Transparent cat(?!)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Adam, Aug 22, 2003.

  1. Adam

    Adam Guest

    Hi,

    Recently, while we went on holiday, our cat was sent away to stay with my
    parents for a couple of weeks. As parents do, they took a couple of photos
    of the cat to show us when we got back. However, there is something rather
    odd with one of the pictures.

    I promise that this image has not been modified in anyway, the image linked
    below is exactly how is came out of the digital camera...

    http://www.the-firs.org/button/large.jpg

    It would appear that my cat is transparent (although, I can't say I've ever
    noticed before!). If you look just below her ears you can clearly see my
    mothers feet through the cat's head(!). Also the TV stand is viewable though
    her left ear, and her left front paw appears to be slightly see-thru!

    Does anyone have any idea on how this can have happened?! - According to my
    mother (who took the photo), she doesn't remember any quick movement or
    anything else unusual which would effect the photo!

    Maybe we've just got a ghost cat? :)
    Adam, Aug 22, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Adam

    Lionel Guest

    On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:55:02 +0100, in
    <yMl1b.3419$>, "Adam"
    <> said:

    >It would appear that my cat is transparent (although, I can't say I've ever
    >noticed before!). If you look just below her ears you can clearly see my
    >mothers feet through the cat's head(!). Also the TV stand is viewable though
    >her left ear, and her left front paw appears to be slightly see-thru!
    >
    >Does anyone have any idea on how this can have happened?!


    Yep. The camera did a long exposure (>1/2 second, possibly using 'night
    shot' mode) because of the poor light, & the cat jumped off her lap when
    the flash went off. And if she claims that she doesn't remember getting
    a lap full of claws when the cat freaked out, she's just having fun with
    you. ;)

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Lionel, Aug 22, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Adam

    Adam Guest

    "Jos Groot Lipman" <> wrote in message
    news:MPG.19b00ac2a9dd3da098968b@news...
    > > I promise that this image has not been modified in anyway, the image

    linked
    > > below is exactly how is came out of the digital camera...

    >
    > If it is not modified in any way how come there is no EXIF data on the

    ..jpg?
    > What camera do you use?


    I'm not sure what camera my mum uses, but I've emailed her to ask her and
    will post here when I know!
    A.
    Adam, Aug 22, 2003
    #3
  4. Easy answer to this one. It could have been done with a film based
    camera and a straight print.

    First one must know cats often flip their ears quite quickly. The photo
    was in dim light and the exposure was longer than average. The lighting
    cased some interesting results from the long hairs common inside the cat's
    ears.

    The cap flipped its left ear closed during the exposure, resulting in
    effect a double exposure, one as expected and the other with the ear held
    close to the head. The left paw also shows the same and the right ear may
    also show it.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


    "Adam" <> wrote in message
    news:yMl1b.3419$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > Recently, while we went on holiday, our cat was sent away to stay with my
    > parents for a couple of weeks. As parents do, they took a couple of photos
    > of the cat to show us when we got back. However, there is something rather
    > odd with one of the pictures.
    >
    > I promise that this image has not been modified in anyway, the image

    linked
    > below is exactly how is came out of the digital camera...
    >
    > http://www.the-firs.org/button/large.jpg
    >
    > It would appear that my cat is transparent (although, I can't say I've

    ever
    > noticed before!). If you look just below her ears you can clearly see my
    > mothers feet through the cat's head(!). Also the TV stand is viewable

    though
    > her left ear, and her left front paw appears to be slightly see-thru!
    >
    > Does anyone have any idea on how this can have happened?! - According to

    my
    > mother (who took the photo), she doesn't remember any quick movement or
    > anything else unusual which would effect the photo!
    >
    > Maybe we've just got a ghost cat? :)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Joseph Meehan, Aug 22, 2003
    #4
  5. Adam

    ajacobs2 Guest

    Scientific Conclusion:
    You have a possessed cat.
    It is also overfed.




