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 -
ChrLzs

The Proverbial Guide to Capturing..

25 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ChrLzs

This thread is intended to aid those individuals who are (or would like to) capture good imagery - both still and video - of 'things' in the sky.

While many of the recommendations and techniques can (& should) be applied to *all* photography ... capturing a 'UFO' - and hopefully then identifying it - more often than not involves a very particular set of challenges that I will begin to identify below.

But I'd also like to discuss a few wider issues as we go, such as:
- how realistic is it to expect good imagery?
- who else is doing this already? (in particular, who is doing it WELL?)
along with some other wider (but very relevant) issues.

Anyway, for now, let me just introduce some of the challenges specific to UFO photography..

1. The subject of the image is often small/distant
In simple terms this means we will often need high magnification .. and there's only one way to do that (and that is NOT 'digital zoom').  But there are wider issues - for instance something that is distant to you is generally going to be much closer (and more easily recognisable?) to many others.  More on that later.

2. The available light for the image may be low.
Obviously many of these images/videos are taken at night.  That means the best cameras will be those that have large lenses and large sensors.  Ie not most camera phones. 

3. The subject of the image will often be moving.
This causes many problems - the first of which is often the biggest issue - how do we know that the object is moving, and not the camera? As we use higher and higher magnifications (aka 'zoomed in'), any relative movement of the subject versus the camera is also magnified, so keeping the camera still is vital.  Handholding a camera at high zoom levels is a really bad idea, but there are many very simple techniques that can help.  And if you are taking a video, you should try to include some background, eg trees, the edge of a building etc so we can see if it's the object, or the camera, that is moving...


OK, that's just a few preliminary issues - I'll be back later to elaborate on those and many more, and also give examples taken on my phone and on a slightly more serious camera for comparison.

As always, I welcome constructive criticisms and additions if I seem to have missed something important.

Be back later to get the party started.....

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
ChrLzs

Who else does this?

In the introductory post I mentioned two wider issues:
- how realistic is it to expect good imagery?
- who else is doing this already? (in particular, who is doing it WELL?)

The first - "how realistic is it..?" is best left to later in the thread for obvious reasons.  But what about the second - who else does this?  Or ..could do it, as they have the required equipment on hand?  The list is long and here's some of them, in no order:
- astronomers
- tv reporters and other journalists
- traffic and other emergency services choppers
- bird/wildlife watchers
- anyone using a helmet cam or drone
- motorists, truckies, etc with a dashcam
- security cameras with an external view
- domestic and military radar and optical surveillance, both ground and aerial based
- satellite and high altitude aircraft photography (land surveys and similar - think Google Earth)
- Jill and Joe Average, with their phones and/or cameras (note that tourists often have very good cameras at hand at all times, as do people like me who just like having a good camera handy)
- and many others....

Given all those potential sources of imagery, isn't it rather strange that there is generally not a trace of corroborative imagery coming from persons or cameras nearer where the distant (to you) object was?  Could that be explained by the simplest possible reason - that those who were closer saw what it was, and being a mundane object, didn't bother to report anything.

And just on that top item, astronomy is booming at all levels - from professionals who make a living from their photography like the amazing Thierry LeGault:
iss_discovery_110228_eva.jpg
ISS in orbit and Discovery Shuttle, showing astronaut Steve Bowen, taken from the ground by Thierry Legault
- yes, that was taken from the ground here on Earth, using a pretty decent telescope and camera......

And then there are amateurs who just muck around in their spare time on consumer grade cameras, like me:
med_gallery_95887_40_58953.jpg
Eclipsed moon, Mars (top left) Spica (above Moon), ChrLsz

So, why aren't these folks reporting and imaging UFO's?

If you take nothing else away from this thread, go visit your nearest astronomy club and attend one of their open nights.  Ask them about their all-sky cams, and be prepared to be quite shocked at the amount and quality of sky surveillance that goes on just at an amateur level, in that sector alone.

Next, I'd like to raise one of the biggest problems in UFO videos, and the very simple solution...  Stay tuned.. :D

 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

The subject of the image is often small/distant.

