Any Clue What this is?

[etoven]

I seem to have somewhat of a mystry on my hands. When I captured some video I took with my cam corder I made a startling discovery....

I submit these images to TC for analysis and review...

[A Black Falcon]

UFOs! Oooooo...

[EdenMaster]

Headlights :D

[Dark Jaguar]

Orbs!

Glare, from what I've read of photo analysis, that's just lense glare. With... crackling lightning around it...

Zooming in gives no extra detail by the way. Those are pixels, and thus any interpretation is irrelevant because all manner of detail can be hidden there, as well as the fact that all manner of detail could be ADDED by their presence.

So, if that thing to the right is in fact a tree, and this was taken at night, I might assume those are two street lights causing glare on the lense of the camera.

[geoboy]

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning">Ball lightning!</a>

[Great Rumbler]

Bigfoot!

[lazyfatbum]

Two motorcycles having a race and the loser has to paint the winner's house.

Were you looking at the sky or at the horizon? Were they moving or stationary? Alot of digital camcorders when in digital zoom mode have a really hard time keeping any detail with light objects against dark backgrounds. Alot of UFO's captured on digital camcorders are actually seeing light reflecting off the lens aperture, so it looks like a multicolored diamond that gets brighter as you zoom in.

Try taking the original footage and first, put your contrast lower than 50%, adjust gamma all the way up as to put the dynamic range of contrast in the upper whites and then increase brightness. If you still see nothing, put gamma in the lowest setting in the blacks with max brightness and you might see something. Anything that's not video black should pop up, even if it's a lamp post against a night sky, even though it appears black it's actually a shade of gray that the camera recorded, true black (video black) cannot be recorded with a camera, so there's always something there.

[etoven]

Orbs!

Glare, from what I've read of photo analysis, that's just lense glare. With... crackling lightning around it...

Zooming in gives no extra detail by the way. Those are pixels, and thus any interpretation is irrelevant because all manner of detail can be hidden there, as well as the fact that all manner of detail could be ADDED by their presence.

So, if that thing to the right is in fact a tree, and this was taken at night, I might assume those are two street lights causing glare on the lense of the camera.

In the woods!!! Street Lights in my woods???? Try Again

[etoven]

Two motorcycles having a race and the loser has to paint the winner's house.

Were you looking at the sky or at the horizon? Were they moving or stationary? Alot of digital camcorders when in digital zoom mode have a really hard time keeping any detail with light objects against dark backgrounds. Alot of UFO's captured on digital camcorders are actually seeing light reflecting off the lens aperture, so it looks like a multicolored diamond that gets brighter as you zoom in.

Try taking the original footage and first, put your contrast lower than 50%, adjust gamma all the way up as to put the dynamic range of contrast in the upper whites and then increase brightness. If you still see nothing, put gamma in the lowest setting in the blacks with max brightness and you might see something. Anything that's not video black should pop up, even if it's a lamp post against a night sky, even though it appears black it's actually a shade of gray that the camera recorded, true black (video black) cannot be recorded with a camera, so there's always something there.

The scene in question was taken with a stationary tripod looking near ground level aka not the horzon. As for light reflecting in the back of my apture I have another picture which (I will post as soon as I convert the file) that has virtualy hundreds of these lights in the scene.

[etoven]

Here is the origanal frame. You may notice plenty of this unknown lights hovering around my tripod light on the ground.

The difference cloud shown in the photo shows all the white spots as dark areas in the image.

[Dark Jaguar]

What's with all these photoshopped versions of the original image? That doesn't really help :D.

Well, THAT looks like a bunch of bugs flying around a light roughly a foot away from the camera.

If that's the case, then we have the most probable source for the two balls of light in the upper left. Most likely, odd but not unheard of lense flare from the light the bugs are surrounding.

This assumes a lot, but it's more plausible than glowing bigfoot or even ball lightning.

However, the most probable explanation is that shiggy is back there trying to steal game ideas from my head again.

[lazyfatbum]

Well, I'd have to know what lens you were using and what your f-stop was. If you were on auto, i'd say the cam was trying to compensate for lack of light and trying to pull in any light it can causing your cam light to go nuclear as well as those two lights in the distance.

Interesting though that the two lights in the distance are blue, as blue on the light scale tells us that they're extremely hot. But polarized or 'blue' lights can also be found on trucks, jeeps and some newer cars.

I'm also willing to bet that if we could magically turn the resolution of the picture up we would see that the two clusters of lights are headlights from a nearby road.

[Dark Jaguar]

Blue on the light scale is a high wave length, so something has to be hot in order to release blue light, relative to red light.

However, it doesn't need to be hot to reflect blue light. The sun is hot enough that it releases a lot of blue light, as well as red and green, and everything below that, and a few above blue as well. But, blue paint doesn't do anything except absorb the two other colors our eyes can detect; green and red.

The other option is filtration instead of reflection. Hence, why a lot of lights can look blue even if they release the whole spectrum from blue down. LEDs are nice, they don't produce very much heat at all. Remember, blue light is high energy, but that doesn't need to be heat. In the case of an LED, it's electrical. The heat there just comes from the resistance in the circuit. Certain underwater fish have a very efficient system. They can produce light of many visible wavelengths with another energy source, chemical. There is no detectable heat from this reaction. It's chemical to light.

That's all I know about this though.

And yeah, it's hard to really nail down what's causing that image without more info, but I'm going with more probable stuff. What lazy said is most probable because he's actually been trained in photography.

