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.

 

someone please analyze this photo with software

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
First, Gladius sent me the original file.

There is nothing there to be of help but you are likely right about it being an eclipse.

Because of the foreground being lighted there is nothing but the moon and a black sky. That is to be expected as that is how cameras work whether digital or film. It is the same reason that Apollo images show no stars. The dynamic range of film or sensors is not even in the ball park of what the eye can see.

In the future try and get away from lights and you will need a much better camera. Use a tripod and if possible bracket the shots and combine to an HDR image. I realize this is probably beyond most people as far as equiptment goes. It can be expensive but it has gotten far cheaper. If you are serious get a good Nikon (my choice) or Canon DSLR and vibration dampening lenses. Nikons second generation VR lenses are the best they even compensate for tripod bounce.

I mention the above if people are wanting to get into high quality images as a hobby or use cameras for serious research. It is expensive though. A Nikon D300 (entry level pro) is about $1,700 + lenses. That can go up to the Nikon D3X (the ultimate in low noise and the best available on earth for low light photography) which starts at about $6,000 for just the body. It will shoot in candle light with no noise.

Sorry but there is nothing to be gleaned from that image but the eclipse seems the answer.




posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Both sides are acting badly. You all need to get it together and listen to the Moderator. Nothing can be gained from these childish arguments. If the image is of no interest or you don't want to help somebody who is asking for help, move on to the next thread.

It only took a moment out of my day to look at the image with the right software. I would do that for most anyone whether the image were worthwhile or not. That is how people learn to discern what is useful or not through trial and error.

Mainly though, drink less of those energy drinks perhaps



Have a good day


[edit on 8/26/2009 by Blaine91555]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
appreciate it blaine, thanks



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


LOL im in my 4th red bull.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gladius
i put both those guys on ignore


Why did you put them on ignore? Did you try to answer any of their questions or do you have nothing to say in reply to any of their comments that were on topic?

The exif data shows the picture was taken new years eve 2005 at midnight, however, it seems he just didn't know how to set the date and time as that is probably the camera's default.

The picture leaves much needed, but as others and Gladius stated , if this was a paranormal event, it must have been witnessed by thousands and there would be many more pictures and accounts.

And everyone here needs to check out his Gnome thread to put this one into context,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If nothing else, it makes for a good read.



[edit on 26-8-2009 by breakingdradles]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Couldn't it be, um, a cloud?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Its obviously Nibiru....

Duh



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
breakingdradles is on ignore now, they had no qestions to answer, and you obviously never been to south america nor know spanish OR even read my thread.

Back to the picture, the entire event lasted under 2 minutes like ive stated numerous times in this thread, so i doubt thousands of people will have theyre cameras ready on a pitch black beach on a random summer night in miami



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I did my best analysis on the picture that you sent me via e-mail, unfortunately, as was said by Blaine, the lighting makes the sky pitch black, so it is very difficult to discern any object that might be in front of the Moon, be it a cloud, a UFO, or whatever. I enlarged it the best I could as well, and still it did not help.

I do not know what you witnessed, but this picture even though interesting to you, can not be substantiated, by me anyway, as evidence. It is possible someone else has better software.

[edit on 8/26/2009 by AlienCarnage]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
What a boring crock of a thread.

I wish I had the time to brew up one of my own.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienCarnage
 


Try equalizing channels. any variation in pixel color from neighboring pixels will be enhanced. If there is something in the black it might show.

Where is the original?



ZG



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gladius
lmfao at doubters and non believers

This is the original and yes its that small jesus at least if someone finds something I know that its real since i dont know jack about messing with photos nor would i mess with it, speculate all you want this photo is not on here for you skeptics its on here for me.

I havent visited this site in over 5 years the only reason i came back was to get this photo that i forgot i even had analyzed


You cannot 'analyze' a photo of that low quality. You just cant. You can zoom, blur, brighten, contrast enhance, whatever, it's got NO data to render any better than the little you've given.

