Skyfishing: Low Elevation High Speed Disk photo + video

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: tombaccei

The other thing to consider the sensor on his camera has a 2x crop factor so the effective focal length he filmed at is doubled compared to 35mm or full frame digital cameras.

So fast moving insects is the most likely cause.

In fact here is some exif data from his first image in the OP

Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) [0x829A] = 10/2500 second ===> 1/250 second ===> 0.004 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop [0x829D] = 40/10 ===> ƒ/4
Focal Length [0x920A] = 140/10 mm ===> 14 mm

As a fellow photography buff, thanks for this. I was wondering if anyone had pointed out the fact that the images were taken with a Panasonic Lumix, which is a digital point and shoot pocket type camera. However, people that aren't into photography don't understand what that means. They also don't usually know what a "Lumix" is, either.

If they were taken with a Canon 5D MKiii or a Nikon D4s with a nice, fast lens? I'd be a bit more intrigued.

Also, I am confused about this comment in the OP:

So I have extracted the photo images directly off the video on my camera, which renders the highest quality images possible.

I'm confused on this because a Lumix does not render the highest quality images possible...

Sorry to be a party pooper, but I am going with blurds or blugs. Maybe a drone.

a reply to: lovebeck

Sorry but a Lumix GH3 is not a point and shoot it is a MFT (micro four thirds) sensor camera and has a 2x crop factor so the images are magnified compared to say a Full Frame DSLR.

Still images are very good not as good as an APS-C or Full Frame DSLR but not bad.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Thanks Wmd, yes the GH3 is the latter. Its not a point and shoot, the 14-140 lens it pretty long. Im zoomed in with the lens 1/3 of the way in these videos to increase the viewing size of the subjects.

lBeck, I didnt mean lumix has the best image quality, although I for think their color sensitivity is the best especially in low light. I meant my process of extracting images from a video directly on the cameta, frame by frame, gets me the best images possible... from the video.

originally posted by: Pylgrym
a reply to: wmd_2008

Thanks Wmd, yes the GH3 is the latter. Its not a point and shoot, the 14-140 lens it pretty long. Im zoomed in with the lens 1/3 of the way in these videos to increase the viewing size of the subjects.

lBeck, I didnt mean lumix has the best image quality, although I for think their color sensitivity is the best especially in low light. I meant my process of extracting images from a video directly on the cameta, frame by frame, gets me the best images possible... from the video.

Do you remember or know the focal length used?

a reply to: Pylgrym

You really seemed to believe in your bird video, but you can't possibly think these are anything other than insects, can you?

I'm curious why this post got you 65+ flags and the other one, nine. Has no one see a bug before?

If this is a bug, the orbs are fireflies at MID-DAY right? (Sarcasm - had to write it). Unless he is lying about the orbs, I don't see how lit objects and bugs will be it is just bugs..

a reply to: Pylgrym

Excellent footage but if you see this so many times, why not prepare yourself? Why not put the objective or lens part of the camera behind and eye piece of a telescope or binoculars to get a close up, otherwise it's again some dot flying. At least, take those binoculars and see yourself if there is anything from that dot.

Very very very good work Pylgrym and thanks for sharing

You said you want to experiment with infrared equipment, why not try to modify a camera yourself.

You see ALL digital cameras are extremely sensitive to infrared
You can prove this by point any camera or mobile camera to the IR LED of any remote control and press a button.
You will see the IR emition via the LCD screen of the camera

And you will see this despite the fact that all cameras-mobile phones have an infrared filter in front of the CCD to block infrared light (it looks like a small piece of somehow red glass).
By removing this filter you have the full potential of the CCD to "see" infrared.

www.diyphotography.net...

If you do that there always a risk of destroying the camera so be careful. Also you may need then a filter in front of lenses to block visible light.

Here is a site that has good explanations how these crafts fly so fast and there is no sonic boom

Enjoy...

www.hyper.net...

Even if the exposure is 1/2000th of a second, a bird travelling at 100mph will travel about an inch during the exposure,
so will be obviously blurred if travelling across the path of a fixed (unpanned) lens ...


simulation.

If the bird speed was 50mph and the shutter speed 1/250th, the motion blur would be twice as bad as shown on the simulation above,
(and similar to the video ).

I've taken the time to extract each frame, and isolate the clearest objects into animated GIFs. I think this is the best way to get around the Youtube reduction of quality issue. Right click on any big picture and "Open image in new tab" to see full size.

File 441



File 619



File 688 - Goes behind 2 trees, I think. At least 60 feet away.


This one is so interesting to me for two reasons. One, the blur/elongation, does it imply a speed change, or just the angle of approach? More interestingly, is the "pull-up". It is heading down towards the ground at a modest angle, but at high speed. It pulls up, and the entire body remains stiff as it slightly overcompensates and angles back up in order to stabilize, then finally even at the end. The stiffness of the object is what strikes me. There is no curve in any individual image, they are all straight as an arrow per frame. This gives me the impression it's made of metal and not using "wings" to stay afloat.
File 742b




File 744




File 786


File 787 - The best for last. A beautiful sunset, and two things flying together, making 90 degree turns at huge speed. The close ups of the big one are interesting! Bugs do not fly coordinated together. These are not bugs. They still could be birds, but the closer I look at these pixels, the lower the chances of birds I see. I've still never seen a wing flap below the body in any of these videos. I plan to get exact measurements on the tree distances soon so we can calculate speed.






Stolis, that page explaining UFO physics is awesome. A bending of the continuum around a craft, as a by-product of the anti gravity power source is very helpful to avoiding collisions.

Engv, I'm sure there is motion blur taking place as you demonstrate. I would love to have a clear picture of the fliers, although that would require a much more expensive camera (probably $10K instead of 2.5?), or another 5 or 10 years of technology progress.

