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.

 

Been on this a site a long time and now I get pics

page: 15
150
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by theukbloke
I have found the CF card and still have all the images untouched by a computer (12 in total), some I have not put up as they were very shaky, but here I go again - this time no color adjustments just as they came out of the camera . Should I start a new thread with these or should I keep it here?


I would suggest keeping them in the same thread personally

Will they be the RAW images ?




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
These are not the raw raw images, those are my negatives to share with image experts (no email yet). But I'll post the full size jpgs the ones that came out of the camera - untouched (RAW+Jpg option was on). these are 38 mb in total, my isp is gonna go nuts so please anybody help rehosting these.

You daylight guys are gonna love these - not the color you are expecting! Ask any member with a dslr to copy my shot of the night sky (details in the exif for those that know how) with a dslr and this is the color you'll get.

No photoshop, no raw processing

big file warnings in effect







New





New



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by theukbloke
 


From picture #1 (to clear all the PS mess):



Here's the full data:

EXIF — this group of metadata is encoded in 15,372 bytes (15.0k)

Aperture Value 2.8
Color Space Uncalibrated
Components Configuration YCbCr
Compression JPEG (old-style)
Create Date 2008:06:14 22:28:32
13 days, 19 hours, 11 minutes, 2 seconds ago
Custom Rendered Normal
Date/Time Original 2008:06:14 22:28:32
13 days, 19 hours, 11 minutes, 2 seconds ago
Exif Image Size 3,888 × 2,592
Exif Version 0221
Exposure Compensation 0
Exposure Mode Auto
Exposure Program Shutter speed priority AE
Exposure Time 1
F Number 2.8
Flash Off
Flashpix Version 0100
Focal Length 75.0 mm
Focal Plane X Resolution 4,438.356164 pixels/inch
Focal Plane Y Resolution 4,445.969125 pixels/inch
GPS Version ID 2.2.0.0
Gamma 2.2
ISO 1,600
Interoperability Index R03 - DCF option file (Adobe RGB)
Interoperability Version 0100
Make Canon
Metering Mode Multi-segment
Camera Model Name Canon EOS 40D
Modify Date 2008:06:14 22:28:32
13 days, 19 hours, 11 minutes, 2 seconds ago
Orientation Horizontal (normal)
Primary Chromaticities 0.64 0.33 0.21 0.71 0.15 0.06
Resolution 72 pixels/inch
Scene Capture Type Standard
Shutter Speed Value 1
Sub Sec Time 00
Sub Sec Time Digitized 00
Sub Sec Time Original 00
Thumbnail Length 4,637
User Comment

White Balance Auto
White Point 0.313 0.329
Y Cb Cr Coefficients 0.299 0.587 0.114
Y Cb Cr Positioning Co-sited



Thank for posting the images


[edit on 28-6-2008 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by theukbloke
 


The 15 pages between here and number one were a complete waste of petty arguement.

Thanks UKbloke for being so patient and following through - a rare occurrence in these situations!

[edit on 28-6-2008 by WuTang]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by theukbloke
 


Thank you theukbloke.

These do look like RAW images though with the darker tones and you can immediatly see more detail because of the image size.

You mentioned one of the lights was green and you can now see that.

Thanks for your time.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


These are not the RAW files, these are the original JPEGs that were created along with the RAW files.

 

Thanks for the images, theukbloke.


Can you explain the difference in the colour between these photos and the ones posted on the opening post, for those that are less acquainted with photography (and apparently these are almost all of the posters in this thread
)



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by theukbloke
 


Thanks for those.

Do you recall if it was windy on the night BTW..?
It's just with the 1 sec exposure you can get an idea of how much of the foreground was handshake and how much of the tree movement was wind thanks.
It could also bring to bear how much movement of the craft could be 'windblown'.

