How to create little lightbursts like this?

[AaronLLockhart]

Edited after going back to look at the images

 

[EIngerson]

The street lights look nothing like the leds on the ground. And some of the LEDs don't have it. It's gotta be software.

The streetlights do have it, it's just very very faint - I'd put that to the exposure time and differing light source. These lights "twinkle"; if they are too dim/cycling at the time of exposure they could get missed. If you zoom in, you can see small starbursts. Also, with a fish-eye your focal plane is very distorted, could be that due to the angle of attack, the midline doesn't hit the right axis to produce the bursts. When using a bellows system you can achieve this regardless of the focal length by shifting the plane around.

Then again, I could be giving way too much benefit of doubt - Now I need to know, haha - I'm going to try and ask the photographer!

That's my point. They have it, but they are nothing like the ones on the ground. As for the cylcing of the light, it's a 15 second exposure. The refresh rate of the light is a non-factor.

You guys do realize that the guy that actually took that photo posted in this thread before you started your debate don't you? lol.

 

[pgriz]

You guys do realize that the guy that actually took that photo posted in this thread before you started your debate don't you? lol.

Ah, why let facts get in the way of a good, speculative arguement?

 

[Ballistics]

The streetlights do have it, it's just very very faint - I'd put that to the exposure time and differing light source. These lights "twinkle"; if they are too dim/cycling at the time of exposure they could get missed. If you zoom in, you can see small starbursts. Also, with a fish-eye your focal plane is very distorted, could be that due to the angle of attack, the midline doesn't hit the right axis to produce the bursts. When using a bellows system you can achieve this regardless of the focal length by shifting the plane around.

Then again, I could be giving way too much benefit of doubt - Now I need to know, haha - I'm going to try and ask the photographer!

That's my point. They have it, but they are nothing like the ones on the ground. As for the cylcing of the light, it's a 15 second exposure. The refresh rate of the light is a non-factor.

You guys do realize that the guy that actually took that photo posted in this thread before you started your debate don't you? lol.

No I didn't see that, but it still doesn't make sense. How do you have some lights have the stars but not others? I call BS.

 

[Ballistics]

You guys do realize that the guy that actually took that photo posted in this thread before you started your debate don't you? lol.

Ah, why let facts get in the way of a good, speculative arguement?

Some guy comes in and says he's the photographer and that's automatically a fact?

 

[Groucho]

The streetlights do have it, it's just very very faint - I'd put that to the exposure time and differing light source. These lights "twinkle"; if they are too dim/cycling at the time of exposure they could get missed. If you zoom in, you can see small starbursts. Also, with a fish-eye your focal plane is very distorted, could be that due to the angle of attack, the midline doesn't hit the right axis to produce the bursts. When using a bellows system you can achieve this regardless of the focal length by shifting the plane around.

Then again, I could be giving way too much benefit of doubt - Now I need to know, haha - I'm going to try and ask the photographer!

That's my point. They have it, but they are nothing like the ones on the ground. As for the cylcing of the light, it's a 15 second exposure. The refresh rate of the light is a non-factor.

You guys do realize that the guy that actually took that photo posted in this thread before you started your debate don't you? lol.

Yes, indeed. Absolutely no software involved other than basic Lightroom tweaking. No filters - again, good luck trying to use a cross screen filter on a fisheye!

Ballistics: the reason that some lights have the "stars" on them and some don't is because the lights vary in brightness; the light cycles between different LEDs to create a constantly-changing design. The lights that were on for the longest and were closest to the camera got nice big starbursts. Also remember that the sense of distance is distorted with a fisheye; the nearby starbursts are really very close to the lens, making their starbursts larger.

 

[Ballistics]

That's my point. They have it, but they are nothing like the ones on the ground. As for the cylcing of the light, it's a 15 second exposure. The refresh rate of the light is a non-factor.

You guys do realize that the guy that actually took that photo posted in this thread before you started your debate don't you? lol.

Yes, indeed. Absolutely no software involved other than basic Lightroom tweaking. No filters - again, good luck trying to use a cross screen filter on a fisheye!

Ballistics: the reason that some lights have the "stars" on them and some don't is because the lights vary in brightness; the light cycles between different LEDs to create a constantly-changing design. The lights that were on for the longest and were closest to the camera got nice big starbursts. Also remember that the sense of distance is distorted with a fisheye; the nearby starbursts are really very close to the lens, making their starbursts larger.

Building the Transformers... | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Then why in this image 2 out of the 3 lights have starbursts at f/5?

 

[Groucho]

You guys do realize that the guy that actually took that photo posted in this thread before you started your debate don't you? lol.

Yes, indeed. Absolutely no software involved other than basic Lightroom tweaking. No filters - again, good luck trying to use a cross screen filter on a fisheye!

