Starship Asterisk*

Can't use my Bad Buoy wrote: This is DARWIN !!!

Physical attacks on Australia start in Darwin.

I was alluding to the WWII Japanese attack.

At least they repulsed the Japanese.
It took us a year to dislodge their possession of Attu.
And they dropped bombs on Dutch Harbor a couple of times.

And though we don't celebrate Pearl Harbor; the one instance of a Japanese submarine getting through the net and into Sydney Harbour,
from whence it fired on a Navy barracks barge[?] killing sailors, is
celebrated annually with fireworks.

Well, Tesla99, you seem to have impressed with your image processing skills, can you handle a couple of requests? If we go with the out-of-focus bug theory (I'm not asking you to BELIEVE this theory, only to start from that assumption and go from there), can you do some kind of clever sharpening? I ask this because my requests would only make sense in the bug scenario.

One consideration that emerges immediately is: do you believe that there is enough "coherence" (for want of a better word) in this seemingly heavily JPG-ed image to try to do some kind of deconvolution on it?

If so, in which direction could you proceed? I'm guessing that there is a general assumption that the flash fires so quickly that there is no motion component of the blurring; and that the blurring is purely due to too close a focus. Is there any reason to believe otherwise?

If we assume that the Canon has a circular iris aperture (maybe someone can confirm this directly), then perhaps you could do some kind of deconvolution from that ? Maybe working only on your diff image; it seems pointless to try to blur everything else around the pic. We know the f ratio and the focal length, so we can then trivially work out what the actual aperture is. I understand your desire for objectivity; in this case surely you can make assumptions providing you simply state what those assumptions are.

Moving on, can we go the other way? Can we take an image of one of these insects (and unless I've missed a lot of posts it seems that we don't have too many to choose from) and blur/convolve it appropriately to see if we end up with anything like the diffs that we have seen?

It seems to me that a gram of experimentation would be worth a kilo of speculation.

Finally, I have this question for you. If it's a bug, then it's small, nearby and hugely OUT of focus. If it's the contrail / shadow / meteor / lightning / alien / whatever and actually a long way away, then it's IN focus and the blurring is then mainly due to real "diffusion" effects of some sort. Again, is there any dissention there? Now, is there enough information in the images for you to determine which of the two cases it is?

One consideration that emerges immediately is: do you believe that there is enough "coherence" (for want of a better word) in this seemingly heavily JPG-ed image to try to do some kind of deconvolution on it?

There are all sorts of convolution filters you can do. I suppose what you're really looking for is a focusing deconvolution filter. There's a product called focus magic that uses this technique to try to get some detail back from out of focus pictures. I've applied it using various settings, increasing the blur width for each picture:


These were all applied to a crop of my own difference image, which I created using a difference of the middle frame and a combination of the before and after frames that had been processed with Neatimage to remove noise. Please note that noise was NOT removed from the frame being studied, only the two reference frames used as a baseline for the difference. Anyway, here is my difference image. Oh, I also blended the difference image with the original image for a clearer looking context. Before blending it with the original image, though, I ran an action to reduce the color blotches. The action I ran was Noel Carboni's DSLR Tools Color Blotch Removal action. It does a very good job of removing spurrious color noise while retaining lightness data.
http://the-light.com/Photography/strangebug.jpg

If so, in which direction could you proceed? I'm guessing that there is a general assumption that the flash fires so quickly that there is no motion component of the blurring; and that the blurring is purely due to too close a focus. Is there any reason to believe otherwise?

Nope.

P.S. I'm editing this post to keep the large picture from displaying inline. Now it should appear as a link instead. This should keep the messages from stretching wider than the screen.

Since the picture has been down for over 24 hours now and this thread continues to put on pages at a rapid clip [another 20] and with over 63,000 views in the two days since going up, the world continues an intense interest in this photo.

Although the picture is still available in APOD archives I am making the page available again here for others to reference.

And here is a repost of the picture [You can get a larger version by going to the above linked page with the picture and clicking on the picture.




