Bokeh "Orb" With a Thin Line Across It

Mick West

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, I think it's a wire.

Supporting the idea that this is an external object - wire - is the fact that it moves steadily across the image of the astronomical body as the video runs. My interpretation: The wire is motionless while the astronomical body (planet/star) is moving across the night sky, in the slow and steady manner in which such things move.

Beginning of video

101 w.png


21 seconds
102 w 21.png

End
102 w 42.png
 
Last edited:
This scenario - that it's a physical feature on a sphere - doesn't make sense.

GpehUyWaUAAaBp7.jpg


Note that the dark line that we see in the image is always a straight line. If it were a physical marking or feature on a sphere, it would have to look like an arc at some point.
 
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf said:
Yes, I think it's a wire.

Supporting the idea that this is an external object - wire - is the fact that it moves steadily across the image of astronomical body as the video runs. My interpretation: The wire is motionless while the astronomical body (planet/star) is moving across the night sky, in the slow and steady manner in which such things move.
Click to expand...
I felt like trying some basic photoshop (well GIMP actually), so I matched and overlayed the first and last images of yours since they show the change in position most clearly.
overlayed.png
 
He said "iPhone". He also said there was nothing in the way that would cause the line.

It's interesting that two people got similar lines. His images are often labeled "Ives Estates", a relatively small area of the northern Miami metropolitan area.

Picking a random spot, it seems to have the normal variety of utility lines. Which perhaps can be the type of thing you just don't even see, it's so common.

2025-04-26_13-47-09.jpg
 
The other thread has examples of an obscuring object being clearly seen against a large bokeh, both near (a fork at arm's length) and far (a tree, 40-50 feet away)

Mick West said:
View attachment 75630
In my backyard just now. I think that's Sirius. Behind a tree. The "orb" bokeh stays the same as it passes behind things.

A slightly more controlled example. The "orb" goes behind a fork, then my thumb, then I focus on the light source.

View attachment 75631
Click to expand...
 
Mick West said:
He said "iPhone". He also said there was nothing in the way that would cause the line.

It's interesting that two people got similar lines. His images are often labeled "Ives Estates", a relatively small area of the northern Miami metropolitan area.

Picking a random spot, it seems to have the normal variety of utility lines. Which perhaps can be the type of thing you just don't even see, it's so common.

View attachment 79724
Click to expand...
He also said there was nothing in the way that would cause the line.

This witness is presenting an out-of-focus image, without noticing (or caring?) that it's out of focus. Seemingly oblivious to the limitations of auto-focus, and to the consequences of ignoring those limitations. He doesn't seem to know how to get an in-focus image with his instrument. Or doesn't care?

I'm not confident in the judgement, conscientiousness, or powers of observation of this witness.
 
Last edited:
Giddierone said:
Why are we even considering this one when there's no transparency about the kit used or DTLS?
Click to expand...
Because two different people got a similar artifact and are interpreting it as evidence of something. The investigation here will likely boil down to getting those DTLs (really just the location)
 
This is a bit different situation as there's plenty of light in the sky. Which would make visible nearby objects such as utility wires, even outside the sun disk.

My guess in this case: distant contrail
1J2A4759.jpg
 
Giddierone said:
He also said "iPhone with a clip on telescope."
Click to expand...
Z.W. Wolf said:
This witness is presenting an out-of-focus image, without noticing (or caring?) that it's out of focus. Seemingly oblivious to the limitations of auto-focus, and to the consequences of ignoring those limitations.
I'm not confident in the judgement, conscientiousness, or powers of observation of this witness.
Click to expand...
Giddierone said:
Why are we even considering this one when there's no transparency about the kit used or DTLS?
Click to expand...
As a guy who has done a fair amount of digiscoping
(usually wolves nearly a mile away, in YNP, with a mid-quality 20-60x82mm spotting scope)
over the years, I can attest that getting a decent smartphone correctly attached to a quality
spotting scope, can yield some surprising good video of wildlife far away.

But these clip on jobbers are absolute rubbish! I mean, if you pay $25 to $75 for one of these
things, you'd think that one's expectations would be appropriately low.
But the internet ads for these things are amongst the most dishonest. They usually breathlessly claim things like that it was "developed for the military" :rolleyes: or "replaces a $3,000 lens" & what not.

