are there cases where UFOs are invisible to photography?

I try to photograph interdimensional craft whenever I can and trust me when I say it's not easy to do properly with an average camera, let alone a cellphone.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
A camera records the same light a human eye detects.

As Imtor pointed out, this is actually not correct. As he or she pointed out, certain cameras/sensors can record parts of the spectrum that human vision is not sensitive to.

To add to that a bit, and just as important IMO is that not all camera systems are as sensitive to visible light. It depends on the camera system, and crucially the sensor (or film) and the lens/aperture.

Some camera systems are simply more sensitive to light than others, and specialized cameras can be many time more sensitive to light than the human eye.

Conversely, the opposite can be true, and it is in the case of older cameras, if we are talking cutting edge vs cutting edge.

In answer to the OP's question (could a camera fail to record what the eye sees?), as a photographer of over 14 years trying to photograph all kinds of natural atmospheric phenomena, especially meteors, I would say, yes, definitely. It's easy to underestimate the ability of your camera system to record faint light sources, and cameras of yesteryear were not that sensitive compared to today's cameras.

There was an earlier person who related a story about photographing a metallic ball at 70 meters with an older digital camera. Visually the ball was clear, but the photographs were blurry blobs of color. How does the average digital camera handle moving objects when it is set for automatic?

Originally posted by cloudyday

How does the average digital camera handle moving objects when it is set for automatic?

Normally not very well if not in sports or manual modes,the autofocus generally won't track with a moving object once it's first got focus lock.If the object is at infinity when we first focus on it and then moves a lot closer it won't stay focussed.

Originally posted by Cybernet
I try to photograph interdimensional craft whenever I can and trust me when I say it's not easy to do properly with an average camera, let alone a cellphone.

edit on 3/2/12 by Cybernet because: (no reason given)

I'm assuming from your comment that you must see a lot of UFOs. Either the UFOs like you or you know something about UFO behaviour to increase your odds of finding them. I've only seen one UFO and that was so far away that it might have been something ordinary like a helicopter. It apparently vanished when I tried to get my camera out of the camera bag - almost like it didn't want to be photographed. I knew I wouldn't be able to take its picture, but I wanted to use the zoom lens to see it better. That's why I think it wasn't a helicopter.

If you know some tricks to finding UFOs I would like to know them.

Originally posted by Imagewerx

Originally posted by cloudyday

How does the average digital camera handle moving objects when it is set for automatic?

Normally not very well if not in sports or manual modes,the autofocus generally won't track with a moving object once it's first got focus lock.If the object is at infinity when we first focus on it and then moves a lot closer it won't stay focussed.

What you said earlier about built-in image processing in the camera makes me think that people should turn that feature off - just in case they have the opportunity to photograph a UFO - that way the image would be easier to study.

reply to post by cloudyday


I agree with what Imagewerx said, in general.

I would also say, people who have an interest in UFOs should invest in a DSLR, which would be much better suited to photographing UFOs/tricky to photograph subjects. There's no excuse for not having one as they are cheap now.

Even if you can't afford to buy new, there are plenty of second hand DSLRs available at reasonable prices that will do a much better job than consumer digi-cams.

Of course you will also need a decent lens (or two) and tripod to make the most of a DSLR, along with a few other accessories, but a savvy shopper could still do it on a budget of around £300 (~$500).

Originally posted by cloudyday

Originally posted by Imagewerx

Originally posted by cloudyday

How does the average digital camera handle moving objects when it is set for automatic?

Normally not very well if not in sports or manual modes,the autofocus generally won't track with a moving object once it's first got focus lock.If the object is at infinity when we first focus on it and then moves a lot closer it won't stay focussed.

What you said earlier about built-in image processing in the camera makes me think that people should turn that feature off - just in case they have the opportunity to photograph a UFO - that way the image would be easier to study.

It doesn't make that much difference to what we can get out if we just want to point and shoot and not spend any time in the virtual darkroom afterwards,all it does is adds preset amounts of sharpening,colour saturation,brightness and contrast.That's why a compact camera will give photos more pleasing to the eye from it's default settings because people who buy and use compacts only want to take snaps,those who use DSLR cameras are more interested in taking proper photos so will normally want to have more control over the final image.
If we only turn one of them down it should be contrast,but there's no reason why we can't turn all of them down because we can always increase the various levels in Photoshop if there's not enough,but if detail is lost because there's too much of everything it will be a lot more difficult to recover it (if we can).

A lot of photography "experts" (a term I use VERY loosely) will say you should always shoot in RAW if you want the very best quality images.I've tried this and although eating up memory like it was going out of fashion,I couldn't get any better results than with JPEGs with no in-camera processing applied,in fact even zoomed right in to individual pixel level I couldn't see any difference.

