Strange object hits wind turbine 2009.Similar object photographed 5000 miles away July 2013.

Originally posted by ladyteeny
reply to post by Phage

 

normally i regard you as a little sense in a mad world. however the object is CLEARLY behind him.

I suggest you read this post as you also don't know or understand depth of field of a lens!!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Interesting photo indeed, following a youtube link a member posted further down page1/2 .. I found this video.

Guys, just check this out. Pretty nuts, and almost matches what Phage is calling a bug.





Check out that freaky SH*!

These objects remind me of the mysterious "Dark Knight" satellite that was seen in Earths orbit in the early 60's



I say reminds me, because the U.F-Satellite was changing its geometry if my memory is correct.

To those saying its a bug, the average person would notice a bug that size, up on a canyon or cliff, and would not attempt a handstand until they "shoo'd" the bug away. Phage and co. that is ignorance at its finest in my opinion, to label something a bug without complete-thorough examination.

As well, if you are so sure its a bug, then give me research data on the bugs in that environment that have tentacles and are that big.. I bet you dont find anything

Weird picture alright, be sure to check out that first youtube video if you can.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!

Obviously YOU are not a photographer have you heard of DEPTH OF FIELD it's a property ALL camera lenses have.

Camera phones and small digital cameras have a very large depth of field which is the zone of sharp focus due to the very small sensor size and aperture of the lens.

DSLR'S have a shallower dof so you can do things like this picture below.



Camera phones have ONE aperture usually wide to let in as much light as possible f2.4 /f 2.8 so you cant control d o f

More about it D O F Explained

It's optically impossible for an object further than the tree line to be out of focus if the trees are in focus, if the object was further than the trees it would also be huge so the only position it can be out of focus is closer to the camera.

Also as it looks like a very bright day the phone would select a quick shutter speed.

Now if the full image had been up loaded we would be able to see the exif data which would give us ALL the information we need including time,date,iso rating,shutter speed,aperture and if gps is on exact location.

Lots of members here are keen photographers even semi pro or professional it's been a hobby of mine for 30+ years.

edit on 27-7-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

I completely agree, nothing worse than people with little or no photographic knowledge making up facts based on HOW THEY THINK it should work and not on actual knowledge. In fact that's the whole problem with this forum when you think about it, people who don't know about something tend to create their own theory inside their head based on their own expectations and not actual knowledge and then when what they see doesn't agree with this they declare it to be abnormal.

It's really quite simple, we know that everything between the man and the mountains is in focus because we can see it for ourselves, that much requires no technical knowledge at all. Furthermore due to the tiny sensor inside camera phones even with a fast lens if you focus on anything more than about 1.5 feet away then the depth of field is going to extend all the way to infinity so it would be impossible for the object to be anywhere behind the man and be out of focus, the only way the object could be out of focus is if it was in front of the man and more importantly less than a few feet from the camera hence it is a very small object which is very close to the camera.

The fact that the object is out of focus is proof that it is very close to the camera, the fact that people have used this to try and prove the opposite just shows how many people make up their own version of the truth based on their own expectations and not applied knowledge.

I think your psychedelic avatar says it all.

reply to post by Phage


Not a bug near the lens.. then it would be much larger. The size and the fact it's day and obviously not that close. Definitely appears to be something in the sky, but it could be anything. It could be a remote control toy for all I can tell.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Phage

 

Not a bug near the lens.. then it would be much larger. Definitely appears to be something in the sky, but it could be anything. It could be a remote control toy for all I can tell.

I suggest you read some of the posts above yours and learn something about cameras and depth of field!!!

Originally posted by fatdeeman

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!

Obviously YOU are not a photographer have you heard of DEPTH OF FIELD it's a property ALL camera lenses have.

Camera phones and small digital cameras have a very large depth of field which is the zone of sharp focus due to the very small sensor size and aperture of the lens.

DSLR'S have a shallower dof so you can do things like this picture below.



Camera phones have ONE aperture usually wide to let in as much light as possible f2.4 /f 2.8 so you cant control d o f

More about it D O F Explained

It's optically impossible for an object further than the tree line to be out of focus if the trees are in focus, if the object was further than the trees it would also be huge so the only position it can be out of focus is closer to the camera.

Also as it looks like a very bright day the phone would select a quick shutter speed.

Now if the full image had been up loaded we would be able to see the exif data which would give us ALL the information we need including time,date,iso rating,shutter speed,aperture and if gps is on exact location.

Lots of members here are keen photographers even semi pro or professional it's been a hobby of mine for 30+ years.

edit on 27-7-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

I completely agree, nothing worse than people with little or no photographic knowledge making up facts based on HOW THEY THINK it should work and not on actual knowledge. In fact that's the whole problem with this forum when you think about it, people who don't know about something tend to create their own theory inside their head based on their own expectations and not actual knowledge and then when what they see doesn't agree with this they declare it to be abnormal.

