Photo-Surprise

Hi Guys.

(warning... yet another big camera post so... read if you want since its a technical post, just dont complain that i didnt tell you)

Something for you to consider...remember what we are looking at is a lens point of view for 1/400th of a second and being a lens it can only 'see' a particular depth and width.. and what we really want to do is to keep some science within a fairly nebulous and impassioned topic.

Cool?

Now, this is how you can understand what the camera can 'See'.

First the camera.

The dmc-fz30 is technically a Ultra Zoom Compact bridge camera. Not quite an SLR but as close as you are gonna get without the 'L' lens bug.
Its Specs are as follows.

Specifications / Features:
8 Megapixel CCD sensor
Leica 12x Optical zoom lens with Mega Optical Image Stabilisation (Whoot... thats a nice lens by the way)
(19x optical zoom available in 3 megapixel mode)
Roughly 2cm Macro mode (away from front of lens)
RAW mode, Manual controls

There is more info that you can imagine on it available here DPReview - FZ30

Now the actual Image data.

ISO: 80
F-Stop: 6.3
Focal: 7.4mm
Speed: 1/400
Metering: Pattern.
Digital Zoom is off as is WB Comp.

Now... the interesting bit.

The real questions here are what exactly are we looking at, how far away is it and why is it not in focus.

Firstly.
Consider what IS in focus on the image and if you want to go as far as to calculate the DOF scale of the image in question go ahead.


Answers easy... everything is in focus bar the object in question and the camera is using AF center focusing .

Here is our actual focal info from that model of camera:

For a Subject distance 5 ft in front of the camera at Ap6.3, Fl7.4mm, Sv 1/400

Near limit 2.43 ft
Far limit Infinity
Total Infinite

For a Subject distance 50 ft in front of the camera at Ap6.3, Fl7.4mm, Sv 1/400.

Near limit 4.31 ft
Far limit Infinity
Total Infinite

For a subject distance 100 feet in front of the camera at Ap6.3, Fl7.4mm, Sv 1/400.

Depth of field
Near limit 4.5 ft
Far limit Infinity
Total Infinite

For a subject distance 200 feet in front of the camera at Ap6.3, Fl7.4mm, Sv 1/400.

Near limit 4.61 ft
Far limit Infinity
Total Infinite

For a subject distance 10,000 feet in front of the camera at Ap6.3, Fl7.4mm, Sv 1/400!!

Near limit 4.71 ft
Far limit Infinity
Total Infinite


Note that in all cases the FAR focal limit of this camera at these settings is infinite, so for it to be out of focus it has to be closer that that limit...
Also in these cases the camera is supposed to be a 35mm equiv but its still a digital so the image FOV (with an Focal length multiplier of 1.6, if I've got that right for macro modes) at these settings are as follows...

Vertical FOV: 90.8 degrees
Horizontal FOV: 113.3 degrees


(Note: for a 1x crop they would be larger. 116.7x135.3 respectively but I cannot find solid info on its crop factor in macro modes so I'm going with 1.6x multiplier).

(Edit for the typos and generally bad grammar.)
(Continued)

[edit on 8-3-2008 by Absence of Self]

Now..

Is it a bird?

Well, if it is it needs to be closer to the camera than at least 4.7 feet to be out of focus (or moving at a high angular velocity be able to escape the 1/400th of a second shutter, i.e. since that shutter can ALMOST 'freeze' the props of a aeroplane...Aero Photography )..

HaHa! you say... bit big for a bird at less than 5 feet.

Well...

So...here we will say it IS a bird and its closer than 4.7 feet, e.g. right on the limit at 4.6 feet.
The area covered by that lens (given its flocal length and crop factor) at a distance of 4.6 feet (1.4 meters) is more or less is 4.25 meters by 2.83 meters.

The image is 3264 pixels wide (4.25 meters) by 2448 pixels wide. (2.83 meters)

Thus...
At a distance of 4.6 feet the object is 75 pixels (9.7 cm) wide by 25 pixels (3.14 cm) high: a small bird that she didnt notice (unlikley in my opinion really, ironically its too large).

At a distance of 1 foot the object is only 1.4cm wide which fits an insect that she probably wouldnt have noticed..

Cool..
Bird or bug are both legitimate ideas and allowable given the mathematics, it all depends on how oblivious you think the shooter was being when the frame was grabbed.



