Blurry UFO Pics & Vids Experiment

Earlier today, a friend asked if I'd heard about some UFO sightings in New York this week.
I hadn't, and the earliest Google found me was from April:
nypost.com... g-spaceship/

From the article:
Andres Morales, 25, said he also saw the speedy orb — and did his best to document his out-of-this-world experience.
“I stuck my hand out the car window and snapped like crazy,” he told The Post. “I don’t know what it was but it was moving crazy fast.”



So I thought, interesting pic, but if they were moving so fast, why not film it instead of trying to snap pics?
Most smartphones can shoot video. Why do people still try to snap pics of UFO's at all?

So tonight at sundown, we went outside to check out the moon & the conjunction. I brought my Nikon Cool-Pix S550, and proceeded to ignore my own earlier observation. The first four are Jupiter and Venus, the last two, the moon:



It occurred to me, hmm, it really is difficult to hold steady, even when the object is still. I wasn't drinking or anything either, it's just hard to get a shot in the sky like that. So we can't really blame folks for blurry pics of moving objects.

So I switched to film, and took screenshots:





I lost image quality, but it was easier to get a shot without motion blur.

So I guess it depends on the camera. My T-Mobile G-2 was really clear when it came to video, just a low frame-rate, and the pics were good too, even had a flash. I'm not a fan of i-Stuffs, but the video and pics are pretty high-quality as well. My current Droid, however, is crappola in that department.

I think if you're going to post a blurry UFO video, it might be smart to screen-shot it and zoom, filter, etc. first, and post those along with it. I know some people do this, but not enough. It'd be nice to see the quality improve at least somewhat with the tech available these days. I've seen a couple in my life, didn't catch them either way, but glad I did this, should I happen to spot anything in the future.

Being from the belly of the beast, I didn't hear anything about UFO's this week. The aliens love New York, they hangout around the city checking out the freaks on Times Square. Ahhh I love my city!

a reply to: WUNK22

Here in Chicago, they like the lake...
...and O'hare, lol. C'mon, Aykroyd, let us see the pics!

originally posted by: KAOStheory

Nice lens flare on the first picture it's so obvious if you know anything about cameras pointing with a bright source of light in view!

The main problem is that most people rely on their smartphone for pictures they don't perform well when most claimed ufo shots are taken that is at night don't believe the hype the pictures may look great on the phone screen but the are are always full of noise even from the very best models.

When it comes to night shots & camera sensors bigger is better!

Sensor Size

We often see video on here taken with small camcorders again the same problem small sensors also most options are set to auto ie exposure & focus.

Here are a couple of stills taken from a video shot with my 16mp DSLR with an APS-C size sensor.

I knew what the object was but took the video to use as an example on here I just grabbed my camera it had a 70-300 zoom on it I did not change exposure but used MANUAL FOCUS here is the first pic.



Your typical light in the sky ufo shot, then I changed exposure settings MANUALLY this is the second shot.



It's obvious now it's not Mog from Zog but the local police helicopter.

I wonder how many youtube ufo images and videos posted on here would no longer be whats claimed if they had a decent camera and they actually knew how to use it.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: KAOStheory

Nice lens flare on the first picture it's so obvious if you know anything about cameras pointing with a bright source of light in view!

The main problem is that most people rely on their smartphone for pictures they don't perform well when most claimed ufo shots are taken that is at night don't believe the hype the pictures may look great on the phone screen but the are are always full of noise even from the very best models.

When it comes to night shots & camera sensors bigger is better!

Sensor Size

We often see video on here taken with small camcorders again the same problem small sensors also most options are set to auto ie exposure & focus.

Here are a couple of stills taken from a video shot with my 16mp DSLR with an APS-C size sensor.

I knew what the object was but took the video to use as an example on here I just grabbed my camera it had a 70-300 zoom on it I did not change exposure but used MANUAL FOCUS here is the first pic.

