The iphone focal length is 37mm (35mm equivalent). A 50mm lens is regarded as normal in 35mm terms. 37mm is normally regarded as wide
Of, having, or being a camera lens with a relatively short focal length that permits an angle of view wider than approximately 70°.
For the iPhone - the CCD detector is a rectangular chip. So, the long axis (i.e. the 'width' if you hold the iPhone in landscape mode) has a ~53°
The short axis (i.e. the 'width if you hold the iPhone in portrait mode) has a viewing angle of ~37.5°. Can't speak for other camera phones.
Wide Angle lens will increase about 40% view range so you can take picture of large ranges,
such as group of people, buildings and landscape. With this marco lens, can be taken picture of a tiny
object clearly in the detail
Can you support that?
I did, one of two pictures shows a paler cloudy sky. This may equally have to do with angle of the setting sun as i supposed earlier.
I dont have photoshop so I can't reproduce your results. Eitherway you may be right, we wont know until its revealed weatheror not her car has
I said earlier
It's cloudy and on dusk, so it's difficult to determin if the sky should be that color or not. Are you speculating its a custom tint on the
top of the windscreen? Sun visor tint?
Yes, it has automatic exposure. Even the cheapest camera phone does - it's 'de rigeur' these days. As for specs Apple is a bit coy, but try
Adolfo Issasi's post is the best, but he has the shutter speed wrong - it varies.
Let me throw out a hypothetical question.
Let's say, you saw an UFO (a metallic object soaring 10,000 feet above) and you had your camera/iPhone ready to take a photo.
And as SOON as you snapped the picture, a bird flew out in front and you (accidentally) captured its right wing, obstructing most of the UFO.
Does that mean, you didn't see the UFO? Because surely, from the evidence you produced, it clearly doesn't show just a UFO.
OK, but the 'orange light ' has been shown to be a streetlight, no ufo. The two 'orbs' cant be shown to be anything in particular, but they can be
shown to be
small bird/bat sized objects adjacent to the streetlight and illuminated by it on the side closest to the light. Technically Ufo's.
Evidence points to the dark shape being on the windscreen and itself stationary, or being debris possibly blown up over the windscreen, close to the
Its apparent proximity to the camera points it being more likely on or just outside the windscreen than actually in the sky. The object is blurred and
you might expect a crisper image outside.
The reflection showing in the picture indicates a reflective surface between the camera lense and the subject.
Were she outside taking the photos, there is nothing infront of the lense that's reflective. A richochet of light, as you propose, still requires a
off which to richochet in the first place.
Therefore the conclusion must be that at minimum, that particular photo was indeed taken from inside the car, the only reflective surface being the
inside of the windscreen.
If you dont accept this, you must show how light from the available sources in the photo (A) sun (b) streetlight identified (c) The headlights of the
oncoming car, may have directly shone into the lense of the camera
causing a reflection.
So we have one streetlight, two ufo's (technically) and one unknown blob.
To prove the blob a ufo, even on a technicality, you must prove it was actually in the sky (distance from camera) and moving.. This cant be done.
If we accept the witness testimony it was moving accross the sky, we then have to eliminate an optical illusion caused by light levels inside inside
or actual debris blowing by outside, eitherway we first must show distance from the camera. Hopeful one of the member researchers can do this, then we
will have something.
Perhaps, that was a leftover photo from one of her previous photos on her iPhone. Again, I do NOT know. I am not an expert.
? Please dont force us to go into the technical aspects digital storage chips and the process of storage and display.
By all means look into that yourself if you like.
I haven't the opportunity to interview Fiona so I am only making my 'cognizant' impressions of her, via her audio/video clips. She seems
[edit on 29-3-2010 by TwoPhish]
We are not here to make "'cognizant' impressions" of the witness.
What anyone thinks of her is irrelevant to what the photo shows, this is what we're discusssing. The evidence, not the personal intentions or nature
of the witness, just the facts.
please make your own conclusions. You keep stating you beleive the witness, over and over, and thats fantastic, but we get it already.
But dont be asking others to speculate on her honesty or lack, we just care about the facts, we're not judging the witness and shes not on the
She's made claims, produced photos and given testimony, what more do you expect from her ?
We have eximined the photos, heard the testimony, and made conclusions based on science and logic without bias to the witnness.
You are trying to influince bias in favor of the witness to prove the incident true, by some proxy of empathy by exclaiming her 'consistancy' and so
regardless of the evidence.
We wont hold your hand while you take the plunge off the cliff of uncertainty.
Please think for youself and look at the evidence honestly.
[edit on 29-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]