It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Hessdalen, Norway - Disk shaped UFO surprisingly appears in picture taken in 2015.

page: 2
28
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
I don't know where you got your unedited picture...

Below, I have enhanced a cropped section of the picture presented on coldevence.com...
Coldevence
which is 1600x900 pixels in size.
It's the same picture that I used, but you performed enhancement and I showed the raw pixels magnified without enhancement. Obviously you get two different perspectives of the object with and without enhancement. The enhancement will tend to presume the object has smooth edges and if the actual object does then that works pretty well, on known objects like buildings that have straight walls etc.

However it's dangerous to use enhancement on unknown objects because unlike assuming a building has straight walls which is a fairly safe assumption, we don't know the shape of the UFO, so the raw pixels might be a better representation than what could be a distorted enhancement.




posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Here we go...1000% un-enhanced.



1000% un-enhanced enlargement from the downloaded original picture on Coldevence. The difference is I have not used a 72dpi web [screen] resolution image. Lower resolution images make for bigger pixels when enlarged. The only real way to tell with any accuracy is to download the actual high-res scan in file format and not from a screen.

Yes, I agree with you, enhancement does do strange things but it also brings out details you cannot see in the original.
Enhancement is only as good as the software used and the person using it.
edit on 18-11-2016 by fromtheskydown because: Spelling error.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
The clean closeup from the original photo provided by
Pierre Pico the photographer. However he did not
provide the original photo with the EXIFDATA to be
analyzed. It´s a flying saucer.

edit on 18-11-2016 by free_spirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: free_spirit
The clean closeup from the original photo provided by
Pierre Pico the photographer. However he did not
provide the original photo with the EXIFDATA to be
analyzed. It´s a flying saucer.


My point all along being that the original would be needed as it would hopefully be a RAW file format, untouched and not enhanced. I would be critical of anybody who would not provide the original file with the EXIF data as that would contain enough information to allay any suspicion of Photoshop/Editing being used.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
It would be nice to see some info on the camera looking at exposure data it may be a small point and shoot or a mobile phone also having looked at some of the other images on Coldevence I would say they are trying to extract the urine



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: fromtheskydown

True. If there's no original raw file, that's a stale mate, no evidence either way. I can only comment on what's presented.
Peace



new topics

top topics
 
28
<< 1   >>

log in

join