Recent UFO Laser Beams Camera Effect Proved!

I can only urge other members to just try it for themselves and see what happens. The phone model I am using is a Nokia 6300. As I said, this anomaly appears in every video I took of the street lamps at some point. It's a pretty simple experiment, just find some light sources with a dark background similar to the ones I used and shoot...........voila red and white "laser beams"!!!!

Would be interesting to hear from anyone with knowledge of these cameras as to why this effect happens. Admit is is quite odd and looks pretty good. Until I managed to see it on my own phone I was pretty convinced by those videos.....as they are still of some unidentified light/s in the sky and this camera effect understandably added to the mystery. I don't think there has been ANY "hoaxing" at all....it did seem that these flashes were real and came from the lights. But now I think we can clearly see that this is not the case and go on to just investigate what the lights were in the first place.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by highlander2008]

I dont think Highlander is trying to say the lamppost is shooting lasers at him, i think he is saying that on SOME of the ufo's that show the "red laser" effect, he may have recreated the same effect with a cameraphone and a lamp post.
a lamp post with a grudge???

Originally posted by grifta
I dont think Highlander is trying to say the lamppost is shooting lasers at him, i think he is saying that on SOME of the ufo's that show the "red laser" effect, he may have recreated the same effect with a cameraphone and a lamp post.
a lamp post with a grudge???

Exactly, Thanks........pheeeeeew got there in the end!

If that's an affect of the camera, I'm the pope!

highlander - stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The game is up.

Tell us why you came in here to try and hoax us, and perhaps you won't be banned. OK ?

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
If that's an affect of the camera, I'm the pope!

highlander - stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The game is up.

Tell us why you came in here to try and hoax us, and perhaps you won't be banned. OK ?

If merely pointing out factual evidence leads to being banned then seems I joined the wrong forum to post this information. If you have a mobile phone with a camera, just go out and try it for yourself.

I came here as I have a long standing interest in UFOs, and I am fairly sure we are indeed being visited by intelligence from somewhere else. Newspaper stories claiming they are firing laser beams just adds to the ridicule of the subject. (unless of course they really are, but in this case I think not!)

[edit on 24-11-2008 by highlander2008]

reply to post by highlander2008


Sorry highlander, but you and I both know you are lying.

I don't have a mobile phone with a camera, but I do own five digital cameras, and four 35mm film cameras. Two of the digital cameras have CCDs and the rest are CMOS.

I've seen many sensor artifacts before, but never anything remotely like this, and it makes no sense as a sensor artifact. A sensor would not do that under any circumstances, let alone pointing it at a puny little light in the distance.

Come clean now - I've had enough of playing games with you, and I have much better things to do.

reply to post by C.H.U.D.


Yeah, but that is what I mean. Spikes goes in two directions from the source. Not just one way as it did on OP's clip. But then again....I am no camera expert.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
reply to post by highlander2008

 

Sorry highlander, but you and I both know you are lying.

I don't have a mobile phone with a camera, but I do own five digital cameras, and four 35mm film cameras. Two of the digital cameras have CCDs and the rest are CMOS.

I've seen many sensor artifacts before, but never anything remotely like this, and it makes no sense as a sensor artifact. A sensor would not do that under any circumstances, let alone pointing it at a puny little light in the distance.

Come clean now - I've had enough of playing games with you, and I have much better things to do.

Then street lamps must be firing lasers too. End of my contribution to this thread.

Originally posted by highlander2008
I have about five other videos all showing the same, sometimes white streaks, sometimes red appear. No idea why I am not a camera expert, but they do.

Could you upload your videos to a site that does not convert them to the useless Flash video format, like YouTube does?

A site like SaveFile or FileFactory, for example, so we can see the original files?

Thanks.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by highlander2008
I have about five other videos all showing the same, sometimes white streaks, sometimes red appear. No idea why I am not a camera expert, but they do.

Could you upload your videos to a site that does not convert them to the useless Flash video format, like YouTube does?

A site like SaveFile or FileFactory, for example, so we can see the original files?

Thanks.

Sure no problem....the original file from the phone is here

www.savefile.com...

and another

www.savefile.com...

In the second the flash appears white not red, no idea why. You can see a car pass along the street in this shot.

