UFO "dissolves" porion of chemtrail

a reply to: DerekB

Its a phone with small sensor fixed aperture wide angled lens NOT a serious piece of equipment to document what you claim it's as simple as that.

a reply to: DerekB

You mean the bug?

Which is obviously out of focus.

a reply to: wmd_2008

People think their phones/tablets cameras are better than a real high-end camera.

"I took this amazingly blurry video/photo with my phone/tablet! It's the bestest!"

It makes me laugh sometimes.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Complete nonsense. The video quality competes with many high end cameras. Like I said from experience, the video quality is clearer than a Nikon p900 recording in slow motion. The video clearly shows that the object has distance and is in focus. To claim anything else is ignorant and deceptive.

a reply to: TerryDon79

You have already showed in a previous post that you are severely lacking in common sense and depth perception. You claimed it was a bug a few feet away which is unanimously proven wrong by comparing the ufo with the power pole. I suggest that you get some experience recording videos outside since you have shown that you have no idea what bugs look like on video.

a reply to: DerekB

Your note 5 is better than the P900 SLR camera?

Now I know you're not being serious and you're just here to argue for arguments sake.

a reply to: DerekB

Google the definition of "unanimously". Out of everyone on this thread, 1 person is not unanimous lol. I would use words you don't know.

So, when's your next video of a bug flying past?

a reply to: TerryDon79

You should take the time to read what I wrote before responding. I said the quality is better when recording in slow motion. Compare the quality of a note 5 to a p900 recording in slow motion. You can easily look up the specs.

a reply to: DerekB

I did. The P900 is better.

Hardly surprising.

But you carry on thinking your bug is something other than a bug and chemtrails exist without any evidence. I'm sure not many people will laugh.

Still waiting for evidence of "chemtrails". Are you going to post any or are you just going to be adamant that your bug is UFO?

a reply to: TerryDon79

It is unanimous to anyone that isn't clueless on how to determine distance and clarity of an object in a video. People such as yourself who are clueless in depth perception don't get to vote.

a reply to: DerekB

You mean unanimous to people who don't know what a bug looks like flying close to a crappy camera on a phone?

a reply to: TerryDon79

You would show proof, but you don't want to show how ignorant you are, as if you haven't already.
Show the slow motion comparison specs between a note 5 and a p900. I have used both cameras before, you probably haven't used either.

a reply to: DerekB

Says the person who thinks a bug is a UFO and chemtrails are real. LOL

Still waiting for your evidence of chemtrails.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Says the person who is completely clueless in analyzing video. Let me know when your depth perception is up to par. I'm still awaiting your evidence "which is clearly wrong" that proves the ufo is just a few feet away from the camera.

a reply to: DerekB

Still waiting for your evidence. Why won't you post any?

Could it be that there isn't any and you're blindly believing a con man on the Internet? I think so.

originally posted by: DerekB
a reply to: wmd_2008

Complete nonsense. The video quality competes with many high end cameras. Like I said from experience, the video quality is clearer than a Nikon p900 recording in slow motion. The video clearly shows that the object has distance and is in focus. To claim anything else is ignorant and deceptive.

Lets see your interest is claimed ufo''s sometimes seen round CONTRAILS which appear at 25000 ft + and you think a phablet is the best way to go

Note 5
16 MP, f/1.9, 28mm, OIS, autofocus, 1/2.6" sensor size 5.5 x 4.1 mm, 1.12 microns pixel size.

This is how you picture aircraft at 25,000 ft plus and a few miles down range ( taken from my house)



70-300mm zoom crop from centre of the frame.

16.1 APS-C Sensor size 369.72mm2 (23.7mm x 15.6mm) Approximate Pixel Pitch:4.82 microns

Lets look at night shots no chance with your phablet 2 stills from a video 70-300 zoom

Light at night in sky exposure settings not changed from earlier in the day MANUAL focus.



Exposure changed and MANUAL focus



Some Contrail Science I suggest you read.

Also looking at your youtube videos you tend to exaggerate things a lot like your so called shape changing ufo video linked to in a post above you claim it takes off from the ground yet it can be seen entering the frame on the right above the lowest tree branches even in that POOR quality youtube video.

Your Phablet will produce good enough videos of spot the dog running around chasing his tail but not for the subject you seem interested in.

originally posted by: DerekB
a reply to: wmd_2008

How did you determine it's just a few ft. above the roof? If that were the case, it shouldn't appear to be higher than the power pole. It was recorded on a note 5 in slow motion.
Please provide examples of other objects appearing from no where while in the same amount of lighting. There was no shaded area just before it popped into existence.

What resolution was the video filmed in

Anyway, the Samsung Galaxy Note5 tops out at 2160p resolution, but it can also do QHD video, 1080p at both 30fps and 60fps and 720p video at up to 120fps (that's handled by the Slow Motion mode). The 120fps video needs slowing down via a video editor such as the one on board the Note5 or one on your computer. The frames are all there, it's just that it's not slow-mo.

The slow motion on the Note 5 is UTTER SH1T compared to the iPhone. The Note 5 at least has sound on the slow motion now, but it's LOW RESOLUTION (720p max), but even lower quality than normal 720p would be due to the reduced exposure time for each frame (ends up looking muddy); and it's captured at 120fps and played back at 15fps (so it still looks choppy, not smooth).

I'm pretty sure the Note 5 has 240 fps slow mo in 720p, but that's by recording at 120 fps and playing back at 15 fps. I know the iPhone 6 has 240 as well, but smoother because it was actually captured at 240 fps.

Want to comment on the quotes above

a reply to: wmd_2008

Your post has absolutely nothing to do with any of my claims. My claim was that the video quality was better on my note 5 "when shooting a slow motion video" in comparison the the p900 that I used to record in slow motion.
In reference to my video, you are confused. I put ground in the title because it was shorter than "near the ground". The object was flying upwards and left, I assumed it was on the ground or close to it. You have no reason or evidence to believe that the object wasn't on the ground before it flew into the frame.
My phone will do fine for most things and slow motion recording, maybe I will get another p900 when I want to zoom in on planes.

a reply to: DerekB

Anything to get hits on YouTube, right?

Even though there's no video evidence of it taking off just off screen, let's just say it did.

Even though it's obviously WAY above ground level, let's just say ground level anyway.

No wonder you can't provide any evidence. You just make it up as you go along lol.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Who lists quotes and doesn't list their source for the quotes? That isn't very scientific. These quotes are pretty much irrelevant, I was comparing the note 5 slow motion to the p900 slow motion, why post comparisons to the iphone?
If you post the specs for the p900 it would make a little more sense.
The poster in your last quote obviously hasn't even tested the note 5 or they wouldn't have said, "I'm pretty sure the Note 5 has 240 fps slow mo in 720p". They are probably just copying things that someone else have said while doing no testing of their own.