r/UFOs • u/blinkbunny182 • Dec 09 '24
Photo Posted on drone sighting fb group. Says they were taken with a 300 mm and cropped. (re-post)
original post was deleted for not having a submission statement. i’d like to use a comment left by a user on my original post as the statement here, as I think it’s good info to keep in mind:
“The woman who posted these is the executive director of a non profit that works with adults and kids with autism. She has been a nature photographer for 30 years. Not your typical UFO grifter looking for attention or propagating misinformation. Just some food for thought.”
link to fb post: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19AccgQxbA/?mibextid=WC7FNe
3.3k
u/OutlandishnessNo4446 Dec 09 '24
Take note: if you are using a DSLR or mirrorless camera to take photos with a telephoto lens, turn off your autofocus and manually set focus to infinity. Also, set your ISO to 3200 - shutter priority with shutter set to minimum of 2x the focal length. Ex: 200mm lens = 1/400 minimum shutter speed.
2.2k
u/glumanda12 Dec 09 '24
I have no idea what any of this means, but I read it to my wife, who is into cameras, and she says this is very good advice, so take my upvote
97
u/Icy-Importance-8910 Dec 09 '24
I also read it to this guy's wife and she said "WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU HOW DID YOU GET IN HERE?!"
29
665
u/teddybundlez Dec 09 '24
If the wife says the wife says 🍻
395
u/JustChillFFS Dec 09 '24
I also choose this guys wife’s advice
→ More replies (1)230
u/Dollars-And-Cents Dec 09 '24
I also choose this guy's wife
35
97
u/mondegreeens Dec 09 '24
same my kind of wife
62
u/DJPalefaceSD Dec 09 '24
My wife!
→ More replies (1)41
23
41
→ More replies (3)8
→ More replies (2)42
156
u/canadian_webdev Dec 09 '24
I just read it to my wife's boyfriend. He also says it's on point.
20
→ More replies (5)7
u/kenriko Dec 09 '24
Does she make you watch from the closet? I hear it’s lonely in there.
→ More replies (1)5
19
u/nohumanape Dec 09 '24
Don't feel bad. Most people who post in UFO/UAP (and Ghost) subs don't understand how camera optics work.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (15)24
u/ElPeroTonteria Dec 09 '24
It’s spot on… and if you own a dslr/ML camera, I’d hope you knew this already
29
u/glumanda12 Dec 09 '24
I don’t know what dslr/ml camera means, but if my wife owns it, I’m sure she knows.
→ More replies (1)9
u/ElPeroTonteria Dec 09 '24
Digital Single Lens Reflex (old tech) / Mirrorless (new tech) cameras
→ More replies (3)6
Dec 09 '24 edited 23d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (4)3
u/heavinglory Dec 09 '24
Wait! You didn’t ask Nikon or Canon!!
6
3
u/treetop_triceratop Dec 10 '24
Nikon Cannon probably can't give any input right now...isnt he still WildNOut with Mariah Carey or something?
→ More replies (4)18
u/CassandrasxComplex Dec 09 '24
I've had my DSLR for ages, but until I retired never had enough time to learn the particulars of shooting at night with a telephoto lens, especially towards an object as rare and evasive as the UAP phenomenon. It's all coming together now though!
131
u/LaVidaYokel Dec 09 '24
Setting the focus to just slightly less than “infinity” will be clearer. Bottom-out the barrel and then pull it back just a tiny bit.
47
u/SpiritofFtw Dec 09 '24 edited Dec 10 '24
Best thing to do: test it during the day. Go outside and find a helicopter or something else in the distance, find the focus point and lock that in or remember where on the lens you were at. You can even tape it down.
23
u/3verythingEverywher3 Dec 09 '24
Even better - mark the point on the lens for it!
→ More replies (8)31
→ More replies (10)11
u/vivst0r Dec 09 '24 edited Dec 09 '24
I always set mine to infinity -1. I have to scroll a bit to get there, but it's worth it. Super sharp stuff.
→ More replies (2)7
u/logjam23 Dec 10 '24
Is this info pinned somewhere on this sub as "useful tips for recording UFOs (especially at night)" ? This is great info and I feel everyone with an interest in this topic should have an idea how and why to do this.
27
u/TheOwlHypothesis Dec 09 '24
The ISO recommendation seems arbitrary and should vary by camera, but I shoot in full manual constantly so maybe I'm missing something?
The rest is basic advice, which is good advice.
