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: 19
150
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
So how old is your daughter, who initially spotted the ufo, what did she think of it ? Can she make an ats account and share her opinions ?
If she alerted you that there was something flying in the sky, you probably had to come look for yourself first. Then you had to grab your camera, put it on, find the zoom button etc etc. and still you managed to make 11 decent photo's. gg
So it couldn't have flown very fast, why did you stop making photo's when it was a little bit further away ? Must have had enough time for that.
I do believe you're legit, and I really hope something comes out of this.




posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrangeAlarmClock
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.
What I was talking about was the maximum value for each of the elements of the sensor (in the case of the Canon EOS 40D a CMOS sensor) and each element has a maximum value, when the transistor reaches its limit.

The whole image would not be affected by some sensor elements reaching its limits(that is why the camera "decided" on a one second exposure, it did not interpret the bright light as being too much for the whole scene) but the pixels corresponding to the sensor elements (usually there are four elements for each pixel, two green, one blue and one red, if the system uses the more common Bayer filter, and you probably know why there are two green elements
) would be at its maximum, i.e. full white if all elements were at their maximum.

PS: I think we are saying the same thing with different words from different points of view.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
As far as i know with my digi-cam (a Kodak Easyshare) all i do is point it at the object, press the button, stick the memory card in my card reader and copy and past the pics across which are allready in jpeg format.

I don't know anymore than that about digital photography so i was wondering what if i saw something and took a pic.
How in the world would i or anyone be able to convince anyone they on the level if they don't know much more about it than point and press.

I hope these pics turn out to be on the level, but we will just have to wait and see.

[edit on 29/6/2008 by smokey101]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OrangeAlarmClock
 


A star for you

I learned a bit about photography using a popular Canon 35mm SLR camera in the mid to late 80s. I bought the body and 3 more lenses along with a motor drive as time and money would permit. You seem to know your stuff

AV



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
ukbloke,

Thank you for posting such interesting photos and sparking a lively debate.

After viewing the animations that have been created, I have a question: Did this object appear to be tumbling while you were taking your photos? Did you move to a different position for a better vantage point or were you stationary throughout all of the photos?



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BcnDiamond
So how old is your daughter, who initially spotted the ufo, what did she think of it ? Can she make an ats account and share her opinions ?
If she alerted you that there was something flying in the sky, you probably had to come look for yourself first. Then you had to grab your camera, put it on, find the zoom button etc etc. and still you managed to make 11 decent photo's. gg
So it couldn't have flown very fast, why did you stop making photo's when it was a little bit further away ? Must have had enough time for that.
I do believe you're legit, and I really hope something comes out of this.


My daughter is 14, and she will not be joining ATS to defend me - I will not allow her to be questioned by a bunch of people she doesn't know.

She thinks it was just an odd aircraft because she doesn't believe in aliens.

The time to take these snaps wasn't the issue it hang there for at least 3 mins - it was getting a picture that had enough light. Why are there so few pics of UFOs (not space ships - UFOs)? Because they are hard to photograph - you don't see them in the daytime because they are not obvious, so if you are lucky you spot something at night, you run around getting your gear together, setup the camera to allow as much light in take a few snaps - look, take a few more - look again and think rubbish, try changing the settings and it's gone. This is not an automatic camera - it has an auto mode but any Togs here will tell you that it doesn't work well. To get this much light you have to go manual and play with dials and press buttons - all taking time. The fact that I have these images at all is because I knew what needed to be done to the camera (well almost), a P&S camera would not have got these.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by IconoclasticTalamasca
ukbloke,

Thank you for posting such interesting photos and sparking a lively debate.

After viewing the animations that have been created, I have a question: Did this object appear to be tumbling while you were taking your photos? Did you move to a different position for a better vantage point or were you stationary throughout all of the photos?


It didn't seem to be spinning(but the lights were bright), it just hang there. Whilst the animations are good the time between shots, my movements, the quality etc, don't shed light on anything to do with the way it moved.

your welcome



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by theukbloke
 


Did you ever see the 'object' fly away? Did it ever come closer or go farther away?

Could you judge from the sound how far away it was (ballpark estimate)?

Did you see any strobing lights?

Thanks again for posting these and also coming back to help.

Have a great day!



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by theukbloke
 


I really hope it turns out to be alien, so your daughter can say she once saw an alien flying a spaceship. Not many people even look at the sky, or think about what's out there. There would be alot more sightings if people would look up once in a while.

Btw the thing just hoovered there right ? Is it possible it could have been some new type of helicopter, those things make alot of noise as well.
MAYBE it's the moller skycar flying around, these things should be up this summer.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01

But if both the tree and the object are somewhat distant and neither are moving much in regard to the observer, then you focus on infinity and both should be similarly resolved (slightly blurred).

Here is a cropped altered view.



The image on the left appears to me what it should look like with the settings on 'infinity'.

