| |
Main
Date: 20 Jul 2006 21:08:02
From: Ioannis
Subject: Strange artifacts with Nikon CoolPix 2200
|
Two years ago I got some strange artifacts when I shot a couple of shots
when I was at the antiparos island:
On the first image it is most obvious as a circular feature above the
chairs:
http://misc.virtualcomposer2000.com/artifacts1.jpg
On the second image, there are around a dozen of them, but they don't show
too well. They can still be seen looking at the jpg at an angle:
http://misc.virtualcomposer2000.com/artifacts2.jpg
On the third image there are again around a dozen, this time better seen
against the wall and against the dark space:
http://misc.virtualcomposer2000.com/artifacts3.jpg
On the next one, a big one can be seen on the boundary between lower wall
and dark space, left of the chairs:
http://misc.virtualcomposer2000.com/artifacts4.jpg
Here's the daytime background, used as a reference, which shows that there's
nothing behind the dark space:
http://misc.virtualcomposer2000.com/background.jpg
To preclude the possibility that these were location dependent, I shot one
shot against the dark sky, where two of them are still visible:
http://misc.virtualcomposer2000.com/artifacts5.jpg
I extracted the most evident artifact from the first shot and processed it
with Photoshop, adjusting contrast and luminosity. Here's what it looks like
processed:
http://misc.virtualcomposer2000.com/artifact.jpg
I was at the time in a joking mood, so I showed them to my x, who
immediately freaked out :-))
If you also look at Stephen's mugshot, at Martin's s.a.a. mugshots page:
http://www.theastropost.com/S.A.A.%20MUGSHOTS.html
you'll undoubtedly notice two similar circular artifacts: One above his head
and one left of his right hand.
The artifacts on my photos seem to move, even though the shot location above
is fixed. I have been taking scientific photos for at least 20 years, but
have never seen such artifacts with regular film cameras. So the phenomenon
seems confined to digital cameras.
During the subsequent days, no matter how hard I tried, I could not
photograph any more of these, so these were present only on specific times,
indicated by the photo dates.
Does anyone have an exact scientific explanation for this sort of thing? In
particular, what exactly causes such a rich internal structure on the
circular artifact as seen on the last photo? It looks to me like the
flashlight is being refracted against something, but I have no idea what.
Thanks much,
--
Ioannis
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 00:00:21
From: Skywise
Subject: Re: Strange artifacts with Nikon CoolPix 2200
|
"Ioannis" <morpheus@olympus.mons > wrote in news:1153418883.305568@athnrd02:
> Two years ago I got some strange artifacts when I shot a couple of shots
> when I was at the antiparos island:
<Snipola >
Dust illuminated by the flash, close to the camera, thus out
of focus.
Or....it's spiritual orbs, often seen in photographs of
haunted houses and cemetaries. Or at least that's what
they say on C2C. :)
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
|
| |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Strange artifacts with Nikon CoolPix 2200
|
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 00:15:10
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Strange artifacts with Nikon CoolPix 2200
|
On 20 Jul 2006 13:50:52 -0700, "Martin Brown"
<
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 01:38:28
From: Florian
Subject: Re: Strange artifacts with Nikon CoolPix 2200
|
> (And, of course, yet more sites
> devoted to "rods", which have a similar cause but are usually daytime
> artifacts.)
Chris, what are rods?
-Florian
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Jul 2006 21:52:32
From: Stephen Paul
Subject: Re: Strange artifacts with Nikon CoolPix 2200
|
Florian wrote:
>> (And, of course, yet more sites
>> devoted to "rods", which have a similar cause but are usually daytime
>> artifacts.)
>
>
> Chris, what are rods?
>
> -Florian
>
>
Google turned up this, among others...
http://www.amsky.com/ufos/rods/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 02:18:23
From: Florian
Subject: Re: Strange artifacts with Nikon CoolPix 2200
|
Thanks Chris and Stephen for rod info.
-Florian
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 01:51:56
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Strange artifacts with Nikon CoolPix 2200
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:38:28 GMT, Florian <star6@TheDesertSon.com >
wrote:
>Chris, what are rods?
