Yes, looks very like a static long exposure photo of a helicopter with a searchlight, which has had some extra lights and effects composited on.Interesting. The pictures look a lot like a purported Chinese UFO vid of, as far as I know, unknown provenance, known over on the paranormal boards on some of the "chans " as "That F------- LED Shower Head." Having read this thread, and going back to look more carefully at that vid, the little row of light produced by a long exposure of the flashing light at the top are there, but as discrete persisting lights in the video. I am now wondering if this vid is not an LED shower head after all, but simply FX fakery based on animating elements from original stills of a long exposure helicopter.
(Edited to fix fat fingers hitting wrong bits of tiny phone keypad...)
Turns out your hunch was correct! In the pinned comment on the below video, the photographer, Kerry from HomesteadHow, confirms that the time stamp on his camera was off by one hour. I agree it is most likely due to DST.The position of the helicopter and the Homestead does not fit well with the time of 9:22 pm. However on the way back, the helicopter was about 2 miles north from the house at 10:22 pm (UTC 3:22). The time of 9:22 he got from some photo info on the computer screen. So I assume the camera was still set to winter time.
It's a long exposure.
my shutter speed was less than 1 sec...pretty fast. I'm sorry to say I dont recall the exact speed (hoping the expert can help me look at metadata to be sure) but it was fast cause the lights from my house would be overexposed if longer AND the UFO was fast you can see in the 4 shots it moved just a bit..I literally click,click,click as fast as I coukd with almost no delay in between.
(from the comments under the pinned YouTube comment, already linked)
I've been reading the comments on the YT videos I can see your conversations with the true believers about this one, frustrating eh.ah! thank you, I should have realized!
Sadly no. I can't find the original, which bugs me no end. I suspect it was a few seconds though, as there are multiple red flashes.@Mick West I wonder if Mick has the exposure time for his helo shot.
There were four photos shown in the video around 4:45Is it confirmed there are 4 different photos? Have they all been shown?
Can any photography literate folks here speak to the idea that an exposure of less than one second is "pretty fast?" Depending on how close to one second we're talking, that would strike me as a pretty long exposure when photographing a moving helicopter, but since I amd a SLR guy my impression may be invalid.
Problem is a video is just a sequence of images, each images of the video also has an exposure time, usually to match the frame rate.
I got ~44 per minute or 0.733 every second meaning for 8 blobs to appear you would need an exposure time of ~11 seconds.
N347MT - Airbus Helicopters H135  - Flightradar24https://www.flightradar24.com › data › aircraft › n347mt
Flight history for aircraft - N347MT. AIRCRAFT Airbus Helicopters H135. AIRLINE Northwell and Yale New Haven SkyHealth. OPERATOR -. TYPE CODE EC35.
But the blinking red light has the same 1.3 seconds interval. And the white strobe has 3 to 4 flashes with a pause in between. That's not what we see in the photo. The 8 red dots are equally spaced and the white blob doesn't show any interruption. In my opinion the exposure time must have been something like 8*1.33s=10.64 seconds.It has a 'high-frequency' strobe, so to speak. It sends out series of flashes with intervals. One of those sequences would easily fit into one second.
Looking at this video around the 8-minute mark (I edited the video link in the quote to start there), I see a "flashing" reflection of a red light on the helicopter blades.I found one similar example on YT:
I made a drawing with all available parameters. According to Flightradar at 3:22 UTC (10:22 Homestead time, 9:22 camera time) the height of the heli was 2500ft/762m, speed was around 60kts/110km/h, distance about 3km/1,8 miles. Assuming that the exposure time was 10-11 seconds, the distance travelled was 325m/ 1066ft, which is an apparent length of 116m/380ft, spacing between red dots 18m/60ft. Alternatively with 1 second exposure time we get a travelled distance of 30m/100ft, apparent length would be 11m/36ft, dot spacing 2m/6,5ft, provided that the blinking red light was some kind of strobe. This is all rather vague, but one can now ask what we see on the photo, a travel distance of a few hundred feet or rather 36 feet, keeping in mind that the distance to the camera was 1,8 miles. Overall length of the helicopter is 13m/43ft.
That differs quite a bit from the 2964m I used in my drawing. I got the heli position from the map in Flightradar, comparing it to the map in Google Earth. However, at a speed of 110km/h the distance can vary in one minute up to 1000m, so everything is within a reasonable range.downrange distance of 792 m / tan(23.3°) = 1840 m.
I'll take answer 2, Matt.This is all rather vague, but one can now ask what we see on the photo, a travel distance of a few hundred feet or rather 36 feet, keeping in mind that the distance to the camera was 1,8 miles. Overall length of the helicopter is 13m/43ft.