yes.
focus works for me.how about for focus?
oh please. every time i watch a show that says the lake monster was 50 feet or a hundred feet i have to picture myself lying end to end to envision the size. Youre a guy, take a pic of a scene with things at different distances and you tell me how many feet x is from y.(how far?)
focus works for me.
Youre a guy, take a pic of a scene with things at different distances and you tell me how many feet x is from y.
well then we're screwed.I'm a man doesn't mean I'm more likely to have better spatial awareness than a non-man
doesnt your phone take pics? put a vitamin or button near you and click on it in your camera phone so the phone focuses on it. the stuff in the background gets blurry.Explanation?
doesnt your phone take pics? put a vitamin or button near you and click on it in your camera phone so the phone focuses on it. the stuff in the background gets blurry.
Robinson, the photo expert, claimed that the 'UFO' was in better focus than either the fence and trees, which he thought were nearer to the camera, or the Harrier (jet), which he thought was further away. He also thought the UFO was closer to the jet than to the fence, etc, without giving much explanation. As a complete non-expert on photography, I don't know how this works.This, as you need to open up the iris, but this creates shallow depth of focus, which we do not see in the "original Calvine image", as everything is in nice focus
I am really not sure if one is able to get everything in focus from close to infinite (±clouds). I have played with this stuff a lot years ago and remember very well that (if you do not have a tripod) low light conditions are tricky. This, as you need to open up the iris, but this creates shallow depth of focus, which we do not see in the "original Calvine image", as everything is in nice focus.
PS, a camera in a phone or any micro cam: it has a fixed aperture inside. The phone creates blur and focal depth by using software.
Iyou should pull out your 35 mm and disprove the model theory. That would be helpful.
doesnt your phone take pics?
This would happen if the photographer tried to follow the plane. A skilled photographer would do that
The object also looks mirrored in the "artifacts", the light and dark spots. That is also a clue.
I think the UFO is fake and put in the picture afterwards in the post production. You can put an object onto the photo paper, do a lets say 50% exposure, remove the object and do another 50%.
Article: The grain in the area of the unidentified object in the centre of the image shows no break, distortion or unevenness and is continuous across the object. There is no evidence from the grain distribution around the object that the image has being collaged or constructed. The grain is continuous, in size, texture and density across the whole image suggesting that the image itself (both negative and print) has not been manipulated. The grain present in the photograph and around the unidentified object is consistent with this being a genuine recording of a scene in front of the camera.
A possible approach to disguising the collaging and construction of an image, either on the negative or print would be to rephotograph a manipulated image on a coarser grain film so that a convincing and genuine grain distribution disguises joins and artefacts of the manipulation. Whilst it is impossible to fully rule this out this would be unlikely due to the fineness and consistency of the grain in this image.
Conclusion – The film grain is consistent with the film identified (XP-1) and suggests that no negative or print based manipulation of the image has taken place and that the image is a genuine representation of a scene in front of the camera.
He also thought the UFO was closer to the jet than to the fence, etc, without giving much explanation.
PS, a camera in a phone or any micro cam: it has a fixed aperture inside. The phone creates blur and focal depth by using software.
Source: https://www.giffgaff.com/blog/how-does-auto-focus-work-on-your-smartphone/#:~:text=Essentially, it's an auto-focus,based on measuring the contrast.Essentially, it's an auto-focus system based on trial-and-error. The lens on your camera phone is moved back and forth until the position of maximum focus is found for the object. In order to determine when an image is in focus, your smartphone uses an algorithm based on measuring the contrast
I was referring to Depth of Focus, as indeed the phone cam does focus. The F/# (and focal length) determines the DoF, and in a mobile phone, the aperture is fixed and thus also the DoF. To be able to "mimic" the DoF of a proper SLR cam, modern OS software does this in the image, and real time. This way you can make nice looking "professional" photo's with your phone, for instance a flower on the foreground in perfect focus, and the rest behind it blurred (bokeh). Below is an example of a 60mm lens and at F/2.4:Not sure what you mean. If we're talking about autofocus, if I understand correctly this is partly a mechanical process involving moving parts in the camera:
Source: https://www.giffgaff.com/blog/how-does-auto-focus-work-on-your-smartphone/#:~:text=Essentially, it's an auto-focus,based on measuring the contrast.
Isn't this more-or-less what a traditional camera does when you adjust the focus, except that software, instead of a human operator, detects when the image is in focus?
Thanks. I don't think I had heard of Depth of Focus. I've heard of Depth of Field, but apparently they are not the same, as explained here:I was referring to Depth of Focus, as indeed the phone cam does focus.
Glad you enjoy the more in depth optics! There is more..Thanks. I don't think I had heard of Depth of Focus. I've heard of Depth of Field, but apparently they are not the same, as explained here:
https://www.masterclass.com/articles/depth-of-focus-vs-depth-of-field#what-is-depth-of-focus
I'll leave this one to the experts from now on!
The first Gulf War, including operation Desert Storm, was active from August 1990 to February 1991. Note that I am not suggesting that the Navy was developing a high-tech aircraft as such - which would be an undertaking more suitable for one of the major aerospace corporations with the USAF as the main customer - but that it might be developing and testing stealth materials for use on ships and other vehicles. Dare I say that the Calvine object looks slightly reminiscent of the superstructure of some 'stealthy' ships? (See this video on stealth ships, and note the comments around 4m23 on 'large flat surfaces angled upwards' to deflect radar):For more than four decades, the NRL has been a resource for RAM innovation, prototype production, and measurement tools/facilities. In fact, the NRL has developed, produced, and in several instances installed materials on Navy/Department of Defense platforms from the end of World War II through Desert Storm. Much of the NRL's work preceded efforts on stealth technology and significantly impacted it in the areas of submarines, missiles, aircraft, ships, and land vehicles.
