posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 08:58 AM
Originally posted by littledogbean
the thing with digital cameras is that they have different settings for quality. most people when they purchase a digital camera, they just don't
bother with the manual and they just start to click away merrily. so very often they wind up with a jpeg that is 640 x 480 (somewhere in that range).
then when a digital image is enlarged you wind up with artifacts and/or a distorted image, which also accounts for the poor picture quality.
standard film photography has its limitations as well, but a regular picture can be scanned at a larger scale than the original and there is less
distortion. also when developing, you can get some nicer larger images.
if people were to take the time to learn what their camera can do, they could be surprised at how much better the images look, which can lead to
better documnetaion of the unexplained.
This is 100% correct. In the many UFO photos and videos I've seen, I think operator error accounts for much, if not most, of the questionable
Many, many people buy cameras and camcorders, get them free of the package, and assume they're instant experts because the technology makes it
"easy". So much of the new equipment has simplified "default" settings that make decent family photos, but are really inadequate for documenting
strange goings-on in the sky, at night, moving, etc. That so many people don't even crack open the manual or make a serious effort to practice with
their equipment doesn't help.
This happens a lot with video, too. Something I notice ALL the time in UFO vids is that the camera is moving around and the focus is going in and
out, especially as operators attempt to zoom in on an object. I have TV camera/production training, and I'll tell you it takes a TON of practice to
hold a video camera straight and keep it focused on-target, even with a tripod. Doing it without a tripod is even harder. Add excitement to the mix
when someone is trying to document something they can't comprehend (at least at that moment) and that seems "paranormal" and it's small wonder so
much video/photo evidence is next to useless.
Many people also make the mistake of thinking the camera "sees" the same things their eyes/brain do. Modern digital imaging systems, especially,
view things very differently--they pick up and amplify all kinds of little things our brains have been trained to "gloss over" (like small dust
particles near to the camera that show up as the ubiquitous "orbs" so many ghost hunters love to crow about-our eyes see these things too, but our
brains "edit" them out in favor of larger, more detailed objects because they're not really "important"). Digital systems see the WHOLE picture,
not just what "want" to look at, and that often raises problems when someone thinks they've caught something unusual--more likely than not it's
some random, mundane thing your eyes saw but your brain just didn't register.
So, basically, good equipment+uninformed, inexperienced operators+excitement and adrenaline rush+object that could be
a UFO=lousy photos/video.
Add a dash of wanting for their 15 minutes and it's little wonder UFOlogy isn't getting anywhere.