So what do we do - the further away, the smaller and harder to identify.  Obviously, so a reasonable level of magnification is often required.  You CANNOT and MUST NOT use digital zoom for this - your camera must have OPTICAL zoom.

Your normal eye view is '1x' zoom.  The view from a typical set of binoculars will be 7x, or perhaps 10-12x.  Higher magnifications than that are difficult to handhold, and generally require a tripod. See footnote below.

Typically, mobile phone cameras do not have optical zoom, but offer digital zoom.  Digital zoom just doubles and triples the pixels, filling in fake detail as it goes.  That is OK for non-technical photography, but it's NOT OK for UFO analysis.  NEVER EVER use digital zoom, as you create false detail, and frankly, prove that you haven't got a clue about what you are doing.

So, how do you get reasonable (at least 5x) optical zoom?  Well, some high end smart phones are now being fitted with such cameras.. but they are expensive (and there is another problem with small sensors - see next posting).  If you are serious about your hobby, forget the phone and buy a brand name camera with a reasonable optical zoom.  The bigger the camera (and lens) the better, btw - and I'll explain more about why in the next instalment. But if you want something small/pocketable, there are some relatively inexpensive options - I'll post some later in the thread.  Also later, I will go through how to keep your camera steady - if you have a long lens it will be wasted if you are wobbling it around like a drunkard...

And why not just buy some binoculars?  Use them to help you identify what it is, and stop wasting our time posting dreck that could be anything....  A decent set of 7x50s or 10x50s can be purchased from your local camping goods store for maybe $100..  The first number is the zoom (eg 7x or 10x) and the second number is the front lens diameter - for young eyes, ie 30 or younger, get the 7x50s as they will bring in the most light your pupils can accept.  If you are older, get the 10x50s which will suit your aging pupils better. 



Footnote - If you are old school like me, the zoom capability of a lens used to be measured in terms of 35mm film, and you may hear focal length numbers like 24mm wide angle (that's a wide view of about 0.5x zoom), 45-50mm (normal eye view of ~1.0x), 135mm (3x), 300mm (6x) and so on.   7x-10x, which I recommend for binoculars and for decent zoom lenses, corresponds to 350mm - 500mm in these '35mm equivalent' terms. 
 

Next, let's talk about size.  It does matter.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam

Perfect.

Can i get your permission to refer to this each time we get a blurry, wobbly, shaky and uneducated?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Absolutely!  But I haven't really got started on the important bits yet.... and one of those may be an incurable, terminal affliction, I suspect....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

The available light for the image may be low.

As many of these images/videos are taken at night, the camera and sensor should be capable of collecting as much light as possible.  If they are not good at collecting low light, a number of problems follow - the image will be grainy/noisy, detail will be lost, you will not see the scene clearly on the screen/viewfinder, and the camera probably won't be able to focus.

What cameras are best at collecting more light?  BIGGER ones.  The best cameras will be those that have large lenses and large sensors, and frankly, that isn't going to be most camera phones...

A typical smart phone sensor is about 6mm (1/4") x 5mm (3/16").  That's seriously tiny, and compares to a typical consumer DSLR which has a sensor of 22mm (7/8") x 14mm (9/16").  That's a surface area to collect light of just 30sqmm for the phone, versus 308sqmm for the camera - more than 10 times bigger...

For now I'll leave it at that, but later in the thread I'll be showing you actual examples to illustrate exactly how that huge difference manifests itself in terms of the quality of the imagery, and also the ability of the camera to focus and resolve detail.

 

Next, it's one of the commonest errors that 'UFO-hunters' make, and it is so easy to fix that I am often astonished by the repeat offenders, who just do the same thing over and over, despite being told how they can solve it...  To find out what 'IT' is, look out for the next instalment!

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ufoscan

Even though we can pretty much determine what would constitute the ideal camera for shooting UFOs, it's very unlikely that the person who does see a UFO is going to have such a camera on hand.  And, given the cost of such equipment, it's equally unlikely that someone is going to purchase the most expensive equipment solely in the hope of catching an illusive UFO - well... except for Douglas Trumbull !

