Posted on 01/17/2009 1:52:28 PM PST by JoeProBono
Yeah, I was only talking from my own experience, actually, having tried a number of ordinary pictures. You’re surprised at how lousy they look from the way it seems with your own eyes. It’s definitely not like a backyard shot — no way.
Of course, I didn’t mention the “cloaking device”... :-)
True. Kayenta and Tuba City are more remote in a lot of ways . . . stillllll
given all the rumored goings on in those regions . . . I’ll be happy to read your reports in my lazyboy.
INDEED!
We learned nothing last Thursday.
< IMG SRC=" I can't find the image " >
“The camera I used is a Canon Mark 3, 21 megapixel. The speed was 1600 with a 2 gig card.”
So, they spent about 6 to 8K on a camera, and then only put a 2 Gig card in it and then shot a landscape at 1600 ISO. As a one time professional photographer none of this makes any sense at all. The sole reason for getting a 21 megapixel resolution is to gain enough resolution so you can blow the picture up to absurd sizes, or so you can crop small parts without losing resolution. Shooting a landscape on a sunny day at 1600 ISO defeats the entire purpose of having a camera of that pixel size, and if you spend 6K on a camera, you would probably know that.
Most people who spend tens of thousands on a high horsepower car seldome drive over the speed limit ;-}
“why in all these years, with the proliferation of cameras available to almost anyone regardless of their social strata, are there yet no sharp images of a flying saucer?”
Because aliens keep up with our digital technology and develop countermeasures that always make the pictures look fuzzy. How else are they going to defend themselves?
“Most people who spend tens of thousands on a high horsepower car seldome drive over the speed limit ;-}”
True, but you also don’t drive it at 30 miles an hour on the interstate.
30mph in the left lane with the turn signal on.
You said — “True, but you also don’t drive it at 30 miles an hour on the interstate.”
Yeah...., I get up to 100 MPH, at times, on the Oklahoma Turnpikes... depending... :-) [and it’s only a normal car...]
“Unless it’s a Town Car.
30mph in the left lane with the turn signal on.”
Thanks for making me spit coffee all over my keyboard.
and if you spend 6K on a camera, you would probably know that.
= = =
Not necessarily at all.
1. some folks have more money than brains.
2. some folks have expert relatives who suggest a good camera would be . . . knowing such folks have more money than brains . . .
3. such folks often don’t know much about what their TV does or remote does or DVD player or MP3 player or phone does beyond what they desperately want it to do frequently.
4. many folks get expensive gadgets to boost their sense of self worth amongst their friends and they often mostly collect dust except when being shown off.
5. I was a moderately well trained photographer by some of the better in the West . . . had some moderately expensive cameras . . . knew a lot about them and a lot about photography and still just scratched the surface of what the cameras could do.
“knew a lot about them and a lot about photography and still just scratched the surface of what the cameras could do.”
Good points all. I also use some high end cameras and don’t know ever detail of their operation since many of the bells and whistles are of no value to me. But, it still seems odd to not now something as basic as the fact that you can only shoot 20 pictures on a 2gig card and that shooting at 1600 ISO makes sense in bright daylight. I am skeptical of the fact they didn’t notice the UFO till they examined the picture, which means they likely have some skill with a photo application.
I think you make worthy points.
I’m convinced, however, that
absolutest assumptions therefrom
MAY NOT FIT in this situation.
They may well fit. They may not.
Generalized truths can be very very hazardous with regard to the idiosyncrasies of individual humans.
cute.
You (kempo, at post #25) said — “There have been millions of digital cameras sold over the years where all you have to do is point and push a button and perfect picture. Not one clear picture of a UFO. Amazing.”
It’s not as easy as you think, getting pictures of things in the air. I have tried taking pictures of planes and blimps in the sky, with a good Canon digital camera and what you see with your eyes (and it looks like the camera should pick it up okay), it just doesn’t seem as big or as clear in the digital picture as with your own eyes.
I’ve taken pictures of blimps, which are slow moving and a couple of miles away, and they don’t turn out to be that good.
But they are discernable, right? You can tell it's a blimp or a plane? I understand the part about quality. We see all those pretty images in the magazines, post processed, and expect the same right out of the box, but I generally do a lot of black level tweaking on my pictures. I dunno, maybe I need another monitor, and anyway I save the untouched originals, but I digress.
Another problem with snapping these pictures (even ordinary planes and blimps), if you’ve got your camera in the car or in the house — you run to get it and by the time you’re back (even in less than 1/2 a minute) the thing is gone or behind a tree or cloud or whatever.
But, besides all that — there have been pictures posted on the web and other UFO websites that do show pictures that are taken. They look as blurry and as indistinct as the picture I try to take of *simple* and *ordinary* objects in the sky... LOL...
Yes, that's generally a problem, but still there have been historic images taken of many extraordinary things over the decades. PSA flight 182 from 1978 comes to mind. And there was a plane that ditched just off an island, can't remember where, which someone caught with a video camera. (wasn't it around 10 years back?)
Besides the untold amount of professional photographers, how many Average Joes all over the world on a summer weekend are out with a camera, so many with the best quality settings purposefully enabled, shooting wildlife or flowers or landscapes, etc? And there's all the video cameras. Surely after waiting for decades we'd have some kind of historical pictures of one event from somewhere. Given enough time, the odds are in our favor, yet as you've noted all we seem to get are the blurry and ill defined blobs from hucksters.
And out of all those pictures from all the decades, no two flying saucers look alike. It's as if the space aliens have a human penchant for vanity. Perhaps some fly the Andromedan equal of a Kia, others a Ferrari.
The likeliest answer is that the hoaxters are an individualistic bunch, who piece together their dinky models and snap their Polaroids and seek the glory for themselves, hence there's never been a desire to create an "underground", where Irving in Oshkosh ships his model to someone in France so that it can be photographed there, then on to England, etc.
But don't take my word for it. See if you can find anything supposedly taken from anywhere else on the planet as embarrassingly cheesy as the Gulf Breeze images. :)
Another problem with the zoom that some people have on their cameras, is that it’s not an optical zoom but rather a digital zoom and it just blurs the picture more. And in addition to that, when you put on a larger zoom on your camera, besides you getting a blurry picture just from the zoom (on the digital part), you get a blurry picture because it’s harder to hold the camera still when shooting it when on zoom. Furthermore, if the f-stop is not right (depending on your settings on the camera, or the focus isn’t fast enough or right, then you’ll get blurry pictures, too.
There’s a lot going on with those cameras to make things blurry in the sky. It’s not like taking pictures of an outdoor BBQ in your backyard... :-)
I agree as far as digital zooms go, which only the tyros would use. But some of us know not to use it. And in the last five years, especially, true optical image stabilization has trickled down to even Canon's base model, the A590 IS, less than 200 bucks. Optical IS isn't to be confused with what some shop as IS, which is only boosting the ISO and/or shutter speed, resulting in a generally inferior picture.
As another aside, my friend Quix mumbled something about "exotic ionized air flows" distorting the flying saucers skin. Then where are the radar tracks? Remember that when the shuttle Columbia went down that there were a small handful of screencaps of weather radars showing the shuttle's ionized trail?
Well, let me ask you this... how many photos came out of the Phoenix sightings a few years back? (I think it was Phoenix...).
If that’s the right place, it created such a furor over the sightings, that the city had a press conference about it, as I recall. How many pictures resulted from that one?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.