Roman in Wakefield

Check out this link. The Outwwod Community Video Club think they have a Roman Solidier on film. There is a link to the footafe on the site. Any comments?

http://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/video-test/Roman-ghost-baffles-club.3373004.jp

Absolutely no offence intended but it looks to me like a blurred pic of a female jogger. Maybe i need to put my other glasses on?

I've watched that about 10 times now. It just doesnt feel right if you know what i mean.... I dont think its an insect on the lens but i do think its something on the lens, maybe a bit of water slowly moving and then drying ?? Looks a bit blustery and there are all sorts of things flying past the lens.
Viewed it again, if you look at the "romans" head it looks like there is a trail of some sort going up about 3mm and then going upwards at an angle to the left.
Also it seems the picture flickers when the image becomes sharper, creative lens blur editing maybe ?

Still quite good though.

Lee.

Watched it again, by the gods im a saddo look to the left of the head, there is a small white (dare i say it) Orb that only appears after the camera is moved and sharpens up as the figure sharpens up. I am now convinced there is something on the lens. Bloody digital cameras....

I'm not convinced it is really a ghost, I'm not really sure what it is but something about it screams FAKE to me.

Hi All, I'm interested to know George Gunns's Outwood Community members in the photograph and why they all on close inspection look sheepish . Can't think why,but was George filming the cross country race and its contestants, why should one want to film an Avenue of trees in the wind with noone around , what interest has Mr Gunn have in Country Running? Still want to know about Belgrave Hall I think a possible close case to the Unexplained!?

Amazing that ghosts are so often making themselves visible only to digital cameras. Hmm.

Looks fake to me, possibly manipulated, a drop of water that looked kind of Roman and was changed a bit?

Yip I think it's a fake....if you watch it closely when the ghost appears the actual picture changes.....watch the end of the path at the faraway end....the gap is very wide....but when the ghost appears the picture changes and the gap at the end of the path closes in....the picture is at a different angle altogether from what it was at the start....you can actually see the picture change if you don't concentrate on the ghost...

It's lens flare! If you notice, the brightness of the figure matches the brightness of the sunlight. The figure is absolutely still because the camera is stationary - on a tripod, I assume. Everything surrounding the figure is in motion, because of the wind. None of the joggers notices the figure because it is only visible in the camera. This is all exactly what you would expect with lens flare caused by the sun just out of view above the frame.

You tell them MS.

I really must learn more about photograph analysis .

I'm more inclined to give this one some credit, though I too am somewhat skeptical of the sudden jump in picture.

However, I do not belive that it is lens flare. Notice, as the joggers move through the picture, the image dissappears, however, it does not re-brighten afterwards, as light composition returns to the original levels it appeared in. It's also not something on the lens, notice it dosn't blow off, it fades out.

Water would produce a smearing ofthe image as it ran down the lens and changed color as the joggers move through the scene, and motion behind the 'subject' is consistent with it not being a simple digital manipulation (as typically, the pixels in a simple manip are either 'frozen' or 'blurry' and these are neither) This does not rule out some other manipulation (off camera lights producing a flare, more ''professional' manipulations using seperate layers to achive the effect, etc.)

But, once again, as it's not done under controlled circumstances, I can only rate it 'Interesting'

baroniveagh wrote:

However, I do not belive that it is lens flare. Notice, as the joggers move through the picture, the image dissappears, however, it does not re-brighten afterwards, as light composition returns to the original levels it appeared in. It's also not something on the lens, notice it dosn't blow off, it fades out.

The figure's intensity varies precisely with the shadow intensity of the bushes cast onto the right hand side of the path in the foreground. It is lens flare.

MS, I disagree, but, I'll grant you, I havn't done a direct digital analysis of the footage, I'm just going off what I see with the eyeball mk I.

I think eyes will serve perfectly well for such an open and shut case of lens flare.

Eh, as I said, I disagree, but I also point out that I said it's not proof of a ghost, there are too many unknowns. It only rates an 'Interesting'. Now, if we had this image taken under tightly controlled circumstances I'd say it was credible evidence.

I can't see why you have a problem with such an obvious case of lens flare. Your objection was "... the image dissappears, however, it does not re-brighten afterwards, as light composition returns to the original levels it appeared in."

However, neither does the shadow I mentioned return to its previous intensity. The shadow is an indicator of the intensity of the light source causing the flare ie. the sun. The overall light of the image may vary according to auto-exposure in the camera so it is not relevant. So where is the problem?

Eh, like I said, we disagree. Relax. I don't see it that way, but I respect your views. Even highly trained doctors can disagree on the same case. (Lucky for us, the patient is already dead. And may have been for a long time. )

I have already summarised the very obvious evidence that this is lens flare and dealt with your apparent objection. If you still disagree, you must have some reason. Perhaps you could share it. Please get as technical as you like, I will understand.

I am perfectly relaxed, however, I see no point in perpetuating a mystery which has a clear and obvious solution.