    "Adam" I'm not sure what camera my mum uses, but I've emailed her to ask
    her and
    > will post here when I know!
    ajacobs2, Aug 22, 2003
    #5
  6. > It would appear that my cat is transparent (although, I can't say I've
    ever
    > noticed before!). If you look just below her ears you can clearly see my
    > mothers feet through the cat's head(!). Also the TV stand is viewable

    though
    > her left ear, and her left front paw appears to be slightly see-thru!


    That's really not the issue here... More importantly, I think you need to
    put your cat on a diet!

    --
    Phil, Squid-in-Training
    Phil, Squid-in-Training, Aug 22, 2003
    #6
  7. Adam

    BG250 Guest

    Yes,

    1) It is slow shutter speed with flash. It may cause a double exposure
    effect if the subject moved during exposure.

    2) Your cat truly is transparent. Change its diet!
    bg

    "Adam" <> wrote in message
    news:yMl1b.3419$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > Recently, while we went on holiday, our cat was sent away to stay with my
    > parents for a couple of weeks. As parents do, they took a couple of photos
    > of the cat to show us when we got back. However, there is something rather
    > odd with one of the pictures.
    >
    > I promise that this image has not been modified in anyway, the image

    linked
    > below is exactly how is came out of the digital camera...
    >
    > http://www.the-firs.org/button/large.jpg
    >
    > It would appear that my cat is transparent (although, I can't say I've

    ever
    > noticed before!). If you look just below her ears you can clearly see my
    > mothers feet through the cat's head(!). Also the TV stand is viewable

    though
    > her left ear, and her left front paw appears to be slightly see-thru!
    >
    > Does anyone have any idea on how this can have happened?! - According to

    my
    > mother (who took the photo), she doesn't remember any quick movement or
    > anything else unusual which would effect the photo!
    >
    > Maybe we've just got a ghost cat? :)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    BG250, Aug 22, 2003
    #7
  8. Adam

    Adam Guest

    "Adam" <> wrote in message
    news:q9m1b.3581$...
    >
    > "Jos Groot Lipman" <> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.19b00ac2a9dd3da098968b@news...
    > > > I promise that this image has not been modified in anyway, the image

    > linked
    > > > below is exactly how is came out of the digital camera...

    > >
    > > If it is not modified in any way how come there is no EXIF data on the

    > .jpg?
    > > What camera do you use?

    >
    > I'm not sure what camera my mum uses, but I've emailed her to ask her and
    > will post here when I know!


    Apparantly, it's a Olympus Camedia C-4000 Zoom
    (http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/digimg/intro.cfm?id=C-4000ZOOM)

    A.
    Adam, Aug 22, 2003
    #8
  9. Adam

    dan stanton Guest

    Adam <> wrote:
    > http://www.the-firs.org/button/large.jpg
    > Does anyone have any idea on how this can have happened?! - According to my
    > Maybe we've just got a ghost cat? :)


    Looks like the effects of a chronosynclastic infundibulum.
    dan stanton, Aug 22, 2003
    #9
  10. Adam

    Herb Kauhry Guest

    That's one of those Cheshire cats, I believe.

    --

    "Adam" <> wrote in message
    news:yMl1b.3419$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > Recently, while we went on holiday, our cat was sent away to stay with my
    > parents for a couple of weeks. As parents do, they took a couple of photos
    > of the cat to show us when we got back. However, there is something rather
    > odd with one of the pictures.
    >
    > I promise that this image has not been modified in anyway, the image

    linked
    > below is exactly how is came out of the digital camera...
    >
    > http://www.the-firs.org/button/large.jpg
    >
    > It would appear that my cat is transparent (although, I can't say I've

    ever
    > noticed before!). If you look just below her ears you can clearly see my
    > mothers feet through the cat's head(!). Also the TV stand is viewable

    though
    > her left ear, and her left front paw appears to be slightly see-thru!
    >
    > Does anyone have any idea on how this can have happened?! - According to

    my
    > mother (who took the photo), she doesn't remember any quick movement or
    > anything else unusual which would effect the photo!
    >
    > Maybe we've just got a ghost cat? :)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Herb Kauhry, Aug 22, 2003
    #10
  11. On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:11:55 +0200, Jos Groot Lipman
    <> wrote:

    >> I promise that this image has not been modified in anyway, the image linked
    >> below is exactly how is came out of the digital camera...