It's really quite simple, we know that everything between the man and the mountains is in focus because we can see it for ourselves, that much requires no technical knowledge at all. Furthermore due to the tiny sensor inside camera phones even with a fast lens if you focus on anything more than about 1.5 feet away then the depth of field is going to extend all the way to infinity so it would be impossible for the object to be anywhere behind the man and be out of focus, the only way the object could be out of focus is if it was in front of the man and more importantly less than a few feet from the camera hence it is a very small object which is very close to the camera.

The fact that the object is out of focus is proof that it is very close to the camera, the fact that people have used this to try and prove the opposite just shows how many people make up their own version of the truth based on their own expectations and not applied knowledge.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black,anything beyond 2 ft will be in focus that's some amazing camera,wish I had one.

For the record I use a EOS 5D Mark 3 with numerous lenses 500mm TPL and Macro lenses are my favorites,the fact it's out of focus proves nothing.A large object at distance would appear blurry as well as showing characteristics of perspective distortion and axial magnification.

People are so vehemently trying to say one way or another that it's in the foreground/background is an exercise in futility,As I said quite a few times if this is indeed in the foreground within 9 feet wings should be clearly visible,even if moving at extreme speeds you would have at minimum a blurring outline of them.

reply to post by wmd_2008


I know about the depth of field. I am telling you, in this instance it's not the case. It's at an intermediate distance at least, not close to the camera. I'm a complete skeptic, I don't believe in UFOs or any of that stuff, but I'm tlling you that's not a bug close to the lens. Consider how miniscule the the space taken up is. How far away do you think that "bug" is? Less than a few inches and it takes up a large part of the field, more and it doesn't show up. This is a wide photo with several yards in the frame. I would argue that you actually know very little about depth of field. I took classes in film making, I know enough.

reply to post by canDarian


I suggest you read up on small camera sensors then, the depth of field of camera phones is HUGE !!! think of the reason why this would be an advantage!!!

I think if we knew the camera settings we could place where the object is....

Looks weird though for a bug...but cameras play tricks.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by canDarian

 

I suggest you read up on small camera sensors then, the depth of field of camera phones is HUGE !!! think of the reason why this would be an advantage!!!

The iPhone 5's f-stop is easily manipulated to lower the DOF,I believe the i5 uses f/2.4,which brings me back again to what I posted idk 12x now lol,which is that a subject being focused on would cause an object caught either in the foreground or background to be blurry,now if this is indeed in the foreground then tell me where are it's wings?

Originally posted by Laykilla

Trees don't move. Moving objects are more difficult to focus on.

Not if they fall within the massive depth of field provided by a camera phone sensor.

Comparing the tree line vs an unobstructed moving object in the sky is not a feasible comparison.

It's a totally feasible comparison if you understand that in this photo everything from the subject to infinity would be in focus and that for something to be out of focus it would have to be between the subject and the camera. Just because you can't feasibly make that comparison doesn't mean nobody can.

If it is indeed in the sky, you have no idea the distance, it could be 5x further than the tree line, it could be 10x closer.

Absolutely no way it would be further from the tree line, there's no way it could even be further from the man in the photo.

Also, because the stationary trees are in focus, does not mean an object moving rapidly at the same distance would also be in focus. Unless the camera was highspeed, you'd have a heavy hand of motion blur to account for too.

Camera phones have larger apertures hence fast shutter speeds especially in bright conditions but even if this wasn't true the object would exhibit motion blur which it doesn't, it's simply put of focus.

It's impossible to tell if the object in this photo is in the foreground, or the background. All the people who keep trying to say definitively one way or the other are clutching at fallacy.

Ignorance.

You can indeed be correct with an incorrect argument. Every argument for or against the position of the object in question is an incorrect argument -- as there is not enough visual information to determine one way or the other.

There is not enough visual information for YOU to determine, please understand the difference.

Keep in mind, that when taking photos on a phone, you are often times limiting your field of view to that of the phones less than 8" screen. I.E. It's more likely the camera man was looking at his apple device, instead of the sky above the photo target. If this is the case, an object the size of a quarter to your eye, could look as small as a single pixel, extremely difficult to spot. Especially considering the fact that they are outside and no phone is brighter than the sun. More likely, you'd miss whatever the object is.

What's your point here? That still gives a person much more visual awareness than if they were using a conventional camera with a viewfinder.

The most important part of education -- is making sure you fully understand logical fallacy. The higher the intelligence of any given person, the less their arguments rely upon fallacy.

Ironic that you say that.

If it was CLEARLY in the foreground, why are so many people in debate that it's not?

Because so many people aren't knowledgeable enough about photography.

Originally posted by canDarian

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by canDarian

 

I suggest you read up on small camera sensors then, the depth of field of camera phones is HUGE !!! think of the reason why this would be an advantage!!!

The iPhone 5's f-stop is easily manipulated to lower the DOF,I believe the i5 uses f/2.4,which brings me back again to what I posted idk 12x now lol,which is that a subject being focused on would cause an object caught either in the foreground or background to be blurry,now if this is indeed in the foreground then tell me where are it's wings?

You're wrong, you just have to accept it.

