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.

 

Strange object hits wind turbine 2009.Similar object photographed 5000 miles away July 2013.

page: 7
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   

iPhone 4 main camera:

5.0 Mpixels (2592 x 1936)
1/3.2" back-illuminated CMOS sensor
4:3 aspect ratio
35 mm film camera crop factor: 7.64
Low ISO 80 (or better)
3.85 mm lens focal length
f/2.8 lens aperture
Autofocus: tap to focus


Equivalent 35mm film camera and lens:

30 mm f/22


So, don't throw away your FourThird, APS-C or full frame SLR


Besides the deep depth of field


Underlined above or do you still want to argue the point!!!!




posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by canDarian
 


PROOF please that was not altered by the many iphone apps


I wouldn't worry it should be clear to anyone that that isn't a photo taken three feet away with a circa 30mm equivalent lens unless it's some new kind of giant chain link fence you can fit your body through.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
lol the fence is steel like any fence,I have nothing to prove yeesh.It was cropped and the colour boosted and a sierra filter used.And you can lock your DOF to get a shallow focus.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by fatdeeman
 


I agree but it hasn't really been shown that it's not an object at a good distance with motion blur. Not saying it is for fact, but it doesn't seem like a bug to me. We are talking about a digital camera with pixels, something moving at a distance wouldn't be great quality.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by canDarian




I'd like to add that all the while these responses keep coming in yet not one person has answered the question of where the objects wings are if this in the foreground.



If it's a fly their wings can beat very fast!!!


A housefly's wing beat about 200 times a second, and some midges move their wings 1,000 times a second."


Iphone depth of field info chart

The depth of field in your photography can have a dramatic effect on your subjects. A focus distance of four feet or more with the iPhone 3GS/4 means everything to the horizon will be in focus. But a focus distance of 4 to 18 inches can bring some compositional magic to your photos.
Depth of Field Distance Values Focus Distance to Subject (inches) Near Focus Point (inches) Far Focus Point (inches)
4 3.5 4.5
8 6.5 10
12 9 18
18 12 34
48 and greater 19 ∞

So for subject at 48 inches depth of field 19 inches to infinity

NOW has it sunk in re SMALL sensors and depth of field!!!!
edit on 27-7-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Do you think given the sizes of other objects in the photo a wasp or bug would show up that size in a photo within 2 and a half feet?



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Yes your quite good at copying and pasting info but as I stated above DOF can be locked but I guess you didn't know you can do that with an iPhone,and even a hummingbirds wings would be shown albeit very blurry you would still see something.

Your logic appears to be that a flapping wing becomes non existent to a camera lens,which is absolutely false.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Do you think given the sizes of other objects in the photo a wasp or bug would show up that size in a photo within 2 and a half feet?


We cant tell the exact distance to the out of focus object but we can see it has to be closer using all data re the iphone


Out of interest here is a slightly out of focus fly rear end!!!



Compare that with the comments re the out of focus object!!



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
lol that proves nothing other then the fact whoever took it doesn't know how to use a camera since nothing in the picture is in focus lol.

And what data is that,there isn't enough data to say whether or not it's in the foreground or background,period.

Given the fact that no wings are present I would opt for background on that alone but you can also add the fact the object shows some warping which indicate it was taken at distance.


edit on 27-7-2013 by canDarian because: esuaceb



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by canDarian
Yes your quite good at copying and pasting info but as I stated above DOF can be locked but I guess you didn't know you can do that with an iPhone,and even a hummingbirds wings would be shown albeit very blurry you would still see something.

Your logic appears to be that a flapping wing becomes non existent to a camera lens,which is absolutely false.


WE don't know the shutter speed do we, a fly's wings are almost transparent are a hummingbirds are they as small as a fly


Here is an image taken with a Nikon at 1/250th of a second



Even though close focused on the fly one wing cant be seen and that fly fills the image!!!

So what are your comments re iphone depth of field



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by canDarian
Yes your quite good at copying and pasting info but as I stated above DOF can be locked but I guess you didn't know you can do that with an iPhone,and even a hummingbirds wings would be shown albeit very blurry you would still see something.

Your logic appears to be that a flapping wing becomes non existent to a camera lens,which is absolutely false.



DOF can be locked? What exactly do you mean by this?

Do you mean you can lock the aperture? IE aperture priority? If so you're missing the point everyone is making which is that the depth of field is dictated by BOTH the sensor size and the lens aperture, F/2.8 on an iphone is equal to F/22 on a 35mm camera, F/22 is not a setting that will give shallow depth of field. Even landscape photographers consider it overkill. So locking it to F/2.8 is just locking it to a setting that doesn't give shallow depth of field when the lens is focused more then a few feet away.

