Still no undeniable photos/video

Originally posted by Specimen
Digital Cameras Pro: Convenient since you can take it every where. Picture can be viewed right after. Cheap too.

Cons: Not as sharp, or as clear, also can't take picture of moving targets. Distance becomes a problem too.

That depends on the camera and the person using it

reply to post by wmd_2008


I know I got 55 in photography years ago and I just wanted the art credit, but my teach said the old skool ones can ridiculously faster shutter speeds. They can take picture of race car going top speeds, and can capture the whole car, without it being blurred(minus the background.)

Digital just seems brand new and fancy at times. Also, I don't think the pixel-ation helps for long distances, especially if you want full detail of your target.

The old ones were crude, but accuracy detail wise, it almost incomparable.

Which type of camera do sport photographers prefer? The old flash and film, although they use top of line lenses, which are considerably expensive, like at least 40,000.

Do think u digital was good enough to capture Micheal Jordan flying?(even though they didn't have digital back in the day.)

But like I said, I got 55 in photo class. Not really my field of interest. Asking photo pro or teachers could make better explanations between the two technologies.

reply to post by Specimen


Digital cameras can absolutely capture insanely fast moving targets and render them better than film depending on the camera. NASCAR stills are taken with digital and no blurring.

reply to post by Specimen


And sports photogs use digital...not sure why you think they don't.

Canon EOS-1D X is the camera of choice for most sports photogs.

reply to post by raymundoko


www.kenrockwell.com...

Like I said, 55! In High Skool.

Like I Care. It vinly vs cds(mp3) in my mind.

P.S: Article is a little outdated like film, but it was number one in google search.

reply to post by Specimen


I've used both in my life. My old Canon AE-1 SLR camera and now my Canon EOS Rebel T3i DSLR.

Here's a picture of the Rebel (still bulky as any old SLR camera:




With my new DSLR I can change the ISO on the fly (in other words, the old SLR camera if I bought ISO 800 film, that is what every single frame would be on that roll unless I asked the developer to push it). I can use up to ISO 6400 with my digital camera on one frame and then spin it down to ISO 200 the next frame if I want.

Shutter speed on my camera is fast, coupled with a fast ISO and I can get images like this one I took:



Barely a blur on the blades at all.

The camera is so fast, I was able to capture my son releasing his arrow (accidently) from his 22# compound bow. His hand has released and the bow string and arrow are in motion:



Now, that's my very expensive DSLR camera. Most cell phone cameras are not going to give you this quality, and some cheap 80 dollar digital camera bought at Walmart isn't either.

But I would say digital has come a LONG way from when I first saw it being used a long time ago.

Originally posted by Specimen
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

I know I got 55 in photography years ago and I just wanted the art credit, but my teach said the old skool ones can ridiculously faster shutter speeds. They can take picture of race car going top speeds, and can capture the whole car, without it being blurred(minus the background.)

Digital just seems brand new and fancy at times. Also, I don't think the pixel-ation helps for long distances, especially if you want full detail of your target.

The old ones were crude, but accuracy detail wise, it almost incomparable.

Which type of camera do sport photographers prefer? The old flash and film, although they use top of line lenses, which are considerably expensive, like at least 40,000.

Do think u digital was good enough to capture Micheal Jordan flying?(even though they didn't have digital back in the day.)

But like I said, I got 55 in photo class. Not really my field of interest. Asking photo pro or teachers could make better explanations between the two technologies.

edit on 29-8-2013 by Specimen because: (no reason given)

Michael Jordon NO PROBLEM

Here is a BMX rider doing a trick 6 pictures from a 7 fps burst all at 1/4000th of a second.



Here is a close up from the first picture of that set.



That's not even the full res jpeg the camera produced of around 4mb or if shot in RAW it would be 16mb.

The SPEED required to stop an object in motion changes with the relative direction of the object with respect to the camera, ACROSS the frame requires a faster speed than an object traveling towards or away from the camera.

I have had 30+ years to practice started with a FULLY manual SLR and although my Sony SLT DSLR has lots of bells & whistles I still take many shots in manual !!!

Russian dash cams and CCTV have produced some, but very little ufo evidence. You'd think there'd be tonnes of Russian dash cam ufos by now.

Originally posted by Nephilimsreturn
We live in a world where everyone has a cellphone (smartphone). Still hundreds of people report seeing UFO, aliens, and having contact with them, and yet, with millions of people carrying said smartphones, and with pretty good cameras and video recording capabilities, we still see no clear, undeniable photos or video of UFOS and/or aliens.

Thoughts?

They're time travelers, or something like that, and every time somebody gets a clear unambiguous image (with other evidence) they go back in time and make sure it never happened. Because they can do that.

Also, images of any kind by themselves without associated solid evidence are nothing but a curiosity. Everything can be denied.

Originally posted by Alundra
reply to post by Nephilimsreturn

 

Even if a UFO landed on the white house lawn , some people would still call it a hoax until they see it with their own eyes ! I guess the truth or the evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

Everybody always says that, because it hasn't happened yet and it can't be proven unless it happens. It's a kind of skepticism in reverse, which is apparently okay. Both things need evidence and proof to be proven.

But there's nothing stopping it from happening, is there? A White House lawn landing. Is it in the realm of possibility? Of course.

What I can't understand is people willing to accept crappy evidence as proof just because it corresponds to their own personal beliefs. If it's possible for me to see with my own two eyes a flying saucer sitting on the White House lawn, why would I settle for anything less? If I wanted to be absolutely sure. Why settle for a third-hand story or a blurry photo?