Little rods or strands that sometimes show up on outdoor images,
especially those taken into the Sun. If you are rational, they are out
of focus insects, otherwise, they are little alien lifeforms that live
amongst us, or maybe spirits. Probably related to chemtrails <g >.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 00:10:32
From: Ioannis
Subject: Re: Strange artifacts with Nikon CoolPix 2200
|
"Martin Brown" <
|
| |
Date: 20 Jul 2006 14:51:17
From: John Steinberg
Subject: Re: Strange artifacts with Nikon CoolPix 2200
|
Ioannis wrote:
> On the first image it is most obvious as a circular feature above the
> chairs:
> http://misc.virtualcomposer2000.com/artifacts1.jpg
The infamous Nikon dandelion internal reflection problem. It's been
previously documented. What's new in that image is the auto selective
focus. See woman to the left of reflection. Almost looks like the
camera has a floater or early stage glaucoma. That or you've captured
the moon's fuzzy twin ghost.
> On the second image, there are around a dozen of them, but they don't show
> too well. They can still be seen looking at the jpg at an angle:
> http://misc.virtualcomposer2000.com/artifacts2.jpg
Yes, I see some spots here. Similar to spots I've seen with my Nikons
950, 990 and 995. These tended to be reduced once I stopped cleaning
the camera lens with my saliva and a shirt sleeve.
Kidding.
It was someone else's saliva.
> On the third image there are again around a dozen, this time better seen
> against the wall and against the dark space:
> http://misc.virtualcomposer2000.com/artifacts3.jpg
I see several spots and the very rare Nikon canine artifact (with red
eye.) What breed of dog is that and what's up with his paws?
> On the next one, a big one can be seen on the boundary between lower wall
> and dark space, left of the chairs:
> http://misc.virtualcomposer2000.com/artifacts4.jpg
I see the infamous Nikon chroma image left. Oh, those spots are on your
picture not on my monitor! Whoopsie.
> Here's the daytime background, used as a reference, which shows that there's
> nothing behind the dark space:
> http://misc.virtualcomposer2000.com/background.jpg
More importantly it provides a most lovely view, and no sign whatsoever
of the unfocusable female and the dog with the ginormous human-like
paws.
> I was at the time in a joking mood, so I showed them to my x, who
> immediately freaked out :-))
A dandelion phobic? That's one for the journal.
> If you also look at Stephen's mugshot, at Martin's s.a.a. mugshots page:
> http://www.theastropost.com/S.A.A.%20MUGSHOTS.html
How nice that you flew out to take that shot of Stephen. Judging from
his apparel, my guess is ice crystals.
Seriously, I've seen these kinds of artifacts in many of my own Nikon
digital cam shots. It's my belief -- untested and unsupported by
empirical documented evidence -- that they are internal reflections
attributable to the camera lens and stray reflections from external
lighting sources.
Just a wag (wild ... guess)
--
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid
|
| | |
Date: 20 Jul 2006 23:30:02
From: Ioannis
Subject: Re: Strange artifacts with Nikon CoolPix 2200
|
"John Steinberg" <seesig@bottom.invalid > wrote in message
news:200720061451178878%seesig@bottom.invalid...
Hey John,
I thought I was in your killfile!
> Ioannis wrote:
>
> > On the first image it is most obvious as a circular feature above the
> > chairs:
> > http://misc.virtualcomposer2000.com/artifacts1.jpg
>
> The infamous Nikon dandelion internal reflection problem. It's been
> previously documented. What's new in that image is the auto selective
> focus. See woman to the left of reflection.
This woman is no longer with me, so there was no reason to show her
publically, so I applied a Gaussian blur to her face.
[snip]
> What breed of dog is that and what's up with his paws?
That's an Bobtail Sheepdog. It has the strange property of always looking 3
times larger than what it actually is:
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=el&lr=&q=bobtail+sheepdog
[snip]
> Seriously, I've seen these kinds of artifacts in many of my own Nikon
> digital cam shots. It's my belief -- untested and unsupported by
> empirical documented evidence -- that they are internal reflections
> attributable to the camera lens and stray reflections from external
> lighting sources.
Well, if these artifacts were internal reflections, it seems to me that they
would be reproducible. No matter ho hard I tried, I could not get any new
ones the next day, same hour, same position, same photo settings.
