UFO in Sydney Australia

reply to post by TheMalefactor


sorry but you've totally lost me! im not sure what blob you're talking about, as far as im aware there is no blob in the background !. this is my take on it, there's 4 blobs on the windscreen as pointed out by phage. one of the blobs is thicker and bigger and therefore less trancelucent then the other 3. the other 3 seem to be of a slightly different colour because they are being backlit by the streetlight which is penetrating them because i think its thin wet mud and is trancelucent. the half hex object is actually part of the tree being lit up by the streetlight as pointed out by another poster but the reflection is adding to it and making it look like more of the tree is illuminated in one of the pics but isn't in reality, it just looks that way because of the colour and trancelucency of said reflection. and once again thats just my opinion based on eveyones great work

thanks

rich

reply to post by TheMalefactor

The difference is a matter of exposure levels.

The difference also apparent in the trees around the streetlight in the middle of the frame. 0433 is less exposed than 0432 so the lower (and darker) areas are lost.



[edit on 4/3/2010 by Phage]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/010cc7a243da.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

two images (at least) with different angles of view but the bright area remains in the same location of the background. It cannot be lens flare.

You said it "could be a lens flare" here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So the thing that changes your mind is that the lens flare (or whatever you want to call it) has the same background coordinates in two pictures? I get the premise that if I rotate my camera the lens flare will change because the light will bang along the barrel at different angles. What happens if I shift my camera in one axis? Then it would make sense if it would stay in the same place relative to the lens since it would hit the same curved spots more or less

Also since you feel there are two different angle of view (you're talking about 0432 and 0433?) I'd appreciate if you could help me out with the question I asked earlier,

copy-pasted below

vvvvvv

2) By layering the two images, it seems that the two images used do not have the same vertical alignment.

So we can say she either shifted the camera down in the y or rotated it down and into the y and depth axis, right?

In 0433, the camera has rotated counterclockwise relative to 0432. This rotation would skew the positional data.

This tell us she shifted the camera left in the x or rotated left and into the depth axis right? The way I'm feeling you, you wager it was rotated in the depth?

If it rotated in to the depth couldn't we check the scale of the blob? If it was supposed to be on the windshield wouldn't the leading edge get disproportionately bigger than the bottom edge on the blob, since the windshield goes inwards more towards the top and due to change in perspective?

I just did a test putting a sticky note on a window (per CHRLZ :up, rotated the camera down & in, and like I tried to describe before, the sticky close to the window went up and everything else far in the distance went down.

When I just moved left and right, up and down, without rotation in the depth axis, everything more or less moved in the same direction, but scaled depending on how far or close it was to my camera.

3) The two images also have differing aim points. 0433 is aimed lower and to the left relative to 0432. This would also cause a difference in movement because the right (and upper) side of the frame would to be closer to the windscreen which would cause objects in that are to translate more.

Wouldn't it be the bottom left that would be closest to the windscreen if the camera moved in the depth and to the left? If I go down in to the depth on the left that would cause the right side to go outwards making things on that side smaller and causing them to appear to move _less_, correct?
^^^^^^

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

The difference is a matter of exposure levels.

The difference also apparent in the trees around the streetlight in the middle of the frame. 0433 is less exposed than 0432 so the lower (and darker) areas are lost.

So you're saying the fstop or the shutter changed? Think I saw someone posted all the EXIF data in the thread, what'd that say?

Found it...

vvvvvvvvvvvv

Image #1
Exposure Mode Auto
Exposure Program Program AE
F Number 2.8

Image #2
Exposure Mode Auto
Exposure Program Program AE
F Number 2.8

Image #3
Exposure Mode Auto
Exposure Program Program AE
F Number 2.8

Image #4
Exposure Mode Auto
Exposure Program Program AE
F Number 2.8

www.abovetopsecret.com...
^^^^^^^^^

Not sure how the "auto" stuff works but I assume they'd basically all be the same. Which makes it hard for me to accept the exposure argument.

OK also looking at the information from the file properties summary panel it says:

0432
------
f-number: 2.8
metering mode: average
exposure program: normal

0433
-----
f-number: 2.8
metering mode: average
exposure program: normal



edit: found the exif data (courtesy internos)
edit: adding data found from raw images.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]

reply to post by TheMalefactor

There is no shutter in an iPhone.

Yes. The exposure is different. As I said you can see it in the tree behind the streetlight in the middle of the frame. You can also see that the sunset itself is more overexposed in 0432.

reply to post by Phage


Love what you did with your hair Phage..lol.. just kidding, had to throw that in there. yes..there is no shutter on a Iphone, i does make the ckicking sound but that is just a built in effect..
my 02.c

reply to post by TheMalefactor


hi themalefactor, out of curiosity can i just ask what your stance/thoughts/conclusions are on this case?. im just wondering if you're questioning the findings because you think this may be a real sighting ?or is it just out of a technical curiosity ?

thanks

rich

Originally posted by Phage
I think I've identified three more blobs
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eff4dd91f9e6.png[/atsimg]

Phage.....

