Goggs! Glasgow UFO...

[ChrisJohnsen]

Goggs, we'll need a complete follow up on this unidentified orange object sited in Glasgow on Friday night...

‘UFO’ spotted in skies above Glasgow - The Scotsman

 

[Randall]

Goggs, we'll need a complete follow up on this unidentified orange object sited in Glasgow on Friday night...

‘UFO’ spotted in skies above Glasgow - The Scotsman

If we assume Noble was photographing the Perseid Meteor Shower, and setting his exposure as reported, then it was not set very fast because you can see a slight shift in the star positions ( I'd estimate about a 10 second exposure ), so it seems odd to me that an object that was reportedly slowly rising and observed over the course of a minute, would not have left a more visible trace in the photo.

Quote: "Strange Object spotted in the sky above Scotland during the Perseids shower. 12/08/2015. The object was moving very slowly upwards. It was visible for 1 minute. It transformed from a circle shape to an Angel like kite shape and then it faded." | Source |
​

Setting aside the exposure issue and assuming it was an actual object that was observed, there is an airport west of Glasgow, so maybe it was a weather balloon catching the last of the Sun that had gone down below the horizon. Or maybe it was some kind of afterburner on a jet taking off. Or a helicopter shining a light down toward the ground. The Chinese lantern explanation might also fit. Or if we suppose that the story isn't entirely accurate and the object wasn't actually observed as reported, then maybe it was a meteor. After all, that's what he was setting up to photograph, and there is a slight streak on the image that seems to extend either up toward the object or down from it. The short duration of the burn-up wouldn't leave an exposure trail either.

Who knows what it really was? I don't. Ultimately, vague lights off in the distance do not count as UFOs. So basically, unless Goggs can come up with more from the location, all we seem to be able to discern is that It's just an odd looking orange light off in the distance.​

​

 

[SiGiL]

I've seen this many times. I've also seen this in a few of my pics. I'm 99.98% certain this is a lens flair. The light source is probably a light post that's below the image. I can't know for sure since it's cut off from the image, but I'm certain that's what it is. Also, if you look at the trees, they are the same color as the flair, a good indication of the light source.

Example from a long exposure lens flare caused by a light post:

 

[Randall]

I've seen this many times. I've also seen this in a few of my pics. I'm 99.98% certain this is a lens flair. The light source is probably a light post that's below the image. I can't know for sure since it's cut off from the image, but I certain that's what it is. Also, if you look at the trees, they are the same color as the flair, a good indication of the light source.

Because the object was allegedly observed independently of the camera, I wanted to give the witness the benefit of the doubt first, and because it was getting late here ( 4:00 am ) and I'd spent a fair bit of time figuring out the star positions and sifting through local news on the Internet trying to find events that might explain it, I focused on things other than photographic artifacts that might be used as a hoax or misrepresented by some reporter. But if we assume it's not actually something observed ( as was claimed ), then I'm right in there with you on the lens flare .

​

 

[SiGiL]

Because the object was allegedly observed independently of the camera, I wanted to give the witness the benefit of the doubt first, and because it was getting late here ( 4:00 am ) and I'd spent a fair bit of time figuring out the star positions and sifting through local news on the Internet trying to find events that might explain it, I focused on things other than photographic artifacts that might be used as a hoax or misrepresented by some reporter. But if we assume it's not actually something observed ( as was claimed ), then I'm right in there with you on the lens flare .

​

If that's the "object" in question in the image--then I'm sorry I don't buy this story one bit. I highly doubt the persons story and credibility if that's the case. Looks like someone is trying to pull a fast one on people if he claims he seen it with his own eyes.






THE GLASGOW LENS FLARE STRIKES AGAIN!!

 

[Randall]

THE GLASGOW LENS FLARE STRIKES AGAIN!!

If that's the case then I guess we're going to have to accept that either the photographer or the reporter, someone, someplace along the chain in the story got their facts mixed up or fabricated the visual observation. I guess it wouldn't be the first time. Nice graphics BTW.

 

[Burnt State]

I've seen this many times. I've also seen this in a few of my pics. I'm 99.98% certain this is a lens flair. The light source is probably a light post that's below the image. I can't know for sure since it's cut off from the image, but I'm certain that's what it is. Also, if you look at the trees, they are the same color as the flair, a good indication of the light source.

Example from a long exposure lens flare caused by a light post:

I'm used to lens flares fogging an image or creating visual artifacts as the sun bounces around in the lens but with night shots? The most flaring i've seen with lamposts at night is flaring at the source as seen in the long exposure you posted. But I am not familiar with the lightpost producing a refracted flare up in the night sky as you have drawn and labeled in this image. Could you educate me on this with lens size, f-stop and duration as i'd like to replicate this. I've just not seen this before in long exposure work in my own shots, especially not producing those arrow shaped objects. Does this happen more often with unclean lenses?

 

[SiGiL]

I'm used to lens flares fogging an image or creating visual artifacts as the sun bounces around in the lens but with night shots? The most flaring i've seen with lamposts at night is flaring at the source as seen in the long exposure you posted. But I am not familiar with the lightpost producing a refracted flare up in the night sky as you have drawn and labeled in this image. Could you educate me on this with lens size, f-stop and duration as i'd like to replicate this. I've just not seen this before in long exposure work in my own shots, especially not producing those arrow shaped objects. Does this happen more often with unclean lenses?