So let's look at this from another angle: UFOs seen at night generally take the form of luminous spheres or else, some describe dark triangles or cylinders.  But let's agree that even with the best camera (full frame or larger sensor) with f1.2 lens zoom, at night it's still very unlikely the camera will pick up anything dark unless there is a full moon and a clear sky. And even then, it's likely to look... just dark against dark...

Now the luminous spheres will register, but are not likely to mean much unless they are shot in video mode.  Stills would be of very little help.  And ideally a camera would need to be stabilized.  A tripod would be ideal but is not likely to be available.

Let's be realistic.  Nowadays, a UFO witness is most likely to have no more than a smartphone.  So, essentially, the main warning is as ChrLzs underlined: do not use the zoom on your phone because it is digital - not optical...  As for stabilization, the best way is still to rest the phone on some surface so that it isn't shaking in your hand.  However, there is another option in the form of electronic stabilizers.  In recent years, more and more people using phones to shoot footage use electronic gimbals that are available for under two hundred bucks. In fact, on Kickstarter right now is a very small 3-axis stabilizer available for about a hundred bucks that is easy to carry around.  And the great thing about these is you won't be buying them to film UFOs but just to make your regular clips way more stable than they use to be.  Mind you, let's also take into account that some of the latest phones do feature on-board stabilization.  But electronic 3-axis gimbals usually offer more and can be very helpful in night time photography.

Needless to say, all this points to the fact that it's better to ask the aliens to show up during daytime as shooting pictures or footage in daylight is immensely easier ! :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 9/29/2018 at 6:51 PM, ufoscan said:

Even though we can pretty much determine what would constitute the ideal camera for shooting UFOs, it's very unlikely that the person who does see a UFO is going to have such a camera on hand.

Maybe, but it's FAR more likely than it ever was.  I can now easily afford some great camera equipment (and using it involves no issues with wrong film type, and there's no real outlay as it used to for film).

On 9/29/2018 at 6:51 PM, ufoscan said:

And, given the cost of such equipment, it's equally unlikely that someone is going to purchase the most expensive equipment solely in the hope of catching an illusive UFO - well... except for Douglas Trumbull!

? But it's far cheaper now than it ever was!!!  I'm not an a amateur astronomer, and while I used to be a wedding and portrait photographer back in the days of film, it's just a hobby nowadays,.. and yet I can now afford a camera far better/far more portable than my employers used to supply me back in the day.  Some of these folks are in clubs (joint purchase?), and have telescopes and clearly are not short of a buck, yet they post absolute garbage.

On 9/29/2018 at 6:51 PM, ufoscan said:

So let's look at this from another angle: UFOs seen at night generally take the form of luminous spheres or else, some describe dark triangles or cylinders.  But let's agree that even with the best camera (full frame or larger sensor) with f1.2 lens zoom, at night it's still very unlikely the camera will pick up anything dark unless there is a full moon and a clear sky. And even then, it's likely to look... just dark against dark...

Hang on, why did you lean to the 'dark ones'?  You started with a lumionous sphere, yet that sure vanished to make your 'point'....  There are *many* issues here, and just simplifying it to "omigod it's dark, how can I photograph it?", is mising the point.  If it's dark, yes, it will likely not be seen, and gee .... might as well either not exist or be an optical effect, and no camera is going to help there.  But honestly, how many recent rpeorts are like that?  And that is a reason to abandon all the ways that images of moving lights in the sky can be captured better?

On 9/29/2018 at 6:51 PM, ufoscan said:

Now the luminous spheres will register, but are not likely to mean much unless they are shot in video mode.  Stills would be of very little help.  And ideally a camera would need to be stabilized.  A tripod would be ideal but is not likely to be available.

I disagree, but shall refrain from further comment until I give examples.  Those examples will show how better techniques will help dramatically.  Even with a crappy phone camera - but they will also show the possibilities afforded by a slightly more serious, but not very expensive, decent camera.

