Photographing UFOs

[ChrLzs]

Ufoscan, frankly I am at a loss as to why you spend so much time dealing with fixed-focus lenses/ cameras. As you clearly understand, this type of camera is simply NOT suitable for the purpose being discussed! They cannot give a zoomed-in view as required for something that subtends a small angle of view, ie distant and/or small.

There is no simple rule of thumb for ensuring you can take a great ufo picture, but it can certainly be broken down into the main issues (or at least those you can control by selecting an appropriate camera) I'd suggest those issues are:

- for night events.. you need a camera with good low-light capability

- as stated above that means a larger sensor, which normally means a larger and more expensive camera

- as additional advantages, larger sensors mean more resolution and the ability to use higher ISO=higher shutter speeds in daytime, reducing motion blur if applicable

- for capturing detail in an object - again, large sensor helps, but also you need a camera with a decent optical zoom/telephoto lens

- again, that means a larger camera (eg a 'superzoom'), and/or a camera that allows Interchangable Lenses (IL) like a DSLR

- such lenses must be accurately focused, which means fast, low-light-capable AutoFocus (AF) and/or Manual Focus - again, that means a DSLR (even the best superzooms/compacts tend to fall down here)

- the camera must also be steady as the shot is taken, so Image Stabilisation (IS) will help, as would a tripod or monopod (or just a nearby post / car / fence / building to lean upon..).

Fixed lens cameras and 99% of cellphones do not go anywhere near meeting any of those requirements and really should be removed from the discussion imnsho...

I would suggest that as soon as you get up to micro-four-thirds sized sensors and upwards, that there are many candidate cameras that will do a reasonable job, especially if you learn how to use manual focus quickly and accurately. But I would also suggest that if you are serious, you need to be up into the interchangeable lens market sector, starting at, say, the Sony Nex / Olympus Pen m4/3 / Samsung NX type of IL cameras, and then moving up to DSLRs to gain the benefits of faster AF and better low-light performance..

As for the psychological 'shock' effect, everyone will react differently, and there isn't much you can do except to practice chanting "TAKE A PICTURE" when you are under stress...

BTW, I'll happily admit to missing one incident that I would have LOVED to capture, but it was because of the fleeting nature of the happening - forgive me for repeating this little anecdote..

About six months back, just got out of my car at my house, and as usual looked up at the night sky. It was a mostly overcast night, but there was a bright spot in the clouds above me - the spot was panning quickly, and there was an angled beam showing that it came from above. It was a striking sight - similar to, but much brighter than, the effect you will see when an aircraft with landing lights is just coming down thru clouds. It took me aback as it was way too bright and just looked 'wrong'.. I kept watching as the effect moved rapidly across the sky (and I remember thinking - do I grab my camera (it was in a bag on the back seat) or just watch for a few more seconds.. as it was moving so fast I just watched..), and suddenly realised what I was seeing as the lowermost layer of clouds thinned out... There were two layers of clouds above me that night, and for a brief, wonderful moment, a tiny roundish 'hole' had appeared in the top layer, through which the almost full moon projected a thin beam of bright light down upon the lower layer and created the rapidly moving disc of light. And with that, it was gone.. and I was left shaking my head at seeing something quite striking and a bit different to every other interesting (but non-alien) light blob I'd seen up there in my 50+ years of skygazing...

[ufoscan]

Ufoscan, frankly I am at a loss as to why you spend so much time dealing with fixed-focus lenses/ cameras. As you clearly understand, this type of camera is simply NOT suitable for the purpose being discussed! They cannot give a zoomed-in view as required for something that subtends a small angle of view, ie distant and/or small.

I am merely pointing out exactly that: That the most common cameras people have with them most of the time are not likely to provide the sharp images people seem to expect from digital cameras !

I of course agree that zoom is a requirement - so long as it is optical (something that is clear to you and I but not always to the average person.) Digital zoom is useless. Do NOT use it, people !!!

On the other hand, it is also important to take several pictures at different zoom settings. Shots at the wide setting are also needed so that the unidentified object can be shown in context.