Note: A similar, more obvious picture taken in U.K. by a 15 year old boy elicited
a very similar series of comments as this one has. [very bottom of this BBC page/article]

Dear All,

If the hoax/fake can be excluded, then the event resembles a
strange phenomenon which I and several colleagues worldwide are investigating for some years. I can be temporarily called "geophysical meteors". Some info can be read on my www-page http://www.geocities.com/olkhov/gr1997.htm
and at linked www-page you could see many examples of the phenomenon.

The phenomenon is so poorly investigated and known, so your investigation of the event could give important contribution in understanding of the phenomenon.

Sincerely,
Andrei Ol'khovatov, PhD
Russia, Moscow

It looks to me that the flight path (I'm calling it a flightpath because that's what I think it is) has an inflection point. I took my difference image, rotated it to the left by 33.6 degrees, then compressed the horizontal dimension to 25% to produce this image. It looks to me that the path bends first to the left and then to the right. This means it cannot be a projectile unless there is something other than gravity acting on the object.

Nice one, victorengel. If the "streak" or "flight path" is not perfectly straight, then it's also highly unlikely to be a shadow of some kind.

Lee

Take a look at the white star above the event in the high definition pictures from the flash look straight up in that horitzontal bank of blue cloud just before the sky turns pink. It's in the before and the After pictures also.
I've posted a deal at http://www.unknowncountry.com/board/ind ... nmain=main then click UFOs, Ufology & the Unexplained, and see
Proof that some Crop Circles are real. You'll need the big (high def) pictures it is not visiable otherwise. It looks like images seen above Crop circles which I suspect have not been tampered with either.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/ ... de_big.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/ ... de_big.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/ ... de_big.jpg

http://www.earthfiles.com/Images/news/M ... htsSky.jpg

http://www.earthfiles.com/Images/news/H ... LIGHTS.jpg

http://www.earthfiles.com/Images/news/C ... Lights.jpg

Doug Huffman wrote:Take a look at the white star above the event in the high definition pictures from the flash look straight up in that horitzontal bank of blue cloud just before the sky turns pink. It's in the before and the After pictures also.

That's a stuck pixel. There are others, too. For example, look in the water on this side of the wharf. Look for the intersection of these two lines:

* horizontal through the leftmost part of the water that you can see in the foreground
* 45 degrees down and to the left of the flash

It's a pink pixel. It's the same on all three images. It's just a sensor defect.

who cares. Get a life you fools.

It is clear what it is. It is an insect flyby. You need to get a life.

I think the photo was made from three different photos and put together using Adobe Photoshop . The first image could have been either the before or after photo . The second could have been shot from the same camera in the same place but at night when the light was turned on . The illuminated light from the night photo then copied and pasted onto the first image. A third photo of smoke or a cloud could then have been pasted as a third layer . The dark streak looks like the Brush Tool at about 10% opacity . This would be very easy to do using Photoshop.

While stalled in traffic yesterday in NY, I saw the same streak - caused by a jet taking off from LaGuardia - the sun was very low on the horizon as in this photo. It dissipated rapidly, certainly fast enough to only show on one frame at 15 sec. apart. Of course, if there is no airport at the origin of the streak, it will still be a mystery.

I spent a great deal of time looking at the three pictures and comparing them. The resolution is exceptional, and the perturbations from one frame to the other look more like what i would expect from film.
The two more important features that I have not seen intelligently addressed are:
1. the flash of light consists of a brighter portion down, rectangular, about 1/8" x 1/16", with major axis almost verticle, and having an arc about 1/8" around the top half.
2. down right of the flash is a shape of white light that is too complicated and too geometrical; therefore it appears artificial as in manmade. Kind of like the following, only turned almost perpendicular to the streak (odd that it isn't perpendicular and it doesn't line up.)
(___ ___)
|_|

More difficulties:
The dark streak is about 3/16" wide, and it's center does not line up with the center of the flash.
The center of the flash does not line up with the supposed light pole which is nearby.
The center line of the streak also does not line up with the geometically-shaped white light thingy.
The center line of the streak is also not perpendicular to the main line of the white light thingy.

