Starship Asterisk*

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:13 am**

God peed on the lightpost causing the hot bulb to explode. Now he's laughing his azz off at us trying to figure it out...

ok maybe not. i have no clue...

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:23 am**

this is definately a un i dentified flying object that is trying to take over the soler system by taking out one light at a time!! definately !!!

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:24 am**

im not a teacher or anything but i recognize a flying squirl when i see one!! make no mistake this is war!!!!!

Posted: **Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:01 pm**

I searched the discussion but didn't see anyone point the following out although some have mentioned a possible bird...

A bug is good enough explanation for me, but it sure looks like the last image (misnamed "strangebefore_pryde_big.jpg") captures the bug (or bird) in the act. Around pixels 380(x) 1210 (y).

When you zoom in on this area it seems to me to show either a bug that just made a turn and is flying toward the 8:00 position (with a faint trail?) or a bird just now perched on that rock.

Or is it just JPEG artifacts?

I (too) noticed the order of the images on APOD was reversed in two ways, 1) I've never seen Cumulonimbus clouds "shrink" in that way, and 2) the (obvious) EXIF info in the JPEGs.[/img]

Posted: **Sat Jan 08, 2005 1:02 pm**

in chinese
???????????????????
in english
some leaf drop down.

Posted: **Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:17 pm**

anonymous-k wrote:I searched the discussion but didn't see anyone point the following out although some have mentioned a possible bird...

A bug is good enough explanation for me, but it sure looks like the last image (misnamed "strangebefore_pryde_big.jpg") captures the bug (or bird) in the act. Around pixels 380(x) 1210 (y).

It's been mentioned before. There's something similar at 770, 1160. So far the consensus explanations for these seem to be people. That to me seems possible, but I'm not convinced. I don't think there is enough detail to say what they are.

Posted: **Sat Jan 08, 2005 9:07 pm**

Anonymous wrote:Hi Luis

If you are still there... This was posted to help out a beginner in the southern hemisphere. The links are largely relevant for the northern hemisphere as well.
http://www.tvaus.com.au/viewtopic.php?t ... c&start=21

enjoy

MLB

Thanks for that link! Wow I got a look at Saturn and it blew my mind off. It is fantastic! I also saw the comment. Not as spectacular as Saturn, but worth it the view.

Thanks mate!
Luis

Posted: **Sun Jan 09, 2005 5:26 am**

victorengel wrote:
DC wrote:
notbob wrote: DC only god knows what you're up to with those images.
Good question. I'm trying to find a way to bring out any hidden details in the event image that might help explain what it is. It is clear to me that whatever caused the most visible details also created a few more subtle details.
This is not clear at all. The noise introduced by the jpeg artifacts cannot be ignored. Whatever operations you apply to the images, should be applied to the full images. Then, when you are looking for details, you should compare to similar details elsewhere in the pictures.

Your item marked C, for example, is almost certainly just a jpeg artifact, perhaps exacerbated by in-camera sharpening of the edge of the pole. Similar artifacts are visible all over the images, most far removed from the event object.

I can see I made a mistake with what I called the C item, but I still think there are some subtle details that come out when the image is processed. I could try to make a case that my A4/B2 items, which are clearly distorted by a jpeg artifact, have to be more than just an artifact, but it would not prove anything interesting.

More interesting perhaps is that there is clearly an area where pixels became darker in the event image when compared with the before and after images, yet still changed color in the same way as in the adjacent area where pixels became lighter. This is a little clearer when the before and after images are compared with the event image separately, but the following image using (before+after)/2 is sufficient.

The top row is an enhanced diff image, with negative going differences clipped, then contrast enhanced. The bottom row shows how the colors changed in the event image when compared with the (before+after)/2 image. The tilted orange rectangle marks the area where the image got darker, but still changed toward a similar orange color as the brighter area next to it. If this were an insect, it may show a less reflective yet colored part of the insect. I don't see any features which clearly correspond with insect anatomy.

The green rectangle shows an area where I think there are some other features of the event which are not clear.

Posted: **Sun Jan 09, 2005 7:07 am**

diehard DC wrote:I still think there are some subtle details that come out when the image is processed.

But if you process it more than the data can support, you're not proving anything. I still maintain that your analysis applied to some other part of the image, completely unrelated to the event, will turn up similar results.

More interesting perhaps is that there is clearly an area where pixels became darker in the event image when compared with the before and after images, yet still changed color in the same way as in the adjacent area where pixels became lighter. This is a little clearer when the before and after images are compared with the event image separately, but the following image using (before+after)/2 is sufficient.

The top row is an enhanced diff image, with negative going differences clipped, then contrast enhanced. The bottom row shows how the colors changed in the event image when compared with the (before+after)/2 image. The tilted orange rectangle marks the area where the image got darker, but still changed toward a similar orange color as the brighter area next to it. If this were an insect, it may show a less reflective yet colored part of the insect. I don't see any features which clearly correspond with insect anatomy.

The green rectangle shows an area where I think there are some other features of the event which are not clear.

