Tips'n'Tricks for you UFO Hunters out there

Hey, don`t know if anyone else thought of this, guess not or we would have heard about it, here`s the deal:

What you should have on your person:
You should have a camera, ideally a dSLR that shoots both 1080p HD video; like a Canon 60D or 7D or 5D or a Nikon with the same specs, or Pentax or Sony (you get the point, a tool that gets the job done).

On that camera you should have a telephoto/supertelephoto or an all around lens with the top focal over 250-300 mm.TIP : The fastest the lens the better, so try to find something f2-8 - f4.0 tops.

Nothing new to this point, it`s common sense that you`ll be able to get highRES stills and video, which is good because you usually need to crop that image, so the more resolution, the better.

Next, and here`s where it gets interesting, you should have a polarizing filter on that lens.For those of you that aren't familiar with the term, let me explain what it is and why you should use it:

Circular polarizers, also referred to as polarizing filters, can be used to create circularly polarized light or alternatively to selectively absorb or pass clockwise and counter-clockwise circularly polarized light. In the non-scientific arena they are used as polarizing filters in photography to reduce glare and are the lenses of the 3D Glasses worn for the viewing of stereoscopic movies that use circularly polarized light to differentiate between the left and right eye images.

So, you won`t get GLARE! What this means, is that when and if you have the chance to capture an UFO on a digital chip(sensor) or on film, you will get details instead of a white blob! The white blob you get is from the polarized light hitting the reflective object.The photons that hit the chip are polarized.With the filter you..well..filter the polarized photons.Pretty neat eh?

YOU GET DETAILS INSTEAD OF BLOBS!

This is how a polarizing filter looks :



Here you can see one of the effects of a polarizer on an image:




Definition of polarizers on Wiki

The filter is screwed on the end of the lens and the diameter of the filter MUST be the same as teh diameter of the lens. You will usually see 52mm, 58mm, 62mm, 67 mm , 77mm etc etc.

Remember, the polarizer is for use in DAYLIGHT!


So, tell me your opinions, ask me if you don`t understand something or just comment. Cheers and hope this was of help.

reply to post by testradio


I REALLY like the concept of your thread but realistically who could carry around a heavy and bulky DSLR all the time? It is simply not feasible IMO. Although I own one, I never leave the house without my small Nikon pocket cam:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/65aef3fe66cb.png[/atsimg]

It is smaller than a pack of cigs and uses 2 AA batteries. L22 12 megapixels and 4x optical zoom. While nowhere near the horsepower of big honking DSLR with lens, it is ALWAYS at the ready. The 12mp image size blows up well and maintains clarity.

When I leave house it's: Keys: check, wallet: check, cell phone: check, camera: check; on weekly commutes/errands. Big camera normally on weekends and night time star gazing.

I'm anxious to learn more tricks, nice thread.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Yes, I know it`s quite the hassle, I really do, I carry a dSLR almost everyday with me, and at least 2 lenses, but this is mearly because I have to, not for UFO hunting.

There is some kind of a workaround: A small backpack or camera bag:
www.tamrac.com...
www.swiss-miss.com...

It fits the camera and your personal stuff like, keys wallet cigarettes and what not.

For the compacts, if I`m not mistaking there are teleconverters that accept the use of a filter.

The problem is not the megapixels of the dslr, not even the optical reach of it, since there are many compacts that equal more than 400mm focal lenght on a full frame camera, the problem is that most compacts do not accept filters, so if the object you try to photograph is hit by sunlight it will probably come out as a blob or a luminous dot with no features.The polarizer overcomes that.

Also I would advise that people don`t shoot JPEG.JPEG blows big time for fine details.

But I certainly know what you mean with the bulkiness problem on big cameras.

And no, I`m not an UFO hunter myself, I really like the subject though, and this forum so I thought I could share something form my area of expertise which could help.

Later edit : And of course to overcome blukiness there are these :



They`re small and accept lenses.

Originally posted by testradio
So, you won`t get GLARE! What this means, is that when and if you have the chance to capture an UFO on a digital chip(sensor) or on film, you will get details instead of a white blob! The white blob you get is from the polarized light hitting the reflective object.The photons that hit the chip are polarized.With the filter you..well..filter the polarized photons.Pretty neat eh?

Most white blobs are the result of bad focusing or camera settings chosen by the photographer, and there's no filter to change that.

My favourite tip: learn how to use your tools.

reply to post by ArMaP


Well, yes, I didn`t mean those, Those are from human error and some people should learn how to manual focus which is another thing that you won`t be pleased with on compacts.

reply to post by kinda kurious


Have you got any good shots with that? I have been using my camera and getting lots of meteor activity and a few things not likely meteors but perfectly circular blue orbs. Other than they do not appear to be moving I cannot tell you anything more about them. I realize that what ever appears I do not have the resolution to make any definitive calls on what it is.
Given possibilities of you or I meeting said UFO while we negotiate for camera, adjust settings, focus and manage to get a good shot are extremely rare, I simply point camera up in the wee hours toward a starry sky and away from light sources as much as possible. Leave it running.
Friend of mine used to do this and we gleaned some very interesting results of objects we could not identify but the photo quality was too poor to really say what they were.

