Been on this a site a long time and now I get pics

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


I don't see definitive shape of the craft in comparison to the trees, but I do see the sharpness of the lights in comparison to the trees.

I did zoom in on the lights on the first pic, and while the majority of the light is white, one has a red halo, one green/blue halo and the other one is mostly white with a slight red to purple halo, since the OP stated that it was a 1 sec exposure, could he have captured an aircraft warning lights ?Could the exposure time cause the colored lights to appear white?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Looking at the first image he held the camera fairly still from the looks of it. But the odd thing is that the contours of the craft are too sharp compared to the foreground trees.

Because the craft would not be at the same distance of the trees, and the trees are out of focus. When you take a photograph, you have to focus on something, and only things at the same distance or on the same focal plane will be in focus.

reply to post by JacKatMtn


Quite possibly the exposure could play weird things on the lights, but im not a photographer or expert in that matter.


Oh and OrangeAlarmClock, these trees are close and far, and there is no trouble with the focus:

www.davidstauffer.com...

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by JacKatMtn

 

Oh and OrangeAlarmClock, these trees are close and far, and there is no trouble with the focus:

www.davidstauffer.com...

That image you provide was shot during the day, so a small aperture like F/16 was probably used. With a small aperture, there is a much deeper depth of field, and more things can be in focus.

In the OP's images, it was dark when he shot the photos, and the exif tells us he used a large aperture F/2.8 which allows for a VERY shallow depth of field, where not much can be in focus.

Here's a good article on aperture and depth of field that can explain it much better than I can:
www.cambridgeincolour.com...
In particular, look at the examples of the various photos, the 3 photos halfway down the page shot at different apertures.

I'm no expert or nothin, but....

I was looking at these photos, and at first thought that they looked like the lights might be flashing, since there are bulbous parts and trailing parts. This could be produced by an unsteady hand with a long exposure. I struck that off when I looked at the leaves in the foreground, and realized that their blur seems to follow the same start and end path of the lights. This is the one in particular that I'm interested in:

www.evis.net...

You can see that the blur of the plants in the foreground also have the most steady points where their image shows through during the exposure, creating a kind of dual image. A similar thing happened with the lights.

Here's why I'm confused though: If the lights blurred, and the plants blurred in the same direction apparently from an unsteady hand during a long exposure, then what's up with the ONE light on the dang thing that ISN'T blurred. I think I saw the same thing in another photo. There's one light that just seems to be one solid bright light, with no trail.

Maybe the lights were flashing? (Showing up in two different places in the same exposure) Maybe the photo is edited, and they forgot to blur one of the lights in the same pattern? Any thoughts on this?

Another New Animation

I lined up the lights and other visual cues in this one.
No editing by me. I just stacked in layers, aligned and
then created single images for the animation.

Very interesting to say the least

I'll be adding another animation shortly

[edit on 30/6/08 by RenderGod]

[edit on 30/6/08 by RenderGod]

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

You do realize that there is no motion blur on the bright light because they are flashing? Nothing fake or weird, only your wrong assumptions. I already mentioned the flashing lights several times, as did the OP:

The lights were slow strobe (not the normal on off) bright and then very bright.

We can even tell the frequency of the strobes from the last picture (1086) with 5 second exposure time: 1 per second on the left, about 0.4 per second on the right.

About the color of the lights, I don't know how trustworthy color correction is with such low dynamic range pictures. When matching the background in PhotoShop I got very different colors. White lights have lost any color information, but the halos around them are significant. They show three different colors. There is probably more information in the raw CR2 files, 14 bits/channel instead of 8 in the JPEG files.

My 3rd aimation with a big white arrow pointing to
a very interesting object that appears in every shot.
What The Fork is it?





[edit on 30/6/08 by RenderGod]

Sorry, I've used PS enough to know an airbrush job and a blur tool were used when I see it.