And to me it looks like a half moon too, so sadly, if you are correct and it was a full moon which was covered in a shadow of sorts, no analysis of this image will tell anything.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Ive said it a milllion times before it was NOT a half a moon, jesus if i woulda known the pic was gonna get posted on here over a year ago i swear i woulda snapped the second pic.

Wish someone could infrared the damn thing to show you guys its not a cloud also. Anyways its fine, it was probably a lunar eclipse, a lunar eclipse that lasted under 2 minutes and took place in either june or july of 2008, not august



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gladius
fedboy i never ordered anyone, look at the topic title it says PLEASE

it was before august since my girlfriend and i moved out of there in august

and im sorry that i didnt take any photos after i didnt think id ever post it on here much less i didnt think it was anything at all.

Its ok u guys can keep on being negative i already had an intelligent user u2u me and i sent him the original via email


Dude, even if you'd not been here 5 out of the 6 years you've been registered... You surely must know how the sharks work.

Unless you post something astonishingly clear, it will be taken apart, thrashed around and the blood will fill your eyes till all you can do is scream.

Tell me you expected this, surely...

Your image is low quality (from the OP). All things are ebbing towards the inevitable outcome you're complaining about - the best intentions here are waves that float away when the evidence becomes fodder for the sharks.

You note, not all the sharks are 09'ers too.

Anyway, you seem sincere to me. Still looks like a half moon imo, but I don't cry foul. I hope for an alternative!!




posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gladius
Ive said it a milllion times before it was NOT a half a moon, jesus if i woulda known the pic was gonna get posted on here over a year ago i swear i woulda snapped the second pic.

Wish someone could infrared the damn thing to show you guys its not a cloud also. Anyways its fine, it was probably a lunar eclipse, a lunar eclipse that lasted under 2 minutes and took place in either june or july of 2008, not august


I have no idea!

Can't help but say "What it looks like" given there is no way to analyze the image.

Damn, so I guess still no alternatives.. well despite what I think it looks like, good on you for posting it and sticking around - that proves to me you honestly think it's something more than a half moon.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Gladius
 
If you download the pic from your camera to your computer, right-click it and choose "Characteristics" or whatever is's called in your version of the Vista Spy Application, usually the tag at the bottom. There should be the exact time when the pic was taken. With this time indication perhaps it would be possible to find somebody else who also noticed it and took a picture. Just my two cents.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by outrageousfortune
 

There is no time information for the photo, I think it's only the camera's start date and time that was never changed, although I find it strange that the time would be exactly 2005:01:01 00:00:00.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


This can happen if the camera in question was left without batteries in it for some time, and he put fresh batteries in before taking the picture.

If it has to be left for long enough of a period where the capacitors that maintain date and time, had the time to discharge, which depending on camera model could be anywhere form a couple months to a year or two, some even maintain much longer.

It has to do with the circuitry in the camera had if there is more than one capacitor used to keep the charge, etc.

I might be leaving something out, it has been a while since I have taken apart a digital camera.

< - - - edit to add - - - >

Some cameras do require you initiate the date time before it even starts keeping track, usually in older model cameras, guessing by the date this was a 2005 model, which might fit that profile.

[edit on 8/27/2009 by AlienCarnage]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeroGhost
 


The original picture wasn't much better than the one posted, I am guessing older camera ,2005, from the time stamp, and not necessarily the best digital camera, but most off the shelf cameras you purchase at department stores, or electronic stores are not necessarily going to give the best picture. I took it through several programs, enhancing just about everything I can think of, but due to the low quality and the lighting around when it was taken, there was not anything that I could make out, my programs are a bit older, so perhaps someone with newer better software can do better.

If you U2U him, your e-mail, he will send you the original.

< - - - edit for spelling - - - >

[edit on 8/27/2009 by AlienCarnage]



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
How many different opinions do you want? There is nothing to see here. Maybe you thought you saw something but there is definately nothing to see HERE. Give it up man. Or..... Am i on ignore?? Who cares? Not me. No one carrys around a camera on the beach??? I do. everywhere i go, especially on the beach! Forget about this one. Next time take more pictures.

MessOnTheFED!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join