To all those with a camera phone...

I've just had an idea.

You know how you've seen photo's and read stories about people taking a photograph of themselves on vacation and just happen to go get them made, and then smack dab in a section of sky they've seen a UFO.Whether it be a smudge, fly,bug,bird...isn't known for sure.But none-the-less its a ufo.

well i was thinking since people have done this...(taking photo's of ufo's by accident) that there might actually be alien ships flying around that cant be seen by the naked eye.

which also makes me want to take random pics of the sky, whenever i go out, or go somewhere.

SO i'm going to.

And all those with a camera phone (or digital camera even....if u happen to carry one everywhere you go doubtful of course)
Take like 10 - 20 pics a day or however many you want....just bare patches of sky, and just maybe you will capture the perfect photographic evidence out there (doubtful too of course:@@

but yeah...

-Mayan

I say... No. Please dont use your crapass phone camera to take photos of possible UFOs.

Do use a digital SLR at 12+ mpx whenever possible

hey a photo's a photo. especially if you have like an iphone, or some fancy camera in ur phone.

not all cameraphones are terrible ya know

because the internet's not flooded with enough amateur, blurry and smudged photos?

if you are going to do that, at least use a decent camera!

[edit on 24-11-2007 by scientist]

Most of those photos only show things that were not visible to the person who took the photo because the person was not paying attention to everything in the field of view.

I have taken photos like that also because of the time it takes the camera to react, so a bird that was not visible when I was looking through the camera appeared while the camera was taking the photo.

From my tests with a digital camera, the resolution is not the most important thing, a good optical zoom bigger than 10x is the best friend of the UFO photo hunter. When comparing the photos I have taken with what I see with my own eyes makes me think that a 10x zoom photo shows things as we see, bigger than that it starts to show things that we could not see clearly and smaller than 10x it does not show things that we could see with the naked eye.

So, in conclusion, I think that this would be useless.

i agree bigtime. no more bad photos please. fact: a cameraphone will never give you anything solid. go with your digital camera, nothing less.

Yeah unless you're up close, a picture of a light in the daytime sky is not going to help anything.

Ideally you want a good camera, up close images and maybe infrared, or UV film (not sure if you can get those).

But, don't be discouraged, it's not a completely a bad idea I s'pose.

Just wait 10 to 15 years when camera lenses are inordinately powerful and everyone is walking around with multiple gigapixel cameras.

Pretty soon, capturing UFOs on film or video will be much easier since most people will have their very own spy satellite in their pockets.

Originally posted by Riposte
Just wait 10 to 15 years when camera lenses are inordinately powerful and everyone is walking around with multiple gigapixel cameras.

Ah, and that will be the return of one time photos!

*CLICK*

"Quick I need another 100gb flash drive for my second photo!!!"

lol by that time, we should have 100TB flash drives that can fit in ur pocket so...yeah.

*shakes head*

The human 'eye' comprises of more than mere biological contact with photons when it comes to star-gazing, we use a variety of tools to detect things that we cannot normally see with the naked eye.

Which is why i believe that either these ships have some sort of ultra-tech stealth system which causes infra-red beams to pass through it as well as general photons, or the government is lying to us.

I'm more inclined to believe the latter, although the former would not surprise me where aliens are concerned (however if the former was the case it would mean that the aliens want us to see them - after all you never hear of UFO sightings out in the middle of nowhere like the pacific, arctic or desert regions of the world.).

[edit on 24-11-2007 by Throbber]

Since we're on the topic of cameras, I was wondering if any of you might know what the "conventional wisdom" is regarding a film photo vs. a digital photo and whether or not one is better than the other with regard to forensic analysis and determining whether something is a photo of a known object or truly a ufo?

I know that there are some diehard "art" photographers who insist that digital will never take over in that realm, but I've never heard an opinion for the more scientific types.

Just curious.

Thanks.

I can't see what doign what the OP said beign bad. Sure I've got a bad camera phone but I like taking pictures of stuff anyway. It's not so much for the U.F.O hunt but perhaps I can learn how to take better pictures (learning more about what the effects are good for and such).

Plus with my camera being of bad quality I do have some pretty interesting distorted pictures (not u.f.o's but strange formations of light - not taken with realisation).

Anyway lets see if anything from any contributors will come along.

reply to post by Noscitare


I love photographic film. There's something about picking up a bunch of photos and looking through them. Waiting for an image to load on a computer or looking at thumbnails just doesn't quite have the same effect.

Pixels affect the image of a digital photo, where as a film photo has a feeling of natural colour blended into a moment of time. The digital seems to have to take the colours and put them in the right places one bit at a time.

Regarding testing of digital photos against film u'm not to up to date on that, but from what I assume, if you want to fake a film photo you got two options.

1. Fake an image that is in front of the camera.
2. Etch or paint an image onto the negative.

You could try a double exposure too but getting a camera to do that these days is not normally an option when the general public go to buy a camera.

The argument for film is that if an object is not "in" the negative then it wasn't there at the time of the photo being taken.

As far as digital is concerned.

1. fake an image in front of the camera.
2. spend hours and hours using a photo editting program to blend in an image into all the existing pixels so that it will pass scrutiny.

option 2 will take a long time and leaves a large area of error. imagine having to blend in several million pixels just to fake a ufo of almost any given size...bigger the object, larger the amount of pixels you gotta fix.

Well, that's a brief run down of what I understand about it all..If anyone can expand on it then please do.

Originally posted by Throbber
Which is why i believe that either these ships have some sort of ultra-tech stealth system which causes infra-red beams to pass through it as well as general photons, or the government is lying to us.

Yeah...I, too, always preferred film and even did a little darkroom work at one point in time. There was always something about watching the image appear on the paper that I really enjoyed.

Digital does have its advantages and all, but were it not for the fact that film is near impossible to find and get developed anymore, I probably would still be using it.

[sigh]

Why use photo? Why not place the camera and let it record the sky for the whole day? And see if you catch anything.....

Originally posted by TheoOne
Why use photo? Why not place the camera and let it record the sky for the whole day? And see if you catch anything.....

That's a whole a lot better than just taking 10-20 blurry photos everyday. Heck, if you filmed the sky for 24 hours a day, think what else you may other than UFOs!

Great idea

except for one small tiny little glitch...

when are you going to find the time to review the recording? play it on fast forward will still take a long time and you might miss something very important that was only in view a few seconds.

The other problem is that a fixed camera will only see a certain part of its environment. Unless you fit a fish eye lense but they tend to distort the image in a major way.