I hope some of you appreciate my technical description of the thingy.

Guest_itsabob wrote:
Final thought: Who says there was a flash on this camera? What professional would be taking pictures of clouds with a flash!!?? That bright spot is not an insect.

The EXIF data from the digital camera images says, that's who. The flash on the camera fired. It does not mattery /why/ the photographer did it, what is important that the flash DID FIRE.

Now I remember why I do not visit here often......it's the shadow of a contrail...get over it...goodbye...

While the flash is certainly optical and comes from the pole the streak appears inclined at exactly 33.44 degrees from the horizontal, across the entire photo, with no visible distortions whatsoever... Could the photographer please inform us of the precise optics used? Could he use the same optics to photograph some target so that we can evaluate lens distortion?

Given the complete absence os distortion I would say this results from some periodic eletromagnetic signal interfering with the CCD readout circuit. The eletromagnetic signal could presumably come from the pole in the moments after the flash was generated (and dissapear later, and not be present before).

Knowing how the readout circuit works in that digicam would also help.

is it possiable it has something to do with the construction going on in that area

lighting or electical disturpense to the light ontop of the mass. and it couldnt be a reflection off some object in the water cause u would probly c it everday at the same time.

maby its just a reflection

This is the curvature of the earth, projected onto the back of the clouds by a rising or setting sun.

Rodrigo Cunha wrote:While the flash is certainly optical and comes from the pole the streak appears inclined at exactly 33.44 degrees from the horizontal, across the entire photo, with no visible distortions whatsoever... Could the photographer please inform us of the precise optics used? Could he use the same optics to photograph some target so that we can evaluate lens distortion?

Given the complete absence os distortion I would say this results from some periodic eletromagnetic signal interfering with the CCD readout circuit. The eletromagnetic signal could presumably come from the pole in the moments after the flash was generated (and dissapear later, and not be present before).

Knowing how the readout circuit works in that digicam would also help.

You can find out pretty much all you want about the camera used here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong3/

Including distortion:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong3/page17.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong3/page18.asp

Someone said they thought this jpeg was composited from separate images by way of Photoshop. That is certainly a possibility, however, there may be no need for the software.

The picture does appear to show the light on, the reflection in the water and the jet contrail shadow combination, but they appear to simply be concurrent events captured by the camera through a clever angle.

Its judgement day the stars shall fall from the sky

Ok, here goes my answer after looking at Dpreview:

It's difficult to say since the trail is blurry, but I don't see that 0,9% barrel distortion expected at wide angle (exif data says the focal lenght was 291/32, seems wide angle, considering the sensor size). I bet the effect is not optical, or else the distortion should be there.

Exif doesn't contain the ISO-sensisity/signal-gain used, the higher gain you use during readout the more sensitive to external interference it gets. Perhaps Canon could help us?

BTW, another oddity, the timestamps of the photos are:

DateTimeOriginal/DateTimeDigitized

strangeafter_pryde_big - 18:52:37.533
strangebefore_pryde_big - 18:53:53.828
strange_pryde_big - 18:52:52.834

Wasn't it supposed to be a time sequence?

Rodrigo Cunha wrote:Ok, here goes my answer after looking at Dpreview:

It's difficult to say since the trail is blurry, but I don't see that 0,9% barrel distortion expected at wide angle (exif data says the focal lenght was 291/32, seems wide angle, considering the sensor size). I bet the effect is not optical, or else the distortion should be there.

Exif doesn't contain the ISO-sensisity/signal-gain used, the higher gain you use during readout the more sensitive to external interference it gets. Perhaps Canon could help us?

BTW, another oddity, the timestamps of the photos are:

DateTimeOriginal/DateTimeDigitized

strangeafter_pryde_big - 18:52:37.533
strangebefore_pryde_big - 18:53:53.828
strange_pryde_big - 18:52:52.834

Wasn't it supposed to be a time sequence?

The time stamp issue has been addressed. The photos have been mislabled as "before" and "after" Reverse them. It's obvious because the clouds grow instead of shrink then