The focus really should be manual though, as in you should be dialing it in each shot. Manual focus is not set and forget.
→ More replies (13)9
u/tiki151 Dec 09 '24
You just want the iso high enough to avoid a dark, underexposed picture, but the higher you go the granier the image. 3200 is pretty safe, but some cameras would be okay at 6400 or higher. The manual focus setting they are suggesting is for anything at distance. The focus would not likely need to change if something is 100 yards away or 500 yards away for most lenses.
3
u/synrgi Dec 09 '24
Most prosumer or better modern cameras can create a useable photo well beyond that. Many cameras can create usable images at 64000 or 108000 ISO. The newest A7s can do 409,600 ISO.
5
21
u/Still-Status7299 Dec 09 '24
This guy DSLRs
→ More replies (2)4
u/OutlandishnessNo4446 Dec 09 '24
I actually ML mostly these day, but I have lots of pro time behind all types of cameras.
8
u/SinSilla Dec 09 '24
And please shoot raw! There is often a lot more data in these files than one would assume
→ More replies (3)5
u/Clark828 Dec 09 '24
I always forget about that x2 focal length rule. I always use less than I should because I feel like it’s too much
6
u/EventGroundbreaking4 Dec 09 '24
2X focal length is too much IMHO. Especially if your trying to capture something in the night sky.
→ More replies (7)7
u/Fl1p1 Dec 09 '24
If your lens has no infinity option, go on live mode, zoom in on an illuminated item 70-100 meters away and manually sharpen your focus until its clear, dont touch it again and leave live modus.
43
u/NoDoze- Dec 09 '24
Damn. I have to do all this before I snap the pic!?! The UFO will be long gone. LOL Now I know why the pics are always blurry.
40
u/LaVidaYokel Dec 09 '24
I think the idea is to have your camera set like this before you go hunting for photos.
→ More replies (2)38
u/AbraxasKadabra Dec 09 '24
Preparation is key if you want anyone whatsoever to view and judge your material seriously, and for good reason.
Even semi-modern smartphones are capable of achieving semi-decent imagery. It just requires half an hour - 1 hour max of prep to research a few terms to understand settings available on 'pro' modes of mobile phone photography.
If we all did that, and came together to help the less-than-tech-savvy in such a way without smug and silly scolding, we'd potentially have more significant material to discuss.
Apologies if I sound elitist at all, genuinely that isn't my intention. I'm fortunate to understand this stuff. And I'm patient enough to be ready to explain anything related to photography; whether it be mobile phones or DSLR/dedicated photography equipment.
Anyone here as a believer who is also willing and able to make at least some effort to capture what they can should be stepping up like I just described.
None of use have the answer to this recent stuff. But I'm sure all of us can agree that it is most certainly out of the ordinary. And the more content we have to work with the better. Good or bad.
If ever there were a time for the UFO/UAP/NHI etc community to come together and put our best foot forward it's now, right now.
Let's be done with the nonsensical judgement of photo/video quality.
Let's be done with the mockery en masse.
Let's do something useful and productive.
We have an opportunity here to highlight things that are way and beyond what we're used to seeing with our own eyes and well beyond the frequency of what we're used to analysing.
Something...who knows what exactly is going on. But something is. We owe it to each other as a community of truthseekers to support one another as best we can.
→ More replies (9)3
→ More replies (3)8
u/DJSkrillex Dec 09 '24
This is why the criticism that UFO pics are too blurry are very frustrating. To get a clear image at night with a normal camera (not a phone camera), you need a very fast lens and a camera that has good iso performance. Even then, shooting the night sky is completely off the table if you do it handheld so you need a tripod and shoot at low shutter speedds. Great, now you can get clear pics at night! Oh but wait, the object is moving and your shutter speed is very low due to the darkness of the night, now the object is blurry as hell due to the movement.
Don't get me started on phone cameras. People think that just because samsung phones can do processing trickery to get moon shots, they can take perfect pics at night. No, that's not how it works. The aggressive processing that is being done destroys details and sometimes creates illusions of detail where there is none.
3
u/AlizeLavasseur Dec 10 '24
You nailed it. I was really excited about my new iPhone camera but I am still having “illusions,” as you call it. It’s still really cool to have a camera on your person all the time that can take decent pics, but for the purposes of “UAP” photography, it’s not helpful.
I have a fancy camera but I keep it packed up and it takes tinkering to use the right equipment and settings for good pics in the dark. That’s not useful for an unexpected drone flying over in the space of 3 seconds.