Also, the lens of the Nikon Coolpix, is completely shielded when the camera
is off, so dirt on the lens doesn't seem to cut it either. The camera was
brand new when I took these shots.
What's causing this, appears to be an object located between camera and
scene, i.e., probably half way between the flash and the scene's main
objects. At least as much as I gather. So far, I haven't seen any viable
explanations. Do you remember where you have seen it documented?
Thanks,
> Just a wag (wild ... guess)
> --
> -John Steinberg
--
Ioannis
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Jul 2006 17:32:50
From: John Steinberg
Subject: Re: Strange artifacts with Nikon CoolPix 2200
|
Ioannis wrote:
> I thought I was in your killfile!
Pray tell why?
[My killfile is typically limited to habitual cross-posters and the
profoundly mentally ill. I find little need to filter people
electronically while I still have the mental capacity to filter
mechanically.]
You'll just have to work a lot harder to get in there, mister!
> That's an Bobtail Sheepdog. It has the strange property of always looking 3
> times larger than what it actually is:
>
> http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=el&lr=&q=bobtail+sheepdog
It's huge, at least to me. In January of this year I had to put our
18-year-old cat down. He was less than 5lbs. at that time. I suspect
that dog *eats* close to 5lbs. a day. [Note: For the greater good I
opted not to go with a reference to Jack Palance's line about Billy
Crystal.] Great looking pooch in any event.
> Well, if these artifacts were internal reflections, it seems to me that they
> would be reproducible. No matter ho hard I tried, I could not get any new
> ones the next day, same hour, same position, same photo settings.
Can you really control all the possible variables with the kind of
granularity necessary to do a fair comparison set? Night shots
introduce a whole array of issues that are, in my experience, far more
problematic to control. Even a fast sequence of night shots on a
sturdy tripod can return inconsistent results. That goes treble when
you're using the digicam with a telescope.
> What's causing this, appears to be an object located between camera and
> scene, i.e., probably half way between the flash and the scene's main
> objects. At least as much as I gather. So far, I haven't seen any viable
> explanations. Do you remember where you have seen it documented?
No, I was being facetious about any documentation, other than the
bajillion digital photos in my personal archives, where this type of
artifacting is a very common occurrence.
Clearly, objects like dust, gnats, flying goats, and other air born
objects could also be implicated. It doesn't take but a tiny speck of
something out of focus in the foreground to leave a big fingerprint on
the background.
--
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 01:01:25
From: Ioannis
Subject: Re: Strange artifacts with Nikon CoolPix 2200
|
"John Steinberg" <seesig@bottom.invalid > wrote in message
news:200720061732509527%seesig@bottom.invalid...
[snip]
> > That's an Bobtail Sheepdog. It has the strange property of always
looking 3
> > times larger than what it actually is:
> >
> > http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=el&lr=&q=bobtail+sheepdog
>
> It's huge, at least to me. In January of this year I had to put our
> 18-year-old cat down. He was less than 5lbs. at that time. I suspect
> that dog *eats* close to 5lbs. a day. [Note: For the greater good I
> opted not to go with a reference to Jack Palance's line about Billy
> Crystal.] Great looking pooch in any event.
I am surprized you didn't recognise the race. For the terminally qurious,
the bobtail sheepdog has been featured numerous times on Warner Brothers'
Coyote series. It's the same Coyote as the one with Meep-meep, but
occasionally wonders into sheep herds, where there is a quiet huge dog, with
eyes covered by hair, who guards the sheep. The Coyote tries all sorts of
tricks, but the sheepdog, although almost entirely blinded by its facial
hair, always anticipates the Coyote's moves. At the end of the day, the
daytime sheepdog stands up, picks up its suitcase, hits its punched card and
leaves, always greeting the next guardian sheepdog who comes in walking, by
"Hi George...", "Bye George..." :-)
[snip]
> Clearly, objects like dust, gnats, flying goats, and other air born
> objects could also be implicated. It doesn't take but a tiny speck of
> something out of focus in the foreground to leave a big fingerprint on
> the background.
Yes. See also Martin's reply.
> --
> -John Steinberg
--
Ioannis
|
|
