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.

 

What did I catch on film?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rancid-Milk-Man

img9.imageshack.us...
img217.imageshack.us...
img690.imageshack.us...
img189.imageshack.us...
img227.imageshack.us...
img689.imageshack.us...
img171.imageshack.us...

As Per requested


those second episode of photos..are clear that you are playing games or take experiments with the camera, having movements/oscilations/shakings during the long exposure.

I see a pattern here.

Which can explain the OP photos: shakings during long exposure, as Noisemedia and myself guessed above. Wind, vibrations through the roof where you stayed, deliberate/inocent shakings etc.

The tripod/camera system MUST stay absolutely and perfect static during exposure, unless you want to obtain blurs, shakings or even "Dorothy Izatt" style photos




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
The 4th (I think) picture strongly reminds me of an RC plane with lights, of the kind that has caused many UFO reports here in Monterey. The lights are along the front of the wings, so when the plane turns, banks, dives, etc. they appear to change in "strange" ways. The first time I had a prolonged sighting of this phenomenon, neither myself nor the 5 friends I was with could believe it was an RC plane - at least, not until we met the guy flying it and he landed it to show us!



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by Rancid-Milk-Man

img9.imageshack.us...
img217.imageshack.us...
img690.imageshack.us...
img189.imageshack.us...
img227.imageshack.us...
img689.imageshack.us...
img171.imageshack.us...

As Per requested


those second episode of photos..are clear that you are playing games or take experiments with the camera, having movements/oscilations/shakings during the long exposure.

I see a pattern here.

Which can explain the OP photos: shakings during long exposure, as Noisemedia and myself guessed above. Wind, vibrations through the roof where you stayed, deliberate/inocent shakings etc.

The tripod/camera system MUST stay absolutely and perfect static during exposure, unless you want to obtain blurs, shakings or even "Dorothy Izatt" style photos



In the beginning I was trying to get the right exposures and zoom length. Those were just test shots but somebody wanted me to post them. I might have shook the camera when taking the images but like I said before there was nothing in the clear patch of sky I was shooting at. Maybe there was I didn't see it. I don't expect it to be a UFO just wanted some clarification. Interesting photos I think none-the-less lol



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rancid-Milk-Man
I might have shook the camera when taking the images but like I said before there was nothing in the clear patch of sky I was shooting at.

When you say that there wasn't anything on that patch of sky do you mean that there weren't any stars visible?

If you want to take photos of stars you should use a low f-number and ISO setting, otherwise you are just getting noise from the sensor.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rancid-Milk-Man

In the beginning I was trying to get the right exposures and zoom length. Those were just test shots but somebody wanted me to post them.


Ok, i realised you've done some testings.


Originally posted by Rancid-Milk-Man
I might have shook the camera when taking the images

That is for sure!! i "enhanced" the photos and the shaking is clear...just some more time to finish the material



Originally posted by Rancid-Milk-Man
but like I said before there was nothing in the clear patch of sky I was shooting at. Maybe there was I didn't see it.


I'm not so sure you didn't saw it...the camera is not so sensitive to light lengthwave spectrum beyound human limits, so most of the recorded light came from visible spectrum. At the average setting you used:

Fnumber 20 to 32 (very small aperture so very small amount of light entered through the lens)
Exposure time: 10 to 30 seconds ("normal" long exposure for "normal" night shots")
ISO 1250 (high sensitivity)

You should be seen the light, i guess is easy visible in above settings.

I still bet on Venus
(or similar)




[edit on 30/5/10 by depthoffield]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Common settings:
Model - NIKON D100
FocalLength - 300.00 mm (equivalent to 450 mm in 35 mm film)
ISO Setting - 1250

