Better Cameras = no evidence!?

I bought a digital camcorder with 50x optical zoom thinking the zoom would be impressive, but when I went out to test it out I wasn't impressed.

In one case I heard a helicopter and I thought it would be interesting if I went out to record it like if it were a UFO, just to get an idea of what a real UFO video would look like in broad daylight. I grabbed my camera and ran out as fast as I could, pointed the camera up and started recording. In the resulting video, the helicopter looks like a blurry mass. When I was recording, I tried to zoom in but that just made it worse because the autofocus made it even more blurry and then the object moved out of viewing range.

My night-time testing was even more dissapointing. I recorded ordinary planes at night and found it extremely frustrating trying to keep the object in view. Zooming in proved almost impossible because whenever I moved the zoom lever the object either moves out of view or becomes out of focus.

I think UFOs look blurry in videos because camcorder technology simply isn't any good yet. Or maybe ordinary people don't know how to record video well.

[edit on 6-12-2008 by Leto]

Originally posted by Leto
I bought a digital camcorder with 50x optical zoom thinking the zoom would be impressive, but when I went out to test it out I wasn't impressed.

In one case I heard a helicopter and I thought it would be interesting if I went out to record it like if it were a UFO, just to get an idea of what a real UFO video would look like in broad daylight. I grabbed my camera and ran out as fast as I could, pointed the camera up and started recording. In the resulting video, the helicopter looks like a blurry mass. When I was recording, I tried to zoom in but that just made it worse because the autofocus made it even more blurry and then the object moved out of viewing range.

My night-time testing was even more dissapointing. I recorded ordinary planes at night and found it extremely frustrating trying to keep the object in view. Zooming in proved almost impossible because whenever I moved the zoom lever the object either moves out of view or becomes out of focus.

I think UFOs look blurry in videos because camcorder technology simply isn't any good yet. Or maybe ordinary people don't know how to record video well.

[edit on 6-12-2008 by Leto]

It's not all the camera's fault, no offense.

When recording with a powerful "optical" zoom, two things come into effect.

1. Varied Aperture. With video cameras, the more you zoom, the smaller the f~stop(Aperture) gets. Which means, less light is entering the film/CCD of the camera. In turn it will effect the autofocus. If the autofocus sensor can't clearly see what it's focusing on, it'll be thrown all over the place.

2. Autofocus . In order for it to do its job quickly and effectively it needs alot of light like I previously mentioned and the object needs to be centered, unless you have a advanced pro-spec camcorder with selective focusing which I doubt by your post.
Now if you have a ultra powerful zoom lens, it is going to be very difficult, especially in low light, to be able to have it zoomed out really far and maintain focus be keeping the object in the sky in the center of your frame/viewfinder/screen. Throw in the fact that the camera isn't on a tripod and you just cut your chances by more than half.

Also it is important to make sure that you are refering to 50X OPTICAL and not OPTICAL+DIGITAL(total) zoom.

50X is pretty darn high for a "current" consumer camcorder. Back about 15+ years ago they were obtainable, but were also alot larger and heavier. These days, because of consumer demand and practicality, camcorders have gotten ALOT smaller and lighter resulting in smaller(diameter & lenth) and less powerful(zoom) lenses.

These days you see 10-20x zoom on most consumer camcorders. Not saying yours isn't 50x. But many aren't that good.

Digital zoom btw is useless. It is a marketing-tool(great for PR guys and store salesman). When cameras are advertised combine(multiply) the optical and digital number and give you the total.
So say there is a camera with 10X optical, but 300x digital. Well they will write those numbers really small on the camcorder(because they have to) and then they will put, usually in big red letters, "3000x zoom".

Optical zoom: Uses the lens elements.
Digital zoom: Crops the image captured on the CCD using built in software. It sucks

Now why isn't this all the camera's fault. Well, we humans do build them don't we? lol
But seriously, alot of cameras out there(I know my miniDV sony camcorder) have manual overrides. So you don't HAVE to rely on the camera's sensors.
Some have Manual focus built in. Some have manual exposure features. Most have the ability to shut that crappy Digital Zoom OFF.

And if you are buying a camera for UFO hunting, please, please, PLEASE get something with some sort of anti-shake technology. Sony calls it "steadyshot" and it's probably the best example out there. Their nightshot technology is an awesome feature also.

Hope this helps.



[edit on 12/7/2008 by Andre Neves]

reply to post by Andre Neves


Yea 50X optical zoom is pretty much the highest optical zoom available to consumers at the moment which is why I decided on getting this camcorder. Unfortunately according to my testing 50X isn't going to allow you to see any markings on a UFO (our planes have markings so I assume UFOs likely have markings too, in an alien language of course) , much less beings through the windows. I'd imagine you'd need 5000X optical zoom to see such great details but even then you'd probably need the UFO to help you out by standing still or moving extremely slowly.

For reference here's the camcorder with 50X optical zoom I bought:
www.newegg.com...

and here's the video I recorded that I was mentioning, the helicopter is barely recognizable:
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 7-12-2008 by Leto]

Originally posted by Leto
reply to post by Andre Neves

 

Yea 50X optical zoom is pretty much the highest optical zoom available to consumers at the moment which is why I decided on getting this camcorder. Unfortunately according to my testing 50X isn't going to allow you to see any markings on a UFO (our planes have markings so I assume UFOs likely have markings too, in an alien language of course) , much less beings through the windows. I'd imagine you'd need 5000X optical zoom to see such great details but even then you'd probably need the UFO to help you out by standing still or moving extremely slowly.