On 9/29/2018 at 6:51 PM, ufoscan said:

Let's be realistic.  Nowadays, a UFO witness is most likely to have no more than a smartphone.  So, essentially, the main warning is as ChrLzs underlined: do not use the zoom on your phone because it is digital - not optical...  As for stabilization, the best way is still to rest the phone on some surface so that it isn't shaking in your hand.  However, there is another option in the form of electronic stabilizers.  In recent years, more and more people using phones to shoot footage use electronic gimbals that are available for under two hundred bucks. In fact, on Kickstarter right now is a very small 3-axis stabilizer available for about a hundred bucks that is easy to carry around.  And the great thing about these is you won't be buying them to film UFOs but just to make your regular clips way more stable than they use to be.  Mind you, let's also take into account that some of the latest phones do feature on-board stabilization.  But electronic 3-axis gimbals usually offer more and can be very helpful in night time photography.

Needless to say, all this points to the fact that it's better to ask the aliens to show up during daytime as shooting pictures or footage in daylight is immensely easier ! :)

I agree with most of this, but there is a lot more to come in this thread....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

And now for the big one....

The subject of the image will often be moving.

If there is one topic where 'ufo-hunters' across the globe seem to share inexcusable incompetence... it's gotta be their inability to hold the camera/phone still..

So let me go through this as slowly and simply as follows (johncbdg, are you listening?)...

The object may well be moving, possibly at a high *angular* speed (I'll come back to why I say 'angular' speed in more detail later..).  But here's the problem - if you are moving the camera around, even slightly, it can be impossible to tell if any movement is the object's motion, or just the motion caused from the wobbling camera.  Note that if you are zoomed in, the motion is multiplied in direct ratio to the amount of zoom - the higher the magnification, the more 'wobbly' your imagery will tend to be.

So..... HOLD THE DAM THING STILL!!!  How?  It's easy...
1. Quickly look for a stable object to lean your camera hand on.
Your vehicle's roof/bonnet/hood. A fence post. The side of a building. A tree.  JAM your camera hand against it as you film.  OR
2. Sit down and use your knees OR
3. If it has a viewfinder, jam your camera hand hard against your face

The difference that any of those makes is ENORMOUS - in a later post I'll show the results of taking one or more of those really simple (and aren't they obvious?) steps.

To add a few other ideas:
- if you are holding the camera outwards to look at its screen, hold your breath, tuck your elbows in/against your chest, put your feet apart, wrap the camera strap around your wrist
- if the object is low to the horizon and you have a clear view, lay down 
- if you have time and your camera allows it, you might try changing its ISO (Sensitivity) setting upwards.. This will cause your image to be noisier/grainy, so it's worth experimenting in advance. 

If this all sounds complicated/too hard to remember, just remember this:

LEAN YOUR CAMERA HAND ON SOMETHING.


Finally, note that the best way to verify motion in a video is to show background objects.  In other words, zoom back and include the trees, buildings, electric poles...  If you have to move a bit to get them in shot, then do so.  That will also help us to see what amount of zoom you are using (and remember, OPTICAL zoom only please).

I'll be back later with more, and to show some examples.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Just a quick addition to this thread - I haven't yet got around to doing the sample footage (shame!), but ..for anyone considering buying binoculars...

My old 10x50 binoculars were beginning to suffer from internal mould on the lenses (dam Qld's humidity!!), so it was time to upgrade.  And, on special locally at AU$120 (normally more like AU$180), I found a pair of Olympus DPSI 10x50 binoculars.  I've always been rather fond of Olympus optics, so I grabbed them..

They are SUPERB.  Pin sharp right across the field, superb contrast and 3D effect, virtually no chromatic aberration, and absolutely crisp, pinpoint stars with no coma or other issues that I can see.  I've tried and owned quite a few binoculars over the years (including Nikon, Celestron, Bushnell, Tasco) and these are by far the best I've used, and at a very low price for what you are getting..

 

As I think I mentioned above, 10 x 50 binoc's are ideal for handheld sky viewing.  The Olympus also has a tripod fitting (you may need an adapter but they are cheap).  While 7 x 50's gather a tiny bit more light, only young people with young eyes benefit from that.

So, to me it's a no brainer - if you don't have a decent pair of binoculars, hunt down the Olympus 10 x 50 DPSI....