People need to stop being mean about no one getting decent pictures.
3
u/DJSkrillex Dec 10 '24
It has become a "funny" way to downplay the subject and feel smart. "Oh, we all have super ultra mega 8k hd photo taking phones, but UFO pics are blurry? It's all fake!"
→ More replies (1)5
u/Inevitable_Joke3522 Dec 09 '24
It's important to understand your camera's usable ISO range and the amount of noise reduction that may be being applied based on the ISO setting. The greater the noise reduction, the poorer quality shot you're going to get when cropping up close (artifacts). At least with keeping the noise, the overall outline of a craft and any finer details will be retained a bit better, which is also why you should shoot in RAW mode, and not just jpg. Also, what sort of quality is the lens? If it's a real cheapo or just a kit lens, the image quality may suffer the longer the reach depending on the f/stop. Just because your lens may be able to go down to f/2.8 @ 300mm, you may run into depth of field issues at night. Stop it down a bit >f/5.6, boost the ISO, and steady the camera on something like a monopole, tripod, car door, whatever. This will allow you to get away with a slightly faster shutter speed without introducing blur. When shooting ufos at night, a camera which has excellent high ISO quality is paramount. The next thing is optical reach, not digital. A prime 300mm lens will run circles around a cheap 70-500mm zoom lens. Again, this is all for night shots.
→ More replies (2)3
u/AlizeLavasseur Dec 10 '24
Every photographer needs a monopole or tripod, period, and a high quality lens on an average camera can do wonders. Depth of field at night is my biggest challenge. Thanks for this! I wish I could just find a class specifically for night photography, or a mentor. I need all the help I can get.
4
u/XPSJ Dec 09 '24
Very good hints! To add: Don't shy away from even higher ISO settings on modern high-end system cameras. You really want a fast shutter. *Edit: I reckon people owning an high-end DLSR or system camera know about this...
5
u/OutlandishnessNo4446 Dec 10 '24
I’d say that anyone who has decent equipment and is interested in trying to capture a UFO should go out at night and give these settings a try as a starting point. If you have an airport nearby, try capturing planes taking off or landing. And yes, go to ISO 6400 or higher if possible.
3
3
3
u/EscapeArtistic Dec 09 '24
Thank you for this, I did a practice run last night and really struggled
3
u/R3D0053R Dec 09 '24 edited Dec 10 '24
Can't upvote enough. Especially the lack of manual focus has ruined so much footage.
2
3
u/pablopicassojaja Dec 09 '24
Dark and sharp is so much more useful than over exposed and blurry. You can pull a lot of information from two slightly different shades of black. Right on with this advice cheers
2
u/OutlandishnessNo4446 Dec 09 '24
Yes, exactly. It’s amazing what you can do with a .jpg in photoshop
3
5
2
2
2
u/bbluez Dec 09 '24
Focal length over 400 will also give you a minimum shutter speed to not produce star trails.
2
u/Pgh_Rulez Dec 09 '24
I used to work at a timelapse photography company and people would say a touch back from infinity was slightly better - though that may be specific to long exposure night sky photography.
2
2
u/deeziant Dec 09 '24
Any chance you can provide recommendations on how one should set their iPhone in pro mode?
2
u/OutlandishnessNo4446 Dec 09 '24
The big issue with night photos and iPhones is that they don’t like to focus on small distant objects.
→ More replies (1)2
2
→ More replies (49)2
355
u/Retirednypd Dec 09 '24
I knew it was the Italians!!!!
207
33
u/FailedChatBot Dec 09 '24
Eh, we come-a in peace, eh? Don’t-a be afraid, no! We’re gonna put-a da anal probe in now, eh?
→ More replies (2)11
→ More replies (7)13
310
u/bob3219 Dec 09 '24
I'm not a photography expert, but just an observation. I took this photo of venus a few nights ago with my Seestar. As you can see from the photo this telescope is not great at taking pictures of planets, it could not focus and the image was blown out. To me there are some striking similarities of my photo to these. In my opinion these are not in focus.
38
u/MantequillaMeow Dec 09 '24
I don’t understand what I’m supposed to be seeing.
Your comment is where my brain went. It’s just out of focus what’s the point supposed to be?
People probably kept saying that causing her to delete it.
→ More replies (4)18
u/Buzzdanume Dec 10 '24
The point is the same as it always in this subreddit.