This is not at all clear. Please note that Jpeg encodes into 8x8 blocks. The color information is compressed the most. Just look at your illustration. The 8X8 blocks are obvious. Any feature that represents actual data in the scene should transcend these 8x8 boundaries. But that's not what we see. Take the bright orange blob corresponding to your oval, for example. It lies completely within one 8x8 grid. Is that because that's how the subject actually was? Or is it because the way the jpeg file was encoded happened to make the stark edge? I think it's quite obviously the latter. Another thing you must bear in mind is that when converting between RGB and HSL spaces, there are certain points that do not have a one to one relationship. For example, everything that is neutral (white to black) can be just as accurately discribed with ANY value for hue, since saturation is zero. The values for hue are only relevant for nonzero values of saturation.

The bottom line is that I think you're reading too much into the patterns you're seeing. Try looking at a full resolution picture converted to greyscale, and for color analysis, use a picture resized to 25% or smaller of the original picture. Looking at finer detail in the color channel, you will be looking for patterns in random noise, essentially.

Posted: **Sun Jan 09, 2005 7:39 am**

If anybody cares, this is what I got when I tried to process one of Hazeii's wasps with my color filters. If I had a waspless image to do a diff and color change comparsion with, I would try that.

I have not seen an image like this which looks sufficiently like the event image to convince me the event is an insect, but I don't have a better theory. In this case, the bluish and yellowish areas are not as distinct as in the event image, although I think the trail looks very convincing.

just be glad i don't have a 3d modeling program to try testing how reflections are created.

Posted: **Sun Jan 09, 2005 8:01 am**

To Victor,

You make a good point about the orange blob being enclosed in a 8x8 square, which I think is puzzling. But the feature I've enclosed in the orange rectangle covers the corners of two 8x8 squares with an identical color, and is about the same color as the square where the orange blob is. If each 8x8 square is processed independently, i would not expect to see these corresponding details if there were not something behind them.

I have a hard time accepting the jpeg process would invent details out of nothing, but it would be helpful to know when it tries to simplify the image. When I see squares with horizontal blue bars, clearly things are being simplified. But I can't accept that the area within my orange square, which I find interesting, is just due to random noise.

Posted: **Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:35 pm**

diehard DC wrote:To Victor,

You make a good point about the orange blob being enclosed in a 8x8 square, which I think is puzzling. But the feature I've enclosed in the orange rectangle covers the corners of two 8x8 squares with an identical color, and is about the same color as the square where the orange blob is. If each 8x8 square is processed independently, i would not expect to see these corresponding details if there were not something behind them.

I have a hard time accepting the jpeg process would invent details out of nothing, but it would be helpful to know when it tries to simplify the image. When I see squares with horizontal blue bars, clearly things are being simplified. But I can't accept that the area within my orange square, which I find interesting, is just due to random noise.

You really need to know more about jpeg compression before you can begin to decide what you can accept and not accept. Jpeg compression produces 8x8 squares which transition smoothly from one color to another in some optimal direction. Any detail within that square is highly influenced by the compression.

Posted: **Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:19 pm**

If you guys happen to find a remote control to a Sony television somewhere around the spot of this incident and it is still in working order, I'll pay a reward for it's return. Apparently I aggravated Ethel Mae by changing the channel a little too often and I remarked to myself as she threw it out the door, "Lordy, what an arm! I wouldn't be surprised if it makes it all the way to Australia."
Tex
Puduhca, Tx

Posted: **Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:24 am**

As the Official Internet Thread Killer™ this thread is now dead.

Thank you all for participating.8)

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:00 am**

Pepper's Ghost wrote:As the Official Internet Thread Killer™

That title's as good as any if you MUST have one.

The debate you address has already been opened and is whether the interminable end of this thread most closely resembles one of those fires which go on seemingly forever in a tire yard, a coal seam, or a dry peat bog.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:48 am**

everyone wants to be The Last One.

Posted: **Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:37 pm**

makc wrote:everyone wants to be The Last One.

The thread is dead. Long live the thread!

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:49 pm**

guest wrote:Perhaps I'm confused but I compared the alleged before picture to the event picture and they are the exact same picture at the exact same moment. Compare the ripples in the bottom right of each picture to the other and they are the same. The third picture is different. So I conclude this has to be a fake.

fuck you

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:34 pm**

This thread shows a sad amount of nonsens and stupidity.
It's just a bug.
That's clear. You can see this without any fictious Photoshop analyses.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:35 pm**

Photoshopper wrote:This thread shows a sad amount of ignorance, nonsens and stupidity.
It's just a bug.
That's clear. You can see this without any fictious Photoshop analyses.

Posted: **Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:36 pm**

Anonymous wrote:
Photoshopper wrote:This thread shows a sad amount of ignorance, nonsens and stupidity.
It's just a bug.
That's clear. You can see this without any fictious Photoshop analyses.

Posted: **Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:54 am**

Should the streak appear in the reflection on the water?

Posted: **Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:18 am**

mmmm-I don't know what it is, but finding rings on jupiter may mean earth may have a thin layer for a ring. The moon has the crater impacts and some of the debris may be what makes are ring.

-just a thought-

Posted: **Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:42 am**

,.

Its the sun , from behind the clouds reflecting upon the waters

Starship Asterisk*

Strange streak discussion: 2004 Dec 7 APOD

d

contrail?

Bird or Bug -- loook closer

like something such leaf

Re: Bird or Bug -- loook closer

Re: astronomy

Wasp Test

AUSTRALIAN STREAK

Coal fire

Re: guest

strange streak

A Strange Streak Imaged in Australia

what it is