[edit on 24-11-2008 by highlander2008]

[edit on 24-11-2008 by highlander2008]

reply to post by highlander2008


Thanks, the more files we have the better.

Hopefully to put to rest doubts by some that I hoaxed this footage, I posted it on a digital camera forum in the hope that an "expert" could explain why it happens. For those interested the technical reason is as follows.

It is caused by the sensor saturating, the accumulated charge leaks away through the column of pixels through which the CCD is normally read. The issue can be avoided in manufacture by installing "anti blooming gates" in the chip (at the expense of making the response non linear at high light levels) or avoiding overexposure. The streak is probably red because the overexposure in this case is hitting the red filtered pixels but not the others, as a consequence of the colour balance of the lights in the image.

In a scene where almost everything visible is "point" light sources, like distant street lights or stars, overexposure of the bright points is very, very hard to avoid.


Think the last point is quite relevant to any footage of lights at night!

[edit on 26-11-2008 by highlander2008]

It isn't a artifact produced by the camera, and I intend to prove it.

The OP said he used a Nokia 6300 which has a still/video camera that uses a 2MP CMOS sensor according to here and here.

According to that last URL the camera/sensor is nothing special (hardly surprising):

Camera. This handset has 2mpx camera (CMOS) which is not that much according to today’s standards, but it is still pretty enough for a middle class model. Nokia decided not to bet on camera part, it is more of an optional feature. This is why camera’s module that was selected for 6233 is one of the cheapest, and provides average quality, if not to say bad one.

So the camera on the phone is probably used in many other likely older phones, and not just the Nokia 6300. Nokia basically threw it in there - this is certainly no "product main feature" boasting revolutionary advances in picture quality.

It has a sensor that is also nothing special. These things are made in large volume by companies like Sony, Samsung, and Canon. They use proven technology, that basically doesn't change much from sensor to sensor, but the important thing I'm trying to get at here is that sensors are all for the most part quite similar, and they have well known flaws which result in image artifacts.

The only type of artifact that comes even close to looking like what the OP posted is 'blooming', and blooming does not happen with CMOS sensors, only CCDs:

Smear
Smear occurs when a very bright portion of an image causes an entire column of pixels to overload and bloom to white. Here’s an example of vertical smear.
--snip--
Any bright point of light can potentially cause smear; common offenders include street lights and car headlights; it can also happen if the camera is shooting footage of a camera flash, or even the sun. Avoiding smear involves lowering the exposure enough that the bright lights don’t bloom and trigger a column of smearing; stopping down the iris to bring down the brightness of the bright lights can eliminate smear entirely, but also may cause the overall picture to be too dark. Smear is also one of the “dead giveaways” that your production was shot on video rather than on film; film doesn’t “smear” like this. Controlled lighting can eliminate all traces of smear, but in uncontrolled circumstances it’s going to happen. CMOS sensors function differently and are immune to smear.

Source: SENSOR ARTIFACTS AND CMOS ROLLING SHUTTER

'Smearing' or 'blooming' on a CCD sensor:


There are no other artifacts that even resemble this - remember, this is a bog standard camera we are talking about here.

Here are multiple pages listing all the artifacts that can be produced by digital cameras and lenses:
photo.net...
www.kenrockwell.com...
www.dpcorner.com...
csmt.uchicago.edu...

Also, if this was an artifact, then why are none of the other lights in the footage 'reacting' the same way? You would expect lights of the same brightness to have the same effect on the sensor, but they don't! (compare above image to the two below) Even brighter lights in the same image do not create this effect. Why do you think they call it 'CCD overload'!

The lighting being filmed is no where near bright enough from that distance to overload the sensor, and even if it was, it's not a CCD, it's a CMOS sensor, which as I pointed out above is immune to blooming.

Also, anyone that has ever seen blooming knows that it isn't a fleeting occurrence as in the OP's footage. It remains visible whilst the light source stays in the frame and remains above a certain brightness. These street lamps are obviously not changing their brightness in any way.

Here are some screen shots from the OP's second video:



There you have it folks. It can't be the sensor or the camera.

The OP is making this up and trying to hoax us.



[edit on 26-11-2008 by C.H.U.D.]

[edit on 26-11-2008 by C.H.U.D.]

Ok I give up..............UFOs are firing lasers at us and they have also installed these in street lamps in my village. That MUST be the case if it's not a camera fault !

