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: 22
72
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Also, on the frame where it streaks-off, we see that the camera records at least 20 individual flashes on the leftmost streak. Assuming a frame-rate of 15 fps, this gives a minimum estimated frequency of about 300Hz. An uncertain number (2,3,4) of flashes are piled-up on the tip. Assuming that there were 22 flashes in all, I derive a best estimate strobe frequency of 330 Hz +/- 15 Hz.



That's in the audio range; hmm....



E1 on a guitar is 329.63 Hz.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by zerotensor]

[edit on 30-4-2009 by zerotensor]




posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by zerotensor
 


The video is 6 FPS



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by rightuos
 


Indeed, the frame rate of the video is 6 fps. I should have said shutter speed, (or more precisely, CCD refresh rate) -- not frame-rate. The shutter speed is clearly less than the frame rate, as one can tell by comparing neighboring frames. I don't know the specs on the camera which shot this, so I assumed an exposure time of 1/15 second, which is fairly common on these miniature video cameras. Of course, it could be variable, or perhaps some constant multiple of the frame-rate.

If you look at the individual frames, you can see that a timebase "pulldown" has been applied: the frame pattern goes like this:

aBBCCDDEEFFGGHHIIjKKLLMMNNOOPPQQRRSS

...and repeats thereafter.

average framerate multiplier: 19 unique frames / 36 total frames = 0.5277778

0.5277778 * 6 fps = 3.16667 fps (average framerate)

Of course this says nothing about the CCD refresh rate, so unless someone can tell me the specs on the camera, the best I can do is guess.


[edit on 30-4-2009 by zerotensor]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
If the chip is like this one:
link to .pdf document

Then the exposure time is variable, along with the frame rate:


• Exposure Time: 83 μs (@ 30 fps, 1 line, 12 MHz) ~ 164 s (@ 1 fps, 65535 lines, 12 MHz), every step: 83 μs



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Finally some actual good investigative thinking. Now you can start to see something that is not just speculation. Prove this is faked and we do Ufology a favor by separating out the chaff.

This is a much better approach, don't you think?

Star for such Zero.

ZG



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaynardIt
Do you want really know why does this object quickly disappear at high speed from the scene?

That's because tracking softwares took ages to perform even 10 secs of tracking.

Making the object flying away so fast is a common trick used in order to avoid to leave the PC working for a whole week.

The tracking itself, is not perfect at all. You can see the lights floating unnaturally with the background.

An ugly fake.


Sorry, but you are wrong.

I'm using Vegas Pro and I can render a five minute film with 5 layers of video, text, audio, effects, blends and all in 1080 HD in about 4 hours on a 3Ghz Duo core pc.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
If you go to the Stephvenville Lights case where Sirius was mistaken by an amateur video person for a UFO making symbols in an alien language you will see that the person did not understand the process any more than how to interpret the sky for star positions.

The Stephvenville video shows a continuous line of light each frame, not a strobe effect. Sorry, but your claim that "What you are seeing is how often the camera samples the CCD data in a single frame of video" is nonsense.

As is your claim that "In CGI, motion blur does just that. It 'blurs' the light. Not show successive frames of discreet objects".
CGI, by itself, doesn't blur anything unless you deliberately add some mock-up blur effect, eg. After Effects, or if you emulate motion blur by rendering at a high frame rate and converting the result to a lower frame rate, blending multiple images into one frame.


That is one reason you don't pee in the bathwater by throwing around opinions that challenge the witness character. If they become uncooperative you loose the game before it even starts. Amateurs loose the edge by doing that so they never get any further. Experience teaches that.

Your pompous act fails to impress me.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaynardIt
The tracking itself, is not perfect at all. You can see the lights floating unnaturally with the background.

An ugly fake.

There's not necessarily tracking involved. It seems that innovative techniques were applied that keep ppl wondering how exactly this was done. So it's rather a pretty if not excellent fake, especially when it's coming from a guy who is not into digital video manipulation.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Verklagekasper

There's not necessarily tracking involved. It seems that innovative techniques were applied that keep ppl wondering how exactly this was done. So it's rather a pretty if not excellent fake, especially when it's coming from a guy who is not into digital video manipulation.



I agree.

