Starship Asterisk*

cardetective wrote:Looks like the red glow from the auto focus reflecting back into the camera lens from window.

I just tried a little experiment with a PowerShot SD1000. This isn't the same camera used for this shot, but it's descended from it, and generally similar. I tried shots next to a piece of glass, under different conditions. This is what I found:

- High light level, flash auto: focus assist light stays off;
- High light level, flash on: focus assist light turns on for redeye reduction, flash fires, light from flash reflects from glass;
- High light level, flash off: focus assist light stays off;
- Low light level, flash auto or on: focus assist light on until focus complete, then brightens for redeye reduction, flash fires, light from flash reflects from glass;
- Low light level, flash off: focus assist light on until focus complete, then off. Light is not present during exposure.

In summary, the focus assist light is always off during the actual exposure, which makes perfect sense as it would otherwise contaminate the shot. It does stay on for redeye reduction when the flash fires, but the flash would have screwed up the shot, and the EXIF data says the flash did not fire.

So unless somebody can specifically test the PowerShot S100 and verify different behavior (and I doubt it behaves so differently as to leave the focus assist light on during the exposure), I think this explanation can largely be ruled out.

I'll add that this image pretty clearly shows streams of falling water droplets at a distant focus, and that there was no way I could position my camera so as to get anything remotely resembling this from the focus assist light reflection (as viewed through the viewfinder, the only possible way to see it).

craterchains wrote:Norval L. Cunningham

Wow, long time, no see. Wassup CC, or should we call you Lazarus.

bystander wrote:

craterchains wrote:Norval L. Cunningham

Wow, long time, no see. Wassup CC, or should we call you Lazarus.

http://www.tmz.com/2008/01/07/the-boz/

Drabkikker wrote:Did you know they also put stuff in our drinking water that causes rainbows?

It's probably Dihydrogen Monoxide! It's probably in those red clouds, too!

bystander wrote:

Drabkikker wrote:Did you know they also put stuff in our drinking water that causes rainbows?

It's probably Dihydrogen Monoxide! It's probably in those red clouds, too!

http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/images ... lpic_2.gif
---------------------------------------------------------
<<Water intoxication (also known as hyperhydration or water poisoning) is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside of safe limits by over-consumption of water. Nearly all deaths related to water intoxication in normal individuals have resulted either from water drinking contests, in which individuals attempt to consume more than 10 liters of water over the course of just a few minutes, or long bouts of intensive exercise during which electrolytes are not properly replenished, yet massive amounts of fluid are still consumed.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
Clare: So is it fun humiliating me?
.
Jerry: No, it’s not you. It’s your stomach, he’s taking with this funny, booming, jovial voice. (doing the voice) Hello-o-o-o.
.
Clare: So you think I’m fat?
.
Jerry: No body said you’re fat. He’s a loving character, like the Kool-ade guy.
.
Clare: He is fat!
.
Jerry: No, he’s just a little bloated.
.
Clare: Good-bye!
.
Jerry: It’s mostly water weight.
---------------------------------------------------------
<<Lithium oxide (Li2O) or lithia is an inorganic chemical compound. Lithium oxide is used as a flux in ceramic glazes; and creates blues with copper and pinks with cobalt. Lithium oxide reacts with water and steam, forming lithium hydroxide and should be isolated from them. The ground state gas phase Li2O molecule is linear with a bond length consistent with strong ionic bonding. VSEPR theory would predict a bent shape similar to H2O.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
<<Hydrogen sulfide (or hydrogen sulphide) is the chemical compound with the formula H2S. This colorless, toxic and flammable gas is partially responsible for the foul odor of rotten eggs and flatulence. It often results from the bacterial break down of sulfates in organic matter in the absence of oxygen, such as in swamps and sewers (anaerobic digestion). It also occurs in volcanic gases, natural gas and some well waters. The odor of H2S is commonly misattributed to elemental sulfur, which is in fact odorless. Hydrogen sulfide has numerous names, some of which are archaic. Hydrogen sulfide is a highly toxic and flammable gas. Being heavier than air, it tends to accumulate at the bottom of poorly ventilated spaces. Although very pungent at first, it quickly deadens the sense of smell, so potential victims may be unaware of its presence until it is too late. Hydrogen sulfide has been implicated in some of the several mass extinctions that have occurred in the Earth's past. The Permian mass extinction (sometimes known as the "Great Dying") may have been caused by hydrogen sulfide. Organic residues from these extinction boundaries indicate that the oceans were anoxic (oxygen depleted) and had species of shallow plankton that metabolized H2S. The formation of H2S may have been initiated by massive volcanic eruptions, which emitted CO2 and methane into the atmosphere which warmed the oceans, lowering their capacity to absorb oxygen which would otherwise oxidize H2S. The increased levels of hydrogen sulfide could have killed oxygen-generating plants as well as depleted the ozone layer causing further stress. Small H2S blooms have been detected in modern times in the Dead Sea and in the Atlantic ocean off the coast of Namibia.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it." - Sherlock Holmes, A Study in Scarlet » Chapter 2

