Eyepod. Combined with the corresponding satellite photos from Google, along with the locations
of the two videos including the unusually long duration of both sightings makes for a strong case
that these UFOs are not camera shy in the least. It is our belief that what you are seeing in the
videos and satellite photos is the cloaking effect of something otherworldly. Original story below...
Back to the "Big Picture"
UFO Sighting in Coconut Creek, Florida
February 12th, 2005
I had the opportunity to get my hands on some UFO video footage that a friend of mine (Paul
Cohen) got out in Coconut Creek, Florida on February 12th of 2005. The object was apparently
hovering over his back yard for about 20 minutes or so that morning at around 11:35 a.m., and
he captured about 5 minutes of it with his MiniDV camera, a consumer-brand Sony camcorder.
There are 3 other people known to have witnessed the event, including Paul's Girlfriend, Gina,
who was with him at the time.
After having seen the video playing on Paul's laptop, I insisted on getting a copy of the original
DV footage from him so I could do some more comprehensive analysis. What I encountered
during that process was, to say the least, entirely unexpected.
I should note that I've never done any kind of UFO image analysis before, or any kind of image
analysis, for that matter. I've never been all that interested in, nor am I any kind of authority on
the subject. I am, however, experienced with using image manipulation software (ie: Photoshop)
and consider myself to be somewhat of an expert on the subject of videography and video
compression, having been an enthusiast, student, and teacher of this subject for the last dozen or
so years of my life.
I obtained the video footage via a firewire transfer from Paul's MiniDV camera to his PC. The
resulting DV format AVI file was copied to an external USB hardrive, and then transferred to my
home PC, where all the image and video analysis was done.
I used a program called VirtualDub to do the video editing and analysis. This analysis involved
primarily the locating of and slowing down of some of the more interesting video sequences,
where a distinct disc-shaped object is plainly visible.
In closing, I'd just like to share some of my concerns and offer suggestions to amateur
videographers and ufologists who are looking to yield the best quality possible when capturing
UFOs on video. Again, I'm only somewhat of an expert in the subject of videography, so feel free
to consult with the "real" experts after reviewing the information I've given.
The original video and story [ along with much more video and photos ] came from an independent source. This
source we believe to be honest and intelligent. For more on this video please go to
http://www.atzilut.com/ufo/index.html
You will find nothing more on the site about the subject, it is primarily a music site. http://www.atzilut.com/
{The source goes on to express this intelligent, and informed statement}
My Concerns
We now live in a time where just about anyone can produce a video of some kind using a home
computer, and output it to a DVD. This is a good thing, of course, and kind amazing when you
think about it. But what has happened over time is that in our ongoing efforts to cram more and
more information into smaller and more cost effective storage mechanisms, we are now, as a
consequence, sacrificing quality for quantity in every step of the video production process, from
the initial recording of the video with the camera, to the burning of the DVD. Everything is
compressed, and although the compression algorithms are getting noticeably better, this still
obvious lesser quality has somehow become the acceptable standard, seemingly justified by the
word "Digital" being part of the brand name. Note that "Digital", within this context does not
mean "better" but actually "compressed" or "not as good", as I often like to say.
Take the MiniDV video tape format, for example. It's a wonderful little invention, quite literally.
And it's different from the VHS video tapes you're perhaps more accustomed to in the sense that
the magnetic tape is used to store a series of zeros and ones representing the video information,
rather than the "actual" video information. Granted, VHS tapes were problematic due to their
being overly susceptible to noise, dropout, moisture, and temperature extremes. But by
comparison, MiniDV format has a compression ratio of 5:1 (contains only 1/5th of the video
information of it's uncompressed equivalent), and uses something called "error correction" to deal
with dropout on the magnetic tape. This error correction basically "guesses" what kind of
information the missing frames of video should contain (based on the surrounding, undamaged
frames) and fills them with similar data during playback. The end result is quite good and
usually imperceptible, but most definitely unnatural.
Additionally, some more significant problems are introduced when encoding to the MPEG2
format that's necessary for DVD production. When encoding, the resulting compression ratio,
which can be anywhere from 2:1 to 37:1, is entirely dependent upon the duration of the material,
as well as the storage capacity of the media upon which it will be burned/stored. In other words,
we compress the video just enough to make it fit on the DVD. Although the advent of dual-sided
/ dual-layer DVDs (which have double the storage capacity of standard DVDs) has given MPEG2
format some more breathing room in this regard, your average two hour movie is still very
heavily compressed, since it must share this available space with those "DVD extras" or "Bonus
Features" often present on commercial DVDs.