There is no simple rule of thumb for ensuring you can take a great ufo picture, but it can certainly be broken down into the main issues (or at least those you can control by selecting an appropriate camera) I'd suggest those issues are:

- for night events.. you need a camera with good low-light capability

- as stated above that means a larger sensor, which normally means a larger and more expensive camera

Or a lower cost compact that has larger pixels. This actually means one with a lower megapixel number. I would say that 12Mp for a small sensor is really the upper limit.

- as additional advantages, larger sensors mean more resolution and the ability to use higher ISO=higher shutter speeds in daytime, reducing motion blur if applicable

In daytime, I would rather stick with a low ISO setting to maximize resolution even with a larger sensor, and definitely with a small one.

- for capturing detail in an object - again, large sensor helps, but also you need a camera with a decent optical zoom/telephoto lens

- again, that means a larger camera (eg a 'superzoom'), and/or a camera that allows Interchangable Lenses (IL) like a DSLR

- such lenses must be accurately focused, which means fast, low-light-capable AutoFocus (AF) and/or Manual Focus - again, that means a DSLR (even the best superzooms/compacts tend to fall down here)

- the camera must also be steady as the shot is taken, so Image Stabilisation (IS) will help, as would a tripod or monopod (or just a nearby post / car / fence / building to lean upon..).

Of course, I agree with all the above, but the likelyhood that the average person has such a camera around his neck with settings ready when the UFO comes into view is not very great ! And the likelihood that he has a tripod at the ready is zero. So for sure it's important to emphasize the makeshift alternatives to a tripod. One of these is actually a very pocketable string tripod. And yes, Image Stabilization (especially if optical) is preferable and should be left on most of the time.

Fixed lens cameras and 99% of cellphones do not go anywhere near meeting any of those requirements and really should be removed from the discussion imnsho...

Yep, unfortunately. But my point is that this is the type of cameras most people have in their pockets these days.

But let's not dismiss fixed focus cameras outright. I recently learned that a low-cost action camera (the Mobius) that is very popular with RC users features an option to modify the fixed focus setting. In principle, the focus could be readjusted to infinity or near-infinity. Of course, that would have to be done ahead of time. But it is so tiny and lightweight that such a camera could be kept in a pocket at all times - just waiting for that moment ! It also has surprisingly good low light performance in spite of the small size of its sensor...

I would suggest that as soon as you get up to micro-four-thirds sized sensors and upwards, that there are many candidate cameras that will do a reasonable job, especially if you learn how to use manual focus quickly and accurately. But I would also suggest that if you are serious, you need to be up into the interchangeable lens market sector, starting at, say, the Sony Nex / Olympus Pen m4/3 / Samsung NX type of IL cameras, and then moving up to DSLRs to gain the benefits of faster AF and better low-light performance.

Keep in mind that cameras like the Sony NEX and the Samsung NX have the same APS-C sensors found on DSLRs so will essentially provide the same low-light performance and even better if they have lower pixel counts. Manual focus however is much more efficient with a DSLR's optical TTL viewfinder.

As for the psychological 'shock' effect, everyone will react differently, and there isn't much you can do except to practice chanting "TAKE A PICTURE" when you are under stress...

Well the thing would be to work out exactly what the best settings should be before it actually happens and then to program these settings into the memory of the camera for instant recall (assuming your camera does have this option). The chanting thing won't be of much use if you left your camera in your basement !

BTW, I'll happily admit to missing one incident that I would have LOVED to capture, but it was because of the fleeting nature of the happening - forgive me for repeating this little anecdote..

That's exactly it. That experience I had in 2005 turned out to also have a down-to-earth explanation and I actually DID manage to record it (because it came back) but when I first saw it, it was so amazing-looking that I felt it was more important to examine it carefully than to run inside to get my camera and miss several precious seconds of observation - because I knew it may be gone in an instant...