Weather observations from Minneapolis (MSP), 2002 23 September:
1753CDT/2253UTC 31009KT BKN047 BKN060 BKN090 11/4 DZB24E50
(Translation: 553 PM CDT, wind from NW 9 knots, broken clouds at 4700 ft, more broken clouds at 6000 ft, more broken clouds at 9000 ft, temp. 11C (52F), dewpoint 4C/40F, drizzle began 524PM and ended 550PM.)
1853CDT/2353UTC 30005KT FEW044 SCT060 BKN090 10/4
1953CDT/0053UTC 30005KT SCT080 8/4

So there were at least three cloud layers over the area between 4,000 ft and 9,000 ft around the time of the photo (assuming 707 PM CDT is close), and the clouds were clearing or dissipating with time. I think two of those layers can be seen in the photo. The orange glow is a patch of thin, stratified (i.e., flat) cloud around 4500 ft AGL (above ground level). The next cloud layer, around 6000 ft and also consisting of patchy or scattered clouds, is the gray stuff seen at the top of the photo. The aircraft appears to be just above the 2nd layer, or around 7000-8000 feet altitude. That's still below the third cloud layer around 8-9000 feet, and since the photo is looking down we can not see the third layer.

My theory: The setting sun is the source of the orange glow, and what we're seeing is simply the same phenomena that give us our beautiful sunsets that we see from the ground. We're just seeing it from an angle we rarely get to see it from. In essence, we're looking at a nice red sunset upside down! The sun probably is at just the right height above the horizon to shine in between the 1st and 2nd cloud layers, thus illuminating the top of the lowest layer and the bottom of the 2nd layer. We can't see the bottom of the 2nd layer because the plane is above it - on the wrong side. But the top of the low clouds is reflecting the orange light of the setting sun up toward the aircraft.

It's just the aircraft lights shining on the clouds as the airplane travels through the clouds. There's a green light on the right wingtip, and a red one on the left wingtip.

I might be able to rule out the wing light theory. Condiser this: First, the description wording is misleading:
"When landing in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA in 2002, just before his flight ascended above cloud level in the early evening, passenger Tyler Blessing saw and photographed "huge curved sheets of glowing light extending from cloud to ground.""
It is nearly impossible to be ascending above cloud level, When Landing (unless the Airport is atop a mountain above the city it serves. So lets presume that the flight just took off from the airport in Minneapolis. Next, to be located over the area where where the image was taken soon after take off, The aircraft would have likely lifted off of runway 22 which faces southwest (as 27(0) would be due west) and have been over this spot within a few minutes.
Now, looking at the image, and since the caption states that the Camera was facing North of West at the time it would then be likely that the image was taken in the direction of travel. The vanishing points in the image are then pointing toward the North and toward the West. To get this orientation from any seat on the left side of the plane would mean that the plane was landing but from the left side of the plane there are only about 3 or 4 rows that the image could have been taken from without having a Wing, front or rear, in the image.
See these popular airline seating charts
Further, the image couldn't have been taken from any row on the right side of the plane that is behind the wing or more than 1/3 of the way into it or it too would have been in the image. So the image would most likely have been taken from the right side of the plane at less than 1/3 of the way over the wing or more likely in front of the wing.

So, to put it all in place,
Given the orientation of the image
Given the vanishing points indicating North and West,
Given that there is no Tail wing nor main wing in the image,
I would say:
Shortly after take off, the Photographer noticed this strange redish glow in the distance. He was sitting on the Right side of the plane just in front of the wing at the time (being on the right side of the plane, he is sitting near the location of the Green Marker Light as the Res Light is on the Left side. Also, the dence clouds are just visible in the upper left quadrant of the image indicating that ...........This is setting sunlight reflecting off of Sheeting Rain drops falling from the Dence clouds that lie westerly between the aircraft and the nearly setting sun.

BMAONE23 wrote: So, to put it all in place,
Given the orientation of the image
Given the vanishing points indicating North and West,
Given that there is no Tail wing nor main wing in the image,
I would say:
Shortly after take off, the Photographer noticed this strange reddish glow in the distance. He was sitting on the Right side of the plane just in front of the wing at the time (being on the right side of the plane, he is sitting near the location of the Green Marker Light as the Res Light is on the Left side. Also, the dence clouds are just visible in the upper left quadrant of the image indicating that ...........This is setting sunlight reflecting off of Sheeting Rain drops falling from the Dense clouds that lie westerly between the aircraft and the nearly setting sun.