The original files as download directly from my phone to You Tube are a available for anybody to check above.

Originally posted by highlander2008
Ok I give up..............UFOs are firing lasers at us and they have also installed these in street lamps in my village. That MUST be the case if it's not a camera fault !

Now you're talking some sense at last.

Obviously it's not a lamp firing a laser, and it can't be camera fault.

That only leaves one thing...

I repeat. It is SIMPLE for ANYBODY with a mobile phone camera to replicate what I did. For whatever reason these red/white flashes DO appear. C.H.U.D. I appreciate your research but ultimately go just try it for yourself and see, as I think that's the only way you will be convinced. Beg borrow or steal a NOKIA type camera phone, find a similar light source with a dark background as I did and film away. I think you will be surprised by the results! Please feel free to post them here and let us know how you got on......

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Obviously it's not a lamp firing a laser, and it can't be camera fault.

Why are you so sure that it can not be a camera fault?

As far as I know, it's perfectly possible that something goes wrong with the CMOS sensor in specific circumstances, the fact that it may be something that you do not know does not mean that it does not exist.

Seeing the way the CMOS sensors work, I find it perfectly possible that something (maybe not exactly an overload, but something like that, for example), affects one of the transistors that controls one of the sensor elements and that this is carried down to the other transistors on the same column.

And as highlander2008 said, it is easy to try, anyone with a Nokia 6300 can do the test, that was one of the reasons I flagged this thread, to try to have more people making the same test.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Seeing the way the CMOS sensors work, I find it perfectly possible that something (maybe not exactly an overload, but something like that, for example), affects one of the transistors that controls one of the sensor elements and that this is carried down to the other transistors on the same column.

It can't be that, if it was, you'd expect to see it in only column, which you don't. Here's an overlay of the two screen shots I posted previously:


I'll bet the 'red laser' is in another place altogether too... so it's not some random-localized fault as I said before. As a photographer, it just doesn't look like an artifact to me, and I know what I'm talking about here.

It's not a camera problem. I'm 100% sure now - ok, well 99.9999% sure.

OK - I'll tell you guys what...

I'll admit I could be wrong about this if the general consensus on the following forum is that it's possible - there are some much more knowledgeable people than me there - I just hope they see the thread: photo.net...

Someone else will have to post there, as I'm already a member, and I wish to remain anonymous.

Here's a suggestion for the post.

TITLE:
Could this be sensor overload of some kind?

BODY:
uk.youtube.com...
uk.youtube.com...

As the title says, could this be sensor overload?
The videos above were taken with a Nokia 6300 which has a CMOS sensor, which I thought was immune to 'overload', like it says here: dvxuser.com...

Perhaps it's just someone having a joke?

Thanks for any insight.

--END BODY--

I think that's fair, no?

[edit on 26-11-2008 by C.H.U.D.]

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
It can't be that, if it was, you'd expect to see it in only column, which you don't.

I see I was not clear enough on my post. What I wanted to say was that this could be something that affects any transistor and so it could happen on any column, at any position inside the column, but if it is something like the sum of leaking currents, it could appear more on the upper or lower part of the sensor, but it would spread in the direction in which the sensor is read, in this case from top to bottom.

As a photographer, it just doesn't look like an artifact to me, and I know what I'm talking about here.

As someone who studied some electronics (both analog and digital) I think I also know something about what I am saying.

Here's a suggestion for the post.

TITLE:
Could this be sensor overload of some kind?

I think you are thinking about the wrong forum and the wrong question.

If this is a sensor problem, it should be asked about on an electronics forum, not a photography forum, and asking if this is a specific thing is the best way of getting a negative answer, even if it is a sensor problem.

So, I think it should be asked on an electronics forum and the question should be just "Could this be the result of some electronics problem?"

I think that's fair, no?

No. You should not lead the people to which you ask the question in one direction, the question should be the most neutral that is possible.

If anyone has a mobile number they are prepared to give me privately I will do it again tonight and just send the file immediately via MMS. This message will be time stamped and so should the video file from my phone be. This should prove that there was no time lag for me to go home and do any hoaxing. Am happy to do that if it will finally put this to rest!!!!



[edit on 27-11-2008 by highlander2008]

[edit on 27-11-2008 by highlander2008]