[lost_shaman]

Agreed, but the point is that digital *has* made incredibly powerful cameras much more affordable - the camera I have and waffled about above cost me less than $600 (admittedly the lens was secondhand), but it has a focal range of 112 to 450mm (that's similar to 10x binoculars), is exceptionally sharp, has great low-light performance, has *very* fast AF, the AF *does* work on anything as bright as an aircraft or Venus at night and it only takes about 1.5 seconds to wake up from being turned on... So there surely MUST be more folks like me who have done their homework and have such cameras to hand, than there were in the past.

[/Quote]

Hey ChrLzs,

I don't disagree that digital cams are getting better. However, I doubt most people are like you and are spending $600 bucks on higher end cams when most have a cell phone cam in their pockets.

That said, 30 years ago almost everyone, or at least almost every Family, had a 35mm film camera. These can take really great photos, I don't need to explain that to you as we've discussed this before. So while more people may have cameras with them than they did 30 years ago these are "junk" for the most part when we are talking about taking hard to get pictures. If we are talking about the number or percetage of people that had decent cameras then I think more people had decent cameras 30 years ago when 35mm film cams were the norm.

And yes, if the sighting was very fleeting, then I and my peers may well fail.. But if it was that fleeting then I can't help but observe that it would be a rather useless sighting anyway. A definitive genuine 'visitation' will not be a distant and short glint in the sky..

I agree with that. My own one and only sighting of a UFO was about 15 to 17 mins in duration with about 5 mins of that being a close encounter. So I don't ascribe any wieght to people who descibe "sightings" that are less than 30 seconds in duration. Ball lightning supposedly can survive that long. what we are interested in are events that have durations longer than that so any thing less is worthless as a "sighting" and I and others just ignore them.

Dismissing all "short duration sightings" might upset some people but we won't learn anything about the phenomena from them. This probably excludes about half of all people who believe they have seen a UFO.

Now back to photos, I preformed an experiment a few weeks ago with a co-worker and I asked her to let me time her take a picture of her computer screen as fast as she could with her cell phone. Her phone was on the Desk in front of her and it consistently took her 12 -15 seconds to snap off a photo. Thats not very impressive.

[Sweetpumper]

Illinois law enforcement officer reports sphere UFOs

An Illinois law enforcement officer patrolling in Niles reported watching two silent, pulsing, red sphere-shaped UFOs, according to testimony in Case 57602 from the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) witness reporting database.

The officer was patrolling in the 8700 block of North Milwaukee Avenue about 11:15 p.m. on July 3, 2014, when the objects were first seen.

“My eye was caught by two pulsing, round red lights in the southwest sky, one on top of the other, which appeared to be a cell or water tower in the vicinity of Maryhill Cemetery,” the witness stated. “This caused me to do a complete double-take, because I know there are no such structures in that area.”

One of the objects began moving slowly from west to east.

“The other followed in a ‘wing-man’-type formation slightly behind and further south than the object to the forefront. I thought, because of their basketball-like appearance and large size, that they were helicopters of the ‘bubble-cockpit’ variety, flying low on the southern horizon.”

The objects were described as basketball-sized spheres, approximately five-times the size of the strobe lights on an airplane, with a shimmery white halo completely circling the sphere. Pictured: The 8700 block of North Milwaukee Avenue, Niles, Illinois. (Credit: Google)

The witness parked his squad car, shut off the lights and engine, and got out.

“As soon as I got out of my car, I realized that these were not helicopters, and were much farther away and larger than I originally thought. There was no helicopter sound whatsoever in the relatively quiet night air, and the presence of many airplanes in the sky (Niles and Park Ridge are under major flight paths in and out of O’Hare) provided me with an excellent contrasting point of reference to what the UFOs at least ‘were not.’”

The objects glided eastbound, slowly and deliberately.

“They were basketball-sized spheres, approximately five-times the size of the strobe lights on an airplane, with a shimmery white halo completely circling the sphere. The red light was unlike anything I have ever seen, having a pulsating, almost ‘liquid’ or ‘living’ appearance, and glowing, rather than piercing the night sky. The white light appeared like an aura (similar to the heat you see emanating from a rocket or jet engine). I was awestruck.”

The witness described the object’s movements.

