1971 Lake Cote / Lago de Cote UFO Aerial Photo

FatPhil

Senior Member.
The terminology is getting really confusing, to me anyway.

You just have to remember that in a silver halide process (most photography of yore), light causes darkness on the target medium.
So when you shine light through an original, what is light in the original causes darkness in the target.
Therefore making a true copy of either a negative or a positive slide requires two of these inversion steps to restore the original parity.

For reference, I'm no fan of the wikipedia wording you quoted. I learnt by doing at a very amateurish level, and didn't grow up with the formal terminology, and their description doesn't correspond to what I did and saw. The "inter-" denotation in general us useful though, it tells you it's the half-way inverted step of a duplication process.
(Ug, I might confuse matters if I add that the inter itself isn't intrinsically an interpositive or an internegative, as it doesn't know what it's the inverse of, it just carries lightness where there was darkness and darkness where there was lightness. Ooops, too late.)
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The "inter-" denotation in general us useful though, it tells you it's the half-way inverted step of a duplication process.
"inter" is just Latin for "between".

Intermission is a break between two acts.
Interlock is a lock between two pieces.
Intersection is a crossing between two streets.
Intermarriage is a marriage between two groups.
Etc.
 

TopBunk

Active Member
below i've resized the "saucer" and aligned it with the elements on the edge of the negative in it's original orientation.
Screenshot 2022-05-08 at 09.51.29.png
I've had another try at this.
It just seems too coincidental that the lighting on the dial and the object are so similar while the lighting on the object is completely at odds with the landscape.
Below I've copied and moved the dial across from it's position on the edge of the frame without resizing it.
I've resized the object to the same height and positioned one copy below and one to the right of the dial.
This shows that the thin strip of shadow on the left side of the dial looks proportionally the same on both the object and the dial. The shadow follows the same line.
The curves and some of the shadows on the different levels of curve inside the dial face also look very similar to the object. If you adjust for scale and layer them on top of each other they are the same.
The illumination from the left hand side is similar - if not the same.
However we're suppose to believe that a flying disc flew under the plane in precisely the same orientation to an element inside the camera...
Screenshot 2022-05-13 at 21.33.21.png
 
Last edited:

TopBunk

Active Member
Okay. Several things, and a question.

This is the kind of machine they used to copy negatives. This is a KG30. It was a very physical process.

s-l1600_steam_punk.jpg

s-l1600_box_of-bulbs.jpg


s-l1600-2.jpg

The "auxiliary data" is on the dials on the edge of the frame which I think look like the "UFO".

Screenshot 2022-05-14 at 00.30.22.png

s-l1600.jpg

Also not only is this process very physical but they also used to physically mark aerial photographs, making a hole in the emulsion. The description of which is similar to how you might describe the "UFO".

Screenshot 2022-05-14 at 00.45.08.png

Screenshot 2022-05-14 at 00.45.32.png
Question: are we looking at a deliberate marking on the frame - and on other frames. What would one of these marks look like when a diapositive copy is made from the original using the pressurised KG 30?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2022-05-14 at 00.30.22.png
    Screenshot 2022-05-14 at 00.30.22.png
    405.6 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
The "auxiliary data" is on the dials on the edge of the frame which I think look like the "UFO".

Screenshot 2022-05-14 at 00.30.22.png
The "fiducials [..] exposed with natural object light" refers to what laypeople would call grid marks, not the auxiliary data.
Article:
FIDUCIAL MARKS: Index marks, located in the corners or edge-centres of an aerial photograph, rigidly connected with the camera lens through the camera body. They are used to define the frame of reference for spatial measurements in photogrammetry.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
"inter" is just Latin for "between".

Intermission is a break between two acts.
Interlock is a lock between two pieces.
Intersection is a crossing between two streets.
Intermarriage is a marriage between two groups.
Etc.

Your interlocutor studied latin at school.
 

kasparovitch

Active Member
Perhaps a silly question, but if I took it, aren't PM1 markings expected to be there in negatives? Unless perhaps if aerial work has never been used for mapping.
 

TopBunk

Active Member
RE: [#69] & the object in frame 299. These are the images from [#14] aligned. (I'm ignoring the drum scan for the moment because it's been so heavily edited). You can see how certain ground features (boxed in green) are catching the light much more in 299 than in 300.

Screenshot 2022-05-14 at 17.07.09.png

The same seems to be the case lower down in the image across the three frames. The thing in the box is an example.

Of course it is impossible to tell what is real, a defect or has been removed on these prints as these are old photos of photos.

Screenshot 2022-05-14 at 16.50.06.png
 
Last edited:

kasparovitch

Active Member
You should make sure you're using images from #14 as frame 300 at least doesn't look so in resolution and shade. In frame 300 from #14 there's a small white dot nearby the one you pointed in frame 299. Assuming that it might be a small cloud formation, one would expect a large displacement like large clouds. However, if that small cloud formation was very near ground, it wouldn't be displaced that much and maybe just a small distance as this. I don't know if this is the answer, but it would explain those two small white dots in different positions.

Note that frame 300 below is rotated 180º relative to frames in post above.

1652552201113.png
 

SpOoKy777

New Member
Recently I went through hundreds of old aerial (and some earthbound) pictures from roughly 1930-1970, looking for similar defects...here is a quick collage of my findings...nothing too impressive but I thought it'd be a good idea to reference some other photos...

defComp1.jpg

Image sources:

https://ba.e-pics.ethz.ch

(Good hi-res material, mostly downloadable...very clean scans though)


https://britainfromabove.org.uk

(Very low-res downloads but interestingly a large gallery full of images from damaged negatives...)


There is probably more to find there but I'm exhausted :D
 

Attachments

  • defCompSourceImgs.zip
    31.1 MB · Views: 3

kasparovitch

Active Member
Here is info page on drum scan services by Michael Strickland Photography in Kansas, where Carranza claims to have had his negative drum scanned to 1.7GB. Looks like he paid $125 for it. A 4GB scan would cost twice that.

Drum scans have a freebie dust cleanup at 60% o_O (100% would be surcharged 25%) so it seems Carranza forgot to waive such complimentary add-on under "special requests" in the form o_O

Maybe Carranza might try asking for an unclean drum scan by saying he forgot to waive the freebie and save $125 (or $250 if upgrading) to have it scanned again. An unclean scan would be more informative even if that's not a true negative anyway.

https://www.michaelstricklandimages.com/drum-scanning-service

1652613751251.png
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Here is info page on drum scan services by Michael Strickland Photography in Kansas, where Carranza claims to have had his negative drum scanned to 1.7GB. Looks like he paid $125 for it. A 4GB scan would cost twice that.

Drum scans have a freebie dust cleanup at 60% o_O (100% would be surcharged 25%) so it seems Carranza forgot to waive such complimentary add-on under "special requests" in the form o_O

Maybe Carranza might try asking for an unclean drum scan by saying he forgot to waive the freebie and save $125 (or $250 if upgrading) to have it scanned again. An unclean scan would be more informative even if that's not a true negative anyway.

https://www.michaelstricklandimages.com/drum-scanning-service

1652613751251.png

Given the cleanup is digital it's likely the pre-cleanup version still exists.
 

kasparovitch

Active Member
I guess so, and suggest Carranza might ask for it and send it to UAP UK as they wouldn't appreciate to have acquired a cleanup scan for sure.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Recently I went through hundreds of old aerial (and some earthbound) pictures from roughly 1930-1970, looking for similar defects...here is a quick collage of my findings...nothing too impressive but I thought it'd be a good idea to reference some other photos...

defComp1.jpg

Image sources:

https://ba.e-pics.ethz.ch

(Good hi-res material, mostly downloadable...very clean scans though)


https://britainfromabove.org.uk

(Very low-res downloads but interestingly a large gallery full of images from damaged negatives...)


There is probably more to find there but I'm exhausted :D
Most (perhaps all) of these are examples of fungal growth; so not apropos.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Re [#144] aren't the scratches typical when looking at film this closely? For example they appear everywhere in this aerial mosaic, most noticeably over darker areas of water. (examples below). Aren't they just a result of how the film is spooled through the camera and/or handled during development?
https://digimap.maps.arcgis.com/apps/StorytellingSwipe/index.html?a&appid=3f19d179f7104f0b9c1376051cbc2f93Screenshot 2022-05-15 at 17.09.44.png
Screenshot 2022-05-15 at 17.04.07.png
Note that some scratches are white and some black. When talking about b&w photography, these are some causes for scratch marks visible on a print.

