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.
Originally posted by depthoffield
Let me repeat:....
Originally posted by easynow
i agree with Sereda....a "airy disc" would not have the clear defined lines like the "critters" have when they pass near the tether.
Originally posted by zorgon
Your cats eye effect is not exhibited on the tether film.
Originally posted by zorgon
You claim the notches are a function of the lens, you claim the notches appear on different sides of the object depending on location in the image
Originally posted by zorgon
show me a video with MULTIPLE OBJECTS (light sources that you call BOKEH) that exhibit different notches, some one, some two in the same video.
Originally posted by zorgon
Call me when its ready... Time to jump in my pool
Originally posted by poet1b
It seems that my camera doesn't have the chip that allows close up objects to remain in focus while focusing on distant objects. I like that he confirmed my observation on how close up objects can disappear on cameras without these chips when focusing on distant objects.
could you be more specific of what "clear defined lines" you refer? maybe an adnotated capture or something?
Originally posted by easynow
i addressed this video on the last page depthoffield, maybe you missed it ?
quoting myself....
that video is a horrible attempt to compare the pulsing of the STS-75 objects.
not even close. also there is no way to determine if there is an atmospheric distortion factor involved with that video.
Originally posted by easynow
until you identify what camera was used and the internal parts of the iris and specs of the camera, that video can not be used as an example of the notched effect either.
Originally posted by easynow
could you be more specific of what "clear defined lines" you refer? maybe an adnotated capture or something?
there is no need for me to screen capture a picture when you know darn good and well what Sereda is talking about. if for some reason you don't , then watch the video and he will show you
No, you are wrong, it can be used as it EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLE
no, this time i don't know of what you are reffering, and i ask you again. If you want to show me, if not, no problem, i can except your statement with "clear defined lines" because i didn't understand it.
thanks.
Originally posted by easynow
that video is a horrible attempt to compare the pulsing of the STS-75 objects.
not even close. also there is no way to determine if there is an atmospheric distortion factor involved with that video.
until you identify what camera was used and the internal parts of the iris and specs of the camera, that video can not be used as an example of the notched effect either.
Originally posted by zorgon
I also believe this clip shows the other hypothesis is incorrect that this is BEHIND the tether
As far as I know, there is no way having an infinite depth of field (what makes things being on focus or our of focus), unless we use a special pin-hole camera, but I think that even in theory a pin-hole camera cannot give a perfect image (although everything is in focus).
Originally posted by poet1b
I am not a camera buff, I have no idea if this chip exists that allows close up objects and distant objects to be focused on at the same time. I suspect that with digital filtering it is possible, but it certainly wouldn't apply to this 97 video shot on the Space Shuttle, and maybe I should have made note of that. However, this ability to dual focus may very well apply to home cameras used to provide evidence of what we are seeing on the video.
That being said, analog does offer some advantages over digital, even more so earlier digital technology.
While the big fluffy UFOs look like they could be created by camera distortions, the small white dots do not, and definitely do not look like small particles close to the camera.
If they went crypto with the voice signal, chances are they went crypto with the camera feed shortly afterward, and that there is considerably more video footage of this event that we are not aware of, and will probably never get to see.
Originally posted by Majorion
Oh ArMaP, forever the skeptic, lol.
Admittedly I'm far more impressed with the STS-80 footage, as for the tether one, still holding out.
Isnt there anything with the 75 that you find hard to explain?
Originally posted by Majorion
Admittedly I'm far more impressed with the STS-80 footage, as for the tether one, still holding out.