Interesting sleuthing, BMAONE23, but you apparently neglected to read photographer Tyler Blessing's own post:

tylerblessing wrote:As RJN noted, the original caption of the image incorrectly stated that the plane was descending to land, but has been corrected to state that it was ascending shortly after takeoff. The sun had not quite set; those that have examined the EXIF data might take note that the camera was likely set to EDT as I was returning from Michigan. I have pictures starting 17 minutes later in this series of the beginning of actual sunset (from perhaps 30000 ft or so).

I was looking towards the sunset out of a starboard window. I have no specific recollection as to as the specific configuration of window shades and seats on the port side of the craft. I seem to recall the aircraft to be a B737 or the Airbus equivalent. It was a northwest airlines flight.
To those who seem obliged to propose the most unique hypotheses I offer this suggestion: try not to cut yourself on Occam's razor!

What exactly is "Sheeting Rain" anyway; Rayleigh–Taylor instability?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpGL4lcV5RE

A quick Google search shows this is not a unique occurrence. I found a blog with some good photos in it from ground level of orange rain.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 6870452410
(Click show original post)

And a direct link to one of the photos:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_a3kDRNLmIJ4/Rtz ... rain+2.jpg

Another, independent photo:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/268 ... 0397b1.jpg

And yet another incident:
http://www.sonshineimaging.com/images/3 ... t_copy.jpg

Well, it is hard to read through 6 pages of thread and not miss something,

but I should have 50 lashes with a wet noodle for missing the original photographers post.

Though I would like to add that after further review (in google earth) and looking at MikeB's post (4 up or so), It might also be westering sunlight reflecting off the lowest level of thin clouds he mentioned.(though the bending in the image does resemble Virga, that type of rain that never reaches the ground.) Being 13 miles into the fligtplan from takeoff, and attempting to match google earth's image and orientation, I find an altitude of between 6500 & 7500' at the time the image was taken. Also not inappropriate for an ascending 737's flight path.
Being a 737 the photographer was likely sitting somewhere foreward of row 11.
Just imagine this seen from above with a second layer of dence clouds blocking the sun at altitude

BMAONE23 wrote:It might also be westering sunlight reflecting off the lowest level of thin clouds he mentioned.(though the bending in the image does resemble Virga, that type of rain that never reaches the ground.) Being 13 miles into the fligtplan from takeoff, and attempting to match google earth's image and orientation, I find an altitude of between 6500 & 7500' at the time the image was taken. Also not inappropriate for an ascending 737's flight path.
Being a 737 the photographer was likely sitting somewhere foreward of row 11.
Just imagine this seen from above with a second layer of dence clouds blocking the sun at altitude

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/drink ... 1059646513

Great job geekzilla in finding those links to the orange rain photos! Those photos collectively may be the "smoking gun" that solves the riddle.

The other possible explanation I considered (besides reflected sunlight off a thin layer of low clouds) was that it was indeed virga, or wisps of rain aloft that mostly or entirely evaporate before reaching the ground. Several others in this forum have championed this hypothesis as well. The description of "huge curved sheets of glowing light extending from cloud to ground" strongly suggests illuminated wisps of virga, but I did not recall ever seeing them lit up so brightly or so colorfully by direct sunlight. The observations from MSP (see my other post above) clearly show that the clouds were decreasing over time. Clouds sometimes dissipate by "precipitating out," i.e., the cloud droplets congeal into larger rain (or drizzle) droplets and fall in the form of... well, huge curved sheets. And drizzle was reported at MSP less than 2 hours before the photo was taken. I now think the links above from geekzilla are the evidence needed to support the sunlit virga hypothesis, and therefore I modify my original hypothesis and will go with sunset orange sunlight reflected by wisps of virga.

BMAONE23, MSP airport has two parallel runways oriented NW-SE, 12R/30L and 12L/30R, in addition to the one running SW-NE, 04/22. (There's also a fourth N-S runway, 17/35.) Given the prevailing surface winds from the NW that evening, my guess is that departures were using either 30L or 30R (i.e., taking off to the NW), and Tyler's flight turned left onto a SW heading after departure. The photo then could have been taken looking almost straight out the starboard window while the plane was on a SW or SSW heading. Tyler, does that make sense from what you remember?

Looks like I was using the right airport just didn't take into account that the image was likely taken looking about 30-40 deg toward the right of the direction of travel so a south west direction of travel is more likely correct.

Oops... I meant geckzilla, NOT geekzilla. My apologies!

(You must be a herper.)

MikeB wrote:... but I did not recall ever seeing them lit up so brightly or so colorfully by direct sunlight....

It may well be that nobody has seen it.... with their naked eye anyway. Being close to sunset, the shutter needed to be open for a relatively long time, (in this case 1/15 second if I correctly recall somebody saying).

