Guy is catching many weird objects in the atmosphere with high-tech set-up

a reply to: wmd_2008

I saw that on their web site it's good for filming ghosts because it creates them

Well...you get what you pay for
I have been playing with different video streaming software and Ispy was the worst so far. Its really good at finding your cams URLs though. I got this HD IP cam that goes up to 30 fps, when ispy streams it, I get 5 fps. VLC and ffmpeg work pretty good and get the full 30 fps. I dont know a lot about it but I imagine you loose detail when streaming as opposed to recording straight to an SD card.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: wmd_2008

I saw that on their web site it's good for filming ghosts because it creates them

Well...you get what you pay for

I have been playing with different video streaming software and Ispy was the worst so far. Its really good at finding your cams URLs though. I got this HD IP cam that goes up to 30 fps, when ispy streams it, I get 5 fps. VLC and ffmpeg work pretty good and get the full 30 fps. I dont know a lot about it but I imagine you loose detail when streaming as opposed to recording straight to an SD card.

That would explain his stuttering jumpy videos then.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: wmd_2008

I saw that on their web site it's good for filming ghosts because it creates them

Well...you get what you pay for

I have been playing with different video streaming software and Ispy was the worst so far. Its really good at finding your cams URLs though. I got this HD IP cam that goes up to 30 fps, when ispy streams it, I get 5 fps. VLC and ffmpeg work pretty good and get the full 30 fps. I dont know a lot about it but I imagine you loose detail when streaming as opposed to recording straight to an SD card.

That would explain his stuttering jumpy videos then.

Yes it would. I didn't realize he was using ispy to record these videos or I would have jumped in sooner. I'm far from a video or imaging expert but I can tell you that ispy was a very frustrating experience for me. I am a programmer so I am pretty techie and do appreciate that ispy is open source and free but I wouldn't use it for any project right now.

The thing I dont understand is that these IP cams come with their own software that can record directly to their own built in hardware and the quality is pretty good so I don't know why anyone would use ispy to record a degraded network stream.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

When looking at threads like this I always try to find out as much about the equipment as possible mainly because photography is my long term hobby with a bit of video also self taught assembling computers installing software and photo/video editing.

I went to his youtube page and saw a video detailing his set up. It may impress the youtube crowd and some on here but as soon as I saw details of the lens ip camera then software I dug a bit deeper.

I knew the lens he is using is not great quality but can perform ok with a GOOD quality camera attached that tiny sensor of the ip camera is not good nothing looks in focus and he ignores these points I have brought up I think that's all we need to confirm he doesn't really know what he is talking about.

"Please don't say these are balloons - that would just be stupid. Sure a couple look like balloons"

Seriously??

I'm pretty sure the fact that you yourself confirm that some of them look like balloons strengthens the theory rather than making it "just stupid"

After checking out his "high tech" setup I can assure you it's anything but. Tiny and low quality sensors a level or two below what you'd find in your typical cell phone and used in conjunction with the kind of optics that will have no hope of even coming close to resolving a sharp image on those tiny photosites. The smaller and higher megapixel the sensor the more demand it puts on the resolving power of the optics and these optics were not designed for use with tiny digital sensors with minute photosites crammed into a small area.. All you're going to achieve is a soft image plagued by ghosting, spehrical aberration, chromatic aberration, purple fringing and low contrast. In other words ill defined blobs with weird colours and that's exactly what we have.

a reply to: fatdeeman

I agree as I said exactly the same a few posts ago.

Well, these tumbling pyramids don't appear to be balloons, and if some of them are not balloons maybe all of them are not.

However, until Jeremy can provide more info as requested and provide a comparison with real mylar balloons I will have to suspend any definitive conclusions.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

