German cellphone UFO

About the files posted by the OP from his LG 8300:
There was a recent report from California, San Miguel Mountain in San Diego County, in the MUFON database, with a picture taken by a LG VX8350 cellphone camera. Date of sighting: January 10, 2009. There was an ATS thread about it. UFO Appears Then Disappears. Its metadata is consistent with other pictures found on on the web of the same cellphone model, much different than the ones posted by the OP. I'm surprised there is such a huge difference between a VX8300 and VX8350. Does photobucket rewrite the file and remove the EXIF? I don't have an account on photobucket, I host pictures on imageshack.us, it does not change the format in any way. I just uploaded the San Miguel JPEG to imageshack here. A byte for byte comparaison shows nothing was changed. EXIF still there. And you don't even have to register on imageshack.us to upload files.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The problem with trying to analyze any photo on the internet is that you have no idea if you have the original. I have seen a version of this photo that has a title in the upper left corner of the image. Then one on photobucket and one from MUFON. Which is the original?

The one from MUFON no doubt. The prefix "15949_submitter_file" is added by MUFON to the original filename IMG0038 (as uploaded). 15949 is the report number. The OP uploaded it to photobucket.

And the image having been through photoshop isn't itself proof of a hoax.

Yes, you're perfectly right. The only certainty is that it has been through Photoshop. And it was not saved with the normal file/save, that preserves EXIF while adding a few tags, but with file/save for web and devices, quality 30%. It makes the quality even worse than the original (quality probably near 90% as in the San Miguel picture), and removes the metadata entirely. What's the point in doing that if you have nothing to hide? It's not as if the file was too big to host in the MUFON repository. I don't think they have a maximum size for upload.

Conclusion: it's better not to use Photoshop when submitting a picture to MUFON. An untouched file gives some credibility to the picture.

reply to post by nablator


Photobucket does not erase the EXIF data, I just uploaded an image to Photobucket to test it and the EXIF data as all there.

reply to post by ArMaP

Thanks Armap for taking the time to check. Anyway, the point is moot, as the cause for the missing EXIF is clearly Photoshop. I have never used the "save for web and devices" menu before, and now that I have tried it, it does remove EXIF. I'm surprised some cell phones write no metadata at all, but that is possible too. Maybe it's an option on LG cell phones, which would explain why some do and some don't.

Originally posted by nablator
. Do you have a sample of a picture you uploaded that way, without taking out the SD card? Thanks.

Here's one downloaded from Verizon's Pix Place:



And here's one you didn't ask for:



This was taken with my Canon S3 IS and uploaded to Photobucket. When I download it back to my computer the EXIF data appears intact. I have no idea why Photobucket would strip off the APP12 tags but leave the EXIF data intact. I do thank you for noticing Photobucket is doing that. I have a premium Photobucket account that I renewed recently but when it's up I may have to give Imageshack a try.

Originally posted by nablator
reply to post by ArMaP

 

Thanks Armap for taking the time to check. Anyway, the point is moot, as the cause for the missing EXIF is clearly Photoshop. I have never used the "save for web and devices" menu before, and now that I have tried it, it does remove EXIF. I'm surprised some cell phones write no metadata at all, but that is possible too. Maybe it's an option on LG cell phones, which would explain why some do and some don't.

It may be but I rather suspect it's simply the age of the phone. My VX8300 is close to two years old and my wife and I will be replacing them next month. I rarely use the camera and otherwise they have been great phones. She now wants a QWERTY keyboard because all her kids text her more than phone her.

hey guys,
i actually took a picture of one too...
It was here in berlin last year in august or september.
I was bringing my girlfriend home when i saw it.
the pic is on my blog:
pakd-on-mystery.blogspot.com...

Please tell me what u guys think of the picture, because i would really love to find out what i took a photo of...
thx,
Pakd

Originally posted by Pakd-on-mystery

Please tell me what u guys think of the picture, because i would really love to find out what i took a photo of...
thx,
Pakd

My vote is internal lens reflection. The big one looks to be exactly the same size and shape of the streetlight below it.

reply to post by fooffstarr



I get an error when I try and follow your link.

However, I'd say you've convincingly demonstrated this to be a hoax.

thx guys now i atleast know that it was not a ufo

The picture from the original post is not making sense when I do transpositions in Corel PSPX.
The negative of the image has a tone that doesn't match anything else. The greyscale is even weird.

I did close compares on edges but they seem fine.
If it was photoshopped, it was done pretty well but the color in negative seems to indicate that the object was not original to the picture.

Originally posted by badgerprints
I did close compares on edges but they seem fine.
If it was photoshopped, it was done pretty well but the color in negative seems to indicate that the object was not original to the picture.

Here's a closeup I did a little fiddling with bright and contrast. The areas I circled look funny to me. The top one didn't translate too well when I sized it to web, but the bottom one looks like the edge to a rectangular pasted segment. Yes or no?:

reply to post by Wasco


That is the problem of using JPEG images, the compression destroys many possibilities of analysing the image correctly.

That is why, if someone sees a UFO and has a camera and the camera has that possibility, the uncompressed (or RAW) mode should be used.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Wasco

 

That is the problem of using JPEG images, the compression destroys many possibilities of analysing the image correctly.

True, and that's what the original OP said on the MUFON forum. The apparent lines were compression artifacts. He may be right but added to everything else wrong with it I think the chance of this photo being of a real ufo is next to nil.

Originally posted by Wasco
... I think the chance of this photo being of a real ufo is next to nil.

No way to be sure, but I'm very suspicious of photos processed by software.
-Processed or Original ? Saved by Photoshop.
-EXIF intact? No EXIF, removed by Photoshop.
-Quality? Terrible, 30% and the small size of the UFO make it impossible to get any more information.
There's nothing to analyze, really. As it was very probably processed to hide any telltale details in EXIF and image, (what other reason is there to use such low quality setting and removal of EXIF in Photoshop?), the credibility level is next to nil.

I've seen very few "real" UFO pictures (those that don't look like a kite/balloon/frisbee/bird/bug) taken by a "real" digital camera, (those that write EXIF and have a recognizable format) in original format and high resolution. Most of the best pictures are resized or processed in one way or another and the original is not available.

Originally posted by nablator
Yes, you're perfectly right. The only certainty is that it has been through Photoshop. And it was not saved with the normal file/save, that preserves EXIF while adding a few tags, but with file/save for web and devices, quality 30%. It makes the quality even worse than the original (quality probably near 90% as in the San Miguel picture), and removes the metadata entirely. What's the point in doing that if you have nothing to hide? It's not as if the file was too big to host in the MUFON repository. I don't think they have a maximum size for upload.

Conclusion: it's better not to use Photoshop when submitting a picture to MUFON. An untouched file gives some credibility to the picture.

It is good to know that information...however before now I would not have known that and quite possibly would of done the same thing if I had taken that photo. It is possible that the person who took the picture and uploaded it just isn't very computer savy. Maybe he thought he had to use the "save for web" option. I have seen people do some really odd things with computers when they aren't very familiar with them.

I have no photo analysis experience...I'm just raising questions that come into my head. But it sounds like this guy either really really knew what he was doing if it is a hoax...or if it is real photo then he didn't realize what using photoshop would do.

I won't lie...I would like that photo to be real...but I could clearly see how it could be a hoax. I would say the jury is still out (in my opinion), maybe more information will pop up soon.