We must, however, also remember that illusions and manipulations have been around for millenia and that video manipulation doesn't have to be the answer all the time.
Sometimes the good old techniques where you manipulate the viewers perception are the best.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by zerotensor
 


excellent analysis... question, though... would he have to have three of those tuning devices, or is the light somehow split? That's the part that throws me.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by zerotensor
 



Am I imagining things or were the LEDs in the product image of the tuning device you provided originally red? Did you manipulate the image to create a tuning device that had green LEDs? Sorry if I'm wrong about that, its been a long day.


edit for typo

[edit on 30-4-2009 by dainoyfb]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by zerotensor
 


You requested specs on the camera, TravisT had posted this earlier.


Originally posted by TravisT
He used his phone camera, which is a sony ericson w200i. Here's the specs:

www.gsmarena.com...



Regards...KK

[edit on 30-4-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Hi people,

First post here and I am joining reply to this. This I have to say is a fake. The reason I say this is because, at 21 seconds, the camera man slightly moves to the RIGHT, as with close up reflections, the lights also shift LEFT.

There is something in front of the open window, at 21 seconds you can see something in the top right, might be a telephone wire, might be a plane of glass but it lines coincidentally up with the corner of the window off camera. Also looked again at 16 seconds, cameraman moves LEFT and the objects shift RIGHT and they also reverse up and down with the camera movements.

Please look and tell me what you think of that?



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerotensor
Also, on the frame where it streaks-off, we see that the camera records at least 20 individual flashes on the leftmost streak. Assuming a frame-rate of 15 fps, this gives a minimum estimated frequency of about 300Hz. An uncertain number (2,3,4) of flashes are piled-up on the tip. Assuming that there were 22 flashes in all, I derive a best estimate strobe frequency of 330 Hz +/- 15 Hz.



That's in the audio range; hmm....



E1 on a guitar is 329.63 Hz.


Just to add that the below was posted on pg4. Attempting to connect the pertinent dots.


Originally posted by jeffsmathers
If you look at the single frame where the object is departing, the 3 light sources can be seen modulating (on and off). Based on the estimated frame rate of a video phone is roughly 12 to 15 frames per second and based on the 27 to 30 modulated 'flashes' in the one frame that show a near linear acceleration based on the angular positions of each modulated flash...This of course assumes a level altitude of flight when leaving.

The average time between flashes then is about .00264 seconds or estimated modulated frequency of 380 Hz ( Cycles per second ).


330 Hz and 380 Hz seems pretty close. Keep up the good work. ZG will be proud.

KK



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Just come back to see what's been going on..

Yes the circumstantial evidence does look incriminating IMO.

Although I couldn't find fault with the vid, except the blur of the lights. Maybe I should have been more suspicious of that effect. Could be glare off glass?


Anyhow, we learn something new everyday....

Now where's that pie KK



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Hey everyone my son says this is exactly what he saw in polk city florida at night 10 pm a couple months ago it was going slow about 70 mph in the sky like the speed of a cesna at an altitude of 5000ft but it looked bigger then a cesna.

we are both skydive photgraphers at lake wales skydive.

florida skydive center in lake wales Florida.

my son observed this but he said there was only 1 light on each triangle point not 2 as depicted in this one. he observed it flying east for about for about 8-10 seconds and then it took off exactly like this like whew gone that fast


its amazing my son saw the same thing. wonder if its our military or off world folks.

i have never seen anything so my boy has one on me big time.


we are skydive photographers on weekends part time job if anyone has any openings in marketing or general sales or office job in our area of lakeland, tampa orlando please email me. i am former 82nd airborne so great work ethic plus i am a beleiver and a christian.

ps

does anyone think the conclusions drawn on the ufo hunter program are real or not is the program real and true of not curious to any thoughts on this.


thank you

Chris

i need another job.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
Now where's that pie KK




Regards...KK



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by dainoyfb
 


Yes, the original product image had red LEDs. I changed the hue to illustrate the concept. I searched the web for a green LED variation, but haven't yet found a photo that shows this. Fender makes one called the Strobe-E which apparently has yellow LEDs (and also opens a beer bottle). It is not a big stretch to imagine that this sort of tuner would be available in a variety of colors.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Im starting to wonder now wether instead of us looking at the LED lights at a pane of Glass/plastic whatever else is through that apparent "open window" Wther the technique used was to use mirrors to reflect the LED light back onto the Camera Lens.
The LED could be right next to him with a Mirror either just below the camera or strategically positioned so that it gives off the best image of the lights without giving away the game. It also eliminates away the need for Glass and tricks people into thinking theres actually something there (aswell as explaining the beams thats eliminating from the light source from the LED in the still frames.)



new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join