The other problem I see a lot of is so many people don't know how to photograph a moving object without blur.They pan with the subject,stop to press the shutter and then start panning with the subject again after they've taken the photo.You need to follow through (no childish remarks please),and keep panning as you press the shutter in one fluid movement.
Also they don't give the camera a chance to focus properly,they just point it at clear blue sky and expect it to focus on several trillion invisible droplets of water vapour,then they wonder why it won't even let them take the photo.

reply to post by cloudyday


There is evidence out there where a UFO is caught on CCTV above a German Science Lab in Antarctica. In one frame all you see is the lab and plain skies and in just one frame you see a cloaked UFO trying to look like a lenticular cloud. This leads me to theorize that the reason why the sailors did not see anything on camera is due to the UFO's cloaking-lenticualr cloud action. But then again, it's a theory..

reply to post by miguelgsaucedo


Here is a link to that CCTV video I was talking about.

www.strangetimesusa.com...

Take a look at it and let me know what you think. Could be a cloud. Could be a cloaked UFO.
We'll find out soon enough...

Originally posted by miguelgsaucedo
reply to post by miguelgsaucedo

 

Here is a link to that CCTV video I was talking about.

www.strangetimesusa.com...

Take a look at it and let me know what you think. Could be a cloud. Could be a cloaked UFO.
We'll find out soon enough...

Those are strange pictures, but I don't know enough about natural atmospheric phenomena to voice a useful opinion. The black spot looks very weird to me, but again I don't know what is possible naturally. I know I've never seen anything like that before.

Originally posted by miguelgsaucedo
There is evidence out there where a UFO is caught on CCTV above a German Science Lab in Antarctica. In one frame all you see is the lab and plain skies and in just one frame you see a cloaked UFO trying to look like a lenticular cloud. This leads me to theorize that the reason why the sailors did not see anything on camera is due to the UFO's cloaking-lenticualr cloud action. But then again, it's a theory..

The footage is basically a time-lapse, There could be many minutes between individual frames. I've seen lenticular clouds form and disappear in a few minutes. I don't see anything in the footage that would lead me to believe what we are seeing here is anything else but a lenticular cloud.

The whole thing about UFOs "cloaking" bothers me - if an ET craft wanted to hide from people, why would it take a shape that looks like what most people would regards as a "UFO shape"? It makes no sense.

It's really a cop out IMO - why not "cloak" as more common objects that would be less likely to draw attention to themselves, like jets/helicopters/regular clouds? You could also say that, that car, or that tree, or the moon, or that hill is a UFO. It would be just as valid IMO, but where would it get us?

At the end of the day, the question we should ask ourselves is "does it do anything/have any characteristics which might indicate that the UFO is anything else than a normal terrestrial object apart from having the shape of an object that some people assume to be the shape of an alien craft?"

Do you know what an alien craft looks like anyway? Have you ever seen a confirmed alien craft?

I certainly don't/haven't, although I have seen things I could not identify with any certainty. That does not mean what I saw was necessarily anything alien (or at least intelligent ETs). It could be anything.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

Originally posted by miguelgsaucedo
There is evidence out there where a UFO is caught on CCTV above a German Science Lab in Antarctica. In one frame all you see is the lab and plain skies and in just one frame you see a cloaked UFO trying to look like a lenticular cloud. This leads me to theorize that the reason why the sailors did not see anything on camera is due to the UFO's cloaking-lenticualr cloud action. But then again, it's a theory..

The footage is basically a time-lapse, There could be many minutes between individual frames. I've seen lenticular clouds form and disappear in a few minutes. I don't see anything in the footage that would lead me to believe what we are seeing here is anything else but a lenticular cloud.

The whole thing about UFOs "cloaking" bothers me - if an ET craft wanted to hide from people, why would it take a shape that looks like what most people would regards as a "UFO shape"? It makes no sense.

It's really a cop out IMO - why not "cloak" as more common objects that would be less likely to draw attention to themselves, like jets/helicopters/regular clouds? You could also say that, that car, or that tree, or the moon, or that hill is a UFO. It would be just as valid IMO, but where would it get us?

At the end of the day, the question we should ask ourselves is "does it do anything/have any characteristics which might indicate that the UFO is anything else than a normal terrestrial object apart from having the shape of an object that some people assume to be the shape of an alien craft?"

Do you know what an alien craft looks like anyway? Have you ever seen a confirmed alien craft?

I certainly don't/haven't, although I have seen things I could not identify with any certainty. That does not mean what I saw was necessarily anything alien (or at least intelligent ETs). It could be anything.