Can somebody with camera knowing speak to this? The image does not look fine grained to me, but it is very possible I dont understand what the term means.A possible approach to disguising the collaging and construction of an image, either on the negative or print would be to rephotograph a manipulated image on a coarser grain film so that a convincing and genuine grain distribution disguises joins and artefacts of the manipulation. Whilst it is impossible to fully rule this out this would be unlikely due to the fineness and consistency of the grain in this image.
the "supposed location" ..there is coordinates in this other thread (below link) somewhere. but recently someone posted a video of his trek of the location..he names it in beginning of video but i cant understand him due to his accent. the video is in this commentDoes anyone have the exact supposed location?
Does anyone have the exact supposed location?
It's in the comment that you've linked to. An Teampan.the "supposed location" ..there is coordinates in this other thread (below link) somewhere. but recently someone posted a video of his trek of the location..he names it in beginning of video but i cant understand him due to his accent. the video is in this comment
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-278622
thanks! i thought that was the name of the guy who first "found" it's "investigative team". like how all those ghost searcher teams have odd names. opps.It's in the comment that you've linked to. An Teampan.
Ah, I see. To be fair the name is not an English or Scots one, it's Scottish Gaelic so pretty unfamiliar to most.thanks! i thought that was the name of the guy who first "found" it's "investigative team". like how all those ghost searcher teams have odd names. opps.
Including this Scot!it's Scottish Gaelic so pretty unfamiliar to most.
Thanks for the location.This is the proposed location. Though as you say, it's far from certain that's where the photo was taken.
56.7635230, -3.9855080
Regarding focus, there has been the suggestion that the whole photo is out of focus due to the way it was copied (on an enlarger which wasn't properly adjusted). Not sure how that would affect what you're seeing though.
This seems a bit of weak argument to me. The story is that the Daily Record got 6 original negatives and ended up in contact with Linsday who requested an actual print. The Daily Record's photo department then printed the best one for Linsday. And they printed it badly?Regarding focus, there has been the suggestion that the whole photo is out of focus due to the way it was copied (on an enlarger which wasn't properly adjusted).
I know some people on this sub-thread seem to have discounted the reflection hypothesis, but focusing on a rock/island, nicely framed, and waiting for one of several aircraft (perhaps making multiple low-level passes through a valley, as has been reported to happen) to reflect at the right time would give exactly this kind of effect.The pictures are all composed, with the plane and UFO roughly centered, not at all looking like a quick scared shot snaped in a moment of panic, as related by Linsday. I
And you don't even need to wait for an aircraft if the second object is actually something else (ie. a small rock sticking out of the water + its reflection, a boat + its reflection....).I know some people on this sub-thread seem to have discounted the reflection hypothesis, but focusing on a rock/island, nicely framed, and waiting for one of several aircraft (perhaps making multiple low-level passes through a valley, as has been reported to happen) to reflect at the right time would give exactly this kind of effect.
I know some people on this sub-thread seem to have discounted the reflection hypothesis, but focusing on a rock/island, nicely framed, and waiting for one of several aircraft (perhaps making multiple low-level passes through a valley, as has been reported to happen) to reflect at the right time would give exactly this kind of effect.
And you don't even need to wait for an aircraft if the second object is actually something else (ie. a small rock sticking out of the water + its reflection, a boat + its reflection....).
stand on the side of the puddle and turn your camera like you are doing portrait mode. or turn your camera upside down.I'm not sure how the plane appears right side up, unless as Mauro says, it's not a plane at all, but a case of pareidolia. I'll buy that.
someone already did in the appropriate thread.let's see some attempts at it
i think you need a 35 millimeter where you can manually adjust the focus. i dont have a digital one so figured by the time i buy film, set up shots, get film back from developing someone else would have already done so. (frankly im super surprised people havent already tried to recreate with a 35 millimeter.We all have camera phones now.
Yes, there was 1 attempt.someone already did in the appropriate thread.
Agreed, a 35mm film camera would be ideal and a full manual digital SLR is next best. However, some of the newer phone cameras have a number of features allowing one to adjust the focus to particular elements in the scene.i think you need a 35 millimeter where you can manually adjust the focus. i dont have a digital one so figured by the time i buy film, set up shots, get film back from developing someone else would have already done so. (frankly im super surprised people havent already tried to recreate with a 35 millimeter.
It is also available in portrait mode. I am actually not that impressed, it is just software. I would be surprised it would help you in the recreation..The newer iPhones also have "cinematic" mode, which mimics a short or narrow depth of field allowing one to shift the focus back and forth from close to distance elements. One can then take a screen grab when the shot is what they were looking for. That's what I'll work on today, time and weather permitting (lot of clean up and a heat wave).
full manual digital SLR is next best
i would just hang different size things from a tree and play with the focus until the items blur are similar to the Calvine pic.Got one lying around (broken screen though).
Tell me what settings I need to put it on and I'll give it a try.
Large aperture (f/2 or so).Got one lying around (broken screen though).
Tell me what settings I need to put it on and I'll give it a try.
It varies, but many digital cameras called it "aperture priority" and set it to the lowest number as Ravi said. That will give you the shallowest depth of field. Meaning only certain elements in the shot can be in focus, not the whole scene.Tell me what settings I need to put it on and I'll give it a try.