The sensor is the important thing here, the smaller the sensor the greater the depth of field. The F/2.8 on an iphone 4s is equivalent to F/21 on a 35mm camera, there is no way in hell you will get shallow depth of field with an f/21 equivalent lens on anything further than a few feet or so from the camera. The depth of field in a photo taken of a subject just a few feet away with an iphone at f/2.4 will already stretch to infinity, that means everything from slightly in front of the subject to infinity will be in focus.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Here is the iphone spec

Aperture: 2.97
Color space: Uncalibrated
Date and time: 2010/05/07 15:14
Exposure: Auto exposure
Exposure time: 1/887
Flash: Flash did not fire, auto mode
FNumber: 2.8
Focal length: 3.85
ISO speed rating: 80
Metering mode: Spot
Sharpness: Hard
White balance: Auto

EXP DATA FROM ANOTHER PICTURE TO GET LENS DATA!!


So, the lens is a 3.85 mm f/2.8 lens.

This corresponds to 35mm film camera equivalent lens of 29.4mm f/21.4.

here is a sensor size chart



I could not find a camera with the same size sensor as the iphone but the next size up is used on the PENTAX Q

Using the on line Dof Caculator I used the iphone lens data for the slightly larger sensor .

The result!!!!

Subject distance 9 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 2.63 ft
Far limit Infinity
Total Infinite

In front of subject 6.4 ft
Behind subject Infinite

Hyperfocal distance 3.72 ft
Circle of confusion 0.005 mm

To be out of focus closer than 2.63 ft

Smaller sensors have a vast depth of field so I did the same for a full frame digital sensor using data from above ie 30mm f22

Subject distance 9 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 3.5 ft
Far limit Infinity
Total Infinite

In front of subject 5.5 ft
Behind subject Infinite

Hyperfocal distance 5.77 ft
Circle of confusion 0.023 mm

Comments!!!!

reply to post by fatdeeman


It's only clearly in the foreground if you are certain it's out of focus and not motion blur. I would contest that it's too far away to be seen if it was a bug or a wasp (even if it's in the foreground it's several feet from the lense), and to small and takes up too little of the shot to be anywhere near the lense. I would love to know how far away you guys think this 'bug' is to be that says.

That said, it's not a ufo or a tentacle monster, because those things don't exist, but it's not a bug near the lense either.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Exactly my point!

But even with a full frame camera if the mountain and trees were in focus then anything beyond them certainly would be too!

Originally posted by fatdeeman

Originally posted by canDarian

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by canDarian

 

I suggest you read up on small camera sensors then, the depth of field of camera phones is HUGE !!! think of the reason why this would be an advantage!!!

The iPhone 5's f-stop is easily manipulated to lower the DOF,I believe the i5 uses f/2.4,which brings me back again to what I posted idk 12x now lol,which is that a subject being focused on would cause an object caught either in the foreground or background to be blurry,now if this is indeed in the foreground then tell me where are it's wings?

You're wrong, you just have to accept it.

The sensor is the important thing here, the smaller the sensor the greater the depth of field. The F/2.8 on an iphone 4s is equivalent to F/21 on a 35mm camera, there is no way in hell you will get shallow depth of field with an f/21 equivalent lens on anything further than a few feet or so from the camera. The depth of field in a photo taken of a subject just a few feet away with an iphone at f/2.4 will already stretch to infinity, that means everything from slightly in front of the subject to infinity will be in focus.

edit on 27-7-2013 by fatdeeman because: (no reason given)

Taken at 3 feet iPhone 5



I'd like to add that all the while these responses keep coming in yet not one person has answered the question of where the objects wings are if this in the foreground.

Idk a flying wingless insect using personal anti-gravity might be cooler then a UFO lol.

Originally posted by canDarian

Originally posted by fatdeeman

Originally posted by canDarian

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by canDarian

 

I suggest you read up on small camera sensors then, the depth of field of camera phones is HUGE !!! think of the reason why this would be an advantage!!!

The iPhone 5's f-stop is easily manipulated to lower the DOF,I believe the i5 uses f/2.4,which brings me back again to what I posted idk 12x now lol,which is that a subject being focused on would cause an object caught either in the foreground or background to be blurry,now if this is indeed in the foreground then tell me where are it's wings?

You're wrong, you just have to accept it.

The sensor is the important thing here, the smaller the sensor the greater the depth of field. The F/2.8 on an iphone 4s is equivalent to F/21 on a 35mm camera, there is no way in hell you will get shallow depth of field with an f/21 equivalent lens on anything further than a few feet or so from the camera. The depth of field in a photo taken of a subject just a few feet away with an iphone at f/2.4 will already stretch to infinity, that means everything from slightly in front of the subject to infinity will be in focus.

edit on 27-7-2013 by fatdeeman because: (no reason given)

Taken at 3 feet iPhone 5

3 feet? Proof?

What's that fence made out of, thickest wire fence I've ever seen!

reply to post by canDarian


PROOF please that was not altered by the many iphone apps

reply to post by wmd_2008


Actually I just worked out you're being very generous, the pentax q has a 5.6 crop factor vs 7.6 for the iphone. The calculations would be more accurate by choosing 1/3" format.