I'm asking about the lights because with C.A.A regulations that stipulate a strobe speed of 40-100 flashes per minute..It could mean that some of those effects were repeated flashes of a helicopter strobe..
One of the new ones with multiple 'streaks' and 'flashes' would seem to follow this line of thinking..well one theory anyhoo..

What amount of light pollution do you experience there.?(sodium lights)
Traveling back from work just an hour ago 11.30pm,there was still light blue patches of sky around to the west and orange layered clouds to the east with darker sky.
cheers.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


The corrections I made to the first set of images were 'white balance' (made the pic cooler - less orange) and exposure (made it darker - camera exposed to long) - why did I do these changes? To put the pics in the correct context of nighttime - get a normal camera turn off the flash and shot the night sky, you'll see what I mean.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGENT_T
reply to post by theukbloke
 


Thanks for those.

Do you recall if it was windy on the night BTW..?
It's just with the 1 sec exposure you can get an idea of how much of the foreground was handshake and how much of the tree movement was wind thanks.
It could also bring to bear how much movement of the craft could be 'windblown'.

I'm asking about the lights because with C.A.A regulations that stipulate a strobe speed of 40-100 flashes per minute..It could mean that some of those effects were repeated flashes of a helicopter strobe..
One of the new ones with multiple 'streaks' and 'flashes' would seem to follow this line of thinking..well one theory anyhoo..

What amount of light pollution do you experience there.?(sodium lights)
Traveling back from work just an hour ago 11.30pm,there was still light blue patches of sky around to the west and orange layered clouds to the east with darker sky.
cheers.


The lights didn't seem to go out, just change intensitiy - would this be an acceptable strobe?

The was very little wind - if any.

Lots of streets lights



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



Can you explain the difference in the colour between these photos and the ones posted on the opening post


It is my undertanding that unprocessed images always have those yellowish dark tones as in this example :



And then after processing can be made to look "normal"



edit for link and replace RAW with unprocessed

michaelmistretta.com...



[edit on 28-6-2008 by sherpa]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by theukbloke
The lights didn't seem to go out, just change intensitiy - would this be an acceptable strobe?


I was thinking someone messed up.. heli's are supposed to switch to red strobes for nightflight..And that's why it was a very 'luminous' event.

Still, even with accidentally leaving the ''whites' on it's an odd optical/photographic result.


1.2 ..In order to improve conspicuity however, the Authority has been
requested to approve HISL units with a dual colour (red/white) capability. For daytime
use the unit could be switched to flashing white and for night time use, flashing red...

www.caa.co.uk...



[edit on 28-6-2008 by AGENT_T]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Did someone already make a ball lightning argument or am I just being ignored?lol



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I also thank you ukbloke for posting these higher rez images.

You can see much more detail. The 'reflection' I mentioned is actually a yellowish color in these and may be a part of the 'object'.

Though there still might be questions, I applaud you for sticking with this.

Had these been posted originally (and I understand why it was problematic), it might have engendered a lot less questioning. So maybe you can understand that too.




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by beefeater
 


Someone give this man an applause for stepping up on the hosting.

Nice job. Starred.

Appreciated.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


not ignoring you are anybody else - but the pics show a dark mass. I think that what you refer to is pure energy. if you read post number 1 you'll note that it was over the river thames so water was involved.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by beefeater
 


Thanks very much for re-hosting.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by theukbloke
 


No problem



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I just found this thread, but then again, I'm really just a front page reader.
I read most of the thread, but I can only take the nay sayers for so long.
Now you see why I have said all along that I'll never post any pictures I find here. Funny thing is, its them thats become the bane of ATS, not the hoaxers.

But UK Bloke was exemplary in dealing with it. Kudos to you, sir. Starred and flagged, and a big thank you.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by theukbloke
 


Thanks for responding.................so could this be the famed TR-3B?Could you distinguish a shape?

EDIT to add:I too agree,great job hanging tough,many would have just abandoned the thread.........if I could give you an applause I would!



[edit on 6/28/2008 by jkrog08]




top topics



 
150
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join