Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Suggestions on what kind of video camera to use to capture weird objects in the sky?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Razimus
I'd just choose an HD camera, not HD size but actual HD quality, you will find the cheaper models boast HD and when you see the quality of their "HD" you see it's horrible but HD 'sized'



That's because some cameras cheat by using a form of Interpolation.

I'd have to disagree that the OP should be looking for a HD camera, especially if he/she is intending to use it at night. Whilst having HD is great if the light is good, unless you can afford to have a large sensor with large pixels, capturing footage in low light will be a problem.

Having lots of pixels on a sensor means that lot's of the chip's surface area is wasted, when two chips the same size are compared. Not to mention smaller pixels too. Both of these things are inversely proportional to light gathering ability.

In general, large chips, and large pixels are better in low light because they have more surface area for gathering photons which are few and far between in low light. The more photons the sensor can gather, the more signal you have. If you don't have enough signal, noise becomes an issue.

So, better to have a bit less resolution, rather than a picture that's so noisy in low light that you can't make out what is going on (like a lot of UFO footage I've come across) IMHO.




posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
When I get home, I will get you my Panasonic HD 1080 video camera model and show an example. It was in the upper part of your range. It has a setting that turns night into a dreary dayish. And it is still in color. Plus it has tons of zoom. It has I think 50x optical and up to 100x enhanced optical. And perhaps 1000x or more digital zoom. I have some wonderful still frames of the moon you should see.

It is also 3D but I will never use that... Plus a zillion other features. Such as anti shake etc....
edit on 24-10-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Imtor
 


Good question here... My camera has hundreds of settings. Most of them with setting names you would not expect. What could infra red possibly be called if I have it? Just plain old infra red, or something else? For example it may be listed under its use, which is what?



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
One other thing you may want to consider here is that:

If your aim is to prove that you have something that's worth taking a look at (which I assume it is?), just capturing some random light in the sky with little or no "frame/s of reference", as you would be if you went the "hand-held/camcorder" route is not likely to fulfill that aim. Youtube is full of such footage, and very little if any of it gets taken seriously.

On the other hand, if you want your footage of something unusual to be taken seriously, going the PC/detection software route can provide valuable scientific data about an object.

With a single camera/detection software, that data is a bit limited, but at least you will have accurate timing of the object, and useful data regarding the brightness of the object.

The real bonus comes if you can find someone about 50 miles (about the optimum distance apart for gathering data from objects entering the atmosphere - meteors enter the atmosphere (become visible) at about 100km) from your camera location who can also run a similar camera setup that points at the same part of the sky as yours. If both cameras catch the same object at the same time, the data from both cameras can be compared/triangulated (using software) and the altitude/speed/orbit of the object calculated.

This kind of data, plus the fact that the UFO was recorded on two independent cameras, would give you some compelling evidence that something real and unusual is going on, providing of course that you actually captured something that did not have characteristics of any known objects/phenomena.

Of course, there are already many cameras around the world like this, but still no evidence of anything truly unusual that I have come across.

See the links in my previous post here for more info.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
This probably doesn't apply to the OP, but what I think is best is my camera-control software with two Sony EVI-D30s (now $50 or less used, even though they were originally expensive). But this system is really only for someone who lives within three miles of a UFO hotspot, and it is designed to automatically detect, zoom, and photograph any large hovering object in 3D within a second or so of its arrival. The software also contains hoaxproofing, and an FOIA request for FAA and weather radar data will help back up the evidence thus produced, hopefully leaving debunkers up the creek without a propulsion system in the face of clear, zoomed, authentic, 3D photographic evidence with tracking data stamped on every frame.

The last post in my thread "Getting the Evidence" explains the latest version in more detail:

Getting the Evidence, page 3



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Ok I am home. Now these pictures were stills from my videos. And were nothing near fully zoomed. I think just a miniscule fraction of the max. At the max you would see aliens walking on the moon although they would not be crisp shots.
They are from my first attempts with my camera so I am certain that I can do much better with some experience. Plus my tripod is an expensive one, but old. It kept drifting on me, so I lost some clarity. The half moon is from my first attempt. And the much better full moon was from my second.

I can't remember my settings that I used. So my advice after experimenting, is to write them down and tape them to your camera. I think some other good advice is to practice on the moon. Then daytime planes, birds and butterflies. Then try some night time planes. I never got around to practicing again. I tend to procrastinate.
Oh and I owe you one video from the pitch dark.

Model number HC-V500M Full HD 1920X1080 3D 32.4mm AVCHD Progressive. 50X optical with 100X intelligent zoon.2500X digital zoom Oh and it has a whole slew of manual settings. But I haven't even started looking at all of those. Sooo.... many... Oh and it does have some sort of tracking. Not certain if it is for both humans and objects.






edit on 24-10-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx2112
 

Thanks for the replies all.. Keep Em coming please.

I will catch one of these sob's aka ufo.. Either on video or still and when I do of course I will let you all at it. It will be directly from device maybe 10 min, then to pc or my Mac maybe for 2min, then to YouTube. Have to use YouTube to place somewhere, right. You can't directly load vids to ats, right?

Also when I buy my hardware I will enable all the settings so the video or image can be traced.

Btw. Another incident last night over Virginia. Two objects, though one looked like ISS, but the funny things is there were two objects. Then I thought wasn't there suppose to be a docking coming up soon or even last night?

Either way my eyes are towards the sky's now more than ever. So a good video camera will come in handy.

Oh another question, are there cameras or video cameras that mark gps location or terrestrial point location in the details of the video or image?