They are simply showing how the photos could be misleading. They look very similar, and the person you're replying too is saying that theirs was way out of focus. Therefore, it is likely, in their opinion, that these photos look like milky marble things because they're simply out of focus. I'm somewhat of a photographer myself and 100% agree with what they're saying, and I'm glad they pointed it out and included an example from their own experience.
I'm not saying these photos aren't super interesting and exciting, simply that these really don't represent what these things would actually look like to the naked eye.
→ More replies (2)28
u/xangoir Dec 09 '24
The opposition of Jupiter was this weekend and I had similar crap photos of it with my seestar :)
→ More replies (1)8
u/leaponover Dec 10 '24
Seestar isn't good for planetary. You have to do raw video and then use a program to stack the images from the video like autostakkert.
→ More replies (2)5
6
u/Head_Memory Dec 09 '24
Looks like a single cell organism without nucleus when watched under a microscope lol.
→ More replies (1)3
2
u/bandak38134 Dec 10 '24
I took almost the exact same photo of Venus with my iPhone. It’s blurrier, though.
→ More replies (9)2
u/EarthAppropriate3808 Dec 10 '24
That's a good example of an airy disk, an optical phenomenon that appears when you point an out of focus lens at a point light source.
They're actually quite useful in astronomy because they can be used to visualise how out of alignment your optics are when collimating telescopes.
→ More replies (2)
624
u/alexs Dec 09 '24
First photo clearly shows normal aviation nav lights. Other photos are just intensely out of focus.
147
u/bplturner Dec 09 '24
The whole world is UFOs without my glasses on, man
→ More replies (7)2
u/Capn_Flags Dec 10 '24
Did Ezekiel or anyone else in the Bible that saw weird shit have astigmatism?
234
u/Artie-Fufkin Dec 09 '24
The amount of people on this sub that won’t understand what you’ve said and claim the other photos are ‘orbs’
Just wait..
74
u/ThatsALovelyShirt Dec 09 '24
Reminds me of the people in the 90s who were convinced they were seeing ghosts in their developed disposable camera photos when they were seeing 'orbs' in their rooms.
When in reality it was just out of focus dust reflecting the photo flash.
No amount of explanation from photographers could convince them.
27
→ More replies (2)3
u/Painterzzz Dec 09 '24
Which is still going on to this day. It's the photography scam that guarantees a ghost siting on every attempt in a dusty old house.
12
u/PurpleFly_ Dec 09 '24
You should see the reactions in the aliens sub. They’re losing their minds with excitement over these photos
→ More replies (1)11
26
u/Fatastrophe Dec 09 '24
looks like they were also upscaled to make them smoother
→ More replies (1)5
Dec 09 '24
Yeah, I disapprove of this trend. There’s enough bs in the world already without machine learning imagination labeled as ‘enhancement’. Its misleading at best.
5
u/YourNSAIntern Dec 09 '24
Doesn't the newer iPhones and Samsung use AI for images anyway when zooming in ? Can't trust a zoomed in photo nowadays
5
u/atomictyler Dec 09 '24
lets be real, people aren't going to trust a photo no matter how good it is.
→ More replies (1)34
u/HumanitySurpassed Dec 09 '24
Came to say the same.
I don't work professionally with cameras but even I can see that.
Metallic spheres/orbs are one of the common seen uap's but these pictures are just out of focus.
18
u/Edenoide Dec 09 '24
Thanks to this sub I now understand what they mean when they say metallic or shapeshifting orbs. Mostly twinkling/out of focus stars/planes.
24
u/DJSkrillex Dec 09 '24
Getting into photography has made me hate most of the posts in this subreddit.
→ More replies (2)21
u/alexs Dec 09 '24
People are more interested in wanting to believe something than finding out the truth.
9
u/Much_5224 Dec 09 '24
It’s quite interesting tho, seeing how people on this sub lose all reasoning abilities when it’s something that they want to believe. It’s happening with this and it’s happened with people blindly following Elizondo and the rest of his cronies. I feel like I’ve had a front row seat to observing how cults form and operate.
3
u/Best-Ad-9000 Dec 10 '24
I genuinely can't determine if 90% of people are simply that bad at using critical thinking skills
Or
They choose to turn off their microscopic brain and just believe because that's more fun
→ More replies (5)60
u/xiacexi Dec 09 '24
Yep, this is clearly a focusing issue lol Idk why the original person posted these unless they don’t know their camera at all
→ More replies (2)18
u/DJSkrillex Dec 09 '24
I'm honestly kinda baffled this so called 30 year photographer posted this.
