Why are UFO pictures worse?

We have better cameras, yet it seems like the pictures are getting worse.

Back in the 1940s almost every ufo picture was crystal clear. You could see a saucer shape, in the sky, well defined.

Now it's all strange blurs and balls of light.

I agree, The optics are getting better and better, but the photos get worse and worse. With the new image stabilization setups in even the lowest grade cameras (mine cost $69.00) we should be seeing stuff that looks like screen shots from Speilburg (sp), but we constantly get photos that are out of focus, to far to see, or shakey. If anyone has a "good" photo of a UFO, if so I would like to see one.

Occam's razor....at least 99% of UFO vids/photos are fake.

It's the old analog versus digital problem. In the old days, if you took a picture with a $4.95 Kodak Brownie camera, you got a nice, big image through a pretty good glass lens (with excellent depth of field) onto a large format negative on a chemical base that naturally gave you good resolution on an almost molecular scale.

These days, you get a lousy variable shutter speed through a questionable lens with the image being recorded on a light-sensitive chip with a very limited resolution. It's good enough for most happy snaps of the family dog, but sucks when it comes to enlarging and clarifying the image of a flying saucer in bad light.

[edit on 13-3-2008 by Nohup]

reply to post by Nohup


You are right but not completely.

Modern cameras do not mean digital cameras only, there are still film cameras available and there are people that buy them.

Also, the photos from the most common analog cameras can not be much enlarged, they also suffer from not enough quality because they are all-purpose cameras usually with all purpose film.

If someone has a good camera with a film that adapts itself to the type of photo then it is possible to have great photos, but that is also possible with good digital cameras.

I wonder if it could be due to cell phone cameras. In the past I would take my camera everywhere with me in case I caught my kids doing something crazy that I wanted to snap a picture of. Once I got my cell phone...even though the quality isn't as good as my actual camera, it's usually "good enough" for quicky pictures I want to take. I only take my actual good camera out for planned picture taking events rather than dragging it and the phone places.

So maybe people are leaving behind their better quality cameras in lieu of their cell phone ones?

Or...as someone else pointed out...they're all fake


Michelle

reply to post by ArMaP


I'm just wondering why there are no good quality pictures.

Seems to me its just another nail in a coffin for UFOs of extraterrestrial origins.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Modern cameras do not mean digital cameras only, there are still film cameras available and there are people that buy them.

Buncha Luddites is what they are.

If someone has a good camera with a film that adapts itself to the type of photo then it is possible to have great photos, but that is also possible with good digital cameras.

I personally think good photography is an art. And while I agree that it's possible to get a decent photo with a digital camera, I think that the Average Joe Blow with a cell phone camera is generally going to take a lot worse UFO photos than his Grandma did with her old Brownie Hawkeye. That is, there's been a decrease in the average quality of images taken by the average, random photographer. And since UFO photos are generally taken randomly, that would lead to a general, average decrease in the quality of UFO photos.

reply to post by Nohup


The availability of cell phone cameras is responsible for many useless photos (but apparently they are responsible for more videos than photos).

But most UFO photos taken with digital cameras that I have seen were not taken with cell phones, and if you compare those with photos from the 60s, for example, especially colour photos, the quality of those analog photos was not that good, in fact, some were almost as useless as the ones from the cell phones.

I have quite a few good, reliably working Kodak Brownie's and Hawkeyes if anyone is interested. That was you could take "good" photos the way that our grandparents did.

Here is a cool one I havent seen before...found it on image shack

i don't know, aside from polaroids and disposable cameras, most film has a higher resolution than most generic digital cameras.
(sorry my grammar is shot to hell)

edit: that image above is fake

[edit on 13-3-2008 by jetflock]

Because your looking at ones from cell phones probly = more crappy pics to sive though plus the fact that in the oldern days its black & white so you can clearly diffine a shape/disk wot ever, but my guess is just the fact theres more fakes than ever before due to cgi geeks

Camera Interruption Devices!
Most modern UFO's have them. It's almost illegal for them to fly without one.

Skeptically speaking, is it possible that it was easier to fake the old photographs?

