make: Canon
Camera model: Canon PowerShot G3
X resolution: 180.0000
Y resolution: 180.0000
Resolution unit: Inches
Camera version: ACD Systems Digital Imaging
Colorspace: sRGB
File source: DSC
YCbCr positioning: 1
EXIF version: "0220" ,30,32,32,30
Component configuration: "" ,01,02,03,00
Compressed pixel size: 3.0000
Maximum aperture: 2.3
FlashPix version: "0100" ,30,31,30,30
EXIF Width: 2272
EXIF Height: 1704
EXIF Interop Offset: 1587
Focal plane X-Res: 8114.2857
Focal plane Y-Res: 8114.2857
Focal plane unit: Inch
Sensing method: One-chip color area

Unknown (65536;10000): 255,50948,3,0
Unknown (65792;10100): 0
Unknown (65798;10106): 0
Unknown (65800;10108): 0
Unknown (65801;10109): 0
Unknown (65813;10115): 0
Unknown (65814;10116): 0
Unknown (65818;1011a): 18253
Unknown (65819;1011b): 20538
Unknown (65822;1011e): 26707
Unknown (65823;1011f): 29807
Unknown (65825;10121): 8243
Unknown (65826;10122): 20554
Unknown (65827;10123): 18245
Unknown (65828;10124): 0
Unknown (65829;10125): 0
Unknown (65830;10126): 0
Unknown (65831;10127): 0
Unknown (65832;10128): 0
Unknown (65833;10129): 17920
Unknown (65834;1012a): 29289
Unknown (65835;1012b): 30573
Unknown (65836;1012c): 29281
Unknown (65837;1012d): 8293
Unknown (66048;10200): 25942,29554,28521,8302
Unknown (66304;10300): 11825,12848,0,0
Unknown (66560;10400): 0
Unknown (66561;10401): 0
Unknown (66562;10402): 0
Unknown (66563;10403): 0
Unknown (66564;10404): 0
Unknown (66565;10405): 0
Unknown (66566;10406): 0
Unknown (66568;10408): 0
Unknown (66570;1040a): 0
Unknown (66571;1040b): 0
Unknown (66572;1040c): 0
Unknown (66573;1040d): 0
Unknown (66574;1040e): 0
Unknown (66576;10410): 2304
Unknown (66577;10411): 37888
Unknown (66578;10412): 257
Unknown (66580;10414): 384
Unknown (66581;10415): 384
Unknown (66582;10416): 384
Unknown (66583;10417): 384
Unknown (66584;10418): 384
Unknown (66585;10419): 384
Unknown (66586;1041a): 17280
Unknown (66587;1041b): 0
Unknown (66588;1041c): 0
Unknown (66589;1041d): 44544
Unknown (66590;1041e): 255
Unknown (66591;1041f): 0
Unknown (66592;10420): 2560
Unknown (66593;10421): 0
Unknown (67072;10600):
Unknown (68864;10d00): 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
Unknown (69632;11000): 18415616
Unknown (70144;11200): 0,0,40192,0,29696,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
Unknown (70400;11300): 0,0,0,0

Irfanview says subject distance is 384 mm. The same digits are reported by Thumbsplus but with the decimal in a different place.

I think what we need is something that can interpret the EXIF data correctly. I don't have Canon software currently installed, or I'd check with it.

A clue on whether the flash fired might be visible in other foreground. Looking carefully in the vegetation, I don't see clear evidence that the flash was fired. The best place to look is the closest deep shadows.

If the flash didn't fire, I don't think the bug theory has a leg to stand on. I may change my favorite to the hair theory. It could be a hair, as someone said with a follicle and maybe even a flake of dead skin attached.

Luis wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If the focus of the camera were well past the bug in the above photo (ie. at "infinity" like the Canon G3 that took our mystery photo), I imagine that it (the bug) would be sufficiantly blurred as to show a similar image.

The only catch that nobody seems to have pointed out is that if the bug was so close to be so blurry, there would practically no visible trail in the image.

