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: 18
150
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrangeAlarmClock
The camera does not need .jpeg to print off the card or display on the screen.
I don't really know if the camera needs the JPEG files to display it on the screen, but that would be how I would do it, it would be much faster than using the raw file and doing the demosaicing, conversion from 12 (or 14 as I think is the case with the Canon EOS 40D) bits to 8 bits per pixel, etc., each time the image would be shown.

Obviously, the camera does not need the JPEG to print the photo, unless it is one of few cameras that have an embedded printer, that work is done by a printer, not the camera.


On Canon cameras, you have the option of photos getting written in .jpg alone, .cr2 (raw) alone, or .jpg + .cr2. You do not need the .jpg at all.
OK, I do not know how Canon cameras work, unfortunately I do not have one (although I would like to).


Now in this thread's case, the OP has already stated he shot the photo in raw format, and later converted it to .jpeg for web use using Adobe Lightroom. There's no reason to doubt him.
I do not see any reason to doubt him, but he also said, when posting these full-sized JPEGs:


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).



I (and just about every other professional photographer out there) use the same work flow, except we might use different software instead of Adobe Lightroom.
I do not have any way of knowing about that, I am not a professional photographer and I do not even consider myself an amateur photographer, just someone that has access to digital cameras.


Edited because I forgot to welcome you to ATS.


I think you will be a good help in showing people how photography works, there are too many people that do not have the slightest idea of how it's done.

[edit on 29/6/2008 by ArMaP]




posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
A BIG thankyou to the OP.

This thread is the reason I discovered ATS.

I am a scientifically minded person (ie skeptical), but I also accept the fact that a universe containing only 1 life-bearing planet is very unlikely. These are some of the best images I have seen to date.

Has the OP emailed the images to an expert yet?
I would love to see the results.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


How blurred the object would be depends on a number of things, like where the focus was in relation to the object, how long of a shutter speed was used and if the object was moving, and also if there is camera shake.

If a long shutterspeed was used on the camera (which is necessary for photos with less light / darker) then even if he had the camera stationary on a solid tripod, if the object was moving, it would still be blurry. This is why we are able to create images of startrails that show the earth rotating:



For that star trail photo the shutter was merely held open for a long time, letting light in as the stars moved (rather the earth actually moved) thus blurring them, and creating the trail.

Then you can have the camera itself moving, but the object in question remaining still, which will also cause blur.

And then you can have the lens focus itself, the focus might not be on the object and might be somewhere else. This might be the problem we are experiencing, since it's hard to focus on a moving, distant object, even expensive cameras with AI-Servo mode struggle sometimes.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Psychopump

I am a scientifically minded person (ie skeptical), but I also accept the fact that a universe containing only 1 life-bearing planet is very unlikely.


First, Welcome to ATS.

Second, if we are talking about ET-piloted UFOs, then the question is not about any kind of life on any planet in the entire Universe.

It is about whether there is sentient life in our Galaxy, the Milky Way, and if they could come here.

There my be billions of planets in the Milky Way with microscopic life. There even may be millions of sentient civilizations in the Milky Way. The question is, are any of them space faring, AND if so, could any of them find us and finally would they come here and fly around, with lights on, in the night sky.

Sorry to be didactic on this - it's a pet peeve.

Glad you are enjoying the site and this thread.


Psychopump: These are some of the best images I have seen to date.


Please clarify. The best images of -what- that you've seen? I've seen lots of images of helicopters which are better (for instance). I see no reason to give vague props with a vague comment.

Again, sorry to be so critical. Your comments are welcome, I'm just puzzled as to your reasoning.

(edit: to try for a more friendly approach.)

[edit on 29-6-2008 by Badge01]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


If that's a welcome I'm a pistachio ice-cream.

Back on topic: I thought Springer and the Brotherhood of Experts was working on the images. Just wondering if they could give an update?



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by OrangeAlarmClock
 


Hi. I don't follow you. When I see an object that's supposed to be distant that is extremely sharp to the pixel, it seems strange to me, particularly if everything else in the photo is slightly blurred.