“When the first craft was almost directly in front of my line of sight, the spheres both suddenly ‘receded’ quickly up and into the western sky (back where I first saw them, but much higher). The UFO that was offset to the rear disappeared so quickly that I barely had time to register that it was gone. The craft that was more ‘in the lead’ receded up and back to the point that it looked like a red star, and then blinked out of sight.”

The officer said that there were two witnesses to the event.

“I saw that there were two adult male citizens, one African-American and one Caucasian, looking up at the sky from a residential driveway across the street and south of my location. I approached them and we all verbally confirmed that what we had seen had not been fireworks or flares of any kind, but were definitely very large, unidentifiable aircraft. We were all very excited. I remember that my emotions were in a ‘condition red’ or ‘high alert’ status – I remained in this psychological state for many hours after the sighting. The African-American citizen kept repeating ‘warp speed! They took off into space at warp speed!’”

The witness mentioned that other electronic anomalies were happening during the event.

“Two things I would like to point out are that – one – for the 20 minutes or so prior to this sighting, I was unable to connect to the Internet on both my Blackberry cell phone or my in-car Panasonic Tough Book Laptop with Verizon air card. Five minutes after the spheres ascended out of sight, both my telephone and in-car computer came back online. And two – I did not think to take photos of the craft because the camera on my Blackberry produces very poor quality photos. I’ve tried to take pictures of the full moon in the past, and they come out as a blurry white pin-dot of light. I am working on getting a record of any 911 calls for suspicious lights in the sky during this time period.”

http://www.openminds.tv/illinois-law-enforcement-officer-reports-sphere-ufos/29538

[lost_shaman]

Well I had a chance to test this idea that cell phones should produce more UFO photos. I just got a new and better phone this week and today I witnessed a strange object that may have been a ball lightning or UAP. The strangeness was elevated as the sun was completely obscured but the object was brightly self illuminated while traveling away from my point of veiw and directly into an approaching line of thunderstorms.

So I whipped out the new phone... and... totally useless. Whatever it was, it was very bright but the new phone cam wouldn't even register it despite the fact that it was maybe a -4 luminosity. The object, whatever it was, traversed maybe 8-10 degrees of sky in about 2 mins I watched it traveling straight into the storm, but the phone cam was absolutely useless as it never was able to focus on the object no matter what I tried.

The myth that we should see more photos because of phone cams is bunk. I've tested this years ago, but today I had a true opportunity with a strange sighting and my new phone failed hands down when I truly wanted a photo.

[ChrLzs]

Well I had a chance to test this idea that cell phones should produce more UFO photos.

{.. very unscientific experiment based on a false premise removed..}

The myth that we should see more photos because of phone cams is bunk.

Yes. it is, and if only that was what was being claimed....

MY points (and I suspect that any of these mythical folk you have misrepresented will agree) are NOT and NEVER WERE that more (crappy) phone cameras should give better results.

The first point is that highly capable cameras (like a fairly basic DSLR with a decent tele lens) are MUCH CHEAPER and are now more common. My camera outfit of $600-ish, would have cost over $3K ten years ago (and more going back further) to even come close to duplicating in the important areas, like low light performance, AF performance, lens quality and magnification.

The second point is that SOME of the newer phone cameras are getting better, but I would never recommend such a camera for a UFO enthusiast. What phone camera did you use for your test, LS? I'm happy to be specific with recommendations, even if only on how to use the one you have better. So show us what you did and what happened.

And point three is that the new digital/optical technologies have also impacted the growing ranks of amateur astronomers markedly - and these are people who watch the skies constantly, either physically, or with automated systems. For heaven's sake, go visit some astronomy forums and just take a look at what these folks are doing now - it is absolutely unprecedented and awe-inspiring. Look up Thierry LeGault for example.. And also note how often the topic of UFO's comes up at those forums...

LS, you can make all the excuses you want and offer an argument that nobody is making - but the simple fact is that the 'sightings' are simply becoming better resolved and therefore more easily explained - hence the decreasing numbers of any 'decent' mysterious ufos nowadays...

[DONTEATUS]

This thread is priceless ! I took a pic of it and posted it to MUFON ! I wonder whats going to become of it?