When capturing images of Deep Sky Objects, the shutter needs to be open many minutes in order to capture enough light for an image. The dark sky stays dark, but the light areas are brighter than what can be seen with the naked eye or even through the eyepiece of a telescope.

I think the same effect is happening here to some extent. The bright orange glow is amplified beyond what you'd see when just looking at the scene.

Skywatcher2 wrote:I think the same effect is happening here to some extent. The bright orange glow is amplified beyond what you'd see when just looking at the scene.

I don't think it's amplified at all. The camera won't magically enhance one part of the image, and not others. It wasn't dark yet, and the ground looks pretty much as you'd expect. In addition, people (including myself) have reported seeing rain and virga lit this way, and it looks the same to the eye. Finally, the photographer reports that he deliberately took this image because he saw the effect out the window. It isn't like it just showed up unexpectedly in the image after he had been shooting for something else.

Chris Peterson wrote: people (including myself) have reported seeing rain and virga lit this way, and it looks the same to the eye. Finally, the photographer reports that he deliberately took this image because he saw the effect out the window. It isn't like it just showed up unexpectedly in the image after he had been shooting for something else.

Even if outside the plane it's probably artificial:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070605.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031001.html

Chris Peterson wrote:

Skywatcher2 wrote:I think the same effect is happening here to some extent. The bright orange glow is amplified beyond what you'd see when just looking at the scene.

I don't think it's amplified at all. The camera won't magically enhance one part of the image, and not others. It wasn't dark yet, and the ground looks pretty much as you'd expect. In addition, people (including myself) have reported seeing rain and virga lit this way, and it looks the same to the eye. Finally, the photographer reports that he deliberately took this image because he saw the effect out the window. It isn't like it just showed up unexpectedly in the image after he had been shooting for something else.

I'm not disputing that he saw the orange rain and clouds before taking the photo, but I do believe it amplified the effect more than "not at all".

A camera captures lumens in three dimensions. Height, width, and time. The eye can't stack lumens in the time dimension like a camera can.

When I look at photos of candle flames on the internet, I see many that show a glow out to about a half inch or so out beyond the sides of the flame. I can't see that glow when I light a candle and look at it. I'll accept that a camera can capture effects that my eye can't. The differences aren't due to magic. They're because the two light-capturing devices don't operate exactly alike.

This is nothing more than the advertising search lights from Mystic lake casino. They would be on about this time although they wouldn't be very visible from the ground yet, they should be visible from above. If you live near this area take a look in the evening sky and you can see them on most nights.

Skywatcher2 wrote:A camera captures lumens in three dimensions. Height, width, and time. The eye can't stack lumens in the time dimension like a camera can.

Actually, the eye does capture photons in time as well. The integration time for the eye is about 100ms, so the 1/15 second exposure with this camera is actually a fair match to the eye in that respect.

Anyway, I've see rain lit this way before, and it looks the same as in the image. In fact, I've seen it look brighter than what the image shows.

neufer wrote:Even if outside the plane it's probably artificial...

Are you suggesting some kind of contrail effect? I don't see anything in the image to make me think this is anything other than sunlight on rain. The structure looks like falling water, not like condensation streams from the wings.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Skywatcher2 wrote:A camera captures lumens in three dimensions. Height, width, and time. The eye can't stack lumens in the time dimension like a camera can.

Actually, the eye does capture photons in time as well. The integration time for the eye is about 100ms, so the 1/15 second exposure with this camera is actually a fair match to the eye in that respect.

Anyway, I've see rain lit this way before, and it looks the same as in the image. In fact, I've seen it look brighter than what the image shows.

I'm not sure that I'd completely accept that there's no effect at all in this photo without the ability to compare it to an eyeball view realtime. Since my time machine is on the fritz though, I guess I'll bow to your more extensive experience studying the heavens. (BTW-Nice pictures on your website!)

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:Even if outside the plane it's probably artificial...

Are you suggesting some kind of contrail effect? I don't see anything in the image to make me think this is anything other than sunlight on rain. The structure looks like falling water, not like condensation streams from the wings.

If it actually is outside (and not an out of focus window reflection) my guess is that it is some kind of contrail effect...possibly left over from a previous jet.

neufer wrote:If it actually is outside (and not an out of focus window reflection)...

My main objection to this idea is that to me, the orange area is in clear, sharp focus. It doesn't appear in the least unfocused. It contains high frequency structure.

...my guess is that it is some kind of contrail effect...possibly left over from a previous jet.

I can't say that I've ever seen a jet leave something like a persistent cloud behind while at low altitude. But I've seen a number of natural clouds that look just like this, and a few of them lit up orange by sunset, also looking just like this. A natural cloud/virga formation seems a more parsimonious explanation than something artificial.