Something happened to the negative:

Black: Emulsion scratches - The emulsion has been removed and leaves a clear area on the negative. More light gets through the negative, so the print emulsion is exposed to more light.

(Processed emulsion is not gel-like but is fragile more like the way chalk is fragile.)

Very faint/blurry: The emulsion is not bare. There's a tough coat on top. Very light scratching of this layer might just look like a line of blurriness. This is the kind of scratch that can be be corrected through the use of an optical printer with a wet transfer film gate.

White: Base scratches - The tough side of the film is the back or "base." When this is scratched or gouged not much material is lost, but usually the film just gets distorted. This lets less light through (directly, anyway) and the print emulsion is exposed to less light.

White: An emulsion scratch so deep that it has distorted the base.

White: Sometimes the negative gets marked rather than scratched. In other words, something soft/waxy gets smeared on the film.



Something happened to the print:

White: Emulsion has been scratched off. Paper is showing through paper print; more light is shining through transparency print.

Any color: Something soft/waxy has become smeared across the print.


And there are scratches along the way the film travels through the camera/projector/printer, and scratches across that path.

This all gets more complicated when there are multiple generations.
 
Last edited:

TopBunk

Active Member
If it is a lens flare/reflection then,

1.What is the source of the reflected light?

My understanding of lens flares is that they are typically caused by light just outside of the frame.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare

2. Could the source of the light be an object on the ground reflecting back up at the camera?

I arranged the three frames in a mosaic along the guides lines in this document.
Source: http://www.edc.uri.edu/nrs/classes/NRS409/RS/Lectures/409509Class2-2008.pdf
(pink line is the direction of flight taken by connecting the principle points of each photo, yellow is the direction of sunlight, green is a proposed path from a source of reflected light to the object).

Screenshot 2022-05-17 at 10.15.14.pngScreenshot 2022-05-17 at 10.17.18.png

There is one building which appears in frame 299 but which is just outside of frame 300.

3. Could that building be momentarily reflecting light from the east back up at the camera to produce the flare/reflection?

4. If it could be an effect produced from a reflecting object on the ground I wonder if this is the reason for the deliberate removal of such items in the recent drum scan. It could also be from one of the white objects beside the lake much closer to the object that were removed. See examples in [#175]

5. If it is a lens flare/reflection wouldn’t you expect the see streaking across the image such as in these examples? (However these are taken from an oblique angle not vertical). The camera in the Lake Cote photo is tilted slightly in the direction of the planes flight.

Screenshot 2022-05-17 at 10.46.42.png
Source: https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/SPW047884

Screenshot 2022-05-17 at 10.52.28.png
Source:https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/SPW022108

There are a few examples of lens flares/reflections on Google earth images taken from a vertical position. However they all appear to be when the light is reflecting directly off the object to the camera.


Screenshot 2022-05-17 at 11.10.07.png
Source: Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/1c17j8/some_place_on_google_maps_has_some_intense_lens/


5. If it's not light from a source on the ground what other source could produce this effect? A reflection off part of the aircraft? Something else out of the frame?

6. Are there any examples of lens flares/camera reflections in vertical aerial photography that don't also have connecting streaks?
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
If it's not light from a source on the ground what other source could produce this effect? A reflection off part of the aircraft? Something else out of the frame?
Earlier in the thread, we talked about the "viewfinder" protrusion that is part of the camera setup, and looks like it'd be located just out of frame. If the sun position was just right and the aircraft tilted just so, could a lens flare occur?
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
Earlier in the thread, we talked about the "viewfinder" protrusion that is part of the camera setup, and looks like it'd be located just out of frame. If the sun position was just right and the aircraft tilted just so, could a lens flare occur?
Would it not also be visible in the other frames too? I mean, nothing changes from frame to frame (except flight position).
 
Top