What you can't do with in iphone is change the laws of optics/physics etc

You're trying to discredit people while using terminology that isn't consistent with photographic knowledge.
edit on 27-7-2013 by fatdeeman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by canDarian
lol that proves nothing other then the fact whoever took it doesn't know how to use a camera since nothing in the picture is in focus lol.

And what data is that,there isn't enough data to say whether or not it's in the foreground or background,period.

Given the fact that no wings are present I would opt for background on that alone but you can also add the fact the object shows some warping which indicate it was taken at distance.


edit on 27-7-2013 by canDarian because: esuaceb


Just shows you jump to conclusions they do know how to focus I applied the blur!!!!



You may have a D5 but you don't know as much as you think!!!



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by fatdeeman
 


It's only clearly in the foreground if you are certain it's out of focus and not motion blur. I would contest that it's too far away to be seen if it was a bug or a wasp (even if it's in the foreground it's several feet from the lense), and to small and takes up too little of the shot to be anywhere near the lense. I would love to know how far away you guys think this 'bug' is to be that says.

That said, it's not a ufo or a tentacle monster, because those things don't exist, but it's not a bug near the lense either.


Why would it be several feet from the lens? Why not closer?



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
This argument is getting reciprocal,on one hand you agree there isn't enough data available whilst simultaneously pushing your idea that it's definitively in the foreground.I have shown how DOF can be locked on the iPhone with a stock phone with no apps,there are no wings present and there is definitely enough resolution for that object to show wings if they were actually present.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


No you can't because you haven't really proven it's within the 2 and a half feet needed to be out of focus, or at a great distance and blurred by motion. I still contest the object is too big to be a wasp at 2 and a half feet given the person as a frame of reference, and it doesn't take up enough of the frame to be exceptionally close. Can't you tell how unusual the proportions are?

I'm not saying it's something unnatural, but I really think your off about it being a wasp. I would be more inclined to believe it was something like a remote control helicopter of some sort that someone off camera is flying over the edge and in the background.

This isn't like other bug pictures. Tose are usually objects at an extreme close range with an artificial light. A wasp would be going at a good speed, and be pretty much invisible at that distance in the sunlight.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by canDarian
Yes your quite good at copying and pasting info but as I stated above DOF can be locked



So for subject at 48 inches depth of field 19 inches to infinity are you claiming the person in the picture is closer than 48 inches


Dof cant be locked
the table posted above shows the data at very close focus it has a shallow depth of field but once your point of focus is further 4 feet or greater everything from 19" to infinity is in focus.

You didn't know how sensor size dictates depth of field on now you will try everything to avoid saying you were wrong!



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by canDarian
This argument is getting reciprocal,on one hand you agree there isn't enough data available whilst simultaneously pushing your idea that it's definitively in the foreground.I have shown how DOF can be locked on the iPhone with a stock phone with no apps,there are no wings present and there is definitely enough resolution for that object to show wings if they were actually present.


I still don't even know what DOF locked means.

Here's the deal, to get shallow depth of field with an iphone the subject has to be very close, this is a FACT based on the lens specification and the sensor size, you cannot backup your claim that the photo was taken with a subject distance of 3 feet.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by fatdeeman
 


After 2 and a half feet it would be in focus and if it were within a few inches it is going to be bigger. I don't see how no one else can tell the proportions are off to claim it's a bug.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


No you can't because you haven't really proven it's within the 2 and a half feet needed to be out of focus, or at a great distance and blurred by motion. I still contest the object is too big to be a wasp at 2 and a half feet given the person as a frame of reference, and it doesn't take up enough of the frame to be exceptionally close. Can't you tell how unusual the proportions are?

I'm not saying it's something unnatural, but I really think your off about it being a wasp. I would be more inclined to believe it was something like a remote control helicopter of some sort that someone off camera is flying over the edge and in the background.

This isn't like other bug pictures. Tose are usually objects at an extreme close range with an artificial light. A wasp would be going at a good speed, and be pretty much invisible at that distance in the sunlight.


WHO said 2 and a half feet look at the posts above

For an iphone FOCUSED on a subject 4 ft or greater depth of field is 19" to infinity we cant tell how close it is but we can see its out of focus so it's closer than 19" how much we dont know.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
All I am saying I am sure about is that if it's in the foreground it's quite a bit bigger than a wasp, and it could be in the background (it's still possible).

I don't think it's other worldly but the proportions are off for it to be a wasp or anything that size or smaller.




top topics



 
26
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join