Where I'm going with this, is, I highly doubt that he had any chance of getting a decent in-focus
image...but likely believed otherwise. And if he's used that little clip-on much, he's
probably only seen other bad images with it. Who knows, relative to his other shots,
this one might be comparatively a "good" one.

All that said, a power line seems most likely to me.
Nothing particularly exciting or dramatic, at any rate.
 

Attachments

  • sfw_robert-wilson-phonescope-setup.webp
    sfw_robert-wilson-phonescope-setup.webp
    116.9 KB · Views: 9
Z.W. Wolf said:
This is a bit different situation as there's plenty of light in the sky. Which would make visible nearby objects such as utility wires, even outside the sun disk.

My guess in this case: distant contrail
View attachment 79742
Click to expand...
It would appear that the tops of bare trees show at the bottom of the sun, so it's low on the horizon. A single phone line in the middle distance would give that sharp line. The filters needed to keep a brilliant sun from overwhelming the sensor might obscure surrounding details.
 
How do we explain a camera artifact that follows the image of a light source as the image moves across the frame?

But... it also is not consistently centered in the image of the light source. E.g. the line steadily and consistently moves across the face of the star/planet in the OP video as the star/planet moves across the frame.

The image of the light source takes different light paths through the lens and hits different parts of the sensor.

That beats the hell out of me, but I know very little about digital cameras.

My only tentative thought is that this is some kind of interference pattern associated with this awful contraption of a lens.

Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?
 
Last edited:
Ravi said:
I think the optical clip on thingy is the culprit.
Click to expand...
I've suffered hair-inside-camera-body problems that looked similar. However, I'm not sure the light paths for such a fixture would make that likely. Two quick tests for relevance: (a) do they invert the image - do the maths, I think if they do the hypothesis should have legs; (b) people have hair, people have these attachments - do the test!
 
Z.W. Wolf said:
How do we explain a camera artifact that follows the image of a light source as the image moves across the frame?

But... it also is not consistently centered in the image of the light source. E.g. the line steadily and consistently moves across the face of the star/planet in the OP video as the star/planet moves across the frame.

The image of the light source takes different light paths through the lens and hits different parts of the sensor.

That beats the hell out of me, but I know very little about digital cameras.

My only tentative thought is that this is some kind of interference pattern associated with this awful contraption of a lens.

Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?
Click to expand...
Initially, I thought this might be an obstruction like a hair on the lens which acted like the vanes in a secondary mirror in a telescope which creates the diffraction spikes.

If you look at the image below (source https://www.astronomy.com/observing/ask-astro-what-causes-the-pattern-of-diffraction-spikes/), you'll notice the diffraction spikes from the web telescope give 8 pointed spikes. The diffraction spikes are always centred on the point source even when the 120 degree spikes appear at different locations throughout the aperture. In other words, you don't get lots of parallel diffraction spikes going through the point source, you get one line at each relevant angle passing directly through the centre of the point source. Also, diffraction spikes always smear the energy outwards from the point, rather than creating something inside the point source, so diffraction spikes can be ruled out on two counts.

1745888382933.png


The clip on lens though does introduce other possibilities as it would have to be some sort of relay lens. In other words, this is a lens within a lens. So the front lens attachment is creating a virtual image for the phone camera lens to focus on. The attached lens is designed so that the phone camera lens focuses somewhere close to the last element of the attached lens, where the virtual image is located. The virtual image may be just inside or just outside the last element but it would be close. My best guess is that there is a hair or scratch on the back element of the attached lens. The camera is focussing on that, instead of the virtual image it is supposed to focus on. This would explain why the hair or scratch is in focus, but the image is not.

This is why I don't think it is a wire. Why would the wire be in focus, but the star not? It makes no sense.

In any case, as the camera is moved up and down the angle of the attached lens changes slightly through bending because it's cheap garbage. This is why the defect appears to move.

