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.

 

UFO Video London

page: 15
72
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Hi Kids,

FYI I was perusing the Comments section of the originator's page on You Tube.
He states the original footage is not so "steppy" / "choppy."

I don't have a Facebook account, but apparently the video plays there smoother.
His early comments:

"Also when i uploaded it on youtube the video turned out really jumpy? The original is much better and clearer again. If anyone can tell me how to upload it in full quality let me know! Or..I did upload it to my facebook profile. It worked fine on there. Search for Daniel Edwards."

Just in case anyone is interested.

Regards...KK




posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984I'm getting so tired of this i am considering buying a camera. Can anyone recommend a good digital one as i have no clue. I'm not well off so budget is an issue, cheers.
Well, if you're trying to recreate this video, then you should use the same kind of camera. He used his phone camera, which is a sony ericson w200i. Here's the specs:

www.gsmarena.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TravisT
 


Well i don't have the funds to buy a camera for each specific hoax, but a good digital camera would i'm sure suit for most so a general one one be good as long as it isn't to expensive



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 


I'm just getting tired of explaining this point of view. I don't believe anyone is saying it's taken through double glazing, some of us are talking about a deliberate hoax taken through one pane of glass this is attached to the plastic frame of that window.

If you cannot see what we're saying then i may give up on this thread as many people seem to be projecting what they think is being said onto what is actually being said.


No, people can see exactly what you are saying and are trying to explain to you that it isn't anywhere near as simple to set up as you think it is.. One of the chief reasons you do not see much standard *mundane Magic* on TV these days is because, video has rendered its' secrets unto all. That includes many tricks using reflections in glass. At normal speed the eye is indeed fooled, you slow it down and freeze frame it, the reflections in the glass and the surrounding artifacts, become only too apparent. Thus rendering many traditional tricks, pointless on TV.

To achieve a clarity and flatness of glass to produce the open window shots would involve not just standard window glass but something that was far thicker and hence, a hell of a lot heavier. Standard glass panes exhibit quite stunningly obvious flaws that are are even more obvious in low lite conditions. It is you are totally misunderstanding the whole point being made. If that video was made using standard glass there should be quite obvious *ripple and bowing* artifacts that are apparent by freeze framing it. As such i can see non which leads to me to , so far, believe the idea they are some kind of trickery is unsubstantiated by the known facts.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
There is one thing about this video that I can't get my head around.. I'm not sure whether it's the camera on the intensity of one of the lights, maybe even a haze near the object.

Do you notice the green haze throughout the video??


It's most distinctive in this grab but is throughout the video..

Armap.. Wiggle a pencil between your fingers.. What happens?

The pencil seems to bend? Similar when you zoom in on something the camera shake is more pronounced



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Two more things I find strange.

First, the way what looks like the reflection of one of the lights in the window appears to move.

Frames 55 and 56.


And what looks like a reflection above the bigger reflection on the window frame, moving in a strange way.

Frames 60, 61 and 62.


The movement of the "UFO" is noticeable in the above animation, but as this is just before it moves out of sight it could be really moving already.

The distortion of the building in front may be a result of the small movements of the phone and the small size of the original video.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


That is deeply interesting and nicely researched, if he can provide a full video that isn't compressed by youtube i'd be very interested and from here i would withhold my judgment. He can upload such a video to many different sites for free and therefore has no excuse not to. If yo uhave any influence then please get him to upload the full thing so that ATS can strip it down. I'm sure the image experts here would love a go at a full uncompressed version.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


The apparent movement of the far left light reflecting on the window frame would seem to suggest the light is coming from within the room as if it were reflecting on a thin pane of glass. At least that is what it says to me.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


No, quite simply no. The glass of a greenhouse is pretty thin and brittle and yet appears perfectly clear. It weighs hardly anything as well. A glass pane used in a greenhouse, around 3 feet by 2 feet will weigh around 10 pounds and be very clear. I know that because i put them in my cedar built greenhouse. If you cannot accept that fact then i don't know what else to say. Such a pane could be easily held up by duct tape.

If beyond this you cannot accept the very simple facts i mention then we'll just have to agree to disagree. My real life experience, my greenhouse in my garden are obviously not possible with the way you think.

EDIT

Apologies for the triple post i answered post after post without thinking about combining it.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Armap.. I think the top one is just the movement of the camera as the reflection disappears in the next second.

The second may be a reflection from the light within his room?? I would say it must be directly behind because of the bevel of the window sill.


ImaginaryReality1984.. I agree as I have a greenhouse. But I do know photography and there is no way this is shot through glass..

We all have an opinion and everyone has a say until proven otherwise.. We may all be wrong and he's done it through CGI..


[edit on 28/4/2009 by UKWO1Phot]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 
Hi,
Ukwo,
Pretty pure shots through the glass for sure,
no noise in the throught-the-glass pics pics at all.
As for the brightness of the lights,(not in your post)
I still go for the Green LED..it seems Green LEDs
can or do modulate at 400hz and are driven,
(or should that be motivated) by quite low voltage,
I found a good paper on LED's here,
www.freepatentsonline.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
Armap.. Wiggle a pencil between your fingers.. What happens?

