Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Fila

Why are UFO images always so bad?

484 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Fila
Posted (edited)

To help explain this.., I will start by asking everyone to perform an experiment :)

We will all have slightly different camera's in our phones (megapixels, iris, sensors, software etc). but nothing too major that will affect this experiment. I suggest we start with daytime photos, and then move onto night shots.

1) Find an average sized car. Set camera settings to auto (exposure, focus, shutter speed etc)

2) Stand 100 metres back from the car and take an image of the car. (without using the built-in digital zoom)

3) If you compare the image with what your eyes can see, the car is much smaller and less detailed in the image.

4) Repeat steps 1 to 3 at various distances. (I.e. 300 metres, 500 metres, 1 kilometre etc)

We should notice that objects in the images appear much smaller than what we saw with our eyes. Take this object size comparison into consideration when viewing any image. For an object to be that big.., means it must be bigger and clearer, and much closer in real life. Images make the object seem very distant.

Edited by Fila
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)

CAMERAS WITHOUT OPTICAL ZOOM

I always assumed that cameras, and zoom lenses work like human eyes.., allowing for a wide perspective / field of view and instant zoom, allowing us to see a car or person far away with fairly good detail.

That ability to have a wide perspective.., scan, track and zoom in is a human attribute that camera's cannot replicate. Cameras have a limited range they can see objects. I.e. they won't be able to see a car or person beyond 500 meters (approx), whereas we can see a car over 2 kilometers away. This is a very important limitation to remember.
 

The image below contains a small drone, light aircraft and cars which cannot be seen in the image.., but are seen by the naked eye.

2w3xhfk.jpg

A camera will lose sighting of an object, before a human. I can see a 350mm drone.., 300 meters away. But the camera cannot. I can see the plane's outline with my eyes, but nothing on the camera.

The drone is technically "invisible" to the camera when its beyond 300 meters. It could fly around the entire area all day without being detected by the camera or humans. And as long as the plane stays 1 kilometre away.., it will also remain undetected.., even though I can clearly see it.
2e2f808.png

The person can only see a drone in the grey 300 metre area. (Lose ability to hear the drone around 300 metres also)

 

25guz5j.jpg

Image of the 350mm drone being used


If we wanted to set up an automated system to detect aircraft beyond 1 kilometre away (like we assume spy satellites and google Earth etc do).., we would need a camera with a telephoto lens. But this just brings up more problems, which I'll talk about in my next post.

Edited by Fila
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma

the reason why they are so bad is because 99 times out of 100 they are distant shots- then uploaded with the word/ phrase ufo somewhere in the description.

those close to the object can see what it is & feel no need to film it calling it a ufo... simple  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
On 07/01/2018 at 3:26 PM, Dejarma said:

the reason why they are so bad is because 99 times out of 100 they are distant shots- then uploaded with the word/ phrase ufo somewhere in the description.

those close to the object can see what it is & feel no need to film it calling it a ufo... simple  

I implore you to try the experiment in the 1st post. It will help you to understand why we think objects are much further away than they are. You will see how close you would need to be, in order to take a decent photograph of any object

Edited by Fila
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
5 minutes ago, Fila said:

I implore you to try the experiment in the 1st post. It will help you to understand why we think objects are much further away than they are. You will see how close you would need to be, in order to take a decent photograph of any object

off worldly unknown tech is not flying around in our air space... anything i will see in the sky will be of something known imo despite what we're told, therefore there would be no point in me experimenting ..

what is the point of this thread? bored are ya? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 07/01/2018 at 3:44 PM, Dejarma said:

off worldly unknown tech is not flying around in our air space... anything i will see in the sky will be of something known imo despite what we're told, therefore there would be no point in me experimenting .. 

That's okay if you have reached a conclusion already. Too many data gaps, and not enough evidence for me to definitively say either way yet. The UFO phenomenon seems to be built around sketchy information, and bad investigations.

On 07/01/2018 at 3:44 PM, Dejarma said:

what is the point of this thread? bored are ya? 

I wish to dispel some of the myths surrounding cameras.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ufoscan

> We should notice that objects in the images appear much smaller than what we saw with our eyes.

That's because phone lenses are wide angle.

> Images make the object seem very distant.