For reference here's the camcorder with 50X optical zoom I bought:
www.newegg.com...

and here's the video I recorded that I was mentioning, the helicopter is barely recognizable:
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 7-12-2008 by Leto]

Very nice. Panasonic and JVC were always the leaders in Big zoom cameras in recent decades.

As for your video.
I would seriously be amazed if the helicopter came out sharp.
I see no way in a camera focusing on that helicopter without having manual autofocus. There are WAAAY to many branches from the tree infront of it.
Camera is trying to focus on the branches, not the helicopter.

And in case you're wondering why the branches aren't focused either, it is because you are zoomed out and they are too close. You've surpassed the lens' "minimum focus distance", which is probably a couple feet at that zoom length.
If all of those branches weren't in the way, or maybe if there were only a couple of them spread out, the helicopter would've been in focus for sure.
*Remember, the camera is focusing on whatever is in the middle of the frame. The exact center.

Your camera is fine man. You should just practice alittle.

[edit on 12/7/2008 by Andre Neves]

Good posts, Leto and Andre Neves!

Leto
The best way to know about some equipment is to work with it and try to use it in a way that resembles the one for which we want to use it, so testing the camera is the best way of knowing its limits (and our's), so keep on testing, while keeping in mind what Andre Neves wrote.

Andre Neves
Great explanation of how things work and why things do not work as some people expect them to!
I have tried explain it to all the people I find that are interested in this, but your explanation (backed up by a much more solid knowedge) is much better than my own explanations!

Photography is all about gathering light/photons.

x50 optical zooms are all very well, but if you've ever seen professional lenses that offer this kind of magnification, you'll appreciate how poor most small consumer cameras are in comparison.

The lenses on small cameras are tiny compared to pro gear. Compromises are made to make these things convenient to carry about with you. Professional lenses weigh a ton, and are huge, because they need large front elements (lenses) in order to gather as much light as possible.

Why does this make a difference? It's simple: To get a properly exposed photo a certain amount of light needs to hit the sensor. Small lenses can't gather enough light, so to compensate, cameras need to have their shutters open for longer and/or use a higher ISO setting. Both of these things will degrade image quality, especially the first if there is any movement of the camera or the subject.

The small lenses used on consumer cameras are also quite poor optically at their maximum zoom in general. Photos tend to become fuzzy when taken at maximum zoom, especially with extreme zooms like x50. It is still better than 'digital zoom' though.

Having a tripod will help, but you can't get around the optical flaws of small lenses.

As I said before, photography is all about gathering light. In low light, to gather enough photons to properly expose a photo is not easy. Big lenses with big front elements help allot, but theres only so much they can do when the light is low. Photos taken in low light are inherently grainy because photons are scarce - there's no way around this, since you can't collect photons that simply aren't there.

Light intensifiers can take photos where normal equipment would not even register an image, but they are expensive and don't really overcome the problem of grain/noise in the image, but they could certainly reveal features that would not normally be seen.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by C.H.U.D.]

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Professional lenses weigh a ton, and are huge, because they need large front elements (lenses) in order to gather as much light as possible.

That's only part of it. A far more important function, particularly relevant where small, distant objects are being photographed, is resolution. Resolution is the ability to discern detail. This is where most amateurs loose it. Zooming or blowing up any image will not bring out more detail than is contained in the basic image. We don't have the technology used by Deckard in 'BladeRunner'. So, a large lens provides detail, which can be enhanced by magnification. Resolution is primarily controlled by lens diameter and ultimately by the laws of physics (diffraction). You can see more detail through a 12" telescope than a 6" telescope even when they have the same power (magnification).

See Optical Resolution

WG3

reply to post by waveguide3


Yes, you are right WG...

Too be fair, I think I covered this part, albeit in a rather simplistic way:

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Photos tend to become fuzzy when taken at maximum zoom, especially with extreme zooms like x50. It is still better than 'digital zoom' though.

Having a tripod will help, but you can't get around the optical flaws of small lenses.

Let's also not forget that the resolution of any camera system is limited by the weakest link in the chain, be it optics, sensor/film, support (every important especially with 'super zooms'), and the user him or herself.

I think it goes without saying that you can't recover detail where there was no detail recorded in the first place.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
I think it goes without saying that you can't recover detail where there was no detail recorded in the first place.

It should do, but it doesn't stop many people trying. Lots of images containing a few pixels of contrasty spots are given Photoshop treatments to 'enhance' them into 'UFOs, aliens', etc.

WG3

Originally posted by Andre Neves
What I don't understand is, with all these advancements in photo/video technology available to us, why is it that we don't have "clear" photographic evidence of UFOs?

Hi Andre Neves, I assume that you mean by UFO’s real ET crafts right?
Therefore I wonder the following, don’t you think that it is highly possible to assume that despite you have the best of the best camera to your disposal complete with the best of the best lenses it’s in fact only totally up to “them” to decide that you can yes or no shoot clear photo’s / video’s of their crafts?

And suppose you get on a certain moment in your lifetime indeed the opportunity to shoot some very clear photos of their crafts, what do you think will happen then?
Don’t you think it will end as what happened with the really excellent photo’s of Eduard Billy Meier?