This "rod" momentarily has dark ends ...


Consistent with a bird momentarily spreading it's wings somewhat, and consequently producing a bigger silhouette.

a reply to: engvbany

So much efort to make a point that this is a bird !!! Yours yes is a bird but Pylgryms is not!!!


You see, you present just a frame with blurred winds while Pylgrym give us a series of frames combined to an animation gid and there is not a speck of a wind blurred or not!

originally posted by: stolisGreece
a reply to: engvbany

So much efort to make a point that this is a bird !!! Yours yes is a bird but Pylgryms is not!!!

What do you mean, "his" is a bird?

His image is just a still from Pylgrym's GIF:



If his is a bird, then so is Pylgrym's, because they are one and the same.

And another thing:

If Pylgrym is correct about the film being shot at 60 frames per second, then he is definitely WRONG about the shutter speed being 1/2000 sec, at least in the long "rod" images, which makes all other assumptions invalid.


With a shutter speed of 1/2000 sec, the length of the blurred object (divided by the width, if we want to assume a roughly circular object) represents the distance travelled in 1/2000 sec while the shutter is open.

Now, at the claimed settings, the shutter is only open for 1/2000 sec every 1/60 sec.

1/60 sec is roughly 33/2000 sec.

So, during the gaps between frames, the object should have moved roughly 33 times as far as it moved during the frame.

In fact, the gap between frames is far less than that. In some cases it seems to be roughly equal to the length of the rod.



In this case, the distance travelled between frames appears to be pretty much the same as the distance travelled during the frame.

If there are 60 frames per second, then that suggests that the actual shutter speed was therefore approximately 1/120 sec. Not 1/2000 sec.

Which of course means that the speed of the object needed to cause that amount of motion blur is also much, much lower.


Pylgrym: which mode do you have your GH3 in when shooting video? A, M or S?

WMD, on my 14-140 lens I have been zoomed in between 50-70. The new footage I shot today was at 60.

Rob, after taking a good look at my settings I think you are correct. Most of these videos were shot on M mode, some on Manual Movie mode. On M I am setting the aperture to about 7.1 average, and Iso of 125 or 200. It doesn't let me set shutter speed in that mode. Polarizer is always on during the day. I did film some videos at the time I posted the shutter speed comment at 1/2000th on S mode, although I don't know that I captured anything with those settings. It doesn't look like the files track my settings at that level, unfortunately. Today I filmed for about 2 hours on S mode at 1/2000th, at 60fps (all vids were confirmed at 60fps), and will post anything I captured with that setting.

originally posted by: Pylgrym

Stolis, that page explaining UFO physics is awesome. A bending of the continuum around a craft, as a by-product of the anti gravity power source is very helpful to avoiding collisions.

I would take that information with an EXTREMELY large pinch of salt!!!

Thanks for the info on the focal length, why f7.1 ?

a reply to: Pylgrym

Thanks for the info

I wish everyone who posted unusual videos had your attitude rather than getting defensive when questioned!

Today I filmed for about 2 hours on S mode at 1/2000th, at 60fps (all vids were confirmed at 60fps), and will post anything I captured with that setting.

If my shutter speed calculation above is correct then any such objects will appear much, much smaller at 1/2000 sec. And may even be identifiable with minimal blur. So look closely!

I'll be looking through those 2000th vids tomorrow, and filming some more.

Aperature 7.1 to reduce the brightness overexposure I get during bright days. But yes when trying 1/2000th at 60fps I should reduce the aperature to 5.6 or something on the brighter side to compensate.

Ok I'm down to my last 3 low elevation 'things'. #3 is the White Floating Bar, fresh off the chopping block. Don't get too excited because there's not much to see! It takes 25 seconds to slowly crawl across the screen, moving very steady, with a slightly smoky wispy soft shape. I have no working theory for this item. The last two will be very very interesting, two collections of very fast flying "things".

www.youtube.com...

I've been editing these last 2 videos, and made a new animated gif of the #1 object. In file 481 (close to finished editing), there are 50+ fast small objects flying mostly to the right, some up/down, none go left. Most of them are dark gray, and hard to see. A few of them are white. One of them seems to change colors or shape, or possibly just rotates in a very interesting manner. I've taken those full sized images and GIF'd them for you uploaded ATS direct in 1920x1080, and took a 300% zoom of the object centered, and put that at the top-left for you to see. Video of this thing's entire posse coming soon. The images are pure other than the zoom in corner.



files.abovetopsecret.com...

So in reviewing my 2000th of a second shutter speed videos, they are too grainy. I have some things moving, but 2000th is too fast for my camera's low light capability. So I reduced it to 1000th of a second, and have about 7 hours of new video to sift through. I may need to recruit volounteers to download a huge 3GB file and slowly step through it at half speed or 1/3 speed. I can film much faster than I can sift. Unfortunately my house is being foreclosed in 2 months time, sale date set. So I may capture video, and plan to farm out the sifting, PM me if you are interested, have a sharp eye, and have 3 or 4 hours of serious time to commit to this project.

a reply to: Pylgrym

Sorry to here of your situation I would concentrate on dealing with that plenty of time later to look at the video's.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: Pylgrym

These are not bugs. Some of these objects fly behind the chimney of neighboring house, or behind a tree

How do you know this if you can't see them with the naked eye?

It certainly can't be determined by the video footage you've provided, as the flying objects are dark, as are the trees, chimneys and everything else seen..

They could as easily be flying in front, as behind.

Even though bugs can fly at a wide range of different speeds, they usually do not fly in a straight line except for bees which can only fly 7mph..
These things captured here look too large to be bugs. They look more like some kind of device.

Edit: They also look dull on the bottom and lighter on top like metal does from having the sun above them.. Maybe some ARE bugs and some are something else?