 

OK, Oly, send me my cheque!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John n b
On 27/09/2018 at 5:20 AM, ChrLzs said:

Who else does this?

In the introductory post I mentioned two wider issues:
- how realistic is it to expect good imagery?
- who else is doing this already? (in particular, who is doing it WELL?)

The first - "how realistic is it..?" is best left to later in the thread for obvious reasons.  But what about the second - who else does this?  Or ..could do it, as they have the required equipment on hand?  The list is long and here's some of them, in no order:
- astronomers
- tv reporters and other journalists
- traffic and other emergency services choppers
- bird/wildlife watchers
- anyone using a helmet cam or drone
- motorists, truckies, etc with a dashcam
- security cameras with an external view
- domestic and military radar and optical surveillance, both ground and aerial based
- satellite and high altitude aircraft photography (land surveys and similar - think Google Earth)
- Jill and Joe Average, with their phones and/or cameras (note that tourists often have very good cameras at hand at all times, as do people like me who just like having a good camera handy)
- and many others....

Given all those potential sources of imagery, isn't it rather strange that there is generally not a trace of corroborative imagery coming from persons or cameras nearer where the distant (to you) object was?  Could that be explained by the simplest possible reason - that those who were closer saw what it was, and being a mundane object, didn't bother to report anything.

And just on that top item, astronomy is booming at all levels - from professionals who make a living from their photography like the amazing Thierry LeGault:
iss_discovery_110228_eva.jpg
ISS in orbit and Discovery Shuttle, showing astronaut Steve Bowen, taken from the ground by Thierry Legault
- yes, that was taken from the ground here on Earth, using a pretty decent telescope and camera......

And then there are amateurs who just muck around in their spare time on consumer grade cameras, like me:
med_gallery_95887_40_58953.jpg
Eclipsed moon, Mars (top left) Spica (above Moon), ChrLsz

So, why aren't these folks reporting and imaging UFO's?

If you take nothing else away from this thread, go visit your nearest astronomy club and attend one of their open nights.  Ask them about their all-sky cams, and be prepared to be quite shocked at the amount and quality of sky surveillance that goes on just at an amateur level, in that sector alone.

Next, I'd like to raise one of the biggest problems in UFO videos, and the very simple solution...  Stay tuned.. :D

 

That photo of the ISS taken from the ground is superb, but the person who took the picture knew it was going to be there, we both know that there are sites you can use to obtain that information, sadly UFOs ( if some are ET ) don't announce their arrival so pictures are taken in a bit of a rush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
8 hours ago, John n b said:

That photo of the ISS taken from the ground is superb, but the person who took the picture knew it was going to be there, we both know that there are sites you can use to obtain that information, sadly UFOs ( if some are ET ) don't announce their arrival so pictures are taken in a bit of a rush.

Every single time - over what, at least a hundred years now?  And today, huge numbers of people have decent smart phones, and affordable high quality cameras, like the DSLR I carry with me at almost all times, are dirt cheap.  Do the alienz deliberately avoid people like me, or am I paid by the MIB to keep my footage to myself?  Plus we now have sky surveillance like never before, from security and dashcams, but more importantly from the huge and now incredibly well-equipped amateur astronomy community.  How is it that you didn't address those issues I raised, instead just rolling out the old excuse of "Oh I didn't have time.."?  There are lots of reports out there involving long sightings, and when was the last time you saw some footage that included the departure of the UFO?

(Dare I hint the reason that happens is the UFO gets closer and is identifiable, or it peels off and heads towards the airport to land.  Best not to include that sorta footage..) 

 

Sorry, but that excuse is lame and well past its use-by date..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L.A.T.1961
1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

 And today, huge numbers of people have decent smart phones, and affordable high quality cameras

 

 

What you say does sound perfectly logical yet there are cases that seem to contradict this assumption.

In the UK over Christmas there was an episode at Gatwick airport involving a drone, possibly more than one. It is a major UK hub and was closed for 36 hours as it was thought unsafe to fly aircraft with rouge drone/s in Gatwick’s airspace.