The image on the right is a cropped original (from the large file upload), and it appears -to me- that the object is too sharp and that it is closer to the cameraman rather than farther away.

Now, it could be an illusion. I'm not a professional photographer.


This is not quite true, you have not factor in the aperture of the lens.

A wide open aperture will soften most of the frame except for the object in focus but even then wide=soft unless you have a very good lens - this was a Tamron 28-75 a well respected lens but not the best.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


I answered this already - if you go to thread view you can sort my responses (I think) - yes I saw it fly away - it went very fast (between 200 and 500 mph - hard to tell -but fast) towards the south, I was pointing east.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Some peps wanted reference shots-

The following is a daylight version same aperture (2.8) with focus on the cloud.



As you can see, there was much more light but same position. The next img is a wider angle shot from where I was standing (28mm) - the focus in on the glass section of the roof.


And next is a smaller aperture (f7.1)


See how most things seem sharper even though I was focused on the cloud.

Sorry no flying objects for ref.

For those that want to work out the distance information, the fence is about 6ft 2" tall and 25-30ft way

The poster that wanted the cr2 file to get the distance information from the camera - I am sorry to say that I don't think Tamron lenses send this info to the body, I wish I had time to get my 70-200L out but it was bagged up.

cheers



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by theukbloke
 


Thanks for the reference photos. At first, I thought there was a parallax effect in the animation but your reference photos seem to rule that out due to how tall that tree was and the distance between you and the tree.

Those photos have helped out a lot.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kthulu
 


Excuse me? You said witchhunt.

Google: A witch-hunt is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic, mass hysteria and mob lynching

...the relevant part being 'moral panic, mass hysteria'.

I asked merely for a quote of a poster on this thread expressing such traits.

If no quote exists, it's argument by intimidation, pure and simple.

To keep this on topic, I think the verdict is still out, but I find the OP to be pleasant, patient and helpful.

Every comment I've made has been polite and about the photographs.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by theukbloke
 


Hey again UK.. that's quite a well populated area around the sighting location.Were there any other witnesses to this.?
Did you let any neighbours know you had spotted something or asked around?.Cheers.T



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I'm still waiting for a feasible explanation as to why the lights are so incredibly sharp (nearly a pixel wide).



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I just have to say, WOW!!

I have been an avid ATS reader for quite a long time but only just became a member (expect to hear a lot more from me!
)! I just spent the last hour or two reading through this thread and the first I would like to say is KUDOS to UKBloke! He has been extremely cooperative through this entire 'investigation'! I would be very excited for something like this to fly over my head. This has been a very exciting read from start to temporary finish. All the photos provided are great and although I am no photographer, I somewhat understand some of the technical jargon!

Now, I can't remember if I read in this thread about the light that was emitted from this craft, whether it be high intensity (flood lights) or just your average strobe on any 'normal' aircraft. The reason I say that is, there is a kind of project that is being done with a couple universities up here in Scotland and in joint efforts with the Police for UAV with flood lights attached. This is not a publicly known project, kind of one of those 'what if we stuck this to that, what kind of benefits do we get?' kind of projects. Now in no way am I saying that this is what we have here in this thread but from the way that this is described it could be a possibility depending on the size of it.

FYI...I am an Aeronautical Engineering student in Scotland and that is why I know of this project, although I am not directly linked to the project.

Thank you all for a great read and thank you UKBloke for this great head scratcher!!

--TJ



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by theukbloke
...take a few snaps - look, take a few more - look again and think rubbish, try changing the settings and it's gone....


yes i hope people will remember to read their manuals when reading this.

i found out that on a mobile phone camera, video is the one to choose when a ufo is near.

just wanted people to read this in case they see one with their phone at hand.. take video instead of shots

but in this case a camera was used, but i dont even know all the settings and shortcuts on mine. but i guess im not alone.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by skywatch
 


In that case, if you want to be prepared to take photos of a UFO, I will suggest that you read the manual and take many practise photos, although I am not expecting to take photos of UFOs I have been practising taking photos of high speed objects (swallows), and up to this moment the results are not very encouraging, although they are much better than my first attempts.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Those who said the flight is erratic, I don't agree. The UFO didn't move in the fist 3 pictures, then went to the right, then hovered at the same place in the next 7 pictures. It came back to the starting point in the last picture (1086). The exposure time is 5 seconds in 1086, and there is more information to extract from the downward general movement (hand shake + UFO motion). The 4 lights are plainly visible: 2 strobes, 2 fix lights.

I don't believe NO ONE noticed them yet: Rotor blades are visible every time the strobe on the right, under them, flashes.



As the light pattern is unusual I would say this is probably a RC helicopter. The bass noise may be unusual too for a small helicopter... I don't know what kind of noise electric RC models make anyway.

Something like this (two rotor blades visible here):




new topics

top topics



 
150
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join