Yes, it's actually very common. As long as there is a light source, there could be a flare even at night. I'm no expert on the subject but I'll try to help you understand and perhaps replicate a similar effect. As you know, all lenses can create a lens flare. Some more than others. Usually the ones that produce less, are the ones that cost more money e.g. Canon L- series, Nikon G- series, Zeiss lenses, reason being is because they have better lens coating. But price to quality ratio is not necessarily always the case. Anyway, once a light hits the internal reflective glass elements of a lens, and bounces around eventually hitting the sensor, it creates a flare effect. Now depending on the angle, direction, type of light, distance, coating quality of the lens, and last but not least type of lens... It will produce different geometric patterns. The wider mm lens, the better for flares. So you see there are many variables into creating different lens flares. I suppose this type of lens flare effect could be produced by a tiny droplet ( dirty lens ) but there are other means of producing it -- I'm sure of it.

The type of flare you are seeing in those images I believe is called a caustic flare. So to produce a similar effect try these settings:

1.) Be at a similar distance. Have your camera set so the image consists of slightly more than 2/3 of sky, and the rest of the image the light source (bottom part of the image) Check in your view finder.
2.) Use a tripod, it helps.
2.) Try to use a wide lens if you have one. I use a Rokinon 14mm F 2.8 Ultra wide lens for my Canon 6D but like a said, you can still create a flare with pretty much any camera and lens type.
4.) Do it at night
3.) Try these camera settings: NOT SET IN STONE SETTINGS:

ƒ/2.8 - 6.0 (Depending on time of day. Experiment)
14.0 mm or any lens you have will suffice
5-30 sec exposure time (Once again experiment)
ISO: 1600-3200

You can do this with a flash light in a room with another person changing the light directions. You don't even have to be outside to produce a flair like this. See 2nd image below for some ideas.

Some sources:

Understanding Camera Lens Flare

Photography 101 - Lenses, Light and Magnification - Digital Photography School

What is Ghosting and Flare?

Lens Flares - Wakapon


Good luck, I hope this helps.


Examples:

Caustic Flare

Types of light

Lens coating

 

[Wade]

You might not be an expert on the matter but that was as concise an argument rationalizating something that I've ever seen in these parts.

 

[Burnt State]

You might not be an expert on the matter but that was as concise an argument rationalizating something that I've ever seen in these parts.

Absolutely, and wish SIGIL did much more commentary on issues pertaining to UFO's getting captured in still photography and time based media.

 

[technomage]

You might not be an expert on the matter but that was as concise an argument rationalizating something that I've ever seen in these parts.

I don't think you meant rationalizing, I think you meant something like "explaining through a rational manner". Rationalizing would be a criticism of the approach Sigil used, which I don't think was the intent. Is that correct?

 

[Burnt State]

I don't think you meant rationalizing, I think you meant something like "explaining through a rational manner". Rationalizing would be a criticism of the approach Sigil used, which I don't think was the intent. Is that correct?

He definitely rationalized his critique of the Glasgow UFO as a caustic flare, and he also explained how a caustic flare gets created. So I'm thinking SIGIL gets a double word score for these entries and a bonus for excellence in tone.

 

[Spectre73]

Brilliant analysis Sigil!!

When I read the thread title I got a little excited - I'm just a few miles from Glasgow... Oh well

 

[Wade]

I don't think you meant rationalizing, I think you meant something like "explaining through a rational manner". Rationalizing would be a criticism of the approach Sigil used, which I don't think was the intent. Is that correct?

I definitely didn't mean to imply he had to rationalize in the sense of talking himself (and us) into considering his point of view because he couldn't come up with a better argument or didn't want to consider other alternatives, but as Burnt said above provided a real good point by point assessment of his argument.

Sort of like the reddit feed explain it like I'm five.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

So, I'm evidently a bit late to this particular party and probably one of those guests who arrives late, everyone looks up at them and sighs, 'oh' and then goes back to whatever they were doing!

But seriously, I am of course interested in any UFO sighting that might be genuine, especially in my regional back-yard but from the scan of the above posts I've just done, and whilst not being in any way, shape or form save for occasional smart-phone photo-snapping - a photographer, I'm inclined to defer to those who are and it certainly looks like other known lens-flare photographs.

So I don't really have anything constructive to add at this juncture so I'll say thanks for thinking of me to be the news-hound follow-upper but I feel like one cook too many here right now....

 

[SiGiL]

Brilliant analysis Sigil!!

When I read the thread title I got a little excited - I'm just a few miles from Glasgow... Oh well

I'm sure your area has had some legit sightings, just like in many similar cities around the world. I just don't think this one image holds much water to corroborate with the so called sighting unfortunately. Keep your eyes open brother.

He definitely rationalized his critique of the Glasgow UFO as a caustic flare, and he also explained how a caustic flare gets created. So I'm thinking SIGIL gets a double word score for these entries and a bonus for excellence in tone.

Thanks for the kind comments guys. I'll try to give my 2 cents whenever I can. Cheers!