P.s.
There is another possibility here that would explain it..

It is actually an object far away and easily within the cameras focal field. (behind the clock tower) but its simply soft focused since the air haze is reducing its apparent defination.

I'll leave that one up to you.

Originally posted by internos
Do you have some more pictures of the same object taken from different angles?
If yes, then you're right, if not, then you're wrong, "Dude"

.


[edit on 8/3/2008 by internos]

Fairly auspicious reasoning there buddy... Here's a few images that coincide with what Europa said about the odd shadow, and I've also detailed out the light source, the relative positioning of the object using the angles given in the image:
Shadow:


Light sources and perspective enhanced:

The shadow is there without a doubt..
Though at the moment I am finding it more interesting to ask as to why the artifact in question only really exists within the photos blue channel with more or less nothing in the red and green..

Blue:


Red:


Green:



(Edit for photobucket being a cretin for the third time...)


[edit on 8-3-2008 by Absence of Self]

reply to post by Absence of Self


My guess would be because that it's highly reflective, which would explain why where we able to pull up a dark edge in the green & red from the bottom right (coinciding with the angle of the ground).

I'll play with the color channels more myself that's an intriguing find.

Quick update: It does seem to exist mainly in the Red & Blue channels, in CYMK it is only present in Cyan & Magenta.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by Shakesbeer]

[edit on 8-3-2008 by Shakesbeer]

Originally posted by azzllin
Same old explanation, same ole people in the same ole debunk order hmmm me see's a pattern emerging.

If i would have been a "debunker", then a classic answer would have been:
Did you forget "same old desperate need to believe", pheraps?
Listen, i don't want to try to convince anyone because first, it would be a waste of time, second, because it would be against my principles: and i RESPECT your opinion.
Here we have a shot in which appears something that hasn't been noticed during the shot: this happens when what you see didn't catch your attention, hence is natural part of the environment, to which the eye is somehow used to Unless we would introduce "aliens cloaking devices" or something like that in this discussion.
Besides, the presence of the birds near the clock proves that the area is a
natural environment for the birds:
its shape IS compatible with the one of a bird, in the same area does there are many other birds (thanks goosdawg ), it got unnoticed at the moment of the shot:
does it make more sense to guess that it's a bird or that it's something else?
I call "possible explanation" what someone else calls "debunking":
i'm just sharing my opinion and as i don't accept to see my opinion called a "debunking attempt", so i'm ready to accept peacefully every better explanation that could be provided:
since i'm human, i make mistakes, MANY ones, but i'm always ready to change my mind in front of a convincing explanation: just idiots never change their minds.
Many times i've counted cases to be genuine UFOs, so if you are addressing to me the term debunker, well that's misplaced to say the least, because i do BELIEVE in life beyond Earth.
Pheraps this one is the same old explanation because it's most likely the same old bird and because the birds populate our skies much more than alien spacecrafts, but pheraps i'm wrong and that's a smart reticulians spacecraft camouflated as an ordinary bird: everything is possible .
Ah: i don't know who talked about slow shutter speed: of course i've been not, first, because EXIF data is the first thing i check in these cases, second, because it would not make much sense: i would expect a much more amorphic/elongated shape in case of long exposure shot.
I don't understand the calculation that have been made about the exposure time: a correct exposure time is NOT an absolute value: there are several parameters to keep in mind, parameters that have NOT been mentioned, so far, unless i'm missing something here: (ah, just now i've noticed that Absence of Self (KUDOS, btw) ) has pointed out this facet i'm too slow, when i write in english.
Look at my first message: i say "In my opinion, it may be a bird", not "another moron trying to pass a bird for an alien spacecraft". Please, catch the difference: that's MY opinion, is not a "cover-up-truth" that i want to impose to you. I'm just a member, like you.
And in my opinion, this is a bird.


I like to discuss this matter peacefully: IF a discussion becomes a battlefield between "skeptiks" and "believers" then that's not for me because at that point i'd stop to enjoy it.


[edit on 8/3/2008 by internos]

reply to post by Absence of Self

The shadow is there without a doubt..
Though at the moment I am finding it more interesting to ask as to why the artifact in question only really exists within the photos blue channel with more or less nothing in the red and green..

I think the shadow is more important thsn the Holographic distorted projection, Area 51 is working on newer technologies for Stealth, The latest is using invisibility by projecting the sky background on the opposing sides with a bluish backgtound a Triangle TR3B? would look like a faint shadow and a holographic distorsion using lasers would primarily be in one band.

Why just hide when you can both hide and obfuscate?

When they switch imvisibility on it likely turns off the running lights
on its edges, at least I would.





[edit on 8-3-2008 by Eagle1229]

reply to post by Shakesbeer


well, either that or its something with low reflectance and a high specularity e.g silver, polished aluminium etc.

So one can assume the artifact is being illuminated by the sun and that would result in an exposure to all wavelengths.
The artifact would then in turn reflect and scatter the light which it did not absorb, some of which would hit the camera's sensor and result in a given image depending on the spectral response of the sensor.

The question being why is it only 'emitting - reflecting' blue light (with a little green)?

Well..
A possible explanation would be that if you considered the object to be of a neutral grey. (kind of like a photographers card ) and you are looking at it though what is effectively a blue filter (the atmosphere) resulting in an object that exists only in the blue...
I.e. It is differentiated from its background only through its luminance scale.


Additional things people may well want to note.

If you look carefully at the document pdf properties and not its exif you'll see the image was captured using 'ACD systems digital imaging'.
As in: ArcSoft PhotoImpression ArcSoft, a reasonable editor that this camera model is not supplied with.

This model of camera is normally supplied with the following.

ArcSoft software suite
Lumix Simple Viewer
PHOTOfunSTUDIO

(Now, whatever impression people get from that bit, it is important that you consider them to be informative only.
I am not saying that the image is fake since no one in their right mind uses stock software for working with digital unless they really dont know any better)

Also interesting to note is the additional artifacts present within the image along discrete color channels.

Anomaly within the blue channel only:


And another within the green channel only:

Remember this one? The OP's photo is very similar, in my opinion. It, too was touted as being "metallic-looking"




and...

reply to post by Absence of Self
That bright spot could simply be the bird's white head. There are many, many birds that have dark bodies and white heads.

The light colored streak on the green channel is simply sun glare (you can see it clearly on the original photo also)

The "dot" on the blue channel is simply a dot -- it could be anything from an airplane, to another bird, to an artifact on the camera sensor, or...anything.

[edit on 3/8/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Shakesbeer


Here's some more images I was able to pull up focusing on the color channels. Absence of Self had a good break down of the RGB so I start with CYMK to see if it coincided with his findings of being in the blue. Below is the break down with the channels turned on and off:

Cyan:


Magenta:


Yellow & Black together brought out absolutely nothing:



Because it seemed to be prevalent in the cyan & magenta spectrums, I figured it might help to try to filter out the atmospheric blueing as much as I could and bump up the violet a tad to maybe bring out the object's color and a bit more detail. If it is reflective this might help to reduce that effect as well. Below are the results of this filtering attempt by changing the base color values (R,G,B) to slightly darker more neutral values and enhancing each channel for clarity and definition, then balancing them with a slight lean towards the violet. Which is why it almost looks like the image was taken at a later time of day:

Found something that looks a bit similar to OP's picture.

Here is from the original:



Here is the pic i think look a bit similar:




But to what they are.... My guess is as good as any, a bug, or a real object further away blurred by speed.



[edit on 8-3-2008 by Balez]

reply to post by Absence of Self


Those other two artifacts at first glance to me while looking over the original in C & Y: I think the streak might be part of the lens flare if you trace it's angle, and the dot...if I had to throw a dart right now, planet.

Originally posted by samureyed
For everyone saying that is a bird taken at slow shutter speed obviously doesnt realize that 1/400 of a second shutter speed is not a slow shutter speed. Take a picture of yourself flailing your arms as fast as you can at 1/400 of a second and see how much you blur. I vote not a bird, but possible insect close to camera.

I agree it doesn't look like a bird at all. If it was a bird it would be close by at that size, and thus have more way more contrast and darker shadowing. This object is faded which would seem to indicate its far away. As things are farther get more faded by light scattering in the air, as shown by the bluish mountainous region of the image. Also a bird wouldn't have a shiny highlight on its head like that, unless its head was reflective or made out of metal. It could however just be a glitch in the matrix.

Yup.
I'll agree about the green band error.

It is in all likelihood a flare being refracted by the lens glass.
If you check carefully there is an opposing streak (though much fainter) on the opposing side of the main flare.

If I was being honest I would have attributed the blue channel block to be a hot pixel but since its a jpg and not a raw image I have no definitive evidence.

Overall my previous posts include everything I can deduce from the image.
The physical characteristics of the camera allow for a small bird, bug or something.
The characteristics of the image are 'odd' with respect to its color response since as far as i know birds and bugs have a tendency to exist in all visible spectra of the e-mag spectrum not just its primarially blue component.
And finally birds and bugs dont naturally have a tendency to produce odd shadows within the same spectra.

So really far as i can see there are 3 possibilities without going for the really good fake angle.
This would be in terms of probability starting from Bird going to Bug and then Something,

However as far as i can honestly claim a probable or possible bird is not a 'definite' bird and a probable, possible insect is not a 'definite' insect but then neither of those define 'something unknown'.

To put it bluntly, I honestly cannot say. There is good evidence both for and against depending on the accuracy of the snappers recollection.
Bit of a bummer, yeah i know, but thats what we have.
Its an interesting picture and something to keep in mind.
Its just a pity that its not one of a sequence.

I know absolutely nothing about photography, so I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to what it could be. My comment is more to the hard work going into tearing apart this photo - you guys are amazing and so informative. I'm sure I speak for most of us who aren't "in the know" when it comes to photography, when I say thank you very much for your work and opinions.

I don't know what it is, but, am I the only one whom, thinks the object in question appears to be several hundred feet beyond the church? If it's a bird, it's huge, a Pterodactyl perhaps? with a tin foil hat for reflection. Seriously, I doubt it's a bird, and as for the photographer not noticing it, perhaps he/she did, the object is nearly as close to the center of the picture as the clock tower is.

Originally posted by azzllin
Same old explanation, same ole people in the same ole debunk order hmmm me see's a pattern emerging.

Agreed, and you're not the only one who sees a pattern (and I'm not referring to Internos who's work on this forum I really admire)

But you're right, same ole people in the same ole debunk order, with the same 'authoritative' explanations brimming with 'maybes' 'could bes' 'might bes' 'looks likes' 'reminds me offs' 'seems'... and every other qualification that can be summed up by the words 'I don't really know'

Of course, in a few months, when someone joins the forum and accidently posts the same pics, they will get a few replies referencing this thread and explaining how it was debunked at ATS as a bird ages ago. Eventually the explanation will become 'fact' in most people's minds.... and thus we all do our little bit to help perpetuate the secrecy and the coverup, all without those who want to cover it all up having to do a thing. My, my, how well trained we are.

To quote you 'hmmm me see's a pattern emerging.' ... lol

hmm... apologies for drifting slightly off topic.

Good thread OP... Interesting pics and thanks for sharing them. As to what it is, I couldn't begin to guess.

Originally posted by internos
Thanks for sharing this one, and for presenting it in such a well documented way

.
In my opinion, it may be a bird, the can put on very odd shapes, while nose diving;

pheraps, he's a friend of this one:

This is just a speculation: of course, i could be wrong. Just my two cents.

A bird reflecting the light?

reply to post by saturnsrings


That's what I thought from the beginning, but as it has been discussed here, if one person who people believe is an "authority" states an opinion coupled with a crude drawing/pic of a distorted bird that holds much less technical "water" then all the evidence presented otherwise....hmmm.

Trust yourself, we all know little green men could have came walking out of that craft during the photo in perfect color & clarity and someone would still say "Oh that's just a bird!" and the Air Force would say "Oh it's just flares".

reply to post by Jabbah

Highly dubious. From where would said reflection be coming from?

[edit on 8-3-2008 by Shakesbeer]

Originally posted by Shakesbeer
reply to post by saturnsrings

 

That's what I thought from the beginning, but as it has been discussed here, if one person who people believe is an "authority" states an opinion coupled with a crude drawing/pic of a distorted bird that holds much less technical "water" then all the evidence presented otherwise....hmmm.

As you claimed to know what's the distance of an object from the camera basing your construction on a photo, as only an IGNORANT can do, so you claim to know what the people think, as only an ARROGANT can do. If your purpose is to make me waste my time, well you are WRONG. I know to be appreciated by ATSers, no matter if a troll every now and then tries to express his own envy with such a garbage like your last post. We are open-minded and we know that not all the people are SANE.

[edit on 8/3/2008 by internos]