It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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I admit the technology has improved and the fact I posted in the first post were out of date.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.
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
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.
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.