First let me repeat what I said already many times: you do not need to take on faith any of this, you can observe anomalies by yourself if you get unglued from your keyboard.
The people that I see in this thread are "talkers" nothing more, you will never see them sharing nothing novel with anybody.
Also I know that "obfuscation" is their world, they live inside it and are unable to get out, inaction and more talk will only reinforce that state.
They always expect somebody to do or present the "evidence" for them, they are incapable of looking for that evidence themselves, they are visiting an "above top secret" site but ironically reality is beyond their "security clearance".
Let me add that I am a software developer, I know a thing or two about using software and what is needed to run a system smoothly.
The dual optical system that I use is custom build, using custom components, that system that some inepts here are trashing will be beyond their abilities to even duplicate by them, they talk but nothing beyond that talking.
When you deal with video you always have to compromise, and I deal with video in each observation session, many people here again talk and talk. That system that I use use two cameras, at least, simultaneously, these two cameras when recording will produce lots of data. The system is remotely controlled, I stay indoors and the system is outside of course, cables have to run from the cameras to the computer inside, etc.
So my current setup is a compromise that allow me to track many small objects in the sky because I use infrared spotting and also alliw me to get in real time close-ups of these small objects, that combination provides a very solid way to do proper identification of almost any mundane object that was spotted, something that the trashers/talkers of this forum are unable to effectively do, they may "talk" about a "better" way, but there is a huge difference between: knowing the path and walking the path, they think that they know the path but I am walking the path.
So I need a way to get the footage directly to my computer and do the processing right away, iSpy is the best free software available that can do that, with the added benefit that I have access to its source code and add little things that help in my tasks: like placing azimuth, elevation data in real time on the spotter video, etc., these "little" things the "experts" of this forum will "say" that they have a "better" way to do it, but that is just talk and more talk, nothing else will come from these "experts", pathetic.

a reply to: ufoflicks

If anyone is PATHETIC it's YOU, on every reply you have not commented on using a DSLR we ALL know the reason why.

'Thems critters
and they're good eatin'

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Disclosure is not only a myth, it is self contradictory in itself: The people asking for disclosure, using their own logic, are saying that "they" had been hiding the "truth" from them for more than 60 years now they are asking/pleading to these same people to "disclose" the "truth".
What makes them think that these people, using their very own logic again, will tell them the "real truth" after "disclosure"?
Since they depend completely in others to know about reality they will be forced then, as they are forced today, to take anything provided to them on faith and therefore they will be falling in the same trap that they are now, for the simple reason that they are unable to seek the "truth" by themselves.

originally posted by: ufoflicks
a reply to: Thecakeisalie
Since they depend completely in others to know about reality they will be forced then, as they are forced today, to take anything provided to them on faith and therefore they will be falling in the same trap that they are now, for the simple reason that they are unable to seek the "truth" by themselves.

Seems most are not depending on what you have to offer, most certainly no one is having faith that these are not balloons.
Makes me wonder if we did depend on your evidence and had faith these things are what you say would you still be making comments like this.
Reading through your posts I have to wonder why you're even here as, according to you, site like this are filled with idiots.
Why are you trying to show a bunch of monkeys how to factor polynomials?
You haven't addressed anything without a global ad hominem attack - people at sites like this are idiots.

a reply to: ufoflicks

Well many on here may not know but your so called custom system has many drawbacks apart from the buggy software you use what about the 650-1300 mm lens you use.

First lets look at the flaws, while you're all comfy inside how do you deal with the fact its a MANUAL FOCUS LENS , do you preset the focus then run inside what happens when objects you image are not within the area of the depth of field of your pre focused distance. It also has a fixed aperture so aperture value only changes with focal length.

So how about answering the above instead of your repeated ramblings on disclosure.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
Well, these tumbling pyramids don't appear to be balloons, and if some of them are not balloons maybe all of them are not.

However, until Jeremy can provide more info as requested and provide a comparison with real mylar balloons I will have to suspend any definitive conclusions.

How..how can you not see that these are also balloons? How?

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
How..how can you not see that these are also balloons? How?

it must be some University sociology experiment, to see how many stupid people you can get to agree that they are not just balloons, which they obviously are.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: ufoflicks

...First lets look at the flaws, while you're all comfy inside how do you deal with the fact its a MANUAL FOCUS LENS...

Haha, love it! That's a darn good question.

Well it looks like ufoflicks keyboard has been abducted

originally posted by: ufoflicks
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Disclosure is not only a myth, it is self contradictory in itself: The people asking for disclosure, using their own logic, are saying that "they" had been hiding the "truth" from them for more than 60 years now they are asking/pleading to these same people to "disclose" the "truth".
What makes them think that these people, using their very own logic again, will tell them the "real truth" after "disclosure"?
Since they depend completely in others to know about reality they will be forced then, as they are forced today, to take anything provided to them on faith and therefore they will be falling in the same trap that they are now, for the simple reason that they are unable to seek the "truth" by themselves.

Great points Jeremy, you are 100% correct!

Please pay no attention to those who would attempt to engage your ego and emotions, they are hallmarks of either a) an immature individual, b) disinfo agents

The best debates need no scorn, sarcasm or belittling. The more a thread has of those "tactics" the more I think the thread is actually on to something.