As an aside, if I am right, this is a terrible optical design. You never create a virtual image on or close to any optical surface (especially one exposed to the elements) because any defects in that surface will show up clearly in the image. The only forgivable exception to this rule is the super-Schupman telescope and that's only because it is beautiful.
 
elvenwear said:
The clip on lens though does introduce other possibilities as it would have to be some sort of relay lens. In other words, this is a lens within a lens. So the front lens attachment is creating a virtual image for the phone camera lens to focus on.
Click to expand...
I see no reason to assume that this is happening.
A relay lens system extends the optical path without (or with minor) magnification, whereas a refracting telescope uses the distance to magnify the image.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refracting_telescope :
Kepschem.png

If there's a hair at or near 5, it would be in focus.

The design of the clip-on telescope would need to be examined to determine whether there's actually a focal plane near an optical element. I think that'd be unusual.
 
Mendel said:
I see no reason to assume that this is happening.
A relay lens system extends the optical path without (or with minor) magnification, whereas a refracting telescope uses the distance to magnify the image.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refracting_telescope :
View attachment 79827
If there's a hair at or near 5, it would be in focus.
Click to expand...
Not all relays are there to extend the focal path. Some relays are correctors, some invert the image and so on.

A typical telescope has an objective at 1 (with 2-3 pieces of glass), but no glass at 2. You either add an eyepiece at 2 for viewing with your eyes or you place a flat digital sensor at position 5 to take photographs.

If you place a cell phone at position 5, it will not give a good image because the phone has it's own optical lens that doesn't need to be there. You need to make a special 'eyepiece' at 2 to correct for this. This 'eyepiece' relays the image from position 5 to 3, hence the name.

Instead of having a telescope and then a flat sensor at position 5 (the ideal), you have a telescope, a relay at position 2 to correct for the cell phone lens that really shouldn't be there, the cell phone lens at position 3 that really shouldn't be there, and then the sensor on the cell phone - so the light passes through a whole lot of redundant optics.

Mendel said:
The design of the clip-on telescope would need to be examined to determine whether there's actually a focal plane near an optical element. I think that'd be unusual.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking now you may be right. It may not be either of the two the optical planes at 5 or 3. Wiki has this to say about Ramsden eyepieces (source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyepiece).

External Quote:

A separation of exactly 1 focal length is also inadvisable since it renders the dust on the field lens disturbingly in focus.
The field lens is in position 1 and is not the focal plane. While I don't think they would necessarily use a Ramsden type eyepiece/relay, they would need some sort of corrector to make it easier to focus on the image. It is generally hard to get cameras to focus on something that is very close to them and the externally attached lens is very close. You'd need something between positions 2 and 3 to operate like human eyeglasses to ensure every likely type of cell phone can focus on the close image. I suspect this may put dust or hair on the front lens or even elsewhere in the optical train in focus. To me, this is more likely than having a focal plane near an optical element.

In any case, it is clear the phone camera is focussing on something in the optical train that is not the virtual image and this is an inexcusable bad design. The clincher for me is that the defect is in perfect focus, but the image isn't. It is always out of focus to the same degree in different shots (ie the spots retain their size) indicating the defect is at a specific focus relative to infinity (ie on one of the optical surfaces). The defect moves vertically but is parallel to the image plane, which also indicates an internal defect.
 
Let's sum it up as simply as possible. If this is an artifact...

The dark line observed in the defocused image of a light source is caused by destructive interference due to an internal flaw or obstruction in the supplementary lens system.

It seems strange to me that the line is straight. Perhaps a crack in a (plastic?) lens element. Or a scratch?
 
Last edited:
Explanantion for two different examples:

Astronomical body: The defocused image of a star/planet is moving steadily past the obstruction, due to the Earth's rotation. (Or the dome rotating?)

Aircraft: The bright light is the defocused image of the landing light of an aircraft moving, mostly, along the line of sight of the camera. The scene was in decent focus when ground structures were within the frame and the auto-focus could function. Once the witness tilted the camera up and the plane became a light source in a featureless night sky, the auto-focus was confused and the plane is in different conditions of focus. The line is visible sometimes and sometimes not. The witness was moving the camera. Sometimes the obstruction was in the right place and sometimes not.

Or: There may be a number of flaws or obstructions within the structure of this supplementary lens system.
 
Last edited:
Mick West said:

Source: https://x.com/possiblygnostic/status/1916199564496785801

Please, Mick. Tell me
What is happening here. I am not touching the focus or zoom.
Click to expand...