Lastly, the video information is put through the wringer one last time when it is broadcast to
viewers over cable television. Haven't you noticed those block-like artifacts that appear in the
video during scenes that contain lots of solid colors or high motion? Or what about that
creepy-looking, garbled technicolor mess that you often see during thunderstorms and heavy solar
activity? That's compression, imposed on the signal in the sole interest of being able to cram more
information through the same delivery pipe, and to be able to reach the widest audience possible
in the most cost-effective manner.
So you're probably thinking to yourself,"So what's your point? The video still looks good to me."
Well of course it does. That's because the type of compression being used is specially designed to
focus on those areas of the screen that you're more than likely not paying attention to anyways,
like the blue sky background in a scene where there are more interesting things going on in the
foreground. Think of that within the context of UFO image analysis, and the point I am trying to
make should become evident. If we're compressing the video when recording, then re-compressing
the already compressed information when creating DVDs or broadcasting the video signal (or
when encoding to Windows Media format, as I have done) the resulting quality we are seeing is,
no doubt, only a small fraction of what it could potentially be. But again, this significantly
reduced quality has become the acceptable standard. So be it.
Some Suggestions
If you own or intend to purchase a MiniDV camera, here are a few pointers to keep in mind.
Although cost is always a consideration to the budget-minded individual, rest assured that you
will always get what you pay for, meaning that there is a world of a difference between a $350
camcorder and a $3500 video camera.
Regardless as to what type of video camera you have or intend to purchase, always use a tripod
when trying to record objects like the one you've seen here. The image will be clearer and appear
less shaky when zooming in and out. Fluid-head tripods work best, and are relatively inexpensive.
Inexpensive video cameras typically have a low quality lens apparatus, which makes the image
clarity suffer. Manufactuers of higher end camera are more conscious of the photo optical aspect
and put more care and consideration into the lens design, yielding a much better image quality.
You should choose a video camera that features true "Optical" zoom over one which boasts
"Digital" zoom. Although Digital zoom can often achieve 100x magnification or more, remember
what I said about "Digital" within this context. Digital zoom is a sort of "pseudo" magnification
which is done electronically, whereas a true optical zoom involves two high quality convex lenses
moving closer and further apart. Compare the two, and you will see a noticeable difference.
Consumer brand video cameras usually have a feature called "Auto Focus" enabled by default.
You should consult the owners manual for your video camera and figure our how and where to
change this setting to "Manual Focus" which will give you a lot more control over the image
clarity. Have you ever noticed how an object you're trying to focus on becomes blurry when some
other object comes into the foreground? That's auto focus in action.
Consumer brand video cameras sometimes also have a feature called "Auto White Balancing"
that's enabled by default, and which is the settings that tells the video camera what true white
and true black are within the context of that particular recording environment. This should be
changed to a manual setting as well, if it's available. Otherwise, the colors in the video will change
noticeably when or if the light source in the environment changes.
Almost all video cameras have shutter speed settings that can be altered. It's suggested that you
change the setting to a high shutter speed (ie: sports/action) when trying to record objects like the
one you've seen here. Given the speed at which these objects often move at (as seen in video clip
#4) the higher shutter speed will allow for the capturing of more video information, and result in
nicer looking extracted still images and slow motion sequences.
In recent years, 3-chip video cameras have been introduced to the consumer market. Although
slightly more expensive than their single chip predecessors, 3-chip cameras separate color
information into 3 separate channels and deal with each of them separately, resulting in better
color reproduction, and better overall video quality.
If you intend to produce your own DVDs, always choose software-based MPEG2 compression
over inexpensive hardware-based solutions. There are USB devices available which allow you to
capture video directly to MPEG2 files, but they generate very poor quality by comparison, since
they can not maintain high bitrates consistently when capturing. Software-based compressors are
far superior, and can be tweaked specifically for the type of content being encoded.
Of course, this isn't to say that the video you've captured with your inexpensive MiniDV camera
isn't going to be viewed and praised by UFO enthusiasts the world over. As we've all seen for
ourselves, even the shakiest and blurriest of video clips have made their way into the UFO
documentaries, and have only been subjected to your average, garden variety of scrutiny. But if
you can effectively eliminate some of those potential points of scrutiny by heeding the advice I've
given, there will likely be more discussion about what your object "is" vs. what it "isn't", and in
the end, this can make all the difference as we inch our way towards full disclosure on the subject
of UFOs.
Article written by Yvan J. Gagnon
Email: yvan@atzilut.com
Back to the Big Picture
Eyepod.Org Home
This article maybe freely redistributed/re-printed.
Paul Cohen can be contacted directly by emailing him at starlink2012@yahoo.com.