Object In Sky [Internal Lens Reflection, iPhone 5]

[Jenna]

Hello, I'm from Chicago and I was taking pictures of the sky to document chemtrails, and I captured a bright, circular object in the sky next to the sun in all the photos. I also took a video of it as well, and I attached a link to my YouTube video below . I have only seen a handful of other photos similar to this... I'm wondering if it shows up on anyone else's camera when taking photos/video? I have been researching Nibiru/Planet X lately and I have a feeling that's what I'm seeing. Please let me know your opinion....

[Mod: video broken, replaced with image]

 

[Mick West]

Were you inside a building or a car when you took this video?

 

[Jenna]

Were you inside a building or a car when you took this video?

I was outside when I took it.

 

[WeedWhacker]

...and I was taking pictures of the sky to document chemtrails....

Off-topic, but might I suggest a search within MetaBunk to help you learn that so-called "chemtrails" are, indeed....bunk?

...and I captured a bright, circular object in the sky next to the sun in all the photos. I also took a video of it as well, and I attached a link to my YouTube video below. I have only seen a handful of other photos similar to this... I'm wondering if it shows up on anyone else's camera when taking photos/video? I have been researching Nibiru/Planet X lately and I have a feeling that's what I'm seeing.

Firstly, and with exuberance, I can absolutely positively assure you that there is no "Nibiru/Planet X" as is commonly suggested on many Internet venues, including YouTube. (A brief examination and education in the science of astronomy will quickly show why).

Your video "spot" however? This will take some time to explain and it IS the topic.

My initial opinion on that spot (and, this is just my one take on it, having seen MANY other examples from other people) is that it is an artifact of the camera. Lens "flare" is one thing, but lenses can also cause other focii and "hotspots", especially when subjected to one very bright, very intense, and localized source. As in your photo example.

Good luck!

 

[Mick West]

Any more photos you can post? originals if possible (just click on "Upload File" next to "Post Reply").

It looks like some kind of lens reflection to me.

What type of camera is is?

 

[Mick West]

Here is an example of internal reflection of the sun on a iPhone. This is essentially an image of the sun. Just a lot dimmer.

 

[Jenna]

The first photo was taken yesterday. Second photo was taken today. Both taken with my iphone 5.

 

[Jenna]

Any more photos you can post? originals if possible (just click on "Upload File" next to "Post Reply").

It looks like some kind of lens reflection to me.

What type of camera is is?

I posted a response below with some photos.

 

[Pete Tar]

You could get a solar filter that fit a pair of binoculars and look at the sun with them, and then compare to taking a photo with your i-phone.
It is almost certain this a camera artifact.

 

[Leifer]

Virtually every lens has two or more elements (lenses with space between them).
Here, I made a simple diagram.....
(sorry for the poor diagram...used MS Paint)



The bright point of light (the sun in this case) travels through two or more lens elements.
In between the lens elements there can be additional reflections....usually unwanted, but that's the nature of lenses.
These reflections can and do bounce to a different part of an inner element and create a new reflection, which means you will see those "unwanted spots", because they are in a different place than the original pinpoint object (sun).
They will show up in your recording.
There surly could be more than one such reflection, inside the lens elements, as well.

 

[Jenna]

View attachment 6775
Virtually every lens has two or more elements (lenses with space between them).
Here, I made a simple diagram.....
(sorry for the poor diagram...used MS Paint)



The bright point of light (the sun in this case) travels through two or more lens elements.
In between the lens elements there can be additional reflections....usually unwanted, but that's the nature of lenses.
These reflections can and do bounce to a different part of an inner element and create a new reflection, which means you will see those "unwanted spots", because they are in a different place than the original pinpoint object (sun).
They will show up in your recording.

Thank you for explaining that in a simple way for someone like me who knows nothing about camera lenses . Should I expect the same spot to show up if I use other cameras or devices to capture photos/videos?

 

[Pete Tar]

Yes, that is why the planet x phenomenon is directly related to youtube videos taken of the sun. All were only apparent on viewing the video or photo, not seen with the naked eye.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Should I expect the same spot to show up if I use other cameras or devices to capture photos/videos?

The exact dimensions of any individual camera will be variable. It all depends on the manufacturer and specific design, of course.