140,000 passenger’s flights were disrupted while a search was conducted.

Despite the police and military being called in, as well as press and passengers, who were aware of the illegal drone activity there were no images taken according to police.

In fact the police even began to doubt the validity of the 67 visual drone sightings they had received.   

Why was no drone image captured during the 36 hours in such a busy environment?

I think there was even a reward offered at some point for evidence of the drone/s activity or operators.

If it is reasonable to expect images of objects to be captured by the many individuals today equipped with some type of camera why did no one manage to take a drone photo at Gatwick airport?

It would seem to indicate that, for various reasons, images can be more difficult to get than logic might dictate?  

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46670714

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
42 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

 

What you say does sound perfectly logical yet there are cases that seem to contradict this assumption.

In the UK over Christmas there was an episode at Gatwick airport involving a drone, possibly more than one. It is a major UK hub and was closed for 36 hours as it was thought unsafe to fly aircraft with rouge drone/s in Gatwick’s airspace.

140,000 passenger’s flights were disrupted while a search was conducted.

Despite the police and military being called in, as well as press and passengers, who were aware of the illegal drone activity there were no images taken according to police.

In fact the police even began to doubt the validity of the 67 visual drone sightings they had received.   

Why was no drone image captured during the 36 hours in such a busy environment?

I think there was even a reward offered at some point for evidence of the drone/s activity or operators.

If it is reasonable to expect images of objects to be captured by the many individuals today equipped with some type of camera why did no one manage to take a drone photo at Gatwick airport?

It would seem to indicate that, for various reasons, images can be more difficult to get than logic might dictate?  

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46670714

probably the drone wasn't in & around the airport for 36 hours- fly around for 5 mins & go back to base.. do this a few times well away from the masses... Gatwick airport is a vast area as i'm sure you know

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L.A.T.1961
25 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

probably the drone wasn't in & around the airport for 36 hours- fly around for 5 mins & go back to base.. do this a few times well away from the masses... Gatwick airport is a vast area as i'm sure you know

But the drone was in the area long enough to provide an opportunity to generate 67 visual sightings? 

Since the original bbc report police have indicated there were more visual sightings reported during the airport closure. 

"Officers are looking into "relevant sightings" by 115 witnesses, including 93 from "credible witnesses" such as a pilot, airport staff and police officers.

115 chances to take a photo or video and apparently no one managed it. If it was close enough to identify by eye then surly it is close enough to capture an image? ;) 

https://news.sky.com/story/some-gatwick-drone-sightings-may-have-been-police-drones-chief-constable-says-11593854 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 minute ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

115 chances to take a photo or video and apparently no one managed it.

so what are you suggesting? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Also, a drone is small, fast moving, and light colored.  Against a pale daylight sky, and given the very short bursts when it was actually up..  well that IS a challenge.

But how is that typical of most UFO sightings which are distant lights (natch) at night?  (If they were closer they would be (and are) recognised as normal terrestrial stuff.)

And no footage being handed to media doesn't necessarily mean no footage was taken.

 

The POINT of all this, is not to cherry pick untypical scenarios and come up with excuses..  And that point, which I shall briefly repeat, tends to be ignored or overlooked, for some strange reason (that couldn't possibly be bias, now could it?).

That point is, nowadays our sky surveillance is many many orders of magnitude better than it ever was in the 'hey day' of ufo's, when fakery and ignorance and gullibility was at all time highs.  Yet there is not even a few minutes of decent footage that isn't explainable by terrestrial phenomena.  The simplest explanation for that 'dichotomy' is that as our imaging gets better, we recognise more and more of what we see, at longer and longer distances.  And of course people don't post stuff as UFO's if they are, you know, Identified....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L.A.T.1961
22 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

so what are you suggesting? 

ChrLzs original suggestion was you might expect a direct correlation between the number of cameras available and the number of images taken.

The example I provided, I would argue, suggests it is not that simple. A ufo sighting is only an observation of an object.  

