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.

 

UFO Photographs -

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
hold up now that you put the whole picture up how the heck were you expecting to take pictures of an asteroid with a regular camera i thought you were using a telescope to take pictures of an asteroid is it even possible to take pictures of asteroids with out a telescope i dont know ill just wait for an expert to check this out

[edit on 8-3-2007 by xHADEEZx]




posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
JRitzman :
Jritzman

Lex



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

is it even possible to take pictures of asteroids with out a telescope

Yes, and it is also possible to see them with a good pair of not particularly powerful binoculars. I think you need to study astronomy a bit more.


The camera is more than capable of picking up asteroids in long exposures at this focal length; it is the recommended way. You can zoom in once you know where to point, for a better view. Again, I suggest you do a bit of background research on asteroids and astronomy techniques in general.


@Lexion - thanks!


[edit on 8-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Perhaps it could be a weather anomaly? Have you researched anything to do with um, lightning from different types? Could have possibily been a discharge of electrical particles. xD But hey, I'm trying to think of what this thing is. A UFO it is, but now it's got to be identified.

/7A



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Hopefully Mr. Ritzman can shed some light on the matter.


Lex



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Agreed!

As I said, I have had it forensically examined, and it is NOT the camera or a lighting anomaly.

I'm certainly not making this up - I do wish to have some semblance of credibility left when this is sorted out.
I'm helping out with a serious bit of research over in the 9/11 forum and I'm not likely to want to trash any credibility I have over this.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
i dont know man im done with this thread ill leave it to the experts

[edit on 8-3-2007 by xHADEEZx]

[edit on 8-3-2007 by xHADEEZx]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Well it definetely is something. If you MAX the contrast and decrease the brightness it is the only object present (besides the stars).

/7A



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   
i found this web site and this is what it says about using digital cameras to take Astrophotographs. you can click on the link below to read it yourself just scroll down to the digital photograph where it says digital cameras
i dont know read it for yourself











www.space.com...





[edit on 8-3-2007 by xHADEEZx]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   
How many frames in total does this image consist of? I looks like that the 2 objects that appear solid have dimmer parasite images of the same things.

For the image to the left there is a duplicate but dimmer version of it further to the left and lower.


Same for the upper object except its little sister is to the right and lower.


Certainly peculiar



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I appreciate your trying to help.


They are talking about CCD noise that occurs. You can see this in my pics as single, very bright colored dots (usually red or blue).

What happens is the CCD gets quite hot as it is run (you can actually burn it out if you aren't careful), and this excites free electrons that are in the silicon that makes up the CCD. This extra electrical activity appears as noise. Most pixels take several seconds to reach this state, which is why it occurs gradually, and only a few pixels are affected. Overall, you will note that the image appears sort of grainy, with a very dark gray tint to it. This is also noise, but has not reached the extremes of some of the other pixels.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 8-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
How many frames in total does this image consist of? I looks like that the 2 objects that appear solid have dimmer parasite images of the same things.

For the image to the left there is a duplicate but dimmer version of it further to the left and lower.


Same for the upper object except its little sister is to the right and lower.


Certainly peculiar


This is normal reflections of the object as it passes through the lens.

The glass in the lens is ED (Extra Dispersion). The ghost images are coming off the lenses as it passes each one, and is caused by reflection amongst the lens elements. In this long exposure shot, because the general area is so dark with a (relatively) very bright object, it is very pronounced. Normally these ghost reflections are too faint to be picked up by the CCD.

It is further evidence that the object is external to the camera, and not noise, as CCD noise doesn't create ghost images like that.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 8-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I can go with CCD noise. It was on the tip of my tongue and couldnt think of it.


Is it possible that the more solid objects and their noisy counterparts are from the first and last shots of the series only?

If you look even closer with some zoom and more brightness the are a trifecta of each object. I see 2 "ghost" images of each object now.

I sent Ritzmann a U2U to look at this. Maybe he will pop in here for a bit.

EDIT: We post bombed each other - I get ya now. makes sense to me. Why 3 ghost tho and in the positions that they are in? Something to do with the layering/orientation of the lenses?




[edit on 8-3-2007 by Lost_Mind]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lost_Mind
Why 3 ghosts tho?

I count more than that. Not sure if the auto resize lost anything??



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Hehe, regardless tho, nice picture.

The time lapse smearing the windblown trees is kind of a neat effect.....

I love astrophotography.

It just hit me how this photo is played out. It is a time lapse no doubt and it caught a semi stationary light/object and dragged it through the image like the trees were - except this thing was wobbling a bit through however many frames. Its not an image of a single large object, its many captures of a much smaller object exposed on many frames during the shot, dimming then brightening, moving a bit and wobbling a bit as the exposure runs.

Srry I think out loud when I type and have a tendancy to repaet myself a bit. Am I seeing this right?

[edit on 8-3-2007 by Lost_Mind]

[edit on 8-3-2007 by Lost_Mind]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I had considered that point also, but there are a great deal of similarities between the two frames if you look closely. Look particularly at the first image and its structure, then the second. In the second, it is as if you took the first and rotated it (remember there are only 2 minutes between shots). Other than the left side, the rest doesn't match. Why not??

[edit on 8-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
This is just weird?? The only thing that would make sense to me is that the object is blinking at a very slow rate..... therefore making it show up in different areas. But, the ghost images are so much dimmer, so I really have no idea what this is. It kind of resembles a formation that would be blinking in unison?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
by the way i would like to apologize for saying i think this is a hoax. I should not have said that because i do not know enough about astrophotography in fact i know nothing about astrophotography lol. it just seemed like you were trying to make a hoax to me at first but now i dont think that. and i do really apologize for that. and i do hope someone can help you with this. Also you did open my eyes to something i think im interested in and that would be astrophotography it looks like something i think i would enjoy alot. again im sorry for that and i hope you can find out what this is



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   
mirage

Did you notice on the large picture, it look like another object, identical but less formed, to the lower left. I am wondering a stray light source got into the camera. I think you mentioned that there is no optical viewfinder. Did I hear that right. I thought may be stray light got thru it. Maybe from a flashlight or cigarette. That would give it a warm look. Maybe a stray flash of light from somewhere. Like a type of lens flare.

The times I have seen noise in my camera at night was when I was photographing lighting flashes. Do you get noise in all 30 sec night exposures?

One thing I noticed between img #1 and #2 was that it looked like #2 was a more exposed version of #1 if #1 was rotated 180 degrees. May be #1 started during the exposure and #2 was there most of the exposure for #2.

Just relating things from my own experiences. I have taken night time photos, both film and digital for many years. I am also a bit of a star watcher myself, eyes and telescope.

Maybe something will jog a memory of the picture taking session.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 01:57 AM
link   
It's a very nice image, by the way. As far as photography goes I would say this is a great shot of a night sky. There is a good amount of cloud cover in the images, however, and i find myself leaning toward an interesting cloud pattern.

It's very curious to say the least.

[edit on 3/9/2007 by The Cyfre]




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join