[lost_shaman]

Yes. it is, and if only that was what was being claimed....

MY points (and I suspect that any of these mythical folk you have misrepresented will agree) are NOT and NEVER WERE that more (crappy) phone cameras should give better results.

The first point is that highly capable cameras (like a fairly basic DSLR with a decent tele lens) are MUCH CHEAPER and are now more common. My camera outfit of $600-ish, would have cost over $3K ten years ago (and more going back further) to even come close to duplicating in the important areas, like low light performance, AF performance, lens quality and magnification.

The second point is that SOME of the newer phone cameras are getting better, but I would never recommend such a camera for a UFO enthusiast. What phone camera did you use for your test, LS? I'm happy to be specific with recommendations, even if only on how to use the one you have better. So show us what you did and what happened.

And point three is that the new digital/optical technologies have also impacted the growing ranks of amateur astronomers markedly - and these are people who watch the skies constantly, either physically, or with automated systems. For heaven's sake, go visit some astronomy forums and just take a look at what these folks are doing now - it is absolutely unprecedented and awe-inspiring. Look up Thierry LeGault for example.. And also note how often the topic of UFO's comes up at those forums...

LS, you can make all the excuses you want and offer an argument that nobody is making - but the simple fact is that the 'sightings' are simply becoming better resolved and therefore more easily explained - hence the decreasing numbers of any 'decent' mysterious ufos nowadays...

chrlzs,

You are taking a cheap shot. You might as well br saying observations of wild animals are un-scientific.

Get over it!

Here is a point... no-one carries around a $600 camera. I bet you don't even though you say you own one.

My new phone is a Galaxy legend.

The camera is worthless for these type of photos which is my point.

So is your $600 camera if it isn't hanging on your neck and we both know that.

If you want to propose a scientific experiment then ill participate but im just pointing out that my phone was worthless in a real world situation.

[ChrLzs]

So you aren't willing to say what you did with your 'legend' and show us what happened?

You aren't willing to actually ADDRESS or DISPUTE anything that I posted, other than to say I'm lying about carrying my camera?

Perhaps you might want to examine this and this, and the entire thread.... And as for taking cheap shots - check the mirror. I offered to help - now you can shove it.

[+Hammerclaw]

Here's an excellent example where cell phone cameras took excellent shots of a strange UFO...on automatic, it's video, too. Oh those worthless cellphone cameras. http://zyalt.livejournal.com/722930.html

Edited August 30, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[+DieChecker]

I tried taking a pic quick with my phone the other day. I had to remove the phone (Samsung Galaxy S4) from my pocket. Type in the passcode. Click on the camera app. Then pinch my fingers to zoom in and then tap the picture taking button. This all took like 5 to 7 seconds. And the pics of my kids were still crazy blurry from me and them moving. Cell phone pics are NOT super quick, easy, or sharp. It just isn't going to happen. You have to wait about 1 to 1.5 seconds for the camera to focus and give you a green light if you want the picture clear.

My camera has X4 zoom, but really unless the UFO is like Right There, hovering over you, it's just going to be a small blob in the sky.

[+Hammerclaw]

Such short term sightings at extreme distance are iffy for reporting and photographing. The Russians lucked out by having their dashcams running for their short term event, although it obviously was meteoric in origin. Their cameras took remarkably clear images in video mode, so by all means take a shot if you have a chance.

[JesseCuster]

I'm hearing a lot of reasons for why we shouldn't expect UFO photos to be common and why camera phones aren't up to the task but it doesn't actually address the complete and utter lack of sharp UFO photos taken these days.

Focusing on camera phones I think is missing the point. There are a LOT of capable people with high end photo equipment attached to high quality glass (just take a look at the photos from amateur astronomers or planespotters forums) taking fantastic photos of small distant objects in the sky. Surely you'd expect them to be in the right place at the right time at least sometimes to snap a clear pic of ET buzzing around in the skies.