Some people are just lazy when it comes to what they choose to believe, because it makes them uncomfortable to not know something.

Don`t agree about the idea that smartphones are that bad I took some great shots of a Vulcan bomber that flew over my workplace last year. The technology is getting better all the time

reply to post by Nephilimsreturn


I have 5 or 6 strange sightings of UFO's (unidentified flying objects not spacecrafts), never for one moment thought about taking photos (I just wanted to look and afraid to loose one second of what was happening...).
To be clear about it, I found prosaic explanations for most sightings, from possible airplanes to a possible morgana (which is very cool if you think about it ... I probably saw a morgana! How cool is that!?), except for 2 of them ... just can't find an adequate answer. Would photos help ... probably not: one of my unexplained sightings was a sphere, shining like silver, against a cumulus nimbus type cloud. I once saw a picture of a similar object that was shooted in Poland ... yes they are there to be seen and photographed but apparently who cares.

To Erik and WMD

I admit the technology has improved and the fact I posted in the first post were out of date. Specially if you have a specific camera.

Cellphone on the other are getting better with blurring and the shutter, but their is one thing they lack compared to the more hobbyist equipment.
And that is Range. At this rate though, give em a couple of years, and it probably won't have the problem.

To Op.
Also trying to pick certain ufos off with a picture can be quite difficult, considering most stories are its just a ball of light, which is why many assume some sort of plasma around it. So any detail can be a rather difficult thing to capture.

If you wanna see a picture, one posted there up on the second page. Most assume it some ceremonial oriental lantern that they let loose in the sky.

reply to post by wmd_2008

There are 16 pages of UFO pictures there , have you looked at all of them ?
Here is a very clear one :



I'm not saying this is the real deal but it certainly is a very clear picture, is it not ?

If you navigate through those pages (sorted by year) you'll come across some clear pictures

reply to post by Alundra


Any details for the picture ie who took it and the exif data etc.

Originally posted by Specimen
To Erik and WMD

I admit the technology has improved and the fact I posted in the first post were out of date. Specially if you have a specific camera.

Cellphone on the other are getting better with blurring and the shutter, but their is one thing they lack compared to the more hobbyist equipment.
And that is Range. At this rate though, give em a couple of years, and it probably won't have the problem.

Cells phone will always suffer from 2 main problems the sensor size and the lens.

Here is a chart showing various phone camera sensors



The Nokia 1020 is 41mp the Sensor size is 8.80mm×6.60mm that's 58.1 mm2
My camera is a 16mp the sensor is an APS-C size 23.6mm x 15.7mm that's 370 mm2

Larger camera sensors work better in low light and produce less noise, cameras will always have an advantage over phone cameras and any new technology can be applied to both sensors so DSLR's will always produce better images.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Sure , its right next to the picture.

On the morning of October 30, 2009, at around 8:30, Mr. LM stood on the roof of his house in Tor San Lorenzo (Ardea, RM), he was cleaning his chimney, when he noticed directly above his house a dark, disc-shaped object in the sky. The witness, then, realizing the incredible event he was involved in, rushed into the house, securing his digital camera (model KODAK EASYSHARE V803 DIGITAL CAMERA 8Mpx) and proceeded to the front garden. Arriving in the garden, he quickly took a photograph of the object which was still stationary in the sky. He then changed his camera settings to the video mode, but the object disappeared without making a sound, or leaving a trace of its presence

www.ufocasebook.com... (bottom of page)

Don't know about the EXIF data , but i think there is some software available for that

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Alundra
reply to post by Nephilimsreturn

 

Even if a UFO landed on the white house lawn , some people would still call it a hoax until they see it with their own eyes ! I guess the truth or the evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

Everybody always says that, because it hasn't happened yet and it can't be proven unless it happens. It's a kind of skepticism in reverse, which is apparently okay. Both things need evidence and proof to be proven.

But there's nothing stopping it from happening, is there? A White House lawn landing. Is it in the realm of possibility? Of course.

You got me thinking here .. why DO we always say this ? I guess the answer is "assumption". You are right, it hasn't happened yet so we can only "assume" the outcome is going to be like we always say.

And I'm still sure the hardest of skeptics will deny it until .. well you know

An event like that really sounds 'to good to be true' doesn't it ? A UFO on the white house lawn for the whole world to see (I'm sure there are cameras/news crews around the white house 24/7) , in true HD streamed over the web. I'd PAY to see that happening !

What I can't understand is people willing to accept crappy evidence as proof just because it corresponds to their own personal beliefs. If it's possible for me to see with my own two eyes a flying saucer sitting on the White House lawn, why would I settle for anything less? If I wanted to be absolutely sure. Why settle for a third-hand story or a blurry photo?

There are enough good UFO cases with good supporting evidence (official documents, radar data, multiple witnessess , etc ..), some of which aren't "debunkable"to this day.

Of course if it was indeed possible to witness such an event with your own eyes , well then what else do you need as evidence ?

I can see some people say 'Project Blue Beam' or something like that , LOL !

Some people are just lazy when it comes to what they choose to believe, because it makes them uncomfortable to not know something.

Yes , but isn't that in the nature of mankind ?

reply to post by Alundra


Strange how 99% of the time there is NO exif data with the digital camera shots on these sites

That camera has a 3x optical zoom doesn't look like it was used exif data would confirm that so although you consider this a clear image which it is as a picture it's not for the actual object, now if the zoom wasn't used why not, unless of course what would reveal what the object was

reply to post by wmd_2008

I was not trying to prove if this image was a real UFO or not (like i said in my previous post) and I'm not going to either , I just wanted to point out that there are some clear pictures to be found on that website , that is all