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.

 

The best photo I've ever taken today

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I think it's an insect due to the shape, but nevertheless I commend you for doing what you do.




posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   
it's a nice clean picture, but the object is so small (either tiny and close or large and distant) that it's impossible to make out

i always find it amazing that people "accidently" take pics of ufo's and never actually see them with their eyes, always leade me to believe it's a bug that flew infront of the camera



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
I think it's an insect due to the shape, but nevertheless I commend you for doing what you do.

thank you



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by CYRAX
the camera is a kodak z7590
could it be a satelite? when you zoom it sort of looks like a satelite
the photo is the full res pic



ok Cyrax your claiming its the full resolution picture, yet the Kodak Z7590 is a 5 MegaPixel camera.. i know for a fact that my 2 MegaPixel camera phone takes pictures of a resolution of 1600 x 1200 pixels.. and yet the picture you linked are only 951 x 772 pixels.

i54.photobucket.com...

Im not saying you have faked someting here.. since you can't even tell what it really is.. but your clearly not showing a full resolution picture. As to what it is.. i would guess some kind of bug.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   
well it u say it a bug i am guessing tat it a moth ? or maybe new plane develop by u.s ?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SilverSurfer

Originally posted by CYRAX
the camera is a kodak z7590
could it be a satelite? when you zoom it sort of looks like a satelite
the photo is the full res pic


ok Cyrax your claiming its the full resolution picture, yet the Kodak Z7590 is a 5 MegaPixel camera.. i know for a fact that my 2 MegaPixel camera phone takes pictures of a resolution of 1600 x 1200 pixels.. and yet the picture you linked are only 951 x 772 pixels.
i54.photobucket.com...
Im not saying you have faked someting here.. since you can't even tell what it really is.. but your clearly not showing a full resolution picture. As to what it is.. i would guess some kind of bug.


opening the pic in notepad found his morsel:

EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY KODAK Z7590 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA ---meaningless garbage--- 2006:08:13 14:21:34 2006:08:13 14:21:34


if he edited or cropped the image that info would reflect upon the program used to alter it
this image file itself is either legit or it is a very good forgery

photoshopped images for example say "adobe" somewhere near where his is positioned

[edit on 14-8-2006 by wondernut]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Did anyone else notice when you rotate the img in WinFAX/Photo editor that it gives a warning?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Insectoid Invasion Fleet Scout Unit


Originally posted by CYRAX
need help what could this be?

I think it's a bug, but also greatly appreciate your sharing this photograph with us.


Personally, I never mind if a photo doesn't turn out to be an extraterrestrial craft -- unless it's presented as being one.


After all, I only need to see one picture of a real extraterrestrial craft to make the rest all worth while, and when in doubt, I think members should never be reluctant to share such photos. :shk:

We can't see if we don't look.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Insectoid Invasion Fleet Scout Unit


Originally posted by CYRAX
need help what could this be?

I think it's a bug, but also greatly appreciate your sharing this photograph with us.


Personally, I never mind if a photo doesn't turn out to be an extraterrestrial craft -- unless it's presented as being one.


After all, I only need to see one picture of a real extraterrestrial craft to make the rest all worth while, and when in doubt, I think members should never be reluctant to share such photos. :shk:

We can't see if we don't look.

thank you for the kind words

thank you

[edit on 14-8-2006 by CYRAX]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SilverSurfer
ok Cyrax your claiming its the full resolution picture, yet the Kodak Z7590 is a 5 MegaPixel camera.. i know for a fact that my 2 MegaPixel camera phone takes pictures of a resolution of 1600 x 1200 pixels.. and yet the picture you linked are only 951 x 772 pixels.

i54.photobucket.com...

Im not saying you have faked someting here.. since you can't even tell what it really is.. but your clearly not showing a full resolution picture. As to what it is.. i would guess some kind of bug.


i would never put fakes up here


[edit: fixed quote]

[edit on 8/14/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I feel very disappointed by the "justice" applied here, on ATS.

After spending a reasonable amount of time trying to understand the comments made by admins and mods, I'm still unable to come up with any logical explanation on what grounds were most of the first page replies deleted (including 2 of mine).

May I ask, since what time deleting posts questioning the authenticity of some picture is an example of impartiality?

For anyone who shares a fair portion of open-mindedness it should be obvious that the photo posted by the author of the thread could show anything from a bug on a lense to a man-made aircraft. I don't see how my non-offensive reply could have broken the norms of ethical debate. I stated that it would require minimum effort to produce an equally "informative" photo.

Honestly, I'm still quite surprised how such an ordinary picture attratcs that many attention comparing to the unexplained phenomenon of white particals over Madrid. The latter is way more spectacular although it could also be of terrestrial nature.

edit: ok, it seems that it was a huge amount of balloons over Madrid. Anyway, at least it was possible to come up with some information to debunk the UFO version of that story. On the contrary, the destiny of pictures as the one discussed here is already known - nothing will be confirmed.

