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.

 

Why do people assume we all have acess to high quality video recorders?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I hear this all the time, day and night. "It really is funny how all UFO pictures are of horrible quality." ok there are many things wrong with this but to name a few:

1. People who say this are clearly ignorant to the economic strife that the world is under. Most people don't have $500 to spend on groceries let alone an HD camera. And a good HD camera's gonna cost you closer to 1k
2. It's something called zoom it distorts... a lot.
3. I personally live in one of the richest towns in CT and I do not know of a single person that even owns a camera other than myself.
4. I bought my camera in 2006 and it was not HD it was around $400 and the video quality to your standards is awful. For the time it was a very good camera.
5. Would you stay calm and cool in a situation where you thought you were seeing something that would change the face of humankind for ever?
6. Its called uploading, try it sometime with a video of your own. If it starts low quality i.e. 480, its not like its going to get better. In fact the resolution will only become worse.

People need to stop being so ignorant to what is going on in the world. The fact is not everyone owns a camera that can produce images of "good" quality. Not everyone has the resources to but things when they don't even have the money to buy food. Even most people who have a camera now most likely bought it a while ago, technology changes and with it prices go up. To go along with that not everyone is a film maker or knows of composition lighting etc. Most sightings are taken in the dark and ONLY high quality cameras are able to film at night.

Simply put... grow up.




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Penumbra
"It really is funny how all UFO pictures are of horrible quality."

Can you show us where in this forum someone has said that "all UFO pictures are of horrible quality"?

Or are you ranting about an hypothetical situation that isn't actually happening in this forum?


[edit on 17-12-2009 by converge]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Penumbra
 


Many digital camera's these days are under a hundred bucks and many have video capability up to a minute and half. Easily enough time to observe a UFO at length. Most people, even poor people, spend that much on booze and cigarettes every month.

$39.00 Example

I suggest you take your insults elsewhere...like say...to Best Buy or something.

No more excuses.


[edit on 17-12-2009 by NightVision]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
It is a pretty common statement.

However, I'm really surprised in this day and age, that we don't have more UFO pics from cell phones. Granted, these aren't the best in the world, but some are good, and they are almost ALWAYS with us.

Never before in history have so many had a camera on their person at all times, and yet we don't see an increase in pics or video?

It's a strange thing that I've often wondered about....



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
It is a pretty common statement.

Maybe it is, I was just wondering if this was regarding something actively happening on ATS.



Never before in history have so many had a camera on their person at all times, and yet we don't see an increase in pics or video?
It's a strange thing that I've often wondered about....

I disagree with that. There has been an exponential increase of videos in particular, one just has to do a search on Youtube to confirm that. The percentage of these videos actually showing anything interesting, however, is very very low.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 


For example:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

dereks.



Hardly anyone carries a camera such as a camcorder around with them anyway. And as far as cell phones go, even cameras that are supposed to be good quality aren't that great, especially at night. For example my iphone is god awful at night and I HAVE to be totally still to take a decent picture.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Penumbra]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Penumbra]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Penumbra
 


Often videos aren't bad because the equipment isn't the latest but because people don't know how to operate their equipment, or its limits. It's only a problem when people say or claim it is proof.

I have observed a huge difference in attitudes towards threads that start with "proof of X" versus threads where people say "what is X?" . One is offering something as proof, the other is trying to find out the truth. That's regardless of the equipment they've used (although with most of the more elaborate claims often people go to great lengths to hide the equipment they've used and where/when/who shot it).

[edit on 17-12-2009 by jackphotohobby]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NightVision
 


Like I said 6.6 mp is nothing when you are zooming. There is hardly a time a person doesn't zoom when trying to get a better picture. And so you know, I have a 10mp coolpix camera with 5X optical zoom and the quality when fully zoomed isnt amazing and wouldn't produce the substantial photo that most are looking for.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
lmao, "take your insults to best buy"



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Penumbra
reply to post by NightVision
 


Like I said 6.6 mp is nothing when you are zooming. There is hardly a time a person doesn't zoom when trying to get a better picture. And so you know, I have a 10mp coolpix camera with 5X optical zoom and the quality when fully zoomed isnt amazing and wouldn't produce the substantial photo that most are looking for.


If you have to zoom in that far, any object you are filming is going to be questionable. Most legitimate UFO pictures are close enough for good detail and show reference points to everyday structures and nature. You cant see those points when you zoom in.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Penumbra
 

Star'd - Thank you for answering my question. You shouldn't care so much about people making ignorant generalizations.

I also wouldn't worry too much about the quality of pictures and videos because, as I've said time and time again before, they won't actually prove anything other than something unidentified could be flying in our skies. But don't we know that already?

The UFO phenomenon won't be resolved by looking at pictures or videos.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Penumbra
 


I agree i have seen it posted multiple times on here, not everyones got enough money for HD gears on the camcorder line, but cameras are relatively cheap now days for 8MP and up they run about $100 up for a good name brand



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge
reply to post by Penumbra
 

Star'd - Thank you for answering my question. You shouldn't care so much about people making ignorant generalizations.

I also wouldn't worry too much about the quality of pictures and videos because, as I've said time and time again before, they won't actually prove anything other than something unidentified could be flying in our skies. But don't we know that already?

The UFO phenomenon won't be resolved by looking at pictures or videos.


I think pictures have their place. Last night I was reading through the papers and rebuttals for the potential Hessdalen phenomena:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The rebuttals are quite interesting because they cover a lot of the problems that are often encountered in the ATS UFO forum, and suggest ways to rectify those problems. Of course, they're mainly using professional gear, gathering the data scientifically, but I don't think video and pictures are entirely useless in terms of proof of something (which I agree we know people see UAPs, but is useful in specifics).



