Cameras, digital cameras, cam phones, and UFO's.

[Anonymous]

If we go by some of the eye wittness reports then there are UFO's out there which are massive. Big has several football pitches even. Now if that is the case, in this internet digital age why are these objects not being picked up clearly and recorded onto digital cameras or mobile phone cams clearly?

Could it be a technological issue? Could digital cameras be affected by magnetic fields or some technology we dont understand fully? This also applies to camcorders has well. Although camcorders do record decent UFO footage its never crystal clear or undeniable. Maybe its a case of "hacking" the digital camera and changing the cameras limitations.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Well, as we now know, it is possible to make objects invisible.
Scientists are working on cloaking devices as I type this...

 

[stu neville]

Well, for a start, phone cameras often aren't all that good outside of their comfort zone of people in good light at close range. Mine's great with that particular composition, but in bad light or over great distances it's not so hot. Apart from anything else, non-top-of-the-range cameras aren't nearly as good at "seeing" things as the human eye. Even good quality kit, in the hands of the relatively incompetent can give dismal results: I've got a fairly decent camera, but when trying to take what should have been a pant-wettingly ace photo of a hot air balloon over a misty village with the sunrise in the background turned into an orangey grey blur with a fuzzy steeple in the middle of it. Likewise, an equally stunning pic of a huge red moon a few weeks ago turned into a disappointingly distant slightly orangey blob against a black sky (not unlike a number of UFO pics, as it goes.) A pro would doubtless have fared better, but most people who take UFO footage and pics aren't experts.

 

[Pete Younger]

And of course if we do see a clear picture we assume it's a fake because it's too clear.

 

[taras]

what should have been a pant-wettingly ace photo of a hot air balloon over a misty village with the sunrise in the background turned into an orangey grey blur with a fuzzy steeple in the middle of it. Likewise, an equally stunning pic of a huge red moon a few weeks ago turned into a disappointingly distant slightly orangey blob against a black sky

I'm sure you already know this, but just rest the camera on a flat surface, put it on self-timer, and let it take the photo without any shake..

 

[stu neville]

I'm sure you already know this, but just rest the camera on a flat surface, put it on self-timer, and let it take the photo without any shake..

The moon pic was: it was rested on a pile of books looking out of an open window. The balloon one was on the hoof - but then again, these are the conditions under which a lot of UFO footage is taken.

 

[DougalLongfoot]

I think people generally overestimate how easy it would be to get a shot. I experienced a good example in April when I was at Loch Ness. I was at Urquhart Castle, and naturally was keeping an eye out for any sight of the monster. I had both a digital camera and digital video with me. Suddenly I heard the screaming of engines and two F-15 fighters came flying up the loch at low level. Interesting enough for a photo, but I just stood and looked in surprise. So in a situation where I had two cameras and was looking for something to photograph, I got nothing. What hope for the average MOTS when they have a dodgy camera phone and aren't expecting to see anything?

 

[oroadfc]

Photoing is all about getting enough light into the sensor

You have 2 choices for this in murky/dark conditions - increase the exposure time or increase the aperture of the lens

Increase the exposure risks blur due to the taker shaking the camera or the object moving during exposure

Increase the aperture and then the focal depth becomes more restricted - unless your object is at the correct distance from the camera it'll look blurred as well.

(As a comparison, pinhole cameras make everything look in focus because the aperture is simply a pinhole but take ages for a proper exposure)

Having tried to just mess about and take some decent static night sky shots with my supa-dupa 10megapixel camera and got either complete blackness or a series of small lines on blackness it's trickier than it looks

 

[551166G]

While it is possible for an individual to miss a photo due to the shock of the sighting (whatever is sighted), as regards UFOs, huge or otherwise, I have to wonder why the hundreds of satellite-mounted cameras aren't photographing reported UFOs. Virtually all of the Earth's surface is under constant satellite surveillance for various reasons. There are many websites with real-time running vid on satellite views. I realize military tasked sats might not release info on photographed UFOs, but a great many satellites are not military or government controlled.

As for invisibility or 'cloaking', I have to wonder why such UFOs are visible to witnesses by the naked eye, but might be invisible when someone questions the dirth of quality photographs or video. Seems more like an excuse or apology for the lack rather than an explanation.

 

[uair01]

Yes, usually it turns out disappointing like this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uair01/269 ... 293337204/

UFO:
I was returning late from a work meeting (23:00) and saw a small ball of light slowly rising upwards above the canal. It took some time before I freed my camera from my backpack. I had the impression it started about 50m away from me, but in a few minutes it was far away, above the house blocks. I suspect it was one of those Thai hot air balloons.

And I'm an experienced photographer and I always carry a camera, just for situations like these.

 

[Analogue Boy]

I have the same reservations regarding the millions of yards of film shot by the movie industry over the last century and that orbs were never reported, ufos remained unspotted, and not many ghosts were filmed on location while eager viewers have subsequently spotted inaccuracies such as plimsoles and wristwatches on the extras playing soldiers in the far distance.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Yes, usually it turns out disappointing like this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uair01/269 ... 293337204/

UFO:
I was returning late from a work meeting (23:00) and saw a small ball of light slowly rising upwards above the canal. It took some time before I freed my camera from my backpack. I had the impression it started about 50m away from me, but in a few minutes it was far away, above the house blocks. I suspect it was one of those Thai hot air balloons.