The pencil seems to bend? Similar when you zoom in on something the camera shake is more pronounced
Then why does the camera shake effect looks more pronounced on the building lights in one frame and on the UFO lights in the other?

Also, as far as I remember (I had to return the camera I was using to its owner, it was only borrowed) that line-creating effect is not affected by the distance to the light source, being a result of the movement of the camera itself it affects all objects in frame the same way.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
You know what?

There are so many questionable things about this video that i think it can be shelved. Good videos are ones that can't be explained without any really decent explanation. We have included many possible problems that can't be debunked easily.

I think i'll go back to my preference of daylight sightings over night time ones, unless the night time ones are filmed with night vision of course.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Then why does the camera shake effect looks more pronounced on the building lights in one frame and on the UFO lights in the other?
Maybe because of the angle? He may have been coming down at and angle, and before that, it was just a regular up and down shake. If you can see what I'm saying?




[edit on 28-4-2009 by TravisT]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by FireMoon
 


No, quite simply no. The glass of a greenhouse is pretty thin and brittle and yet appears perfectly clear. It weighs hardly anything as well. A glass pane used in a greenhouse, around 3 feet by 2 feet will weigh around 10 pounds and be very clear. I know that because i put them in my cedar built greenhouse. If you cannot accept that fact then i don't know what else to say. Such a pane could be easily held up by duct tape.

If beyond this you cannot accept the very simple facts i mention then we'll just have to agree to disagree. My real life experience, my greenhouse in my garden are obviously not possible with the way you think.

EDIT

Apologies for the triple post i answered post after post without thinking about combining it.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]


Then you, with respect, need your eyes testing as you cannot see what is blindingly obvious to anyone with decent eyesight. Standard, including greenhouse glass, is not a flat surface it bends under its own weight as it is colling and produces artifacts that are patently obvious when shown in close up. Hence. no astronomer ever tries to make a serious observation through a window. The moment you apply even a 7x magnifcation, your typical binocular eye piece lens, to an object through glass it becomes fuzzy and blurred in a wholly obvious way. I have taken a few screen stills and blown them up and i can see no such artefact's... Which would suggest, if it glass, it is pretty damn thick and very highly polished and finished, not to contain them..

[edit on 28-4-2009 by FireMoon]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 
Hi,
Ukwo,
Pretty pure shots through the glass for sure,
no noise in the throught-the-glass pics pics at all.
As for the brightness of the lights,(not in your post)
I still go for the Green LED..it seems Green LEDs
can or do modulate at 400hz and are driven,
(or should that be motivated) by quite low voltage,
I found a good paper on LED's here,
www.freepatentsonline.com...



Isn't that link for a LED light dimmer switch?
If so what is the frmae rate for the video 15fps?

How do you switch it off/dim to off within a frame?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Then you, with respect, need your eyes testing as you cannot see what is blindingly obvious to anyone with decent eyesight. Standard, including greenhouse glass, is not a flat surface it bends under its own weight as it is colling and produces artifacts that are patently obvious when shown in close up. Hence. no astronomer ever tries to make a serious observation through a window. The moment you apply even a 7x magnifcation, your typical binocular eye piece lens, to an object through glass it becomes fuzzy and blurred in a wholly obvious way. I have taken a few screen stills and blown them up and i can see no such artefact's... Which would suggest, if it glass, it is pretty damn thick and very highly polished and finished, not to contain them..

[edit on 28-4-2009 by FireMoon]


You're right! No astronomer tries to make an observation through such a thing, but a hoaxer might well try reflecting lights off of the glass and getting decent results. You talk of magnification through good optics, the video shows digital magnification through a camera phone. we're talking apples and oranges here. If it's a reflection they would only need to focus on the glass and so any idea of protuberances in the glass would be mute.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
There is one thing about this video that I can't get my head around.. I'm not sure whether it's the camera on the intensity of one of the lights, maybe even a haze near the object.

Do you notice the green haze throughout the video??


It's most distinctive in this grab but is throughout the video..

Armap.. Wiggle a pencil between your fingers.. What happens?

The pencil seems to bend? Similar when you zoom in on something the camera shake is more pronounced
Yeah, I see it in the video now. Do you think thats where the source of the light is coming from? Does that mean its coming from outside?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
TravisT... Initially I thought it may have given us an idea of shape (reflecting off a surface etc) then I thought it was the intensity of the light affecting the pixels of the camera...
To be honest I have no idea, but it seems to be more prevalent on that particular set of lights.(although can be seen on the others on different frames)

Could be from high intensity LED's shining on glass..



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by UKWO1Phot
 
Hi ukwo,
You have to go way on down to the nitty gritty for
the "How LEDs operate" to see what i'm saying.


[edit on 28-4-2009 by smurfy]



new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join