Ballistics: the reason that some lights have the "stars" on them and some don't is because the lights vary in brightness; the light cycles between different LEDs to create a constantly-changing design. The lights that were on for the longest and were closest to the camera got nice big starbursts. Also remember that the sense of distance is distorted with a fisheye; the nearby starbursts are really very close to the lens, making their starbursts larger.

Building the Transformers... | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Then why in this image 2 out of the 3 lights have starbursts at f/5?

Because two of the three lights are giant night-time construction lights on a crane and one is a basic streetlight.

 

[Ballistics]

Yes, indeed. Absolutely no software involved other than basic Lightroom tweaking. No filters - again, good luck trying to use a cross screen filter on a fisheye!

Ballistics: the reason that some lights have the "stars" on them and some don't is because the lights vary in brightness; the light cycles between different LEDs to create a constantly-changing design. The lights that were on for the longest and were closest to the camera got nice big starbursts. Also remember that the sense of distance is distorted with a fisheye; the nearby starbursts are really very close to the lens, making their starbursts larger.

Building the Transformers... | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Then why in this image 2 out of the 3 lights have starbursts at f/5?

Because two of the three lights are giant night-time construction lights on a crane and one is a basic streetlight.

So what does that mean?

 

[Groucho]

Building the Transformers... | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Then why in this image 2 out of the 3 lights have starbursts at f/5?

Because two of the three lights are giant night-time construction lights on a crane and one is a basic streetlight.

So what does that mean?

Brighter lights mean bigger starbursts. It also helps if the light is small; the lights on the crane are a lot further away than the streetlight so are smaller. In the sidewalk photo, the lights are tiny fiber-optic lights (not LED as I stated earlier, that was simple forgetfulness on my part), so they can make a good starburst, especially against the dark background of a dimly-light walkway.

 

[Groucho]

A couple more examples of starbursts from this lens:
Moonlight over the Mansion | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
The Great Movie Fish | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
A "flare" for the library | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (straightened in Lightroom but shot with the fisheye)

I've got a ton of 'em on Flickr. You're welcome to pixel-peep to your heart's content but I assure you that it's the lens doing the work. I have too many photos to go through to spend time adding such things in software.

 

[jrizal]

No I didn't see that, but it still doesn't make sense. How do you have some lights have the stars but not others? I call BS.

To quote Groucho Dis who posted the photo in Flicker:

Well, I happened upon the thread independently and have posted twice now about the photo; the first post gave fairly detailed information about it. To sum up: no filter (generally speaking, impossible to use such a filter with a fisheye), no software enhancement or fabrication of the starbursts, and the different sizes are due to the LEDs being at varying brightness during the exposure, as they fade in and out pretty often.

But I do agree with pgriz that the facts do get in the way of a good speculative argument!

 

[Ballistics]

To quote Groucho Dis who posted the photo in Flicker:

Well, I happened upon the thread independently and have posted twice now about the photo; the first post gave fairly detailed information about it. To sum up: no filter (generally speaking, impossible to use such a filter with a fisheye), no software enhancement or fabrication of the starbursts, and the different sizes are due to the LEDs being at varying brightness during the exposure, as they fade in and out pretty often.

But I do agree with pgriz that the facts do get in the way of a good speculative argument!

Cool story bro.

 

[Ballistics]

A couple more examples of starbursts from this lens:
Moonlight over the Mansion | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
The Great Movie Fish | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
A "flare" for the library | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (straightened in Lightroom but shot with the fisheye)

I've got a ton of 'em on Flickr. You're welcome to pixel-peep to your heart's content but I assume you that it's the lens doing the work. I have too many photos to go through to spend time adding such things in software.

Hey if you say it isn't, I'll take your word for it. I just never saw starbursts on some lights and not others at such a wide aperture.

 

[Groucho]

A couple more examples of starbursts from this lens:
Moonlight over the Mansion | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
The Great Movie Fish | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
A "flare" for the library | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (straightened in Lightroom but shot with the fisheye)

I've got a ton of 'em on Flickr. You're welcome to pixel-peep to your heart's content but I assume you that it's the lens doing the work. I have too many photos to go through to spend time adding such things in software.

Hey if you say it isn't, I'll take your word for it. I just never saw starbursts on some lights and not others at such a wide aperture.

F13 is a wide aperture? It's pretty tiny, actually.

OK, you caught me. I've been secretly using software that I wrote to selectively add starbursts to certain photos in search of that elusive Flickr "Explore"! It's failed me dozens of times but it finally worked, and now you've got and blown my whole secret! And here I thought that I could keep it a secret forever! Especially when used on the utterly mundane and boring Transformers building photo I posted!



(yes, that is sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell!)