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackphotohobby
I think pictures have their place.

I agree, and never said otherwise
I'm just saying that they don't have the weight that some people seem to give them.

They are definitely an important factor in the study and research of the phenomenon, and are very valuable when they can corroborate witnesses accounts and other types of evidence such as trace and radar evidence.

But just by themselves, especially in the day and age of digital photography and manipulation, they won't really prove anything or give us much information.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Penumbra
 


"Simply put... grow up".

I've never seen people bashed on here for having poor recording equipment, I have however seen poor recordings bashed and for good reason. I have seen ufos myself and nothing from what ive seen on this site comes anywhere near close to what me and my friends witnessed, just want you to know I am a believer through my own experience, but 99% of what I see here on the ufo forum is absolute gash I don't blame the level headed for ripping apart the majority of the videos, there mostly crap! I just don't get some people on this site it's like they cannot think past alien space craft! a helicopter U.F.O a formation of planes U.F.O a kite U.F.O a bird U.F.O lanterns U.F.O c.g.i U.F.O balloon U.F.O. Since to advent of youtube U.F.O videos I keep it quite of what I saw that night because frankly I don't want to be associated with this die hard militant band of closed minded people who will believe anything put to them.

Deny Ignorance, if only!



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I would never record a video or photo of UFO with my cellphone. In the ends is the same talk as ever, it's pixelated, it's digital, it could be manipulated blablabla. I have an Nokia N95 with a 5.6 megapixel cam but it's horrible at night i can't even get a good defined clear shot of the moon imagine a moving light in the sky. It sucks at getting details too.

IMHO i think digital cameras sux. Why does pictures from Analog Cameras from 70s/90s have astounding definition and defined visual when comes to UFOS? you can really see the shape and body of the discs or whatever black and white or not and nowadays it's only blurrly lights and blurry dots.

Wild guess: I think that all that techno talk about how UFOs operate (anti gravity, magnetism, electricity, radiation) has an direct influence on digital cameras and how they capture/process images (thus explaining the excessive lights-only-pics/vids) where in analog times there was a more consistent and clear defined view of UFOs.

My .02 cents

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Renan]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Renan
I would never record a video or photo of UFO with my cellphone. In the ends is the same talk as ever, it's pixelated, it's digital, it could be manipulated blablabla. I have an Nokia N95 with a 5.6 megapixel cam but it's horrible at night i can't even get a good defined clear shot of the moon imagine a moving light in the sky. It sucks at getting details too.

IMHO i think digital cameras sux. Why does pictures from Analog Cameras from 70s/90s have astounding definition and defined visual when comes to UFOS? you can really see the shape and body of the discs or whatever black and white or not and nowadays it's only blurrly lights and blurry dots.

Wild guess: I think that all that techno talk about how UFos operate (anti gravity, magnetism, electricity, radiation) has an direct influence on digital cameras and how they capture/process images (thus explaining the excessive lights-only-pics/vids) where in analog times there was a more consistent and clear defined view of UFOs.

My .02 cents


I think, for a long time, really until the last couple of years, in terms of image quality film was far more reliable. With digital technology the light sensitivity is limited by the size of the sensor. Small devices such as mobile cameras tend to have small sensors. The image sensor produces a certain amount of noise along with the signal, which is why the signal to noise ratio is often discussed. At night with very small sensors the signal is not enough to produce a good picture.

So it is amplified, but along with the signal the noise is amplified too increasing the noise by the factor of amplification needed to produce a good picture.

I don't think it's so much that digital sensors are inherently bad at picking up UAPs but that smaller devices have inherent limits to both their lenses (small size) and sensors. So in bad light the amplification increases the noise dramatically.

At night, even during the day maybe, a cheap auto-exposure SLR from a garage sale or ebay with a second hand lens that has a low F-number, will produce inherently better picture with the appropriate ISO film (e.g. high at night low in good light) than most digital compact cameras and smaller. The downside is processing costs and immediacy.

Larger digital SLRs have larger sensors and thus have better low light performance, the top end of DSLRs have larger sensors that are roughly the same area as 35mm film. It's only really in the last 4 years that in terms of image quality digital has been the obvious choice. But top end DSLR performance is available on the cheap - just by using film - downside cost/immediacy.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I do have access to high quality video and still photography cameras that cost $5,000+, I just don't see any UFOs. Maybe UFOs are attracted to low quality cameras?



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
jackphotohobby,

Thanks VERY MUCH for the in depth explanation! I wanted to understand the differences between analog/digital cameras for a long time now
)








[edit on 17-12-2009 by Renan]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Renan
 


No problem
. Just an aside but on a second hand (£100) Yashica Mat-124G (a budget prosumer 6x6 TLR medium format camera from the 1980s) I can get comfortable 6400dpi scans (non-interpolated) with Fuji Velvia 50 film, to put that in digital terms that's over 100 megapixels. I usually scan at 3200dpi (52 megapixels to limit TIFF file size). The only downside being a crappy in-built lightmeter, and reliance on filters to limit haze. It costs about a £1 per roll of 12 shots (I buy packs of 20 rolls), plus £10 a roll processing and I have to wait a week. That's why I mainly do digital now. The effective DPI for other films proportional to their performance parameters.

If I were going to try and shoot UAPs tonight I'd probably take film cameras, inc the decades old Yashica (I've got some ultra-fast Ilford-Delta Pro 3200 film that can be pushed well, probably equating to over 20 megapixels 6x6 medium format), and digital, with the fastest lenses I have.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by jackphotohobby]



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join