The witness is confused about the auto-focus in the iPhone versus the focus ring on the clip-on lens. He's protesting that he's not touching the focus ring... but the image of the light is growing and shrinking. Of course, that's due to the auto-focus feature getting confused by a single light source in a featureless night sky.

He's concluded that the object itself is changing shape and size.


It seems he's not aware that there is such a thing as auto-focus and has never stopped to consider how things get into focus in an iPhone with or without the supplementary lens systems attached.

But he's willing to jump to the conclusion that he's videoing something very mysterious in the sky. A shape shifting orb!


I speculate that this all started when he was looking at bright stars scintillating, and he concluded that they were not stars but something mysterious. Really common. The Tedesco Bros. for example.



Why this happens:

Lack of Contrast: Auto-focus algorithms rely on contrast detection (or phase detection, in some cases). When there's only a single point of light against a dark sky, there's almost no contrast for the system to lock onto. It can't determine whether it's in focus or not.

No Texture or Depth Cues: Focus systems need edges, textures, or patterns to analyze. A smooth night sky has none of these. The small light source (e.g., a star or streetlight) isn't enough to anchor the focus.

Focus Hunting: In low-light conditions with poor contrast, the camera will "hunt" — it moves the lens back and forth trying to find focus but can't settle because there's no reliable reference point.

Light Source Bloom or Glare: A point light in darkness can create lens flare, bloom, or chromatic aberration, which may trick the focus system into thinking the object is larger or fuzzier than it is.
 
Last edited:
elvenwear said:
I suspect this may put dust or hair on the front lens or even elsewhere in the optical train in focus. To me, this is more likely than having a focal plane near an optical element.

In any case, it is clear the phone camera is focussing on something in the optical train that is not the virtual image and this is an inexcusable bad design. The clincher for me is that the defect is in perfect focus, but the image isn't. It is always out of focus to the same degree in different shots (ie the spots retain their size) indicating the defect is at a specific focus relative to infinity (ie on one of the optical surfaces). The defect moves vertically but is parallel to the image plane, which also indicates an internal defect.
Click to expand...

I guess we don't know the exact "clip on" telescope thingy he used. For what I can tell on the net, there are very simple ones, that attach to the phone. But, there are also a bit more expensive ones, where the phone attaches to the telescope, as the telescope is heavier and larger than the phone. I believe the latter one needs to have the occular removed, before attaching the phone. Did he do that? We don't know.

So, I think we are missing essential information to make a technical optical discussion easier.
We need to know what he exactly used and find out it's optical design. But I am pretty convinced the phone is focussing on something inside.
 
Last edited:
Giddierone said:
Yes we do. See #23
Click to expand...
Ah, I missed that post.. Thanks.
It seems the system does come with a "smart phone adapter", but there are no optical elements in it, and also it does not require the eye piece to be removed. Perhaps therefore it cannot image celestial bodies properly (it is certainly not designed for it!). Sometimes it prevents the system to go in "infinite" focus position.
 
Last edited:
I can't find my tape measure to measure exactly, but ballparking it, this is a bike headlight on top of my couch about 12ft away and a fishing line dangling about 4ft away, with the camera focused on the fishing line. The bike light is way out of focus.

Photo, and video. The light balance settings I configure for the photo go out the window when I turn on video mode so the room gets really dark. I'm not an expert and haven't figured out all the settings yet. However the focus is the same.
line.jpg



Off topic but it looks a bit like the album cover for the Coldplay album 'Parachutes'. Which was a light-up globe the band randomly found in a store and thought looked cool.

Coldplay_-_Parachutes.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachutes_(Coldplay_album)#/media/File:Coldplay_-_Parachutes.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mick West
Emails From a Pilot Regarding Starlink and Other Objects
Replies
3
Views
3K
Leekster
Leekster
NorCal Dave
Claim: A UFO crashed in 1933 Italy and the US Recovered it
Replies
34
Views
9K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
Meta Materials From UFOs
2 3 4
Replies
134
Views
32K
Gary C
Gary C
John J.
Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?
2
Replies
45
Views
10K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf
Mick West
Angels in a Snowstorm on Mt Athos - Bokeh?
Replies
19
Views
13K
Mick West
Mick West

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top