[edit on 14/8/2006 by The Conspiracy Follower]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   
[unnecessary quote of Entire previos post removed]

just chill
everything is alright




Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 8/14/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Conspiracy Follower
edit: ok, it seems that it was a huge amount of balloons over Madrid. Anyway, at least it was possible to come up with some information to debunk the UFO version of that story. On the contrary, the destiny of pictures as the one discussed here is already known - nothing will be confirmed.


I am trying my best, but this is a more difficult subject.

But do not despair, my vacations last until September.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
What a thread, just read it all in one go, think i need a beer now....

The picture is very interesting. It is definatly not a bird as someone suggested earlier. The proportions are totally wrong, it would have to have huge wings with a very small tail, which to my knowledge there is no bird like this.

CYRAX, you mention, in your original post that the picture is one of a set of 5. Is it possible to see the other 4? Do they show this anomaly? Is the set a short sequence taken by the camera, or does the camera always take numerous shot and you pick the best one to keep? (don't know if I've explained myself very well there.)



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
ATS Justice


Originally posted by The Conspiracy Follower
I feel very disappointed by the "justice" applied here, on ATS.

After spending a reasonable amount of time trying to understand the comments made by admins and mods, I'm still unable to come up with any logical explanation on what grounds were most of the first page replies deleted (including 2 of mine).

If you disagree with any staff action, the best thing to do is submit a complaint rather than go on about it in a thread.

We review all complaints and when they have merit, we act on them.

The problem with public drama is that it limits our options and usually leads to negative outcomes. In contrast, when a complaint brings a staff error to our attention, we go out of our way to make things right.

I look forward to reviewing and investigating your complaint should you choose to submit one.




(Meanwhile, back on topic, I still think it's a bug, but I could be wrong -- and certainly don't want to discourage critical analysis!)



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Edited for meaningless content. I was bad and did not read everything.


[edit on 14-8-2006 by Blaine91555]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
CYRAX, I looked up "solar obliteration" and gave it a try. I have 9 photos saved "as-is" right out of the camera. Most of the photos show white circular looking things, one photo shows a saucer shape. I'm not posting them because they are as inconclusive as yours are.

I want to thank you for bringing this technique to my attention and I'll keep trying like you are. If I ever get any "great" pics, then I'll post them.
Thanks again



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beer_Guy
CYRAX, I looked up "solar obliteration" and gave it a try. I have 9 photos saved "as-is" right out of the camera. Most of the photos show white circular looking things, one photo shows a saucer shape. I'm not posting them because they are as inconclusive as yours are.

I want to thank you for bringing this technique to my attention and I'll keep trying like you are. If I ever get any "great" pics, then I'll post them.
Thanks again


no probs
so you are getting those white cicular things to
very intrsting



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
The histogram shows strong filtering. Probably done in the camera itself. You may have sharpening set on high or noise filtering set on high. As to the size it would depend on your camera setting when you took the shot. My guess is the filtering was Gaussian or Bicubic which more or less averages between pixels. I think that’s the most common algorithm used in camera internal filtering. The result of filtering this high is that it removes a lot of detail. Whenever you filter you loose detail. All I can say is it is symmetrical on one axis and there is not enough data to draw a conclusion.

I’m not familiar with that camera. If it has the option to shoot in raw you should always do so. If you want someone to try to enhance it; it is important to have the original file. You should turn off all filtering and leave the processing to be done after the fact. Every time you save a .jpg it is compressed. You should save it from the camera in a bitmap file like a .bmp or a .tif file and provide a link for downloading. If raw is an option anyone qualified to review the photo can open and process it. Often people will set the size so they can fit more pictures on the storage media but in this case you want the best quality the camera is capable of shooting. A 5.1 megapixel usually nets a file size of about 2560 x 1920 at its highest quality setting which would give twice the data as your provided image. Your camera may not have a raw file mode but it may have the option of a .tif file which does not compress the image. If only .jpg is available at least use the highest setting and turn off the filtering.

Keep shooting

thank you will do



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
That will teach me to not post before reading everything. Solar Obliteration? I just read about the process and yes you could expect lots of these anomalies. They are internal reflections from light leakage. Lenses are not just a single optic but a combination of many optics. These anomalies are normal and the reason for using a hood when a light source is anywhere near the edge of the lenses field of view. What you are doing is forcing a situation photographers avoid. When a bright light source hits the sharp edge of the optic it can, through refraction, cause it to reflect off an internal surface. Very undesirable in photography. You may want to rethink taking advice from someone who advises this method. Either they are naïve about it or are purposefully leading you to believe the anomalies are real objects. Either way; not a good source of instruction.

Ignore the first post as it is meaningless. I’ll now type 100 times:
I will not post before reading everything.
I will not post before reading everything.
I will not post before reading everything.
I will not post before reading everything.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join