    >
    >If it is not modified in any way how come there is no EXIF data on the .jpg?
    >What camera do you use?


    IF it has not been modified then it *IS* a double exposure.

    I've seen the effect many times. So if the image was not modified by
    layering in one image over the other, there is only one other answer.


    Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
    N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
    Roger Halstead, Aug 22, 2003
    #11
  12. Adam

    Mark M Guest

    "Adam" <> wrote in message
    news:yMl1b.3419$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > Recently, while we went on holiday, our cat was sent away to stay with my
    > parents for a couple of weeks. As parents do, they took a couple of photos
    > of the cat to show us when we got back. However, there is something rather
    > odd with one of the pictures.
    >
    > I promise that this image has not been modified in anyway, the image

    linked
    > below is exactly how is came out of the digital camera...
    >
    > http://www.the-firs.org/button/large.jpg


    Simple.
    Longish exposure (say...1 second) with flash.
    Flash picture taken with slow shutter...
    ....The cat raised it's head and closed it's eyes, reacting to the bright
    flash.
    This exposed him dimly, AFTER the foot was exposed brightly by the initial
    flash burst. The already-exposed feet/background left their image on the
    pixels, and then the less illuminated cat's head left it's image to a lesser
    degree. The head-raise is why the rest of the cat is not transparent...save
    for his left (our right) paw--which was also moved after the flash burst.
    Mark M, Aug 22, 2003
    #12
  13. Adam

    Mark M Guest

    "Roger Halstead" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:11:55 +0200, Jos Groot Lipman
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >> I promise that this image has not been modified in anyway, the image

    linked
    > >> below is exactly how is came out of the digital camera...

    > >
    > >If it is not modified in any way how come there is no EXIF data on the

    ..jpg?
    > >What camera do you use?

    >
    > IF it has not been modified then it *IS* a double exposure.


    No it wasn't.
    Here's my explanation (also posted below).
    ....
    Simple.
    Longish exposure (say...1 second) with flash.
    Flash picture taken with slow shutter...
    ....The cat raised it's head and closed it's eyes, reacting to the bright
    flash.
    This exposed him dimly, AFTER the foot was exposed brightly by the initial
    flash burst. The already-exposed feet/background left their image on the
    pixels, and then the less illuminated cat's head left it's image to a lesser
    degree. The head-raise is why the rest of the cat is not transparent...save
    for his left (our right) paw--which was also moved after the flash burst.
    Mark M, Aug 22, 2003
    #13
  14. Adam

    Mark M Guest

    "Mark M" <> wrote in message
    news:JGu1b.13045$nf3.12893@fed1read07...
    >
    > "Adam" <> wrote in message
    > news:yMl1b.3419$...
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > Recently, while we went on holiday, our cat was sent away to stay with

    my
    > > parents for a couple of weeks. As parents do, they took a couple of

    photos
    > > of the cat to show us when we got back. However, there is something

    rather
    > > odd with one of the pictures.
    > >
    > > I promise that this image has not been modified in anyway, the image

    > linked
    > > below is exactly how is came out of the digital camera...
    > >
    > > http://www.the-firs.org/button/large.jpg

    >
    > Simple.
    > Longish exposure (say...1 second) with flash.
    > Flash picture taken with slow shutter...
    > ...The cat raised it's head and closed it's eyes, reacting to the bright
    > flash.
    > This exposed him dimly, AFTER the foot was exposed brightly by the initial
    > flash burst. The already-exposed feet/background left their image on the
    > pixels, and then the less illuminated cat's head left it's image to a

    lesser
    > degree. The head-raise is why the rest of the cat is not

    transparent...save
    > for his left (our right) paw--which was also moved after the flash burst.


    I should add...that the cat's head could have been laid back...out of
    view... when the flash occurred. The cat then quickly lifted his head with
    eyes closed momentarily...which would explain why there is no clear head in
    it's initial flashed position.
    Mark M, Aug 22, 2003
    #14
  15. "Mark M" <> wrote in message
    news:2Iu1b.13046$nf3.4345@fed1read07...
    >
    > No it wasn't.
    > Here's my explanation (also posted below).
    > ...
    > Simple.
    > Longish exposure (say...1 second) with flash.
    > Flash picture taken with slow shutter...
    > ...The cat raised it's head and closed it's eyes, reacting to the bright
    > flash.
    > This exposed him dimly, AFTER the foot was exposed brightly by the initial
    > flash burst. The already-exposed feet/background left their image on the
    > pixels, and then the less illuminated cat's head left it's image to a

    lesser
    > degree. The head-raise is why the rest of the cat is not

    transparent...save
    > for his left (our right) paw--which was also moved after the flash burst.


    Right concept, wrong order.

    The cat was illuminated by the flash's initial burst, evidenced by the cyan
    cast on it. It then turned away, as it was probably in mid flop/capsize
    when the flash fired. The photographer's feet were then exposed to the
    camera, illuminated by the ambient incandescent room light, much warmer in
    color than the flash.
    Jeff Zawrotny, Aug 22, 2003
    #15
  16. Adam

    Anonymous Guest

    ajacobs2 schreef:

    > Scientific Conclusion:
    > You have a possessed cat.
    > It is also overfed.


    LOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLL
    Anonymous, Aug 22, 2003
    #16
  17. Adam

    Mark M Guest

    "Jeff Zawrotny" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Mark M" <> wrote in message
    > news:2Iu1b.13046$nf3.4345@fed1read07...
    > >
    > > No it wasn't.
    > > Here's my explanation (also posted below).
    > > ...
    > > Simple.
    > > Longish exposure (say...1 second) with flash.
    > > Flash picture taken with slow shutter...
    > > ...The cat raised it's head and closed it's eyes, reacting to the bright
    > > flash.
    > > This exposed him dimly, AFTER the foot was exposed brightly by the

    initial
    > > flash burst. The already-exposed feet/background left their image on

    the
    > > pixels, and then the less illuminated cat's head left it's image to a

    > lesser
    > > degree. The head-raise is why the rest of the cat is not

    > transparent...save
    > > for his left (our right) paw--which was also moved after the flash

    burst.
    >
    > Right concept, wrong order.
    >
    > The cat was illuminated by the flash's initial burst, evidenced by the

    cyan
    > cast on it. It then turned away, as it was probably in mid flop/capsize
    > when the flash fired. The photographer's feet were then exposed to the
    > camera, illuminated by the ambient incandescent room light, much warmer in
    > color than the flash.


    Perhaps true.
    Mark M, Aug 22, 2003
    #17
  18. Adam wrote:
    > ...
    > Maybe we've just got a ghost cat? :)
    > ...


    The cat is definitely underfed. It is getting so thin that it becomes
    transparent.

    --
    Best regards,
    Andrey Tarasevich
    Andrey Tarasevich, Aug 23, 2003
    #18
  19. On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:25:40 -0700, Andrey Tarasevich
    <> wrote:

    >Adam wrote:
    >> ...
    >> Maybe we've just got a ghost cat? :)
    >> ...

    >
    >The cat is definitely underfed. It is getting so thin that it becomes
    >transparent.


    Some one should call the humane society and make sure they feed that
    cat. He's wasting away to nothing.

    Roger
    Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
    N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
    Roger Halstead, Aug 23, 2003
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Gary
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    713
    Arnold Nipper
    Dec 2, 2005
  2. =?Utf-8?B?Unlhbg==?=

    Cat 5 vs Cat 6

    =?Utf-8?B?Unlhbg==?=, Apr 21, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,304
    Jack \(MVP-Networking\).
    Apr 21, 2006
  3. Hoffa
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,477
    James
    Sep 21, 2006
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    976
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    508
Loading...

Share This Page