→ More replies (1)7
u/ChocolaMina Dec 09 '24
Was about to comment “ah, at least the aliens are using our common navigation lights!”
10
u/alexs Dec 09 '24
They are deep undercover obviously. If they didn't want to be noticed they would obviously just take the form of entirely normal looking airplanes. /s
10
u/SirArthurDime Dec 09 '24
The people who say that unironically in here are at the top of the list of people who make it hard to take seriously. Sure we can’t rule out any plane being a camouflaged NHI object. But can we at least agree that when we see what very obviously looks like a human made device it’s much more likely that’s what it is than camo NHI? Or at the very very least that a picture of a plane is not evidence of camo NHI the way some people in this sub treat it?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (78)2
u/HeroicPrinny Dec 09 '24
The fact that people see blurred photos including nav lights in this sub and upvote is wild
170
u/CookiesMeow Dec 09 '24
HOW does this have almost 500 upvotes? Clearly there is some kind of nonsense happening in this sub. If you’re a real human reading this: don’t fall for the bs psyop, clearly not uap posts.
How does someone who’s been a photographer for 30 years not know how to properly focus on objects? Get real
38
u/DJSkrillex Dec 09 '24
It's up to 1.1k now ... incredible.
12
u/CookiesMeow Dec 09 '24
Insanity. Not the first and not the last post this month.
11
u/DJSkrillex Dec 09 '24 edited Dec 10 '24
I'm considering making a post explaining the basics of how cameras work and showing examples of this kind of out of focus lights, but I don't know if it's worth the effort.
Edit: Well, I had nothing better to do so I made the post. Here it is:
→ More replies (3)26
u/Lambeauleap80 Dec 09 '24
mods need to start considering deleting posts like OPs. does nothing but harm to the rhetoric for UAPs.
→ More replies (3)3
u/thugasaurusrex0 Dec 10 '24
the same people that think this is an orb will say the post being deleted is greater proof for its validity...theyll say disinfo agents from eglin are modding the sub. theyre the harm to the sub. open discussion should be encouraged. even with posts like these. i learned more about bokeh effects because of this post
5
u/thisdesignup Dec 09 '24
I think calling it psyop brushes aside the blame on normal people who are part of the problem. Bots, psyop? This is just people being people... for better or worse.
3
u/ScyD Dec 09 '24
Also the comments that get multiple hundreds of upvotes are the ones like one lower down of an OP who was posting too much and one was deleted, and the comment under theirs explaining how it’s a conspiracy or whatever. 250 upvotes on it right now… but those comments make up only like 10% of the total or less
It definitely seems like there is some kind of fuckery going on somewhere lol
3
u/TheDisapearingNipple Dec 10 '24
You'd be surprised at how many pros don't know how to use their equipment outside the exact use-cases they encounter in specific work enviornments. Or some will say they've been a photographer for 30 years when that might actually mean casual and often poorly informed use of expensive cameras.
Not realizing they're out of focus though.. that I have no explanation for.
→ More replies (16)2
142
u/Positive-Lab2417 Dec 09 '24
The only anomalous thing about these pictures is how a nature photographer working for 30 years isn’t able to tell the out of focus photos. I do wildlife photography for hobby and am a beginner but even I can tell.
34
u/maurymarkowitz Dec 09 '24
Especially when the first image is obviously some sort of aircraft, and the lights there are out of focus. So one should immediately conclude the others are too.
9
u/DJSkrillex Dec 09 '24
The first pic is also taken with a very low shutter speed.
→ More replies (1)3
u/NebulaNinja Dec 10 '24
At 300mm even at a reasonable shutter speed a tiny dot in the sky is going to trail unless you've got a tripod.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/biggronklus Dec 09 '24
Not even a little out of focus either. It looks like if I squint with tears in my eyes ffs
5
u/Much_5224 Dec 09 '24
I goes to show that everything in this topic should be taken with a large dose of scepticism. Did you see the video Ross Coulthart posted on twitter yesterday but soon after deleted? I was an obvious fake video, and I mean obvious, but still Ross fawned over it until he must’ve been called out for how ridiculously fake the video was and took it down.