That doesn't follow. The trail will be visible over that portion of the body that completely obscures the background. Even with a significantly out of focus body, part of the background is completely obscured. Even if it's more out of focus than that, the background will still be partially obscured, as with a penumbra.

Harry Law (A) wrote: Even if the line is not completely straight. How do
you explain it being there at all? The shuttle speed is so fast.. I can't
imagine a bug can fly that quickly.

1/20 second is a pretty long time. According to the Australian Bureau of
Meteorology,
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/20041 ... 0411.shtml
the wind speed at 15:00 was 9 km/hr. That means that in 1/20 second it will
move 12.5 cm. The maximum recorded wind speed for that day (at 15:15) was 29
km/hr, which gives a distance of 40 cm.

Some insects can fly at considerable speed, a nice summary can be found
at http://ufbir.ifas.ufl.edu/chap01.htm#Table1. For example
the bee (Apis mellifera) can fly at 2-6 m/s.

So when you consider all this, there is nothing surprising about the length of
the line.

victorengel wrote:

Luis wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That doesn't follow. The trail will be visible over that portion of the body that completely obscures the background. Even with a significantly out of focus body, part of the background is completely obscured. Even if it's more out of focus than that, the background will still be partially obscured, as with a penumbra.

The image of the "bug" is extremely blurred even when the "flash" went on. You can see clearly what is behind it. It looks like smoke, even the section that could be the head. The trail left by such a blurry object would not be visible in the picture.

If previous posts are true and there is evidence that the streak was faintly present in the immediate previous picture, how can it be a bug. A moving object cannot have traversed the exact same path in two successive pictures.

The image of the "bug" is extremely blurred even when the "flash" went on. You can see clearly what is behind it. It looks like smoke, even the section that could be the head. The trail left by such a blurry object would not be visible in the picture.

The part visible through the apparent location of the bug was exposed when the bug wasn't there. It has nothing to do with the blurriness of the bug.

I just can't see how it can be a bug. I've seen the illustration of the flying bug but let's not overlook the fact that the bug has flown the distance of about 1-2" in that photo. Of course, not knowing how close a bug may have been to the lense when the photo in question was taken certainly does merit questioning. But take a look at the illustration showing the photo before the ray appeared. I do not see any indication of the ray. Then, almost instantly the ray appears, and whatever has been targeted has been hit. Additionally, if you look at the sequential flashing picttures teh is a plume formed in a circular shape off to the lower right....very similar to what happens when a drop of fluid hits the sruface of a still fluid or say when a bullet strikes a wall. I find it hard to believe that a bug could not only fly such a straight line for such a distance but also that it would just happen to be in-line with location of the small ignition. The bug theory just doesn't cut it for me right now. I say it's a government project.

I agree with the hair theory.. That is the first option that came to mind when I saw the picture and read what exposure the camera was set at.

Comparing the before and after pics, it seems that the area near the pole is slightly more illuminated in the picture with the "trace". The water appears lighter and the tree near the waters edge appears to be "attracted" to the "flash". I believe it is either ball lightning, or a "tracer" from ground to cloud. I also see a small transparent circle in the cloud above the lamp (slightly to the left). (I know it's not really above the lamp, it just appears that way in the pic). I'm not familiar with digital cameras. This is close to the center of the picture, it may be the centering dot?

Guest1 wrote: The bug theory just doesn't cut it for me right now. I say it's a government project.

That's got to be about the funniest and most absurd thing I've yet to read on this board.

Thank you for making me laugh out loud.

Oops, that object is up and slightly to the right! Left, right, whatever!

victorengel wrote:

The image of the "bug" is extremely blurred even when the "flash" went on. You can see clearly what is behind it. It looks like smoke, even the section that could be the head. The trail left by such a blurry object would not be visible in the picture.

The part visible through the apparent location of the bug was exposed when the bug wasn't there. It has nothing to do with the blurriness of the bug.

That's a good point!

Why is the image of the bug white?