Thanks for playing...

reply to post by RenderGod


Thanks for you effort. After your animation, I am 100 Percent sure, that this is a helicopter. But of course I mean, I am convinced, I dont have any proof.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by commodore64]

[edit on 30-6-2008 by commodore64]

reply to post by RenderGod

Well done!
I noticed in the last picture that this yellow blob is always in sync with the tail light. IMO it is on top of the rotor, that's why it is not illuminated by the other flashing light underneath the helicopter.



[edit: added animation]

[edit on 2008-6-30 by nablator]

Originally posted by stikkinikki

Originally posted by Question Fate
These scream military to me. Idk, it just looks manmade.

Definitely not a heli though.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by Question Fate]

This is the tack I am taking with a lot of these UFOs. Why do they always have lights on them? Headlights on your vehicle is a universal coincidence?

Its obvious, all the UFO's are made by Volvo

Good thread, looking forward to jritzman getting hold of the original date

reply to post by Scramjet76


Actually, OP stated that the object moved away pretty fast, at some 200-500 mph, if I'm not wrong. Gotta check previous pages...

reply to post by RenderGod


Good job! I noticed that too. I was going to do the same animation but the files were too big, bogging down my system lol. Star for ya.

I have no idea what that thing is!

nice perspective on the images by animating them. thank you so much for taking the time to do that for us.

Does anyone have any opinion as to why the lights would be the color they are? Is there an opinion to their use? It is strange how the lights seem to be rotating or the craft rotating oddly.

This looks like some great new technology what ever it is, I would love to have been in that test flight.

subtle, but still terrible photochop. try again please.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by skywatch

 

I would love to see this software you could easily create to handle raw image files. I think that it wonderful for you to volunteer your extraordinary talents with computers and software for this task. We look forward to using this software you plan on whipping up for us here at ATS. Thanks in advance.

i dont plan on making this software..
if i get 300.000$ as suggested it will be delivered in one week.
otherwise if have other things to do
anyhow, a raw format would be different for all companies, when storing the data raw they are free to choose how.
but what would be the use for this, i dont really understand this, what im saying is that everything digital can be both create, written and deleted, its not possible to use a raw file is proof of anyting, only proof is that is hard to make it. -not impossible.
the camara converts the image into an internal digital representation, a little program does that inside the camera.. there is no magic, no impossible ways to decode this, you just need the little program to see how its stored if you cant get this you have to try to decode the file, but normally most of the file consist of the actual image data in you guessed it, RAW FORMAT.
the point is that to make what you request i need a very good reason.
actually an idea would be to make a digital watermark which incorporated a unique key which was givin to the camera by wireless net the moment the shot was taken.. something like that is the only way you can say that an image is 100% not tampered.
but i did request the "raw" file was uploaded so that people themself could download them and convert them with the adobe product the OP used. they should then get the same results as the jpegs.
the pictures are genuine, thats how i feel about them, i see enough ufo's these days that i dont really care about 100% proof

Several posters mentioned the Osprey...the sound and lights seem to fit.

www.globalsecurity.org...

TextCompared to both helicopters and conventional turboprops, the Osprey has a lower acoustic signature due to the tiltrotor's reduced rotor rotational speed. It also uses very low thrust for cruise propulsion. The V-22 flying in aircraft mode produces a distinctive sound, described by observers as a "throaty and muted hum - more like a vehicle than a helicopter."
Two retractable search and landing lights are located on the bottom of the fuselage. The lights are selectable white or infrared.

and they have green tip lights




They look strange enough in daylight. They look even stranger at night. This one is off the coast of North Carolina



What would one look like at night from underneath with the searchlights on?

reply to post by CoffinFeeder


I've used Photoshop for about a decade, and am pretty steady at it.
I'm not sure how you, or anyone is pointing at it and saying its 'shopped?
Would you mind telling us how you can tell?
I'd like to know. Thanks!

Originally posted by RenderGod
My 3rd aimation with a big white arrow pointing to
a very interesting object that appears in every shot.
What The Fork is it?

It is in sync with the flashing light on the left (tail light?), as well as another smaller object.