It signifies to my uneducated eye that the sharp image is very close to the camera, at the optimal focusing distance for that camera type to give the best image. (12 feet? 25 feet?).

To get something that is supposedly flying to come out as extremely sharp, you'd have to have (afaik) a very fast shutter speed. Or, the object would be more or less stationary and close to the camera, with the background farther away.

But I'm willing to learn. Are you saying that the very sharp object looks completely normal to you as a depiction of a moderately distanct craft?



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Yeah, like I said it's a pet peeve. I'm trying to be nice, while instructive.

For instance:

"I find it arrogant to assume there's no other life in the entire Universe.

Ergo, they are here and came into my room last night and abducted me."

Does that make logical sense? Yet posters try to say similar things quite frequently.

I apologize if any comments seem hypercritical, or intemperate. I'm merely trying to hold the ground on the idea that there are space faring sentient civilizations that regularly come here.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


Fair dos. You sound like a reasonable person to me. I just put myself in the shoes of the first-timer and thought he/she may have found the response pretty heavy. I realised it was unintentional, though.

Psychopump: welcome. Bigstyle. I agree with you that the discussion will really take off when we hear back from the big boys. If we had access to military photo analysts I reckon there'd be a 100% chance they'd come up with something mega enhanced with well-defined borders from these photos. It'll be interesting to see how close ATS can get to that standard...



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Cool. I went back and edited it some to try and soften the tone.

I appreciate the heads up on that.

I'll try and be more mindful of that in the future.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by skywatch
 


As long time computer software professional I have to agree with your points. Just stating this to back up your post for those who may question them. I am not denying the facts are not as given by the OP, just that it is possible. I believe the OP is being truthful.

A different point for the thread:

Another point on image sharpness is the focal length of then lens in the camera. That affects the depth of field in the picture and together with the point where the lens is focused will have an effect on sharpness at various places (distances) in the picture.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
reply to post by OrangeAlarmClock
 


Hi. I don't follow you. When I see an object that's supposed to be distant that is extremely sharp to the pixel, it seems strange to me, particularly if everything else in the photo is slightly blurred.




Well that means the focus is on the object. Now, we just have to judge if that object is near or far. This means the object could be a distant craft in the sky, or simply a reflection on the window in front of the camera.

Whichever it is, the lens is focused on it.

Now, to figure out where the lens is focused, I can actually calculate exactly where it's focused if the OP provides the .cr2 raw files for me to read and examine.

Has he posted them in the thread yet? I haven't been able to read all the pages yet, there's a lot of pages.

Once I get a hold of these files, we can very accurately determine if the object the lens is focused on is indeed a craft in the sky, or if it's merely a reflection in the window.

Whatever it is, it's not near the trees, as those are out of focus. So it is either very distant, or very close to the camera.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
A point on sharpness in lower light or shutter speed. A flash or bright light could generate a sharper area in the image depending on when it occurs. Added light can be used to create a 'stop action' effect in a photograph.

Of course it also means that the plane of focus would need to be at the object in question.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I think that the sharpness of the lights may be a result of the way the sensor reacts to a strong light in a dark background (I can not remember the correct word
).

In the photo I posted some posts back to show that the sky looks bright at 10 PM in Portugal, it is also visible that the lights look focused while the bridge, being at exactly the same distance, looks out of focus.

Edited to add the photo.



[edit on 29/6/2008 by ArMaP]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
It is the weekend and David and Jeff, like most people, enjoy a life outside of work.

I am sure when they log into their email on of them will contact "ukbloke" and get the RAW files. Until then, this a great opportunity for those who don't understand how a camera lens focus works to some solid research.


More when I have it.

Springer...



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
strong light in a dark background (I can not remember the correct word
).


It's called "blown highlights", at least that's what I've always heard it called and what I use. You might also mean "specular highlights".

There are definitely blown highlights in this photo, but looking at the entirety of the 'craft', I'm still sure that the focus is on it any way.