If you can see the object, day or night big or small, then there is the same chance to capture a photo. Whether it is a drone or something else makes no difference. In the Gatwick case there was a verified object, multiple visual sightings and many with cameras but no photographic proof.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
25 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

And of course people don't post stuff as UFO's if they are, you know, Identified....

i disagree... i say in many cases the uploader knows exactly what it is they've filmed.. but because it looks a little weird if you don't know what it is= call it a ufo & there ya go

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
3 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

ChrLzs original suggestion was you might expect a direct correlation between the number of cameras available and the number of images taken.

The example I provided, I would argue, suggests it is not that simple. A ufo sighting is only an observation of an object.  

If you can see the object, day or night big or small, then there is the same chance to capture a photo. Whether it is a drone or something else makes no difference. In the Gatwick case there was a verified object, multiple visual sightings and many with cameras but no photographic proof.   

 

oh right, i see== yeah i agree- good point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
55 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

ChrLzs original suggestion was you might expect a direct correlation between the number of cameras available and the number of images taken.

Indeed.   And I'm seeing no refutation.

55 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

The example I provided, I would argue, suggests it is not that simple. A ufo sighting is only an observation of an object.

Yes, so what has changed over the years?  Do you disagree that we surveill the skies much better?  That better cameras are much cheaper (and don't need to be loaded with film..)?  That magnitudes more people have cameras at hand continuously?  It is that simple.

Except when you change the argument...

55 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

If you can see the object, day or night big or small, then there is the same chance to capture a photo.

Disagree.  Photography is a whole different ballgame to seeing stuff by eye, and OF COURSE being day or night or big or small will make a difference.  It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise..  First up, for the drone (NOT your typical UFO sighting) we're talking about a fast moving low-contrast object (neither of which applies to the majority of UFO reports).  An object that will rapidly change its location and that you will have to take your eye off, to fish out your phone or camera and switch on and point to where it .. was.

Secondly, it will very likely be immediately identified as a drone.  Let me repeat the rather obvious comment that if it is known/identified object, there is little imperative to go the trouble of getting your camera/phone out and try to chase it down and get it in frame.  I've seen maybe ten drones in the air in the last six months or so, and at no time did I feel an urge to film any of them.

And depending on the drone, it will likely only be in the air for short periods.

55 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Whether it is a drone or something else makes no difference.

Rubbish.  They are VERY different.

55 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

In the Gatwick case there was a verified object, multiple visual sightings and many with cameras but no photographic proof.

And had I been witness to that DRONE, I wouldn't have filmed it either, unless I happened to be listening to the radio and heard that it caused a kerfuffle and that therefore might be worth trying to capture.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John n b
15 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Every single time - over what, at least a hundred years now?  And today, huge numbers of people have decent smart phones, and affordable high quality cameras, like the DSLR I carry with me at almost all times, are dirt cheap.  Do the alienz deliberately avoid people like me, or am I paid by the MIB to keep my footage to myself?  Plus we now have sky surveillance like never before, from security and dashcams, but more importantly from the huge and now incredibly well-equipped amateur astronomy community.  How is it that you didn't address those issues I raised, instead just rolling out the old excuse of "Oh I didn't have time.."?  There are lots of reports out there involving long sightings, and when was the last time you saw some footage that included the departure of the UFO?

(Dare I hint the reason that happens is the UFO gets closer and is identifiable, or it peels off and heads towards the airport to land.  Best not to include that sorta footage..) 

 

Sorry, but that excuse is lame and well past its use-by date..

I don't know of anyone who walks around with a camera waiting to catch a UFO ,like I said they don't announce their arrival and I add their departure since you mentioned there's no footage of them leaving. The skeptics who keep banging on about no evidence usually don't have any interest in the subject anyway, if they did they would know there are well documented cases from pilots ATC  etc. I have been interested in UFOs since my dad's sighting in 1970 and my own sighting in 1987 which was in broad day light, when I get the time I do a lot of sky watching both day and night time looking for sattelites, I've seen a lot of strange things since my sighting but nothing that I could say was definitely ET . Your average person walks with their head pointing down to the ground and never look up. How often do you scan the skies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L.A.T.1961

ChrLzs - "And I'm seeing no refutation."