When you think about it even if you are furiously looking up searching for UFO type activity a few things take place.
1) something happens so fast you missed it
2) you think you saw something but perhaps not
3) things flash in and out when you blink
4) somethings the human eye cannot see due to possibly many things, cloaking, dimensional positioning, but the most common is conditioning. Not because the thing is not there. For example you see something so often it blends in with the surroundings and seems to disappear until you consciously bring it back to mind.
So long and short of it is your eyes are unreliable and the camera will only be pulled out if they see something.
Running "random" sky footage and watching it playback allows you to stop and re-examine every time you see a flash in the sky. Every flash.
I have an idea that cloaking devices work only part time and they must power down or recharge for an instant, maybe some engineer trips on a switch but for some reason UFOs will appear and vanish quickly in the same space. Indicating they have not moved away but made themselves invisible. Running footage like this allows the camera to catch it. The camera does not experience any of the limitations above.
If the amount of UFO activity we hear on ATS is actually happening and there are that many ET beings, a reported 57 varieties, the skies have to be teeming with activity right under our noses. Why don't we see it? Not because they are not there but because they have sophisticated (but not foolproof) ways of hiding.

I have found some good cameras but it is hard to find one that will film continuously for at least a full hour and render good quality images. Were it not for that I am sure I have some unknown/alien craft pictures. I live in Florida and we get a good amount of "activity" around these parts. If you have an affordable camera to suggest that does film continuously and as high def as possible for a paupers price (or there abouts ) I would greatly appreciate it since technically I am an admitted dunce when it comes to cameras. Thanks for your thread. Cheers.

reply to post by testradio


Sorry op the first part of the response was to kinda kurious and then I drifted off and was speaking to you here. Realize it may be a bit confusing but still hoping you might give your opinion of an affordable camera that I may adapt to the above settings and that also films continuously on its own for at least an hour. Thanks in advance.

reply to post by newcovenant


Hey, no problemo, I just need to know what you mean with affordable, `cause it`s such a relative term mate .

Originally posted by testradio
reply to post by newcovenant

 

Hey, no problemo, I just need to know what you mean with affordable, `cause it`s such a relative term mate

.

Under a grand. Under $500? What is the best we can do? Thank you. Will check back later. Duties to attend to right now but appreciate your quick reply.

reply to post by newcovenant


The first thing you must chose is what type of data you want.

If you want mostly video then get a video camera. Good photo cameras may have a video option (like mine, a Samsung WB5000), but their video is not as good as the one from a dedicated video camera.

reply to post by ArMaP


Yes and no.New photo cameras(dSLRs) have HD video, like I stated in the first post, which means you get HD(1080p) video and the luxury of interchangeable lenses.What you have is a bridge camera, which is halfway between a compact and an entry level dSLR.And another tip: don`t rely on digital zoom.Rely on optical zoom because digital is crap, it pixelates a whole bunch and you lose tons of detail and end up with blobs even after a ton of sharpening and what not.

reply to post by newcovenant


I`ll give you two examples:
www.bhphotovideo.com...
www.bhphotovideo.com...

These come with the kit lens(18-55 if I`m not mistaking).They are Canons but I`m sure there are even cheaper models form Sony, Pentax and cheaper brands.You can also buy only the body of the camera and buy a separate lens for it( like a cheaper third party lens - let`s say a Tamron 55-200mm f4-5.6).
So yes, for under 1000$ you can get a nice entry level camera and a lens, for under 500 it`s a bit of a stretch but I`m sure you can find a deal.
Also let`s not forget the second hand(used) market; prices there are usually pretty low.

Hope this helped!

reply to post by testradio


You're right, digital zoom must be responsible for something like 20% of YouTube's UFO videos.

Some cameras even have huge digital zoom levels (above 10X), and that creates so much noise and artefacts that it creates its own image.

reply to post by ArMaP


Yes, that`s correct.Plus, some use the digital zoom on the camera and them zoom it again in their video editor, which is also digital zoom and then TA DAAAA : You have 10 pixels that change colors, wow! )

reply to post by newcovenant


No I haven't captured anything to speak of.......yet. In my case it's more about portability and being at the ready. My bigger camera is fine for anything "anticipated" if there is such a thing. This was from the eclipse we had a few months back taken with my bigger camera: (low rez jpeg, choked down for ATS)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/281ad5eebb63.jpg[/atsimg]

Nothing spectacular but good enough for my purposes.

Tripod. Tripod.
Even a mini- tripod with rubber feet and flexible legs.
Steady shots matter.

reply to post by spacedoubt


High ISO sensitivity ans image stabilization are tons better than a tripod if you ask me.
I you`re going to shoot less then 1/125th of a second the object will leave a trail if it`s moving.From 1/60 and higher you can handhold a camera pretty good.
Rule of thumb, shutter speed (optimum ) is 1/lens focal lenght, so for a 200mm lens you need 1/200(in reality you`ll need 1/250.
A good ISO sensitivity gives you double the light so from iso 100 to iso 800 you have 3 full stops of light.Add the image stabilization wich gives you an additional 2-4 stops of light and you have a perfect formula.This is all abot photos.

If we`re talking video then yes, a tripod is good, but better, IMO, is to learn to keep the camera steady.The problems with tripods is that they are bulky.
I agree on the small rubbery ones but meh....you can also use a ledge or the ground and your wallet.You just have to be creative in the moment.

reply to post by testradio


Two tricks I use to avoid shaking the camera too much:
- keep your elbows in contact with your body, it's easier to keep the hands steady.
- if your camera has a strap, keep it strained, the force you use to do that will help avoid sideways movements.

If you are taking a video, as other have said:
1) No digital zoom
2) TRIPOD, TRIPOD, TRIPOD!

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by newcovenant

 

The first thing you must chose is what type of data you want.

If you want mostly video then get a video camera. Good photo cameras may have a video option (like mine, a Samsung WB5000), but their video is not as good as the one from a dedicated video camera.

Thanks much. Would you mind telling me approx cost range of your Samsung and how long it films continuously?

reply to post by kinda kurious


It is spectacular!

Agree with spacedoubt about that tripod too. Essential or everything looks like it is flying.