With the RAW file, especially with the Canon 40D which he uses, the exif data will actually tell us what lens he used, so by that, I/we can determine where the lens was focused.

If it was focused 5 inches in front of the camera, we can all write this off as just being a reflection in the window.


If it's focused at ∞ or close to it, we know it's something in the sky.



[edit on 29-6-2008 by OrangeAlarmClock]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I don't really know a thing about cameras except point and shoot but I thought the pictures are unique and can't wait to hear from the experts.

A star, flag and a digg is on it's way.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by OrangeAlarmClock
 


The word I am trying to remember is the word to describe what happens to the sensor when it reaches its maximum possible values (I am having one of those bad days to translate my Portuguese thoughts into English
), something like (or maybe this is the correct word, I don't know) overload, and this case it would be some of the sensor elements would reach its maximum value while the other elements surrounding them would not. In a case like this, a good sensor would keep the values on their places while a cheaper sensor could allows some crosstalk between elements and some discharge to the surrounding elements, creating a less sharpen image.

I hope everyone understood what I wanted to say, I don't know if it is because of the heat but it looks like my brain is stuck in a low gear.


I think that the EXIF data from the untouched JPEGs can give you the information you want about the photo.

This is from the first photo, you have to click here to see it, it is too big for a post.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


If you honestly found my comment to be problematic, the I suggest you look inward. To me, your merely nitpicking for your own reasons. I would probably answer you if I thought I had something to prove, which I dont. Having a problem with my post demonstrates that you just want a fight. In fact you cant even find a purpose with it other than the verbage. Evidence...witchhunt......is that really your biggest problem on this board?


Let me ask you a question;
Are you offended because you're one of the people who are doing the prior witchhunt and have now been proven wrong, so perhaps you're cross?
You're fight isn't with me, I think your just picking apart what I said to be difficult.

Lets not interrupt this thread again unless its pertinent. If you have issues with me, please feel free to U2U me, or keep them to yourself.


Back to the actual issue...

And you're point about being a skeptic when the real thing comes... Theres no need to treat someone like a victim on a rape case and then claim youre only asking questions. Theres more than one case of someone asking something pointed,and theres no need for that. And its far from the fist time we've seen it. It pushes new people with possible genuine photos away.







Fixed some spelling the checker didnt catch


[edit on 29-6-2008 by kthulu]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
While we wait I would like to post a technical interpretation of the exif data in the posted images.

The shutter speed used was 1 second, which is fairly long. This means there can be lots of motion blur, either from camera shake, or the object itself moving.

The aperture is F/2.8, meaning the lens was wide open to let as much light in as possible. With a wide open aperture, that means the depth of field will be shallow (not a lot can be in focus at once).

The ISO speed is 1600, which is a fairly fast speed, meaning the photos will be grainy.

All in all, a fast ISO speed, the fast lens aperture, and the long shutter speed suggests that it was very dark out when the photo was taken. So as far as the earlier post that alleges the photo was taken during the day and then darkened, this is false. The scene itself was indeed dark.

If the scene was bright and he darkened it to fake it, the ISO would be more like 200, the aperture F/8.0, and the shutterspeed 1/500th of a second.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

The word I am trying to remember is the word to describe what happens to the sensor when it reaches its maximum possible values (I am having one of those bad days to translate my Portuguese thoughts into English


Blown out highlights, overexposure, is what you are probably referring to. But in this case I think the lights are specular highlights.

There is no real max possible values for the sensor, because as the light gets brighter, the aperture and shutterspeed reduce the amount of light that hit the sensor. In theory, you could take a photo of a nuclear explosion, which is thousands of times brighter than the sun, and it would come out fine as long as you use a very narrow aperture like f/32 and a low iso speed like iso50, and a short shutterspeed like 1/8000th of a second.

But there IS a limit to how much range of brightness you can have on a single photo, from darkest to lightest, this is why you get blown highlights, and underexposed shadows. maybe this is what you mean.



new topics




 
150
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join