wow. how on earth did you ever even see that ufo? did the sender alert you to it?

Originally posted by Crakeur
wow. how on earth did you ever even see that ufo? did the sender alert you to it?

No, or at least no one really informed me. Springer just said he didnt see it, and informed me just before I posted he still doesnt. (I'm sure he will now that I've circled it) LOL...ya gotta look really good for it.

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by Crakeur
wow. how on earth did you ever even see that ufo? did the sender alert you to it?

No, or at least no one really informed me. Springer just said he didn't see it, and informed me just before I posted he still doesnt. (I'm sure he will now that I've circled it) LOL...ya gotta look really good for it.

I have to say that I nearly deleted the 4th image when I looked at it thinking it was an extraneous addition to the series sent by mistake.

I couldn't see it until I saw it circled in yellow in Jeff's forum.

Springer...

I have VERY STRONG ISSUES with the photo's being shown in this thread because the color saturation of these photo's are just too much for my little brain to wrap around considering that they were allegedly taken by a camera phone. In short, it's very apparent to me that these photo's were at least altered color-wise in an image editor before being sent to this forum.
No matter what the mp count is on a camera phone, the fact that such cams lack those photographic adjustment features found on digital cam's of the same quality, even photo's from a 3.2 mp camera phone looks like a 2 mp most noticeably in terms of the richness of color where a 3.2 mp looks just like a 2 mp because of this.
So to say that these photo's have not been tampered with, at least in this regard, is simply not true.
So here's my point of contention; if these photo's have been tampered with color-wise, which they most certainly have as this is VERY APPARENT -- IF they were taken by a camera phone, then have they also been tampered with in other area's too e.g. insertion of a UFO and then doing a retake of that tampered photo by a cam phone or low quality cam in the right lighting conditions to get better results color-wise so that those ocular distortions/artifacts that are typically seen by such low quality cams show up in the final image??
Once again, if anyone can post a camera phone photo here, straight from the cam where we can view the EXIF Information of that photo in an image editor -- a photo that's got the same kind of color saturation and richness as these UFO photo's posted in this thread, then this may allow me to change my opinion on these photo's sent by anonymous....







[edit on 7-2-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by Palasheea
I have VERY STRONG ISSUES with the photo's being show in this thread because the color saturation of these photo's are just too much ....

I reluctantly tend to agree. While I initially considered these images very good, there are some color-related issues (like you said) that seem "too good" for a 0.3mp camera phone CCD.

All the UFO material in the news is certainly causing a rash of photos here, there, and everywhere in a way that is reminding me why I didn't like being involved in UFO sighting research some 20 years ago.

-sigh-

Due to Springer's excellent work with Coast to Coast, people have become aware of us as a source to send potential sighting pictures. I think it's still important to present images that we receive so that our members can analyze and discuss, even if the source is questionable... but I fear we're just going to get more and more of these, making it difficult to identify what is real out of those that are not.

Palasheea,

Well given the fact that the image is 640x480, then it's obviously the original size... and a sucky camera. But you're in luck. Cuz I have a Treo 600 with a 640x480 cam, and I took a crap-load of pics in Switzerland last year.... even some ufe pics. So hang on and I'll upload 'em and see if that may help.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by Edward Rose]

I personally dont see the color as any issue. I've got some cell pics that are pretty brilliant actually.

I do see the common chromatic issues that are associated with camera phone lenses, that I dont think would be present within a reshoot scenario, and if they were used in such a way I'd expect them to be twice as bad.

I think Edward's shots of color has an equal amount of saturation, and show the same aspects we see in other cell cam shots, a relatively hot center and more often then not in high contrast areas, the inability of cell cams to relate accurately some spectral data. I see this in both Ed's (second more high contrast shot) and the LaSalle shots. There is an overall purple/blue-red wash over the pictures consistent with limitations of cell cams. Take it into photoshop and do an auto levels and you'll get a better picture of that aspect, just as an example. So I dont see an issue of oversaturation, we're also all looking on different monitors that may or may not be corrected. Lets not forget this looks like a really sunny day which would yield better colors then overcast or extremely hazy ones.

But the colors dont seem out of reach to me for a cell.

I wish I knew someone at a place that made the cams for cell phone and we could send it to them and see if they note any oddities. If anyone has such a contact, my email is jeff.ritzmann AT gmail.com

I also have to say that again, we have NO CLUE what camera/phone it was. Lets face it here folks, we're relatively in the dark here. We gotta work with what we have, thats why it was one of the smaller write ups I've ever done for some, in my opinion pretty compelling pictures.

Edward-thanx for posting those before I forget to type it.

NOTE EDIT: Ya know, it just occurred to me that perhaps some of the perception of saturation might be due in part to the chromatic issues of cell phone optics and their inability to relate spectral data correctly. The overwash of purple or red/blue due to the high contrast of the overall shot might be part of some people's view of it being too saturated.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by jritzmann]

If the photographer did move then she possibly moved to get a better shot BECAUSE the object was moving.
I know when im taking photos of something moving, ill move around, back up and move closer to get the best possible shot that i can.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
just my 0.02 groats , but from just a cursory glance it is obvious to me that the photographer moved between shots [ LOOK @ THE FENCE ] - dempendant on range to target , that will radically alter the perspective - and give a false illusuion that the object has moved , or has moved a far greater distance than is infact the case .

my opinionon only - YMMV

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Kr0n0s]