Now, "enhanced" stills:




dsc0099ok.jpg

DateTime - 2010:05:27 19:41:49
ExposureTime - 24.8 seconds
FNumber - 32.00








dsc0100p.jpg

DateTime - 2010:05:27 19:42:26
ExposureTime - 12.6 seconds
FNumber - 32.00








dsc0101aa.jpg

DateTime - 2010:05:27 19:43:05
ExposureTime - 20.1 seconds
FNumber - 32.00









dsc0102ci.jpg

DateTime - 2010:05:27 19:43:33
ExposureTime - 10.1 seconds
FNumber - 25.00








dsc0103dl.jpg

DateTime - 2010:05:27 19:44:06
ExposureTime - 20.7 seconds
FNumber - 25.00








dsc0104k.jpg

DateTime - 2010:05:27 19:45:03
ExposureTime - 29.4 seconds
FNumber - 25.00








dsc0105bx.jpg

DateTime - 2010:05:27 19:46:20
ExposureTime - 11.6 seconds
FNumber - 22.00








dsc0106gp.jpg

DateTime - 2010:05:27 19:46:52
ExposureTime - 15.9 seconds
FNumber - 20.00





posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
And below an attempt to make a stabilised motion sequence, to show us the movement/direction of the object:





It really looks like a star/planet going to set, due to Earth rotation...of course blured because of shaking.

I still bet on Venus (or other bright celestial object)




[edit on 30/5/10 by depthoffield]

[edit on 30/5/10 by depthoffield]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Rancid-Milk-Man
I might have shook the camera when taking the images but like I said before there was nothing in the clear patch of sky I was shooting at.

When you say that there wasn't anything on that patch of sky do you mean that there weren't any stars visible?

If you want to take photos of stars you should use a low f-number and ISO setting, otherwise you are just getting noise from the sensor.


There wasn't anything visible atleast to me in the patch of sky. I didn't see anything and everywhere else had clouds or airplanes flying through. I'm on the landing path right into o'hare, wasn't an airplane because the landing path is to my left



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by depthoffield

Originally posted by Rancid-Milk-Man

In the beginning I was trying to get the right exposures and zoom length. Those were just test shots but somebody wanted me to post them.


Ok, i realised you've done some testings.


Originally posted by Rancid-Milk-Man
I might have shook the camera when taking the images

That is for sure!! i "enhanced" the photos and the shaking is clear...just some more time to finish the material



Originally posted by Rancid-Milk-Man
but like I said before there was nothing in the clear patch of sky I was shooting at. Maybe there was I didn't see it.


I'm not so sure you didn't saw it...the camera is not so sensitive to light lengthwave spectrum beyound human limits, so most of the recorded light came from visible spectrum. At the average setting you used:

Fnumber 20 to 32 (very small aperture so very small amount of light entered through the lens)
Exposure time: 10 to 30 seconds ("normal" long exposure for "normal" night shots")
ISO 1250 (high sensitivity)

You should be seen the light, i guess is easy visible in above settings.

I still bet on Venus
(or similar)




[edit on 30/5/10 by depthoffield]


Hehehe maybe I'm just blind and I didn't see anything. thanks for enhancing those pictures. They look like daytime images lol.

Would there be anyway to go back in the records and see? I know I'd probably have a better chance of seeing where venus was because I know my coordinates lol



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I was up on my roof the other night also and I was able to snap a shot of leo and Mars right next to each other so I thought you guys might like this

Still can't figure out my problem with the noise

img248.imageshack.us...



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Rancid-Milk-Man
 


If it was Venus then it will be there today, at the same time, and it's easy to spot because it's very bright.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Rancid-Milk-Man
 



Still can't figure out my problem with the noise


The noise problem exists with all digital sensors.

This can be reduced by cooling the sensor many astro specific cameras are peltier cooled but this still does not remove all noise or hot pixels.

When taking pictures of the night sky it is advisable to take a dark frame before you take your target exposure.

Put the lens cover on and take a picture with the same settings you are going to use for the photo including exposure time, this will produce a frame that only has sensor noise and any hot pixels in.

You then need some image software to subtract this frame from your target frame which will eliminate the noise and hot pixels.

I would suggest googling these subjects as my description is very basic but if you are serious about astro photography then you will need to learn these things to produce better images and bear in mind that the longer the exposure the more likely you are going to need a mount with tracking and maybe even a small refractor telescope of around 80mm to improve your results.

Hope that helps



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join