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Over here in England I've signed up to a few auction sites that specifically deal in hitech stuff. there's a lot of TV stations and others offloading some very expensive gear at relatively silly prices as the new generation of equipment comes in. Usually this gear might be a tad *old* however, being pro gear, the optics were paramount and the zooms tend to be analogue not digital. There are cameras that were 15k when new going for 1.5K and sometimes less, over here. So I'd have a look round for those sort of specialist sites and even contact a few local TV stations and ask, can you be contacted should they be upgrading or downsizing in the near future.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx2112
Btw. Another incident last night over Virginia. Two objects, though one looked like ISS, but the funny things is there were two objects. Then I thought wasn't there suppose to be a docking coming up soon or even last night?


If you enter your location on heavens-above.com you can find out if the ISS was visible at a particular time.

I had a quick check with the assumption that you are somewhere near the coast in NE Virginia and found a single visible ISS pass on the 25th @ 19:27-19:30.

I'm not sure if a re-supply mission was in progress at the time. I don't recall hearing about one, although I may well have missed it as I don't follow this kind of news usually.

Since you said there were two objects, one following the other, another possibility may be debris from the recent Russian Proton/Briz-M failure.

Get yourself a sensitive enough camera that will record background stars, and you will be able to identify satellites yourself using software/techniques like those I outlined here: How to view, track, and identify satellites

I used DSLRs for my examples, but frames from video footage can be used in the same way, as long as there are enough stars recorded along with the object.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by olaru12

Pornographic quality? What's that? Did you just have a Freudian slip perhap; when you meant photographic quality?

You can get pornographic quality with a FLIP camcorder.
edit on 24-10-2012 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)


It's a turn of phrase indicating that the quality is so detailed and spectacular, no matter what you take a video of, even if it's just gardening plants, birds on your lawn, whatever, you'll be 'happy' with the quality.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 


So how long have you had this and if you have some pics post them.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by xpoq47
 


So how long have you had this and if you have some pics post them.


It’s not in operation in the field yet. I’m just developing the software, and it will have to be used by others, specifically people who live close to UFO hotspots, mostly in New Mexico. But the performance of the software already far exceeds my original expectations, and I found that a certain model of CCTV camera with high-def output and motorized pan, tilt, and zoom is not only perfect for this but now very cheap used. But once this is set up, it has the potential of turning the whole UFO scene on its ear if there really is any such thing out there—with zoomed, shutter-synced, stereoscopic video plus corroborating radar data (to be requested under the FOIA when and if anything falls into this trap).

I changed my signature below to link to the thread about it, which goes into more detail.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 


Sorry if you are going to use Sony EVI D30's as stated in your link well first of all they are not HD!!!

Video Signal: NTSC (EVI-D30), PAL (EVI-D31)

Image Sensor: 1/3" IT Color CCD

Effective Pixels: 768 H x 492 V (EVI-D30), 752 H x 585 V (EVI-D31)

Horizontal Resolution: 460 TV Lines (EVI-D30), 450 TV Lines (EVI-D31)

Vertical Resolution: 350 TV Lines (EVI-D30), 400 TV Lines (EVI-D31)

Tiny sensor and not really for low light levels!



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
That's why they're less than $50 on eBay, but I've looked at the specs of lots of cameras that cost 20-30 times as much yet don't beat it by much. The EVI-D30 is good enough and cheap enough for price not to get in the way of making this happen. And I've read that 720p still meets the definition of HD even though plenty of today's cameras beat that. I couldn't find the original list price of the EVI-D30, but I did find it for the EVI-D90, not the newest but one later in the series: $4,000. And computer-controllable pan/tilt heads on which to mount whatever camera you like up to 15 pounds are expensive. I have control codes for two of the protocols for those, but I think the price of the EVI-D30 is the overriding factor. I will be hard enough to get anyone who lives next to one of those UFO hotspots to do this, and free software and low-priced cameras help pave the way.

Besides, I’m making the software and not charging money for it. And to finish up I have to buy two computer-controllable, motorized pan/tilt/zoom cameras, and I’d rather they be as cheap as possible. It’s not like the CIA is going to give me a research grant.

Here’s what a 40-foot disc a little over a mile away at 12x zoom looks like in the program’s Demo mode. A greater optical zoom factor and higher resolution would be nice, but video like this from two cameras 20 meters apart with data stamps will certainly beat anything we’ve gotten so far.

screenshot of demo



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 


HD tv resolutions are 1920 h x 1080 v or 1280 h x 720v

Your cameras

Effective Pixels: 768 H x 492 V (EVI-D30), 752 H x 585 V (EVI-D31)

Horizontal Resolution: 460 TV Lines (EVI-D30), 450 TV Lines (EVI-D31)

As you can see you have not got HD



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Go with the Sony Hi8 TRV615 it was forced off the market because it was TOO GOOD. They are out there for about $100



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Okay, I'd better not call it HD. But I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars to test free software that nobody will use if they have to spend spend thousands of dollars on camera equipment to use with it.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Go with the Sony Hi8 TRV615 it was forced off the market because it was TOO GOOD. They are out there for about $100


What makes you claim that it's not that good!



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Okay, I'd better not call it HD. But I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars to test free software that nobody will use if they have to spend spend thousands of dollars on camera equipment to use with it.



If anyone is going to get anything worthwhile it will be a pro with pro equipment or a good amatuer with a good DSLR used with manual focus and a good lens!



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by xpoq47
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Okay, I'd better not call it HD. But I'm not going to spend thousands of dollars to test free software that nobody will use if they have to spend spend thousands of dollars on camera equipment to use with it.



If anyone is going to get anything worthwhile it will be a pro with pro equipment or a good amatuer with a good DSLR used with manual focus and a good lens!


Not so true. It would be nice if a pro does capture such an incident. So if one does, then the better, till then I'm still looking for my 4th unexplainable (to me) incident and will snap and vid away....






top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution