New program will rescue blurry UFO pics ?

Nearly every UFO objects captured on camera have one thing in common, they are blurry - no details,no sharp edges.
I wonder if the new filter from Adobe will help to prove the " ufo-case" or on the other hand dismiss pictures as
hoax ?

Link : www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by callacas


To the best of my understanding (and I am no expert):
There are many types and causes of blur, to create a filter that can rescue blurry photos is kinda a bit of a sensationalised overstatement - I dont doubt it can fix some blur types and causes but my guess is only a handful.

Hmm well they developed software that could undo heavy photo modification which helped trap a ring of paedophiles, so perhaps this is legitimate

Would of been interesting if you can see what the guy talking about. Seems so far away and I can barely hear his speech. I would definitely be interested in the filter.

Was reading about this last night here on ATS

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread762988/pg1

Cool stuff, will make my job in web design much better....

Oh, and by the way, if you are someone who has ever hired a web designer to build a website for you, and you send them 150px x 150px "ish" sized images for use in design process..... you're an evil twat.

So does that mean we will have no more posts on flying saucers

The problem is that if you run your UFO photos through photoshop to de-blur them everyone will scream their fake because you ran them through photoshop

You can't win.

Originally posted by Grifter81
The problem is that if you run your UFO photos through photoshop to de-blur them everyone will scream their fake because you ran them through photoshop

You can't win.

No the problem is that even when the picture is already reasonably sharp, and clearly shows a chicken incubator, people still believe it's a UFO:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aa1232f0754f.jpg[/atsimg]

Or this one is pretty sharp and someone claims it's really a wheel from a model train:



I don't think Photoshop will help much with these, they will still look like a chicken incubator and a model train wheel after you process them. It might help with the blurry photos though.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You are correct of course. I think if an astounding photo of a UFO came forward it would most likely speak for itself. Even if it was a little blurry around the edges. Most of what we have to go on, as you say, can be explained away as mundane everyday objects i.e. Fake.

This technique could be useful for proving that so called Rods are actually just insects with motion blur however.

This process does not work for out of focus shots , it seems it only works for blurring due to hand shake. So its only going to work on a handful of blurred pics.

Im pretty sure the sunflower image that the Daily Fail has on their page is something they have just put in themselves and is not from Adobe because thats an out of focus shot and not an example of motion blur.

Being a photographer myself i cant wait to get my hands on it though.

Said it before, saying it again: Any process that creates data which isnt in the original is by definition fake.

This goes for digital zoom (oh how many times havent we see a UFO created from a single pixel?), various processing effects or sharpening.

The possibility of fakery is always there with UFO photos, no matter what the quality.
These days, to be credible, you need something else, such as really great witness testimony, several witnesses, video, successive photos, etc. to make the case for a good sighting.

Even then, all you're left with is an unknown object in the sky.

It's a lot easier than you think, to be fooled too. I grew up around tarmacs, and can identify most aircraft on sight. However, not too long ago, myself, and an entire crowd, looked into the sky and couldn't make heads or tails of what we were seeing...

But, we were there to watch a show, and I had binoculars. Through them, I could identify the craft as an F18 but at a strange approach angle (and at about 3000 feet). With the naked eye though, I was bewildered, and I'd be considered a fairly trained observer.