Glad that you asked the question. It certainly is fun to learn new facts, and I enjoy it immensely!!

 

[Mick West]

The first photo was taken yesterday. Second photo was taken today. Both taken with my iphone 5.

It really just looks like a reflection. Here's a flashlight simulating the sun:



Zooming in, you can see it's a dim image of the flashlight

 

[Jenna]

Okay, very interesting. Thank you for your replies!!!

 

[Leifer]

......Should I expect the same spot to show up if I use other cameras or devices to capture photos/videos?

Certainly.....no lens is perfect.
The more expensive professional lenses try to eliminate this effect as much as possible.
But in fact, many photographers enjoy the look !
http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/resources/lensflareRendering/

Lens flare is an effect caused by light passing through a photographic
lens in any other way than the one intended by design—most importantly
through interreflection between optical elements (ghosting).
Flare becomes most prominent when a small number of very
bright lights is present in a scene. In traditional photography and
cinematography, lens flare is considered a degrading artifact and
therefore undesired. Among the measures to reduce stray light in an
optical system are optimized barrel designs, anti-reflective coatings,
and lens hoods.
http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/resources/lensflareRendering/pdf/flare.pdf

EDIT:
Not to beat this to death, but there can even be reflections off your camera's sensor.....being bounced back to/off the closest lens element, then right back into the sensor.
I know my camera (Nikon D7100) sensor has a reflective glass-like coating (although ideally the sensor should be somewhat "anti-reflective" to artifacts) At that point....any image/artifact captured should be very out-of-focus....I would think.

 

[Jenna]

I used the "Night Sky" app on my phone to see which planets (if any) are near the Sun, and this is a screen shot taken from the app. I am thinking what I'm seeing is one of these planets..?

 

[Astro]

Here's a video that shows a useful technique for instantly proving that it's just an internal reflection of the sun.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I am thinking what I'm seeing is one of these planets..?

Highly unlikely.

But, it would be educational in any case. You could also download a free program to your computer, it's called "Stellarium":
http://www.stellarium.org/

Your YT video is dated 7 April? So, I looked (not sure of the time of day, I used 1300...1 PM) On Stellarium. Mercury and Uranus were in the field of view. However, it is very unlikely that you'd be able to see them compared to the Sun's brightness.

In your video the "spot" showed up on the left, or approximately 9 o'clock position relative to the Sun's disc.

On Stellarium, Mercury and Uranus are down to the lower right, about 4 or 5 o'clock.

 

[Jenna]

Highly unlikely.

But, it would be educational in any case. You could also download a free program to your computer, it's called "Stellarium":
http://www.stellarium.org/

Your YT video is dated 7 April? So, I looked (not sure of the time of day, I used 1300...1 PM) On Stellarium. Mercury and Uranus were in the field of view. However, it is very unlikely that you'd be able to see them compared to the Sun's brightness.

In your video the "spot" showed up on the left, or approximately 9 o'clock position relative to the Sun's disc.

On Stellarium, Mercury and Uranus are down to the lower right, about 4 or 5 o'clock.

Please review my video, as you can see the bright spot is to the right of the sun.... exactly how it appears in the screen shot from Night Sky.
I have used Stellarium before. It's really neat. I haven't downloaded it onto my new PC yet. Thanks for reminding me!

 

[deirdre]

did you try taking a pic of the sun on a different day? with the same camera?

 

[WeedWhacker]

Please review my video, as you can see the bright spot is to the right of the sun....

I just looked again, and you're correct (I must have accidentally watched a different one, on YT somehow....somebody else's did have a spot to the left).

Looking at the correct one (yours), I see the spot is approximately in the same location as Uranus from Stellarium. However, knowing the distance to Uranus, and its relative brightness, I am concluding that this is just coincidence.

It is, again, unlikely that a cellphone camera's lens and CCD would be able to resolve Uranus (or Mercury) during daytime, with the Sun also in the image, and not mechanically blocked out (as I infer some astronomers have specialized equipment to do so).

 

[Mick West]

It is, again, unlikely that a cellphone camera's lens and CCD would be able to resolve Uranus (or Mercury) during daytime, with the Sun also in the image, and not mechanically blocked out (as I infer some astronomers have specialized equipment to do so).

Not just unlikely. It's impossible. Mercury is, at it's brightest, dimmer than the top 100 brightest stars. And you can't see any stars in photos in the daytime. Uranus is basically invisible even at night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_magnitude

 

[WeedWhacker]

Not just unlikely. It's impossible. Mercury is, at it's brightest, dimmer than the top 100 brightest stars. And you can't see any stars in photos in the daytime. Uranus is basically invisible even at night.

Well, yes....I was hedging a little. I mean, I am aware that Uranus cannot be seen with the naked eye. Mercury can, though of course not in daytime conditions, and only when knowing exactly where to look, and when it is illuminated properly in its orbit, relative to the Earth's orbital location, etc, etc.

What should be pointed out is....many in the general populace simply don't have the astronomy science background, even as amateurs, to understand the implications when some on the Internet (not the OP, here) shout doomsday pro(fit)-cies by claiming "Nibiru" or some such.

In order for such an object (such as the imaginary "Nibiru") to be visible, in broad daylight, it would be:

(A) Immense;

(B) Very nearby; and...

(C) Obviously visible to EVERYONE, even without using a cellphone camera!!

 

[Jenna]

Guess the timing of Uranus and Mercury being in that exact location, and me capturing these photos and videos are just a huge coincidence. Haha...

 

[WeedWhacker]

Guess the timing of Uranus and Mercury being in that exact location, and me capturing these photos and videos are just a huge coincidence. Haha...

Yes....coincidence.

And no, not the "exact" location(s).

Sorry.

 

[Jenna]

Yes....coincidence.

And no, not the "exact" location(s).

Sorry.

I didn't mean "exact" in the way you're implying.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I didn't mean "exact" in the way you're implying.

If it's not exact, then it is just a coincidence. Correct?

And, as already pointed out, to repeat: Anything that could be photographed by a digital camera (with all of its inherent potential for internal flaws when pointed at a very, very bright object....such as the Sun), then this "anything" that can be picked up by the CCD sensor in a digital camera would ALSO be immediately visible to every person on this planet, on the day-side. (Per the "location" suggested in the video).

 

[Jenna]

It must be a coincidence. I will go back to life as usual. Good day.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Here's a video that shows a useful technique for instantly proving that it's just an internal reflection of the sun.

Here is an example of internal reflection of the sun on a iPhone. This is essentially an image of the sun. Just a lot dimmer.

Doesn't taking a picture of the sun risk damaging the various sensors inside the camera?

 

[Mick West]

Doesn't taking a picture of the sun risk damaging the various sensors inside the camera?

Only if you zoom in, and hold it there for a while. Consider camcorders (or just the phone while you are composing the photo). They work outside taking 30 pictures a second, with the sensor fully exposed the entire time. If they got damaged whenever the sun was in frame, they would have a very short life indeed.

 

[Astro]

Doesn't taking a picture of the sun risk damaging the various sensors inside the camera?

Well I wouldn't do it to any camera that was particularly valuable to me, but personally my cell phone camera just isn't. Its front glass plate is already cracked anyway over one of its two sensors (it's a 3d camera). Many people have old cell phones they're not using anymore which have cameras suitable for testing this.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

It's a great test. Simple to perform and I'd say pretty conclusive. I was about to go out to try it. I looked down at my new $400 phone and thought, "Hmm... hold on a second."

 

[Astro]

It's a great test. Simple to perform and I'd say pretty conclusive. I was about to go out to try it. I looked down at my new $400 phone and thought, "Hmm... hold on a second."

I apologize, I probably should have put a disclaimer on my post that it should only be attempted by those already willing to risk their cameras by pointing them at the sun in the first place. I usually keep my SLR with me for the most part, so my cell phone camera is usually redundant aside from the 3d gimmick.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

I apologize, I probably should have put a disclaimer on my post that it should only be attempted by those already willing to risk their cameras by pointing them at the sun in the first place. I usually keep my SLR with me for the most part, so my cell phone camera is usually redundant aside from the 3d gimmick.

Now worries, I think most reasonable people would know not to point a camera at the sun for an extended period of time. I just wasn't sure about the sensitivity of CCD or CMOS sensors. Internet opinions seem to be all over the map.

Anyway, I took a picture of the sun while blocking it out with my finger. The reflection disappeared and there was no apparent damage to my wife's cell phone camera. So, good news all around.