Cryptozoology forums > Debates > Cryptozoological debates > view thread

Subject: Re: An open letter From: /PJ posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 2:48am  Yes, and MY point was are they good enough to take a recognizable picture from 75 feet away? (in the same poor lighting conditions etc...) I don't think they are. Perhaps very good at close range pictures, but not after a certain distance. If someone gets THAT close to a cryptid, either grab it and haul it in, or the picture BETTER be very good! Subject: Re: An open letter From: Entity posted Tue, Mar 3 2009, 1:42pm  My point was to show ben his pictures were crap (those he posted that is). The resolution was crap. But plenty of new(er) phones have cams like mine. I could post other pictures where there is plenty of distance and you still get a clearer image than those ben posted. But I would have to get a new cable for starters and those pics I have on the PC are of friends who might not be too happy if I post pictures of them ;) Point is, there should still be at least 1 or more pictures out there IMHO. Subject: Re: An open letter From: /PJ posted Wed, Mar 4 2009, 3:14am  And when people see that their evidence (admittedbly BAD evidence) is CRAP, why bother posting anything at all? WHO decides what's CRAP and what isn't? Only the person that posseses the pictures and thinks "Well if they think those are bad, no one wants to look at mine either". OR "I can submit these pictures, and ask if anyone can see what I do in them" Which is part of my original post. No one posts any pictures because they aren't good enough, and when they think it IS good enough, it's still deemed "CRAP". My point is: There are plenty of pictures. (The original post was "where are they".) IF you don't think they are good enough, that's fine, your opinion means more to you than other's opinion ever will, correct? Subject: Re: An open letter From: Entity posted Wed, Mar 4 2009, 3:27am  1. Post all the evidence you/he/she/it wishes. By all means. The more the better! You seem to misunderstand me a bit. Give us all you have! 2. BUT! Showing a pixelated something from a cellphone cam that could be anything to prove that cellphones aren't good enough is not good enough. Show the picture, but do not use it as an excuse that cellphone cameras, or cheap cameras that are widespread will give NO good images what so ever. 3. I'm drinking tee here LOL... But to the point (and no hard feelings here please to all of ye): I just find it odd (this last part refers to the other two in a sense) that some people can make great pictures with cheap cams of wildlife + people are curious and many would go back and still nothing acceptable of a BF which so many people have said to have seen. Sometimes the oddity is what captures my thoughts first. What is, in the end, good enough, BTW? A pixelated and blurry photo of something OR a picture where you can start to make out something? There is a little difference there, not? Cheers PAtty! Subject: Re: An open letter From: /PJ posted Wed, Mar 4 2009, 4:41am  When the "Current Affair Norway House" tape was released everyone was disappointed. Myself included. It was hyped as a "film of bigfoot". People demanded to see it! But, all you can see is a pixelated and blurry something walking just in front of the trees on a sandbar. Most people dismissed it as another hoax and left it. Why is that? Because the person filming was across a river and zooming in to 300X pixelated the video so badly no-one could tell what it was. It looked OK to him on his camcorder, but it looks terrible when veiwed on a TV screen or computer monitor. If he han't have zoomed in, all you would be able to see is a dark shape, which is just as bad. Rumour says the original tape is "lost" but I don't believe it. Bottom line is: You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. If he zooms in, the picture is blurry. If he didn't, you can't tell what's there anyway. The camera doesn't record what the eye sees. How many photos have been taken when someone thinks "WOW this is great!" and you watch it or look at developed photos and wonder where the "great" went? I know it's happened to me a few times. Below is a picture of my buddy the blue jay that visits me every year. It's taken with a Kodak Easyshare C530. 5 Megapixels. The picture is taken from about 25 feet away, but zoomed in to make the image larger. Great camera, bad picture. Now imagine it was a rabbit or squirrel or fawn and the colors closer to the color of the tree. What would be seen? Subject: Re: An open letter From: Entity posted Wed, Mar 4 2009, 4:17pm  I get your point, but try to understand mine too, OK? And they lost the original video? Yea right, and I ca walk on water. LOL Subject: Re: An open letter From: LadyGreenEyes posted Wed, May 27 2009, 2:10pm  They aren't that good. I have a fairly decent (for a cell phone) cam, and it takes horrible pictures in poor lighting. There isn't any image stabilization, either. Close range in good light, I can get great shots, but at a distance, with questionable lighting and movement? No way. Even the cheaper digital cams can't always handle movement that well. I want a great picture, too, something that is clear and sharp and well-light, and has points of reference for size, but most people, even now, don't carry the equipment around for that. Even owning it isn't a guarantee that it's with you at the needed time. For example, I have a video camera with a lovely "nightshot" feature, that allows some great footage in the near-dark, but I never seem to take it with me when I would have loved later on to have done so. Recently, I missed footage of a fox we spotted on post, and several deer, and a raccoon (all in one night), and before I missed a huge owl, close and hooting at me. All known animals, though sighting the fox is a rare sight. Yet not one moment on film. It's frustrating, and I am sure the people sighting these things wish they had the right equipment at the right time, but most don't. With some sightings, hauling it in would be a good plan, but not sure about others.

Close Window