Modern cameras seem to be equipped with things like autofocus etc which could bugger up a good fake

I have a nice little digital Fuji camera, which you just point click and the picture is taken. It has so many automatic features on it, that its pretty difficult to take a bad photo

Here's my theory for what it's worth. Only certain cameras and take great photos of UFO's and only certain brands can take great photos of Bigfoot. Unfortunately the UFO photographers are using a camera thats good for Bigfoot and vice versa. Just my theory and a dang good one at that.


mikell
no coffee yet on a friday morning

Well here's the thing. It really doesn't make a blind bit of difference whether a photo of a UFO is excellent or pathetically bad.

Why?

Well, let's use ATS as an example... Every time you get a picture presented by someone you will be treated to the amazing (and I think hilarious) sight of a whole bunch of skeptics running like mad with the goalpoasts

Very dark... useless

Very clear... obviously fake

Out of focus... useless

Perfectly in focus... obviously photoshopped and faked

Can't find anything wrong with it.... The witnesses suck, and there's probably a mundane explanation.

The witnesses are unimpeachable, and there's absolutely no mundane explanation... Obviously it's too good to be true, probably photoshopped, and fake

... and so on and so forth, up and down the field, holding tightly those goalposts and running for all it's worth...

Originally posted by Holygamer


I'm just wondering why there are no good quality pictures.

Seems to me its just another nail in a coffin for UFOs of extraterrestrial origins.

... and how does one correlate to the other Does this apply to UFOs of TERRESTRIAL origin too?

When you see a UFO it exactly that, an UNIDENTIFIED flying object. It could be from earth, or anywhere/anytime/anydimension, for all you know. How then can the 'no decent picture' situation only apply to ET UFOs?

Flawed logic methinks

the thing with digital cameras is that they have different settings for quality. most people when they purchase a digital camera, they just don't bother with the manual and they just start to click away merrily. so very often they wind up with a jpeg that is 640 x 480 (somewhere in that range). then when a digital image is enlarged you wind up with artifacts and/or a distorted image, which also accounts for the poor picture quality.

standard film photography has its limitations as well, but a regular picture can be scanned at a larger scale than the original and there is less distortion. also when developing, you can get some nicer larger images.

if people were to take the time to learn what their camera can do, they could be surprised at how much better the images look, which can lead to better documnetaion of the unexplained.

Originally posted by Dagar
Well here's the thing. It really doesn't make a blind bit of difference whether a photo of a UFO is excellent or pathetically bad.

Why?

Well, let's use ATS as an example... Every time you get a picture presented by someone you will be treated to the amazing (and I think hilarious) sight of a whole bunch of skeptics running like mad with the goalpoasts

Very dark... useless

Very clear... obviously fake

Out of focus... useless

Perfectly in focus... obviously photoshopped and faked

Can't find anything wrong with it.... The witnesses suck, and there's probably a mundane explanation.

The witnesses are unimpeachable, and there's absolutely no mundane explanation... Obviously it's too good to be true, probably photoshopped, and fake

... and so on and so forth, up and down the field, holding tightly those goalposts and running for all it's worth...

Originally posted by Holygamer


I'm just wondering why there are no good quality pictures.

Seems to me its just another nail in a coffin for UFOs of extraterrestrial origins.

... and how does one correlate to the other

Does this apply to UFOs of TERRESTRIAL origin too?

When you see a UFO it exactly that, an UNIDENTIFIED flying object. It could be from earth, or anywhere/anytime/anydimension, for all you know. How then can the 'no decent picture' situation only apply to ET UFOs?

Flawed logic methinks

you are "spot on" with this comment, it's a tough crowd out there to convince. especially with "photoshop cowboys" making magic happen.

Originally posted by chromatico
Occam's razor....at least 99% of UFO vids/photos are fake.

There's no way you can use Occam's Razor to assign a percentage to the number of fake UFO photos/vids. There's no way you can know what percentage of photos/vids are fake using any means. You can say, "I think 99% of UFO photos/videos are fake", or, "Occam's Razor suggests most UFO photos/videos are fake or misidentified ordinary objects" but you can't say, "Occam's Razor says 99% of all UFO photo/videos are fake".