[etoven]

Well, I'd have to know what lens you were using and what your f-stop was. If you were on auto, i'd say the cam was trying to compensate for lack of light and trying to pull in any light it can causing your cam light to go nuclear as well as those two lights in the distance.

Interesting though that the two lights in the distance are blue, as blue on the light scale tells us that they're extremely hot. But polarized or 'blue' lights can also be found on trucks, jeeps and some newer cars.

I'm also willing to bet that if we could magically turn the resolution of the picture up we would see that the two clusters of lights are headlights from a nearby road.

Except there were not any near by roads in view of the camera lens. The scene was taken in a wooded area.

[Dark Jaguar]

I give up, what is it?

[etoven]

I give up, what is it?

? Dont really know, however I was reciently able to partially account for some of the lights. The lights at the bottom hovering around my tripod light are a genuion mystery. However, the lights at the top of the screen are man made.

[Dark Jaguar]

Here's something. The location of the lense flare on the image does not always betray the location of the light source that gave rise to it.

It could very well be above or below your shot. What do you think lazy?

[geoboy]

Except there were not any near by roads in view of the camera lens. The scene was taken in a wooded area.

This leads me to believe it is some sort of radioactive squirrel.

[Dark Jaguar]

It may have been wooded, but that does not rule out lense glare from a bright light source. Did the camera have a flash? A possibility to examine before we start thinking paranormal is just reflection. You'd be surprised how well some things in nature can reflect light. Was there a lake or some body of water in the distance by any chance?

Tell us exactly what was there before you took the picture, what you THOUGHT you were taking a picture of. Was it just trees and nothing else, or was there something else in the scene?

[Great Rumbler]

I still think it's Bigfoot.

...

...

Bigfoot's CAR!!

[Dark Jaguar]

Just remember, the final possibility to examine before going to paranormal explanations is accusing you of lying :D.

Anyway, THE FOLLOWING IMAGE IS NOT ANIMATED!

[Darunia]

Wow, that's cool, it fucks with your eyes... I love weird things like that.

[A Black Falcon]

It sure looks animated...

[Dark Jaguar]

Yes, but in this case there is enough evidence to show that what it appears to be is wrong.

First of all, it's a PNG file. Not just a gif with a false extension (which IE can apparently see through), but a true PNG file. I checked it out in an image editor, just one frame, and that single frame still looks all weird like that.

Second of all, try focusing on single parts of the image. You will see that it stands still and the areas just outside your focus appear to "wave". This happens on such a consistant basis the only conclusions are that either the computer can tell where you are looking at any time, or the image is not truly animated and it must be an optical illusion.

Since the first option is pretty much "out", it's an illusion.

Now that we've established that, how does it work?

Well, basically, your brain is programmed to recognize images (duh), but that programming is not without glitches. From what I've seen, most of these glitches seem to be just direct almost unavoidable consequences of our methods of recognizing things. Look at the patterns. Diagonal rows of red flowers and diagonal rows of white flowers, right? Red white red white, oh wait, not exactly. Red white white red white red red white red white white red white red red. This pattern messes with established patterns your brain has. So, when you focus on any one part, you can see the detail is standing still, but since some parts seem "bigger" in somewhat odd ways outside your focus, and your brain has already established, in a glitchy manner, that the pattern is "red white red white", well it seems to be assuming that the "bigger" areas must be closer, so it's put together in your mind as "closer", yet at the same time your brain also realizes the rows are the same size as the rest, so it puts it "farther". So, the image ripples like a sheet in the breeze in your mind, so long as you've seen sheets blowing in the wind before... Not sure if someone who has never experienced that would see the same thing...

Anyway, that's the explanation that seems to make the most sense, but there are at least two people here who have taken psychology, so they would certainly have been taught about optical illusions, being that that's one of the bodies of knowledge in that field that seems to have the strongest evidence base...

[Great Rumbler]

I've seen images like this in books that do just about the same thing. So, no, it's not animated.

[Dark Jaguar]

Your BOOK was animated! You had that computer book thing from Inspector Gadget!

Of course the reality is the Holy Flying Spaggetti Monster has Touched the image with His Noodley Appendage, thus causing it to animate.

[lazyfatbum]

All the light in the middle screen is simply caused from the light on your camera.

But the lights in the back, well: You say you were not near any roads. But because your iris was so wide trying to grab up any light possible, that road could be miles away. The same could be said about any light source whether it was stationary or moving.

It's even possible that you picked up the relfections of animal eyes. But the best way to determine any of this is to watch the footage in motion. Are the lights stationary or do they move, if so, how much? etc

DJ/ The sun releases light on earth at 75k which is blue tinged light. but the sun itself is a yellowing middle aged star that will slowly become more and more red until it collpases. Sunlight contains the entire spectrum but it is not totally white light, it's blue. We think it's white because blue tinge tricks us in to seeing a brighter light. It's the same reason that mouth washes, toothpastes and laundry detergents and bleaches contain blue dies - to trick us in to thinking that it's whiter.

[Dark Jaguar]

Well, the sun looks exactly like the colors it releases. The odd thing for me is this. Why is it that the sun would appear yellow, which could only mean that it is releasing primarily yellow light (as far as the visible spectrum goes), but the Earth isn't pretty much yellow? I think the answer lies in the fact that all those yellow images of the sun are basically just filtered down before the camera gets to take a snapshot.

However, it is more yellow than anything to the best of my knowledge.

To know for certain, let's check some astronomy web sites.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Light/yellow.html
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec....As.r.html

I need to find more, with comprehensive boring info that I love!