That's really good work

I'd been trying to find correlating "dots".....but you saw it where I couldn't.

If I forward a report about this case to local experts, I'll include your comparative pictures.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
Not sure how the "auto" stuff works but I assume they'd basically all be the same. Which makes it hard for me to accept the exposure argument.

Accept it..

The iphone doesn't have a shutter, but then most consumer grade (ie non-dslr) cameras do not have a shutter either. A few exceptions, but not many. Which begs the question why/how do all those other cameras manage to give a shutter speed in their exif?

Well, it's sort of like this (warning to purists - simplified 'explanation' ahead...)

All these 'shutterless' cameras work on the basis that when the sensors (pixels) get (on average) enough light for a good exposure, the camera reads them out and 'empties' them for the next frame. So, for a dim scene, that will happen slowly, say every 1/20 of second, but for a bright daylit scene, it might be 1/1000 of a second or faster. That's the auto-exposure happening.

(Usually a camera will also have an adjustable aperture (iris opening) that can be varied as well, but the iphone doesn't have that - it's fixed at f2.8 and it only varies the readout speed)

So while all those cameras don't have a shutter in the strictest sense, they all have auto-exposure that varies that readout speed. Normally they report it in the exif as a shutter speed.

Right, but then WHY doesn't the iphone report its 'speed'??

Simply because for some reason, Apple didn't want to implement that function - maybe it would have cost them an extra 2c per phone, maybe the cheap camera module they bought didn't do it properly, who knows...

If it helps, I'll take a wild guess that these were exposed at approximately 1/50 to 1/125 of a second, simply based on the look of the scene and the fact that they don't show much blurring of the background.. If they were down around 1/40 or less, I'd expect most of them to show camera shake effects.

And yes, the exposure for every image will be different according to the camera's averaging of the scene. They usually 'centre-weight', that is, the centre of the image will get precedence in the decision on how much to expose.

reply to post by CHRLZ


YES

the first photo was exposed because the camera created its own digital shutter speed with a nice 2.8 aperture.
2.8 allows more light it which means the iphone has a good deal of "digital shutterspeeds" available.

The second photo "averaged" or created it's own shutterspeed while being focused AWAY from light making the averaged exposure seem darker. Why, because it's now averaged the bright spot of the clouds compared to the sunset.

the phone doesn't give you enough for the likes of ATS readers.
-------

as far as the dirt blobs.. don't see it. That's extremely reaching.
-----
Third thing for me is the lens in an iphone is more fisheye than telescopic so objects can be closer than they appear.. or more side objects can creep in and screw perspective up.

---
---

The exif proves that I or no one else can prove this on exposure. The images are completely consistent with my photographer mind in the digital realm though.

b

files.abovetopsecret.com...
For some reason the glare, looks like a reflection in the bottom right corner just a little past her location. As if she was sitting in her car and a vehicle drove by, just before she took the photo. It really looks like a reflection of a vehicle to me. I maybe just seeing things, but that's what it looks like to me. So in my OPINION she was in her vehicle, when this photo was taken. As for smudge, bug, bird poo, or object in the sky, I really don't have evidence to prove any of them.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
These photos look more interesting to me...

www.top10ufo.com...

ufocasebook.com...

Nice pics of insects flying around ...

reply to post by TwoPhish


You've been had. Happens to the best of us. Sorry ...

reply to post by AllIsOne


AllIsOne.....

To save you having to wade through this whole thing, there is a summary report based on my meeting with the witness at the viewing site on P55:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Looks like dirt either on the window or on the lens

Well too me it looks like a blurred American football being thrown. I am sick of these blurry shots. I want the a real closeup of one ......


Is that too much to ask?

Update 29.4.10

Bill Chalker just wrote to me.

This case will be covered in his article in the new edition of "Ufologist Magazine"

Bill concluded the case is.....

"in the probably explainable category, but with some unresolved aspects, subject to further enquiry."

I intend to meet with Bill & discuss this with him again during the next 2-3 weeks, pending our mutual availability.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 29-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Bill concluded the case is.....

"in the probably explainable category, but with some unresolved aspects, subject to further enquiry."

It appears Bill is exercising some caution on this one, having not drawn any firm conclusion. What are the unresolved aspects?

Are these 'aspects' critical in determining fact from fiction? i.e based on the photographic evidence or is it a matter of the testimony not fitting the timeline and/or the subsequent investigation by MMN?

Personally, I'd like to stick my neck out and say case closed!

IRM