My argument is the Gatwick example I provided was questioning the ‘more cameras equal more images’ idea.

Three factors need to be met to produce a photo, a camera, an opportunity and motivation.

We start from the reasonable assumption that today there will be a camera to use. Then the potential photographer requires an opportunity to take the photo, to be in the right place at the right time. Finally the photographer has to be motivated to take it.

The opportunity is provided by the initial sighting, the motivation will be down to various factors including an individual’s knowledge and interests.

With the drone case motivation might be to photo the object causing chaos at Gatwick or to have an image to offer the worlds press.

I would say in the Gatwick case lack of motivation was not a significant reason for there being no photo or video.

ChrLzs - “Photography is a whole different ballgame to seeing stuff by eye”

Not if you expect most sighting to be accompanied by a photo, but this is the point I am making. Lack of photographic evidence may not indicate a lack of an object to capture. Prevailing conditions will play a part as well as the camera and the operator’s technical ability, these factors will influence the number of images produced alongside a visual sighting.

In the Gatwick drone case problems associated with capturing a photo apparently reduced the number to zero.  

ChrLzs -“For the drone (NOT your typical UFO sighting) we're talking about a fast moving low-contrast object (neither of which applies to the majority of UFO reports)” –

Drones might be relatively small and harder to see in general but we do not have to try and access this factor when considering the Gatwick case as we have confirmed sightings, so the difficulty in seeing them is not an issue.  

The wider topic of ufo’s and what constitutes a typical sighting (is there one?) is outside of the question discussed above, that of having no photographic evidence to support visual sightings.

I suggest the Gatwick case provides evidence to indicate it is not just the availability of a camera that governs the number of images produced.

This generalisation, while appearing reasonable, is not supported when tested against a well documented event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
5 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

ChrLzs - "And I'm seeing no refutation."

My argument is the Gatwick example I provided was questioning the ‘more cameras equal more images’ idea.

Three factors need to be met to produce a photo, a camera, an opportunity and motivation.

We start from the reasonable assumption that today there will be a camera to use. Then the potential photographer requires an opportunity to take the photo, to be in the right place at the right time. Finally the photographer has to be motivated to take it.

The opportunity is provided by the initial sighting, the motivation will be down to various factors including an individual’s knowledge and interests.

With the drone case motivation might be to photo the object causing chaos at Gatwick or to have an image to offer the worlds press.

I would say in the Gatwick case lack of motivation was not a significant reason for there being no photo or video.

ChrLzs - “Photography is a whole different ballgame to seeing stuff by eye”

Not if you expect most sighting to be accompanied by a photo, but this is the point I am making. Lack of photographic evidence may not indicate a lack of an object to capture. Prevailing conditions will play a part as well as the camera and the operator’s technical ability, these factors will influence the number of images produced alongside a visual sighting.

In the Gatwick drone case problems associated with capturing a photo apparently reduced the number to zero.  

ChrLzs -“For the drone (NOT your typical UFO sighting) we're talking about a fast moving low-contrast object (neither of which applies to the majority of UFO reports)” –

Drones might be relatively small and harder to see in general but we do not have to try and access this factor when considering the Gatwick case as we have confirmed sightings, so the difficulty in seeing them is not an issue.  

The wider topic of ufo’s and what constitutes a typical sighting (is there one?) is outside of the question discussed above, that of having no photographic evidence to support visual sightings.

I suggest the Gatwick case provides evidence to indicate it is not just the availability of a camera that governs the number of images produced.

This generalisation, while appearing reasonable, is not supported when tested against a well documented event.

The drone is identified, so it is nothing special if photographed. Furthermore, what purpose does it serve to photograph it? The UAV pilot is the person of interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L.A.T.1961
1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

The drone is identified, so it is nothing special if photographed. Furthermore, what purpose does it serve to photograph it? The UAV pilot is the person of interest. 

The drone is not particularly interesting in it's own right, it's what the drone was being used for that provides the interest. 

115 witnesses went to the trouble of reporting their drone sightings to police, so they recognised the importance of their observation. A photo would provide extra evidence of the sighting when reporting it to the police.

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.