I also don't think (to bring up a point someone made above) that smartphone cameras are worse than the 35mm home cameras of 20-30 years ago. I've digitised enough old photos in my time to know that the typical holiday snaps and Christmas photos of people in the 1970s and 1980s were generally rubbish quality. The fact that 35mm may be theoretically better quality than the average smartphone sensor is meaningless when it's sitting in a cheap consumer camera with a cheap lens operated by someone who doesn't know how to take good sharp photos. The holiday snaps I've seen from iPhones these days are on average quite a bit sharper than the equivalent film based snaps. Granted I'm generally not talking about photos taken at night and outdoors, but I wouldn't expect either a photo taken with someone's pocket 35mm camera in the 1980s or an iPhone today to be nothing but an unusable mess if they tried photographing a UFO buzzing overhead at night.

I'll repeat a point ChrLz made that I've made myself several times on this forum. I think the reason for the lack of quality photos and the plague of crappy photos is simply because the crappy photos are when the object was too distant, out of focus, poorly lit, etc. to tell clearly what it was. If it was closer, in better focus, etc. then it wouldn't get published as a UFO because people could tell it for the kite/plane/balloon/streetlight/etc. that it actually is. It's when things are poor enough quality to look vaguely like something else or can't be clearly identified that people publish them as pictures as something mysterious and unexplained.

Still, this thread is at least much more worthy than the usual laundry list of excuses people make for the shortage of and poor quality of photos of the paranormal.

Edited August 30, 2014 by JesseCuster

[+DieChecker]

I'd suggest that if anyone wants to use a cell camera with a UFO, that they take video, not stills. As the video, with multiple frames, give a much better idea of what the thing looks like.

[mister]

http://io9.com/ball-lightning-has-been-captured-on-video-for-the-first-1504589913

It took us so long to snap a photo (If the photo is even real). Yet scientists have always been convinced it is real.

[+Hammerclaw]

I'm hearing a lot of reasons for why we shouldn't expect UFO photos to be common and why camera phones aren't up to the task but it doesn't actually address the complete and utter lack of sharp UFO photos taken these days.

Focusing on camera phones I think is missing the point. There are a LOT of capable people with high end photo equipment attached to high quality glass (just take a look at the photos from amateur astronomers or planespotters forums) taking fantastic photos of small distant objects in the sky. Surely you'd expect them to be in the right place at the right time at least sometimes to snap a clear pic of ET buzzing around in the skies.

I also don't think (to bring up a point someone made above) that smartphone cameras are worse than the 35mm home cameras of 20-30 years ago. I've digitised enough old photos in my time to know that the typical holiday snaps and Christmas photos of people in the 1970s and 1980s were generally rubbish quality. The fact that 35mm may be theoretically better quality than the average smartphone sensor is meaningless when it's sitting in a cheap consumer camera with a cheap lens operated by someone who doesn't know how to take good sharp photos. The holiday snaps I've seen from iPhones these days are on average quite a bit sharper than the equivalent film based snaps. Granted I'm generally not talking about photos taken at night and outdoors, but I wouldn't expect either a photo taken with someone's pocket 35mm camera in the 1980s or an iPhone today to be nothing but an unusable mess if they tried photographing a UFO buzzing overhead at night.

I'll repeat a point ChrLz made that I've made myself several times on this forum. I think the reason for the lack of quality photos and the plague of crappy photos is simply because the crappy photos are when the object was too distant, out of focus, poorly lit, etc. to tell clearly what it was. If it was closer, in better focus, etc. then it wouldn't get published as a UFO because people could tell it for the kite/plane/balloon/streetlight/etc. that it actually is. It's when things are poor enough quality to look vaguely like something else or can't be clearly identified that people publish them as pictures as something mysterious and unexplained.

Still, this thread is at least much more worthy than the usual laundry list of excuses people make for the shortage of and poor quality of photos of the paranormal.

Lot of truth in that. Zoom in on a flight of birds at great distance and what you get is a flight of bobbing and weaving blobs you can imagine to be anything.

[Emma_Acid]

Here is a point... no-one carries around a $600 camera.

I do. A lot of people do actually.

[JesseCuster]

I do. A lot of people do actually.

As do I.

Granted people wandering around with SLRs attached to telephoto lenses are obviously far from the norm, but there's far more of them these days taking far more photos (the huge advantage of digital vs. film regardless of anything else is the sheer volume of photos you can take without worrying about the cost of film or developing, I can attend a family event and shoot 500 photos before the camera dies and if I get a mere couple dozen worthy photos out of those, that's good enough to have a nice record of the event!). It's more good cameras in the hands of enthusiasts multiplied by the fact that those people are taking much more photos than they otherwise would because digital photography costs nothing once you've bought the necessary hardware.

Digital has made photography a much more attractive hobby to far more people for obvious reasons. Hence the huge boom in sales of SLRs in the past 10 years (edit: I will grant that, from experience, lots of those are in the hands of people who simply bought SLRs and never switch the mode dial from AUTO). Shouldn't there be a corresponding rise in the amount of sharp clear photos of UFOs as a result?

Edited August 30, 2014 by JesseCuster

[lost_shaman]

So you aren't willing to say what you did with your 'legend' and show us what happened?

You aren't willing to actually ADDRESS or DISPUTE anything that I posted, other than to say I'm lying about carrying my camera?

Perhaps you might want to examine this and this, and the entire thread.... And as for taking cheap shots - check the mirror. I offered to help - now you can shove it.

I didnt say you were lying about your camera.

As for my phone, the object of interest simply would not register so no photo my phone was worthless for that type of photo.

[ChrLzs]

I'd suggest that if anyone wants to use a cell camera with a UFO, that they take video, not stills. As the video, with multiple frames, give a much better idea of what the thing looks like.

For others reading, ones who want to learn.... that is a really good tip!

So let's go through what you should do, whether or not you have a crappy camera:

1. RIGHT NOW, TURN OFF DIGITAL ZOOM (if you can) In camera enlargement aka digi-zoom simply degrades the footage - it is better to let a professional enlarge the imagery (using sensible techniques) later. Also, practice with your camera - find out if you can also turn off AF and either manually focus or set to infinity (sometimes landscape mode will do that - so RTFM), also find out if you can adjust the sensitivity - use normal (eg ISO100) initially, but if you have time, try higher settings like ISO800. Practice zooming in and out (you may need to refocus if in manual mode), and holding the camera steady as described below.

2. GET THE FOOTAGE!! First priority is to at least get something.. and when the big day comes, keep shooting until the thing completely vanishes. Don't stop when it becomes obvious that it is a plane landing... In fact don't stop and restart at all - keep the camera rolling at all times as a continuous shot (unless you have time for a few stills) - and after the thing has gone, zoom back and show the background and some local landmarks so your direction and location can be verified.

3. HOLD IT STEADY!! Shaky footage speaks volumes about photography skill. Yes, if you are zoomed in it's hard, but lean against something - a car roof, fence post, wall or press the camera against your nose. If your camera has IS (Image Stabilisation) turn it ON. (but if you are on a tripod, turn it OFF!)

4. VARY THE FOOTAGE!! If you have time, zoom back and include some background, especially if your UFO is moving - and don't forget to refocus if you are in manual mode, and you should know that the object will be at it's SMALLEST when you have it in focus. If you have only AF and it isn't locking on, try quickly panning across to a streetlight or city/car lights and then back. If you are stuck with a big round blob (out of focus), at least move it around in the frame so we can look for 'bokeh telltales'. After the object has gone, don't stop shooting - get some known objects, like streetlights/cars etc to help show the true capabilities of your camera.

5. GATHER WITNESSES!! If possible, gather some other folks to verify your sighting and get their contact details.

6. KEEP THE ORIGINAL!! And post that, not some edited/post-processed version where you have tried out various techniques to enhance the image until you found one you liked... That's NOT the way to do things.. By the way, keeping the original *properly* also means leaving it on the original media (eg the SD card in your camera/phone).

7. I got bored and stopped, maybe I'll do 7 and 8 later...

Finally, why not return to the scene during daylight and shoot some footage of the scenery?

Also, be prepared to talk about the sighting in detail, run some simple tests with your camera (eg film some streetlights, or Venus or the Moon) and be ready for some tricky questions. There are way too many fakers and trolls out there and the quicker they are dispatched, the better.

BTW, my camera (a DSLR and my 2 main lenses covering 27-450mm focal length equivalent) is almost always in my car (always on weekends and on most workdays) which is parked just outside my workplace, and where I sit has a view of about 70 degrees of sky. It is also with me whenever I go hiking or night time walks (and that's very often).

And the thing is - that which is far away from me, is very close to someone else... And yet.. nuthin' but distant fuzzy blobs.. There is an obvious inference, but some don't want to face it.. If you like, I can post lots of videos of aircraft, choppers, birds, even some RC's from the local club. But none of them are really UFO's and their appearance is clearly resolved, simply because I have a reasonably good camera...

[badeskov]

ChrLzs,

Thank you for a great post, but I just had a question. I have a fairly good camera myself in my opinion (Canon EOS-70D) and I really like that, but unfortunately I don't have the time to really get into the details of photography even though I very much would like to.

<snip>

3. HOLD IT STEADY!! Shaky footage speaks volumes about photography skill. Yes, if you are zoomed in it's hard, but lean against something - a car roof, fence post, wall or press the camera against your nose. If your camera has IS (Image Stabilisation) turn it ON. (but if you are on a tripod, turn it OFF!)

<snip>

Thus my question, why would you turn image stabilization off if it on a tripod? Is there some kind of dithering that would show up if the camera was rock steady?

Thanks!

Cheers,

Badeskov

[qxcontinuum]

Meanwhile in the UFO's ...

Edited August 31, 2014 by qxcontinuum

[ChrLzs]

Bade, that is a *really* good question... The fact that you have to do this on almost every camera (but not yours, see below*!) with Image Stabilisation is, in my opinion, crazy...

The reason is, apparently, that IS is so sensitive to any vibration it can (and does) go into a 'feedback' loop when on a tripod because the vibrations are at a different frequency to that when hand-held - it is tuned to expect wobbly hands and when it gets something else it goes bananas. I can certainly attest that on my camera (Sony α57 DSLR) it *must* be turned off on a tripod or you can guarantee the shots will have IS-induced shake!! Frankly I find it hard to understand why the IS couldn't be smart enough to detect the stillness... but see below.. - some now do..

*NOTE - some (but not many) of the newest cameras now detect the fact that they are on a tripod, and you may not have to do this - so check your manual.

Bade, I just checked, and you will be pleased to know that yours does have the more advanced IS and you don't have to switch it off, except to save battery power...

[badeskov]

Bade, that is a *really* good question... The fact that you have to do this on almost every camera (but not yours, see below*!) with Image Stabilisation is, in my opinion, crazy...

The reason is, apparently, that IS is so sensitive to any vibration it can (and does) go into a 'feedback' loop when on a tripod because the vibrations are at a different frequency to that when hand-held - it is tuned to expect wobbly hands and when it gets something else it goes bananas. I can certainly attest that on my camera (Sony α57 DSLR) it *must* be turned off on a tripod or you can guarantee the shots will have IS-induced shake!! Frankly I find it hard to understand why the IS couldn't be smart enough to detect the stillness... but see below.. - some now do..

*NOTE - some (but not many) of the newest cameras now detect the fact that they are on a tripod, and you may not have to do this - so check your manual.

Bade, I just checked, and you will be pleased to know that yours does have the more advanced IS and you don't have to switch it off, except to save battery power...

ChrLzs,

Thank you very much for satisfying the curiosity of an ignoramus.. I do my fair share of feedback loops for stabilization (albeit not exactly for this purpose), but I do know that you can inadvertently induce oscillations in an otherwise stable system if you are not careful - like very, very careful. Designing such systems can be extremely difficult. And in the end, feedback loop control systems are essentially the same no matter what they do.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[ChrLzs]

If only we had more 'ignoramus'es (ignorami?) like you, Bade, the world would be a far better place.. And it's a funny coincidence that feedback systems are part of your expertise - I am rather unforgiving of the IS issue by being blissfully unburdened with the facts... I should set a better example!