It's not "images", it's the relationship between the focal length and the sensor size.  If you use a DSLR with a large sensor and a long focal length lens, then subjects will look larger than they appear to your eyes.

> That ability to have a wide perspective.., scan, track and zoom in is a human attribute that camera's cannot replicate 

Human eyes cannot zoom !  Some of today's cameras (notably in drones) can track using recognition software.

> Cameras have a limited range they can see objects. I.e. they won't be able to see a car or person beyond 500 meters (approx), whereas we can see a car over 2 kilometers away. This is a very important limitation to remember.

You really need to take a course or two on photography.  It's all about sensor size, pixel size and number, and lenses used.  Long focal length lenses can see much farther than the eye ever could.

> But the camera cannot. I can see the plane's outline with my eyes, but nothing on the camera.

That's because of the limited resolution of your camera and lens combination !

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
3 minutes ago, Fila said:

..

I wish to dispel some of the myths surrounding cameras.

The myth that a potato camera will take a clear photo of a UFO?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
4 minutes ago, Fila said:

I wish to dispel some of the myths surrounding cameras.

there are no myths..

All due respect but the header question is pointless & nonsensical.... Like asking: 'why is it I've never won the lottery jackpot' 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 07/01/2018 at 3:54 PM, Timonthy said:

The myth that a potato camera will take a clear photo of a UFO?

Never heard of a potato camera.., but it sounds delicious.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
On 07/01/2018 at 3:55 PM, Dejarma said:

there are no myths..

All due respect but the header question is pointless & nonsensical.... Like asking: 'why is it I've never won the lottery jackpot' 

It would make sense if you tried the experiment. But seeing as you don't want to.., I have no other way of explaining it to you. We will just have to agree that we disagree and I have no rebuttal for you and 'll just leave it there. Good day Dej.

Edited by Fila
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Fila said:

Never heard of a potato camera.., but it sounds delicious.

Lol. If cooked properly...

'Potato' is a general description of a crappy camera, or one inferior for the image that is trying to be captured. Maybe on Urban Dictionary?

What myths are you talking about?

Edit: Here you go: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Potato Camera

'A term used on YouTube to describe extremely low resolution videos.
'This video was filmed with a potato camera.'
'God damnit I hate it when people upload videos shot by potato cameras.''

The definition of course translates to still image also.

 

Edited by Timonthy
Edit.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 minute ago, Fila said:

It would make sense if you tried the experiment. But seeing as you don't want to.., I have no other way of explaining it to you. And i'll just leave it there. Good day Dej.

you've no other way of explaining it to me!!? you're an idiot- go away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 07/01/2018 at 3:58 PM, Timonthy said:

Lol. If cooked properly...

'Potato' is a general description of a crappy camera, or one inferior for the image that is trying to be captured. Maybe on Urban Dictionary?

What myths are you talking about?

Oh cool, I've never heard of that term before. Maybe add some zest from a lemon camera, just for flavour, haha.

Just the general ones regarding UFO pics.., why they are always tiny dots, blurs or specs of light at night time. And just  a little bit about how satellites work when getting high res images of the globe.., and how its not real time etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
1 minute ago, Fila said:

Oh cool, I've never heard of that term before. Maybe add some zest from a lemon camera, just for flavour, haha.

Just the general ones regarding UFO pics.., why they are always tiny dots, blurs or specs of light at night time. And just  a little bit about how satellites work when getting high res images of the globe.., and how its not real time etc.

Well, the majority of the general public has point and shoot cameras on hand, eg. phone or digital with very limited optical zoom. So yeah, the blurry photos impossible to identify are a given. Also people misidentify and take photos of ambiguous things all the time.

On the other hand; there are plenty of people out there also with expensive cameras and plenty of optical zoom to work with, think avid photographers/amateur astronomers etc. So why no clear legitimate UFO photos?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
5 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

So why no clear legitimate UFO photos?

This is the whole problem with this subject! What do you mean by legitimate? Define legitimate= what does that mean in this context?

What is a legitimate photo/ video --- what would it look like?;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
On 07/01/2018 at 3:54 PM, ufoscan said:

That's because phone lenses are wide angle.

Thanks, I figured we'd start with mobile phone's as most people have one and can get on board.

On 07/01/2018 at 3:54 PM, ufoscan said:

It's not "images", it's the relationship between the focal length and the sensor size.  If you use a DSLR with a large sensor and a long focal length lens, then subjects will look larger than they appear to your eyes.