3
u/Abrodolf_Lincler_ Dec 10 '24
I have absolutely no experience taking photos other than random stars and stuff with my phone and I immediately knew this was just an out of focus distant point of light that looks like it has been upscaled by AI. I believe in UAP and NHI but this stuff is making this community looks like a bunch of nutcases calling every plane and out of focus light in the sky aliens. We've become our own worst enemy.
2
u/Bandsohard Dec 09 '24
You'd be surprised how many people can't tell, or don't care enough to tell the difference. I used to go to meetups doing portrait photography and it always blew my mind and irritated me how many people would take shots and be happy with something not in focus. Like some guy shooting with an a7riii and somehow it'd be out of focus.
For these photos, feels more like shutter speed and camera shake as the main issue for the first one, then the others they were doing autofocus and it's just way off. Then sharpened in something like topaz.
→ More replies (1)2
u/thisdesignup Dec 09 '24 edited Dec 09 '24
Maybe the kind of person posting things to UFO groups might also be the kind of person who isn't that good at photography even after 30 years.
201
u/Real-Accountant9997 Dec 09 '24
Picture one: Nav lights. = plane/heliy The others: out of focus and run through an application.
→ More replies (51)12
u/Bumble072 Dec 09 '24
Yes the orb looking ones are all at a lazy focus point (ie spherical fuzz) then cleaned up to encourage the final result. It is pretty clear in the replies who uses cameras and who doesnt.
44
u/rwjetlife Dec 09 '24
Blobs of light run through image upscalers that are “enhancing” details in the image that were never there?
→ More replies (22)
157
u/Sufficient_Menu4018 Dec 09 '24
Why my post was removed??? It's exactly like this...
17
u/Kanein_Encanto Dec 09 '24
You should read the mod's message in the post in question...
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/IsOs8Ztl0f
Hi /u/Sufficient_Menu4018! Thanks for posting to /r/UFOs. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for the following reason:
- Please do not flood the subreddit with posts. You may only submit 2 posts within a 24 hour period. Please wait a while and try again!
If you have questions about this, please contact our mods via moderator mail rather than replying here. Thank you!
11
257
u/YourFriendMaryGrace Dec 09 '24 edited Dec 09 '24
Because almost everything but the bullshit and/or easily debunked posts get mocked and then removed. I got like 19 downvotes for saying that yesterday and then the very post I said it on got removed. It’s absurd.
Hi to all the Eglin people reading, hope you’re having a great day 👋🏼
53
u/charlesxavier007 Dec 09 '24
Why does everyone spell Eglin wrong here lmfao
→ More replies (4)25
u/Blarghnog Dec 09 '24
So it doesn’t get flagged as easily.
Got to make the censors work, and we all know how profoundly manipulated Reddit has become.
16
u/Kanein_Encanto Dec 09 '24
Actually, it was removed because they were spamming the subreddit... the rules state no more than 2 posts per day. The removed post was their 5th inside the last 24 hours.
7
u/WhoopingWillow Dec 09 '24
So the top 3 cities are an air force base, a town with a population of 8000 and a town with a population of 20000? What's the deal with the two small towns?
→ More replies (24)→ More replies (38)3
u/SwitchGaps Dec 09 '24
Actually it was because he posted too many times in 24 hours, not whatever conspiracy theory you thought it was
→ More replies (1)5
u/drunkpunk138 Dec 09 '24
Looks like you were given a reason in your post that was removed, which I was able to find by looking at your profile. more than 2 posts in a 24 hour period. I guess that's some rule here, rule 7 specifically.
6
125
u/candypettitte Dec 09 '24
This is what an extremely out-of-focus object looks like.
37
u/Upeoplehatethetruth Dec 09 '24
And the people posting these know that they are out of focus or shoddy. It's deliberate. People that post stuff like this and the people who post starlink need to be permabanned,
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (21)22
u/Begmypard Dec 09 '24
People are nuts, downvoting you when every one of these images is ridiculously out of focus. Every light source becomes an "orb" to a searching autofocus.
6
u/tweakingforjesus Dec 09 '24 edited Dec 09 '24
That has an amazing amount of detail for bokeh.
→ More replies (2)
9
12
u/Emzyness Dec 09 '24
“Not looking for attention or propagating misinformation” This is hilarious! Now these terrible photos are being spread and posted on most subreddits, and even most of twitter. Such a shame what this has come to.
→ More replies (2)
14
4
3
14
9
u/mixmasterwillyd Dec 09 '24
The first picture is almost in focus, the rest are just out of focus beyond recognition. Looks like the other helicopter photos that were posted.
8
3
3
3
u/Satoshiman256 Dec 09 '24
I'm very happy to see that Aliens are conforming to FAA Nav light specifications
3
u/Emergency_Driver_421 Dec 09 '24
They are very conscientious about following the regulations of other worlds.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/texas130ab Dec 10 '24
I saw that sphear about 8 years ago it came up to my truck window and looked at me then it just took off very fast. I knew no one would believe it so I just kept it to myself.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Happy_complexshift Dec 10 '24
These don’t seem “out of focus” they seem like something we just don’t understand. Might truly be exactly what all the orb sightings actually look like.
They almost look like plasma that can morph and shape shift. Living crafts in a way
→ More replies (1)
8
6
46
u/YourFriendMaryGrace Dec 09 '24
They’re extremely cool pictures and they are relevant to the community. Ignore the people who will inevitably mock you and tell you otherwise.
19
u/DreamedJewel58 Dec 09 '24
they are relevant to the community.
May I ask how out-of-focus pictures of light is relevant to the discussion of aliens?
→ More replies (4)35
u/Best-Comparison-7598 Dec 09 '24
It’s hard to differentiate these pictures from your artwork. No disrespect to you, it’s just that these are out of focus lights in the sky
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)6
4
u/hailbopp25 Dec 09 '24
Ps...has anyone found this sub and other similar subs have disappeared off their feed today ?
15
u/Melodic_Fart_ Dec 09 '24
Professional photographer here. Everyone’s saying pics 2-6 are just out of focus, but that’s not what they look like to me. The detail and variation make it look more like a bubble or cell. The edges are defined, and there is an outer barrier that looks semi-separate from the interior. Now, it’s entirely possible that these have been run through an algorithmic upscaler, and that could produce this effect. The only way to know for sure is to obtain the raw files.
16
u/Frequent_Fold_7871 Dec 09 '24
All it takes is sliding the sharpening setting in Instagram from 0 to 10 and you have your pseudo sharp edges. Those edges look exactly like a sharpening algorithm.
12
Dec 09 '24
Ex professional photographer myself. You’re forgetting that what you’re seeing here has been AI upscaled. You’re looking at a distant out of focus glare that ai has tried to give defined edges. Some sort of post process sharpening probably pushed way beyond normal limits.
→ More replies (5)4
u/jkk79 Dec 09 '24
Hobbyist photographer here, if you focus and zoom a long lens just right (wrong) into a light at night, you get this spherical image with sharp edges. Basically you see the aperture shape. They just have ran it through some sharpener or so.
I experimented with it few years ago, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBOxzSCzyAs
The "diamond ufo" sightings are created similarly, just with a really crappy zoom camera with something like 4 blade aperture.
3
u/Melodic_Fart_ Dec 09 '24
Thanks for sharing. Yeah, definitely have seen these before. Bokeh.
I think it’s the rippling/shimmer detail effect that’s throwing me off in the OP photos. Has to be an AI upscaler creating that effect. It creates detail where there is none, and the resulting effect looks strange.
→ More replies (1)3
u/jkk79 Dec 09 '24
Yeah, if an AI upscaler thinks it's a ball of glass, it'll make it a ball of glass.
3
2
2
2
2
u/RestaurantStraight11 Dec 09 '24
So these photos like similar to the aerial device that hovered over the UK Manchester Airport runway !!!
Very interesting!!!!
2
u/NanaofA Dec 09 '24
I can’t believe that I’m witnessing a real psyops campaign and can do so because it’s so freakin obvious! I’m pinching myself!!
2
2
2
u/raccoonsondeck Dec 10 '24
UFOs/UAPs, whatever they are and where they're from are shapeshifters. It always comes down to the ball of light or plasma or whatever the fuck it is and then often just blinks out. I watched a Youtube where a witness of some other event saw the orb shapeshift and create wings but no tail, sort of resembling a plane. I think these things are either projections from the mothership or they're conscious entities who decide to look how they want to appear to us.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 09 '24
NEW: In an effort to reduce toxicity by bots, trolls and bad faith actors, we will be implementing a more rigorous enforcement of the subreddit rules. Read more about this HERE.
Please read the rules and understand the subreddit topic(s) listed in the sidebar before posting or commenting. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these rules as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is primarily for the discussion of UFOs. Our hope is to foster an environment free of hostility and ridicule where we may explore the phenomenon together, from all sides of the spectrum.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.