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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
as long as people are taking pictures
i see no harm




posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
No harm for sure. My wife is a photographer and she got a photo the other day that was full of orb's. She had a thick glass piece next to the edge that had lots of imperfections and the sun was just out of view. She got to lazy and did not put a hood on the lense. I told her we should post it. There must have been 50 orbs on that shot.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
what if you do pick something alien using solar obliteration you never no?
wow 50 orbs that would look crazy

when i take pics i take pics of planes cloud formations contrails/chemtrails and now im using solar obliteration the more shots the better.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
it does look like a blimp, could be a helicopter up high, or one of thoseprivate jets on an angle.....
who know
s though



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Looks like a bug to me. I'm far from a photography expert, but it seems reasonable to me that a bee wandered into the frame.

Size and distance can be very deceiving in a 2 dimensional picture....



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I think it's a new compression alg.

Possibly for eliminating abherritions caused by external light.

Mod. Is the an advertisement.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Bothered
im not sure what you mean

could you explain it a bit more



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   
It was a joke. The orb hasn't been identified. The sun is an orb. Something's been said about "obliteration".

No offense intended. I'm just trying to get a feel for the thread.

If it is the sun being disrupted, let me know. I'll help.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:04 AM
link   
okay
thanks for replying anyways
cheers



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   
If you introduce a conduit conductor in the lens, and apply a generated flux (Electrical current), this should eliminate the abherritiions caused by digital interpolation.

Also, try adding phosphoretic color (not much mind you), then re-interpolate the data. This will sharpen the focus.[EDIT] I've found pink phosphour, then extrapolate out the Red saturation works best.


And the obvious: Shade Resolution. Put a shade cover about 2mm high and 1/2 mm out from the lens on top.
I believe some of this problem may be due to the brightest object in the sky.


[edit on 15-8-2006 by bothered]

[edit on 15-8-2006 by bothered]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Put a shade cover about 2mm high and 1/2 mm out from the lens on top.
I believe some of this problem may be due to the brightest object in the sky.


will do



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:33 AM
link   
While I'm at it, the old ZIP program used to have a compression run-time environment for certain file types.
This should relieve pressure on the processing unit of the camera.

This was when you could distribute playable files that required no OS. Those days were fun.

Anyway, pre-analysis used to be a trick that was hard to pull off. With todays electronics, however, you could take two screens of the same area within nano seconds. Then remove errata.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I just came up with it.
The Stealth-mode camera.

Surface: ___
...................)

Run perpindicular lines with the top, curve the bottoms of the surface area. This will reduce the glare introduced. Big problem.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bothered
I just came up with it.
The Stealth-mode camera.

Surface: ___
...................)

Run perpindicular lines with the top, curve the bottoms of the surface area. This will reduce the glare introduced. Big problem.

good work
Bothered



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 06:17 AM
link   
For anyone that is interested here is the EXIF data for the original shot:

Width 644 pixels
Height 483 pixels
Horizontal Res 230 dpi
Vertical Res 230 dpi
Bit Depth 24
Equipment Make EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
Camera Model KODAK Z7590 ZOOM DIGITAL
Colour Rep. sRGB
Shutter Speed 1/1261 sec.
Lens Aperture F/5.7
Focal Length 6mm
Exposure Time 1/1250 sec.
ISO Speed ISO-80
Metering Mode Pattern
Light Source Daylight
Exposure Mode Normal
Exposure Comp 0 Step
Date Picture Taken 13/08/2006 14:21

Personally it is my belief that this is probably an insect of some sort as it resembles the shape of a "rod" although quite short. See my very first posting for additional info and links explaining the phenomena - Rods - Ideas Please...!!

I believe that the insect was to far from the camera to give a clear view of what it actually was or to resemble a rod in the fashion that other photographers have managed to capture them. As the distance travelled is relative to the distance from the camera and the shutter speed used.

IMO...of course.....



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Now to figure out what type of insect.

I'm guessing a beetle of some sorts. Thrown into the air.

With no light source (maybe a flashlite).



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bothered
Now to figure out what type of insect.

I'm guessing a beetle of some sorts. Thrown into the air.

With no light source (maybe a flashlite).


Now why would you want to know that, and more importantly why are you insinuating that CYRAX set this image up.

He took a shot and couldn't discern what the mystery object was, he posted to see if we could shed any light on it.

Some people have mentioned CYRAX's numerous photographs and for some reason this is taken as evidence of foul play.....why?

CYRAX I recommend you tone down the posting, as you can see excessive posting throws up suspicion, if you get anymore shots along these lines please don't hesitate to U2U me or post the shot to my e-mail.......not excessively though....


Personally, I see nothing wrong with this particular post, but I got here late and the mods seem to have had a right old time........


Lets hope we don't see any more silly remarks from posters unwilling to contribute.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Koka]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Oh look.. a DOT..

Thanks for the picture of the UFO.




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuietSoul
Oh look.. a DOT..

Thanks for the picture of the UFO.



And this post is contributing how?

Did you not read what the mods have been saying through out this thread?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I think that the only way that flying bugs can be identified as such is to have some photos of the flying bugs.

The problem is that the bugs usually do not stop until they ear "Action!" to start flying, they go about their business regardless of who is looking at them.

The only way I see that could be used to make a "catalog" of flying bugs is to take pictures pointing up but with some sort of "ceiling" to rule out the possibility of the objects on the photos being real UFOs high above.

That "ceiling" should be high enough so the camera could consider it at "infinity" and the bugs that would appear between the camera and the "ceiling" would be out of focus (hopefully).

How do you do this? I don't know.
If you have the possibility of making some kind of marquee, possibly with some with plastic or fabric, that would be good.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join