Military Aircraft Video Quality

If the recent incidents were high resolution quality 8 to 16K, color and very close, within 100 ft, would it change the conversation much. Would there be a substantial difference in media coverage, public interests or, would it be relatively the same; yeah it's something, interesting but meh..., back to Barry with this weekend's forecast.

I believe it absolutely would moderately move the conversation. More discussions, coverage, books, shows, movies. More opinions, theories on the new finer detail. Maybe it reveals something that would help us get a better understanding of what we may be dealing with.

When I was in an FA/18 squadron I assumed the reasoning for the standard poor quality video was anything more was beyond the requirements needed. Basically a waste of tax dollars. Won't work for the Hubble but military aircraft it's good enough.

With that being said, I don't see it as a waste anymore. I think it's time the military upgrades their avionics with more advanced imaging. Assuming it would also not cost that much today as opposed to 20 years ago. Maybe it's time to change the requirements on what is good enough? I see much value in doing it.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Military aircraft systems video is usually downgraded and obscured before release to the public to hide the full capability's so in reality what you are seeing is a downgraded version, if that is actually what those pilot's have to work with however at that low quality it would definitely affect the viability of such video systems for pilot use.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

All military spending is pure socialism and is a waste of money in some sense. Money is being taken from one person and redistributed to someone else. And there is no amount of money we could spend that will ever alleviate our fears of having a complete lack of control over other populations and human nature around us. Fear rules.

a reply to: LABTECH767

With no experience at all dealing with their equipment, this is exactly what i was thinking. It's not hard to degrade quality of video.

But, who knows i guess

First I heard of it being downgraded and I was in a squadron but I was in operations, not avionics so not sure. If that's the case, the video the Navy admitted is real is somewhat tongue in cheek. If there is a better quality one what is the harm in seeing it when they are already revealing something that could be a threat. What value is in the better quality footage that will harm national security.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I've been wondering if all the Navy UFO videos are just real-time video overlays as part of a psychological test to see how Navy pilots would react to superior technology like some kind of Kobayashi Maru type test.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

I don't have a link, but I definitely remember that 'they' said in an interview that is was not the same quality, they 'might' release it later, or something to that effect. (It was also mentioned that there was a lot more detail in the original video)
"They" means that it was the Navy, or some other government agency, surely I can't be the only one that read that. (There was no video with what I was reading)
It was from a real source, I remember not doubting the source.

As sly as the government (thinks it) is, I would not put that past them, although, I don't have a clue what the advantage of not showing the lesser version would be.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I thought about that as well but they already know how pilots react because it has been happening a long time. When I asked our military S2 intel about it he said pilots see stuff they can't explain from time to time. It's not a big deal. The pilots sometime file and incident report and other times they don't even bother.

These recent ones though, seems to be a lot more going on...objects going in and out the water. If I had to take a stab at it I think something coming out of the water could be the thing creating the thing. A source of power, a cloaking transmitter, some form of hub, control center created by us.

I do think though it would be a great question to ask that naval pilot. Does he see any value in having an 8K or more resolution in regards to standard avionics. I think he did say there is color version though not released.

With video theres generally a trade off of quality and storage space and generally doing anything with video can use up a lot of processing grunt and also transfer bandwidth and packing that sort of thing into an airframe probably isn't the easiest thing to get the more modern equipment that can do a lot of that sort of stuff packed in.

I'd imagine that the stuff we see isn't really intended for use by the intel people as i'm sure they'll want their own specialist tools for that sort of thing but more as an extra function of the blackbox to review what went on.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

or if you want to get crazy with it it could have been a submerged sub that launched and was observing said drone

OR

it was a drone that is powered by beamed microwaves and the disturbance in the water was created when the microwaves heated the surface to a boil creating the churning effect.

OR

it could be a new generation PALLADIUM radar spoofing device

OR

aliens

a reply to: recrisp

They were talking about ISR video. HUD video is usually full quality, but has certain information scrubbed from it.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

HUD video is as good as it needs to be. They don't need to be able to identify how many people are walking around during a strafing run, so the quality isn't good enough to. The far greater concern is the targeting system displayed on the HUD, not the video. So they don't spend the money to upgrade the video quality.

a reply to: Zaphod58

im pretty sure at the time they were recorded by Hi8 tape recorders, think sony handycam for quality for HUD

a reply to: penroc3

They were, and still are depending on the platform. But the quality isn't going to get a lot better even if it's digital. There's just no reason to have high quality video.

a reply to: Zaphod58

if an aircraft is in your HUD than there will also be radar and other imaging so it doesnt need to be an IMAX film.

i would love to see the radar data for the encounters in question.


as far as aircraft going forward it would be crazy to still use Hi8 tapes instead of digital

a reply to: dfnj2015

Video overlays if it was only camera footage maybe, but these pilots claim they saw these things with their own eyes.

If their helmets have no HUD overlays, that would surely eliminate video overlays completely yes?