Your typical light in the sky ufo shot, then I changed exposure settings MANUALLY this is the second shot.

It's obvious now it's not Mog from Zog but the local police helicopter.

I wonder how many youtube ufo images and videos posted on here would no longer be whats claimed if they had a decent camera and they actually knew how to use it.

Im going to say 99.9999999%

Nice post, always good to experiment. I agree and also feel there should be a warning with some people's photos and reports! A warning to say they have no experience with cameras and photography whatsoever other than owning one and believing that is reason enough to claim "UFO" on pictures of things they can't identify (like artifacts, lens flare etc).

Fake UFO videos and pics has always been an easy, almost effortless task. Someone threw some Duracell batteries in the air, took some photos and convinced people here it was a UFO. That is an issue that has plagued UFOlogy, the blessing of cameras is also a curse in this field. Video cameras at least offer that extra layer of "this was harder to fake" than still cameras and Duracell batteries being thrown.

Whilst some people will forever be fooled by lens flares, very few of these pics find traction round here anymore, which is a good thing. As you rightly say we live in a digital (HD) video age now, still frames had their day. The only still frame UFO alien photo anyone's going to believe will be a selfie stick one of Obama + alien...

I also feel these kind of stories/photos drag the whole thing down. They skew the morals of ufology. Is this supposed to be the pinnacle of our interest? To "want" blurry photos of lights and shadows? For that to be our "answer" to aliens? Have our wishes been subdued somehow? Expectations lowered? What about hoping for a mass visitation and worldwide light-show - nothing less. Not standing for anything that is so questionable? Yet so many people will lap up even the most tenuous link.

I SUPPOSE Andres Morales may be talking about an "orb" that can be seen between the sun and the lens flare in his pic. But again, I hardly woke up this morning or the morning that was published hoping there was proof of aliens in the form of a 1 pixel white dot on a photo. Reports like that are so junk it's not even funny anymore !

I'm a long time reader of ATS, but I have just signed up because I find this site absolutely fascinating. So this is my first post.

First of all, let me say that trying to establish some sort of baseline for video and picture quality is a great idea. I have also been intensely annoyed by the fact that so many videos and pictures of any unknown flying craft (or UFO by definintion if you will) are of such horribly low quality. Shaky, overexposed, underexsposed, out of focus and so forth.

I remember thinking on more than one occasion that if it was me who was on the other end of the lens, I would not do such an abysmal job of filming the wretched thing. I would capture it beautifully, and the object would be wonderfully clear and in perfect focus.

But then it happened to me. All of a sudden I became aware of this brilliant white light hanging in the sky one evening, just at sundown, and I really thought for an exciting half hour "this is something really weird" and then "I need to film this before it goes away". So I ran and got my Nikon camera and my best zoom lens (70-300 mm) and I started filming this "object" in the sky.

And lo and behold, after about half an hour of my very best efforts, what did I manage to produce? I ended up with a piece of utterly useless rubbish. A classic "UFO video", even worse than some I have seen on the internet.

The object I tried to film was Venus. Due to some weird atmospheric condition or other, it seemed to be much closer than it really was. I was convinced at some point it had to be a drone, but eventually I had to concede it was moving with the other stars. Not doing anything strange. And, according to a star chart, right where Venus was supposed to be. It came back the next day. and the next, and so on.

But the enormous problems I had filming it still made me realise that perhaps filming a real, moving object in the sky, might not be so easy after all. First of all the autofocus was running wild, hunting back and forth, and not really helping at all. I had problems with camera shake, eventually solved by resting the camera on some furniture, and then (as the "object" didn't go away I had all the time in the world - it was Venus after all) by setting up a tripod. I hadn't used this tripod in a while, so I also fumbled a bit with that.

Now, I have used cameras before. I am not a photographer, but the camera I used is a decent piece of technology (A Nikon D7000) albeit a few years old. I had decent optics too. And I had all the time in the world to film and take pictures of this thing (I took a LOT of pictures - all useless). If this thing had flown overhead in a matter of minutes, or even seconds, I think what I would have been left with would have been so bad I would be much to embarrased to show anyone.