Yes. If you wish to use a DSLR instead, that's fine. I have a SONY NEX-VG20 with an emount for multiple brand named lenses (so cool).

So i'm sure you will still find the same results, regardless of which camera you use. as in the camera will lose sight of an object before your eyes do. I find around 16x zoom makes the image how my eye would see it with the standard 18mm - 200mm lens, no zoom.

On 07/01/2018 at 3:54 PM, ufoscan said:

Human eyes cannot zoom !  Some of today's cameras (notably in drones) can track using recognition software.

The eye includes a lens similar to lenses found in optical instruments such as cameras and the same physics principles can be applied.

On 07/01/2018 at 3:54 PM, ufoscan said:

You really need to take a course or two on photography.  It's all about sensor size, pixel size and number, and lenses used.  Long focal length lenses can see much farther than the eye ever could.

Sorry, I am aware of all this. I am just trying to keep it simple for everyone else. I actually started my post regurgitating what I learnt at uni.., but realised I could explain it much easier.

Edited by Fila
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

This is the whole problem with this subject! What do you mean by legitimate? Define legitimate= what does that mean in this context?

What is a legitimate photo/ video --- what would it look like?;)

It can't be a singular image or video.

Talking ET UFO's, the idea that they visit Earth and that people see them, then 'legitimate' should be multiple widespread and readily available clear images of craft unknown to humankind.
Not a few nice CGI images, but widespread images and video which corroborate each other.

It would look like that. And if it's really happening, it should look like that. But it doesn't look like that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
4 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

It would look like that. And if it's really happening, it should look like that. But it doesn't look like that.

yep exactly;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

@Fila, you need to explain what you mean by cameras losing sight of an object before your eyes do?

Potato cameras, sure. But your last post you mentioned needing 16x optical zoom to 'make the image how my eye would see it'.

??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MauriOra
42 minutes ago, Fila said:

Never heard of a potato camera.., but it sounds delicious.

Atamarie Fila,

I believe you without doing the Experiment......So....

Yes,

Potatoe Camera and Toffie lenses and a strap of Candy Floss..

Mmm

Yummy yummy..

Head Up My Friend..xx

*********

Mo..xx

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hawkin
Posted (edited)

I saw this on the Travel Channel. Expedition Unknown-The hunt for et's. Josh Gates the host. Short video of an object flying by.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1189136/pg1

Edited by Hawkin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
Posted (edited)
On 07/01/2018 at 4:36 PM, Timonthy said:

@Fila, you need to explain what you mean by cameras losing sight of an object before your eyes do?

Potato cameras, sure. But your last post you mentioned needing 16x optical zoom to 'make the image how my eye would see it'.

Hey Timothy. When I point my DSLR camera at an object it looks small on screen compared to how I see it with my eyes, if I put the viewfinder / LCD screen next to the object in real time.., but while maintaining resolution etc.., hard to explain.

Regardless of the projector or screen quality and size. I can see what I want to shoot.., but I can never achieve it without the right combination of distance from subject, correct lens and focal length combined with magnification.., but without sacrificing field of view. Thats why I got the eMount. So I can buy some of the cheaper brand lenses that I'll be needing and most other brands will fit. I don't have to stick to SONY brands only.

I can get everything right and see the subject (actor or car) as I see it in detail.., but I am always sacrificing field of view even when played back on the big screen in the media lab, or on the projector in the music block. It sounds funny to say.., and probably obvious to most camera buffs. But I am just putting 2 and 2 together.., and can see how hard it is to film a drone or plane for example.

I'm also getting into coding, electronics and robotics. The majority of cameras are not as good as most would thing for sensing the world around.. (Most as in wide spread and easily accessible. Not so much expensive cameras, lenses which do work. Just cost a lot and still have the same limitations, just less worse)

Edited by Fila
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

I miss the days where all the UFOs weren’t taken by shaky-cams. At least the fakers there took the effort to create a craft to photograph rather than simply photographing a duck while having a seizure.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute
Posted (edited)

All images of UFO's get dismissed, so there's hardly any point in posting one!

If it's poor quality it "could be anything", if it's crystal clear it's "photoshopped".

Edited by acute
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.