And I'm an experienced photographer and I always carry a camera, just for situations like these.

I had a look at it in photoshop. It's unremarkable except for the fact that for a quick snap, the light is pretty much exactly in the middle of the composition ( I did a fixed marquee of 250 pixels looking at a 500 width res). That's pretty bang on target for someone idly taking a snap.

Just a thought.

 

[rynner2]

I have the same reservations regarding the millions of yards of film shot by the movie industry over the last century and that orbs were never reported, ufos remained unspotted, ...

Most orbs (as I've said ad nauseum) are produced by modern compact cameras, where the flash is very close to the lens, so dust particles or water droplets in the field of view can be illuminated and produce out of focus images.

The studio cameras and lighting in the film industry are a totally different set-up. The directors and cameramen would go out of their way to avoid any situation leading to imperfect pictures.

As for UFOs, a lot of Hollywood filming took place inside studios, even if the scene appears to be outdoors. There were various technical tricks used to produce appropriate backdrops.

And my guess would be that if a UFO did show up in an outdoor scene, someone would say "What the hell's that? We can't use that take!", and it would end up on the cutting room floor! 8)

 

[eburacum]

To test this I took a picture of the Moon with my mobile phone; the result was very disappointing.

As may people realise, the Moon looks big, but it is actually quite a small object in the sky. It subtends about half a degree of angle, and on my phone it just looks like a featureless blob. This leads me to think that most mobile phones would not be much use for taking good pictures of unidentified objects.

 

[taras]

As may people realise, the Moon looks big, but it is actually quite a small object in the sky. It subtends about half a degree of angle, and on my phone it just looks like a featureless blob. This leads me to think that most mobile phones would not be much use for taking good pictures of unidentified objects.

Surely though, the UFOs are close, and the Moon is far, far away? :?

 

[rynner2]

As may people realise, the Moon looks big, but it is actually quite a small object in the sky. It subtends about half a degree of angle, and on my phone it just looks like a featureless blob. This leads me to think that most mobile phones would not be much use for taking good pictures of unidentified objects.

Surely though, the UFOs are close, and the Moon is far, far away? :?

Father Ted: Now concentrate this time, Dougal. These
[he points to some plastic cows on the table]
Father Ted: are very small; those
[pointing at some cows out of the window]
Father Ted: are far away...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111958/quotes

Need I say more? 8) 8) 8)



Well, I suppose I'd better...

Yes, the moon is far, far away, but it's also very big, so it still subtends a noticeable angle in the sky, the same angle that a much closer but smaller object (such as a flying saucer) might subtend.

And as a mobile phone can only produce crap images of the Moon, it will also produce crap images of the flying saucer.

 

[eburacum]

Quite. But on the other hand I got quite good pictures of the Moon with a digital camera with digital zoom, so that is probably a better option.

I see that some of the recent mobile phone models offer digital zoom- I don't know how good they would be for this sort of use, but the problem then becomes how to hold the 'phone steady enough to prevent blurring.

Mobile phones have very small lenses, so they can only collect a small amount of light, limiting the quality of the picture. On the other hand the aperture is similar to the aperture of a human eye, so in theory a moby could see at least as clearly as a human, everything else being equal.

 

[taras]

in theory a moby could see at least as clearly as a human, everything else being equal.

Maybe when they release a mobile phone with a manual shutter speed setting..

 

[JoeV11]

I find the whole issue of UFO photographs to be very interesting, and suspect that a lot can be discerned about the nature of the phenomenon by studying the history of UFO photos.

One aspect I've noted is that there were lots more believable UFO pictures back in the film photography days, prior to the era of every person having access to graphic arts programs like Photoshop. Is this because fakes were harder to do back then? I don't think so; my brother and I faked a UFO picture, back in high school in the early 1970s, using a simple 110 film camera, and no darkroom manipulation at all.

Rather, I suspect that the veracity of the truthfulness of the photograph has been completely undermined by the ability to seamlessly manipulate digital imagery. Additionally, in the film days the physical medium of film offered other, unintentional opportunities for light leaks, dust, scratches, blemishes and processing goofs to cause unintended image artifacts on film, which often could be plausibly presented as a bona fide UFO picture, after-the-fact. With today's digital equipment those accidental UFO pictures don't present themselves nearly as often.

It's also interesting that UFOs commonly appear to represent artifacts of the cutting edge of society, culture or technology within the contemporary milieu. For instance, the UFO flap of the late 1890s presented UFOs shaped like dirigibles, which were at the time the only flying vehicles operating by mankind. And the post-WWII UFO flap presented UFOs shaped like imaginary space ships from the pulp comic novels of the 1930s. And Ezekiel's vision represented chariots, with wheels within wheels. It's interesting that in no example does the UFO present itself as outside the imagination of the contemporary culture.

~Joe

 

[uair01]

As I stated in this thread:
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... c&start=15

I was cycling through Rotterdam when I saw this weird object in the sky. It was not too big, I guess 1 meter maximum. It seemed to float along with the wind. It was gone in 30 seconds or so. Don't know what it is. It doesn't look like debris of a toy balloon.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uair01/3552334186/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uair01/3551525153/

But it was extremely hard to catch the object. I was lucky to carry my camera, but still you have to wrench it from your pocket, switch it on, zoom, point, wait for it to find focus. At a moment like that it seems an eternity before you can take that picture. With a bit less luck I would have missed it completely.