So I think it would be very interesting to see what people could manage in terms of pictures and video of everyday objects flying in the sky. Planes and helicopters would be favorite, as they would be moving, and have lights. This would have to be spur of the moment decisions to snap a picture or film something with whatever equipment you have with you at the moment. No planned setup. It would be interesting to see what could be achieved. Sort of like a baseline for evaluating what one might reasonably expect. I do not know if this has been attempted before? If so I would like to be pointed to it.

I realise this is not science, and no controlled experiment could be organised on an internet forum, but purely for our own enjoyment, this could be rather fun. It would be good practice too for when you finally see something that is truly strange, if it ever happens.

Anyone thinks this could be cool, or have this been attempted already?

BT

a reply to: beetee

So I think it would be very interesting to see what people could manage in terms of pictures and video of everyday objects flying in the sky.

Here's my UFO video filmed last year , it is just a light in the sky but it's also filmed and uploaded in 1080p which for some reason (obfuscation ? ) many UFO videos aren't.


For a while it was to me a UFO but on further examination I concluded it was the local police helicopter , it was unlisted on youtube and only posted here so as not to add to the online UFO noise.

a reply to: gortex

I will try to find my own video which I never uploaded anywhere much for the same reasons. It looks much like yours but wirh even worse stability and some mad autofocus hunting. I've also taken a few photographs of airplanes flying overhead which is interesting mostly for how poorly the plane can be identified.

BT

Ok, so this was my very best effort. I actually planned to upload another clip, with a lot of commentary (I actually spent an hour subtitling it - lol) but in the end I decided that it was too much.

www.youtube.com...

(Can't seem to get embed function to work)

Its easy to see how this could be interpreted as something moving around, when it was actually just sitting there in the sky like a planet should. There is also some lens flare which could, if one was not familiar with it, be interpreted as other "lights" around it.

I realise, of course, that since this is a celestial object my equipment was hopelessly inadequate, but I suspect that I would not fare much better with, say, an unknown airframe speeding past in the darkness.

If I could only figure out how to upload photos, which it seems I am not able to do at the moment, I will upload a few still pictures as well.

BT

a reply to: beetee

The real problem is that most of the videos are phone or consumer video cameras with TINY sensors that dont work well in the dark.

Manual focus manual exposure is the best way but again that may not be an option with the equipment.

At work just now will post a link later to an example I did of some stills from a video I took.

a reply to: beetee


Here are the stills I spoke about from a video I took with my 16mp DSLR and a 70-300mm zoom lens using MANUAL focus, the first image the camera settings were not change from the last time I used it.



Looks like your typical light in the sky youtube shot.

Next manual focus & exposure as well to see what this light actually was.



The local Police helicopter.

The real problem with youtube videos are low grade equipment or people that don't know how to film but even more of a problem are those out to hoax people get hits and earn money from it.

Very interesting.

I took this "panic shot" of a small private plane that flew over during daylight to see what the mobile camera would get out of it. Phone is a Samsung Galaxy camera model SM-G920F. Photo is taken through a window.



Enlarged and contrast enhanced in photoshop, and the result is definitely not very good. It looks like a sligthly angular bird. Much detail is lost, among them the tail of the plane, and the wings appear wavy.

The plane flew very low, perhaps a few thousand feet, above the house.

BT

a reply to: beetee

Good effort considering the camera.

Here a crop from a picture I took, a plane at around 25,000 ft and a few miles down range from my house.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Nice shot! What kind of camera are you using?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: wmd_2008

Nice shot! What kind of camera are you using?

Sony SLT A37 16MP taken with a 70-300 mm zoom exp details 1/200th sec f16 iso 200 at 300mm focal length.

It was heading west towards the Atlantic.