It does bring up an interesting point: with all the cheap security cameras - some infrared - I wonder how many UFOs are being photographed and nobody knows? Most people don't look at the security recordings unless a crime happens. Somebody should write image processing software to search these recordings for possible UFOs. A UFO enthusiast could point several security cameras at the sky and use a PC as a DVR. The PC could run this image processing software constantly and send an alert when something shows up.

Originally posted by cloudyday
Somebody should write image processing software to search these recordings for possible UFOs.

You mean like UFO capture?

There are already lots of camera networks that run 24-7 trying to capture transient atmospheric phenomena like meteors and sprites, and from time to time they do pick up UFOs (in the true sense of the phrase - an unidentified object that could be anything), but so far I have not come across any capture that whilst being puzzling, suggests it would be anything of unusual ET nature.

Good point though. I'm sure many UFOs go unnoticed.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

Originally posted by cloudyday
Somebody should write image processing software to search these recordings for possible UFOs.

You mean like UFO capture?

There are already lots of camera networks that run 24-7 trying to capture transient atmospheric phenomena like meteors and sprites, and from time to time they do pick up UFOs (in the true sense of the phrase - an unidentified object that could be anything), but so far I have not come across any capture that whilst being puzzling, suggests it would be anything of unusual ET nature.

Good point though. I'm sure many UFOs go unnoticed.

Since the users of UFO capture are looking for meteors and tuning the software to avoid false alerts, they might be missing the UFOs. For example, a meteor would move quickly in a straight line and UFOs don't always do that.

The best way to spot UFOs is for the software to classify every event into a natural phenomenon. For example the software must know birds, lightning, airplanes, helicopters, balloons, meteors, Venus, etc. Then it would send an alert for anything in the sky that it can't identify - a UFO.

However, the fact that none of these meteor hunting enthusiasts has seen a UFO makes me think something is fishy. It seems like someone should have seen something.

Originally posted by cloudyday
However, the fact that none of these meteor hunting enthusiasts has seen a UFO makes me think something is fishy. It seems like someone should have seen something.

Or it could just mean that people that are well acquainted to observing the nights sky (most experienced meteor enthusiasts are in my experience), are able to identify objects that others would class as a "UFO", and that "true" UFOs are much fewer and further between than most people into UFOs seem to think.

Also, although I have not personally used UFO capture, I believe it can be configured so that anything "unusual" triggers it, not just meteor like objects. I'm sure most people running the software would configure it this way. I certainly would, although it's more work to go though each night's captures.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

Originally posted by cloudyday
However, the fact that none of these meteor hunting enthusiasts has seen a UFO makes me think something is fishy. It seems like someone should have seen something.

Or it could just mean that people that are well acquainted to observing the nights sky (most experienced meteor enthusiasts are in my experience), are able to identify objects that others would class as a "UFO", and that "true" UFOs are much fewer and further between than most people into UFOs seem to think.

Also, although I have not personally used UFO capture, I believe it can be configured so that anything "unusual" triggers it, not just meteor like objects. I'm sure most people running the software would configure it this way. I certainly would, although it's more work to go though each night's captures.

You're probably right that UFOs are more rare than people realize. I've heard that 95% of UFO reports are easily debunked. Most of the other 5% are probably actually bunk too; they just aren't easily debunked with the standard explanations.

reply to post by cloudyday


I couldn't have put it better myself

reply to post by cloudyday


You could be right as there will be a natural variation of light spectrum sensitivity from individual to individual.
This is a good basic review.

www.ucblueash.edu...
Wavelengths shorter than 315 nm are absorbed by the cornea (causing injury) and do not reach the retina. Retinal sensitivity sometimes extends (with very low sensitivity) to 1000 to 1050 nm.

750nm to 1000nm is infra-red spectrum.

Interestingly we can best detect green wavelengths in low light conditions.

Originally posted by ManInAsia
reply to post by cloudyday

 

You could be right as there will be a natural variation of light spectrum sensitivity from individual to individual.
This is a good basic review.

www.ucblueash.edu...
Wavelengths shorter than 315 nm are absorbed by the cornea (causing injury) and do not reach the retina. Retinal sensitivity sometimes extends (with very low sensitivity) to 1000 to 1050 nm.

750nm to 1000nm is infra-red spectrum.

Interestingly we can best detect green wavelengths in low light conditions.

edit on 6-2-2012 by ManInAsia because: (no reason given)

Is it possible that the retina cells have some measurable sensitivity to infrared but the information is filtered-out of our ordinary awareness as it flows through our brain because it is not normally useful? Some bright infrared source like a UFO might be visible but its shape and colour could be very subjective due to the poor sensitivity and filtering.