This is why so many Bigfoot photographs are blurry
 |
| Subject is approx. 80 ft. from photographer |
The dense forests of North America makes it suitable for a creature like Bigfoot to remain elusive and hide from us. Taking photographs of wildlife in heavily forested places like the Pacific Northwest is very difficult because the environment for photographing animals just isn't there. Considering the fact that most animals prefer to stay hidden, you'll be lucky if you even have one come close enough for you to take a picture.
The North American Great Ape blog posted a few photographs of a person wearing a green shirt standing in the woods just 80ft from the photographer. The photos were taken using a 10.1 megapixel, Sony Cybershot camera. Remarkably, the man, who is 6ft tall, appeared blobsquatchy in both photos.
Take the picture above and to the right of this text for instance. There is a six foot tall person in a bright green shirt in the center of that photograph. Can you find him? The subject is standing approximately eighty feet from the photographer. The photograph was taken with a Sony Cybershot that has 10.1 megapixels. The conditions are clear, the terrain is flat, there is not a lot of ground cover, and even the leaves on the trees aren't blocking the subject much. Do you see him? The picture below and to the left of this text is a zoomed version of the above. Okay, so now we see the guy! But notice how blurry he is? This is the result of applying a zoom effect to the photograph. Almost looks a bit like a blobsquatch. Now imagine if the subject was not wearing a bright green shirt. Not standing straight up. Maybe even hiding from the photographer? It would be near impossible to see him.
 |
| Same photo as above, zoomed. |
The odds of getting a good photo of a sasquatch are stacked against researchers for a number of reasons: There are vast amounts of untamed wilderness in North America. If bigfoots do exist, they have a huge amount of land to occupy. In all of this wilderness finding one of these animals would be beyond difficult. If one was immensely lucky and did find a bigfoot they'd better hope they have a camera with them. They'd also have to have the camera at the ready, be able to focus it, and snap a photo of the animal. (When I say "focus it" I mean manually focus the camera. Auto-focusing is next to useless in dense foliage. I'll touch more on this in the next post.) Considering the difficulty of photographing in forests presented above, the odds of the photo being clear and concise are low. Very low. Also worth considering is the alleged nature of sasquatches. Researchers claim the cryptids tends to avoid humans. This would only further increase the difficulty of getting a good shot of the animal.
 |
| Subject approx. 50 ft. from photographer |
You can read the full article here.
Autofocus and digital zoom are enemies not friends in this environment, manual focus and optical zoom are better but will not negate camera shake amplified by zoom, I know this will seem obvious but even doing the best you can with your equipment closer is better.
ReplyDeleteSeems so, but many photos are fakes too. Not all but many. Anyway, it's a bit sad to see people still traditionally calling this unknown species an animal guess they somehow feel safer that way telling themselves that.
DeleteWhat is it then...a fish? Explain urself anal troll.
DeleteYeah, but every photo?
ReplyDeleteMelba is un-coding the sasquatch "disappearance" gene and also has great pics of Sas family taking a crap communally!
DeleteSally
Really? Grow up! Do your parents know your on the computer? Sally? If your not interested please find another hobby.
DeleteGreat article it answers a lot of questions. Unfortunately it will not stop all the negative posts on every single decent photo there is past out future.
ReplyDeleteYou know, nobody ever gets a good photo of a bear; it's just not possible.
ReplyDeleteGary, most photos I've seen of bears are when the bears are in the open in a field, by a stream, or close to a tree line.
DeleteTrying to photograph anything in thick forest with a digital camera isn't all that easy. I agree with Anon at 4:54. Auto focus and digital zoom in this particular environment is not ideal.
Recording clear video in the thick stuff is a challenge as well.
A good digital SLR camera or 35 mm works better. I much prefer the manual focus. My camcorder only has auto focus and I curse everytime I use it for zoomed in shots.
I switched from my 18mega pixel SLR to a handycam wich has much lower resolution but is 1/3 the size for hiking, and can carry a 7hr battery. I turn of the flash, and digital zoom and often auto focus for the reasons cited above. Some of the handy cams have optical zoom at 40x but are standard definition. Most HD cams stop around 12x digital zoom. Many Sony models offer "night shot" and IR sensitive mode for low light (black and white) but be sure to turn off the IR source they also have. Having used both standard def and HD handycams, I recommend HD. Used at ebay not too bad prices.
DeleteI like my handycam as well.Overall it's a good cam.It doesn't have any bells and whistles, but it records in HD. Sadly it only has 10X optical zoom.
DeleteI have a 14 megapixel camera for photos but it's too slow if I want to take a bunch of pictures quickly.
I prefer my old mechanical Pentax and no batteries are needed. The down side is film processing. I carry a case with all my cameras, then I can choose which one will be best for the surroundings.
There are good deals on kijiji as well.
All these years, all this technology and the only "legitimate" video evidence made by a hoaxing cowboy and a group of guys he wont admit were making a Bigfoot movie with him.
ReplyDeleteA microcosm for Bigfoot evidence is the Justin Smeja story...we all know how THT book ends!
Shut up troll.
DeleteIMO there is a great deal of legitimate video evidence, but due to the competitive nature of the "field," and also the fact that many legitimate videos contain no new information, and just poor enough resolution, they just don't go anywhere, but youtubes, etc.
DeleteI have talked myself into (I think, still considering) renting a thermal video camera (the i7FLIR goes for about $200/two weeks) to accompany my next trip....and combine that with simultaneous handycam..for sound and well..who knows? Will it be money down the drain? Yes and No... I want it to finish my work/investigation...but there won't be any $ benefit in return for me...so why? LOL ask anyone who has been out there, it is hard to walk away..and until one reaches a dead end, the path calls.
of course, I will try and DNA collection methods I can..looking for ideas..suggestions welcome...non-injurous though..that's my personal boundary.
It is hardly money down the drain apehuman. This is your passion, hobby, etc. Any money well spent on a hobby that gives you great satisfaction is money well spent, unless of course you can not afford it. Remember Patterson rented his and got the footage and maybe you will also.
DeleteChuck
I am quoting you to my kids....!
DeleteMy suggestion for photos has always been that "close encounters" with any forest creature are unlikely. NatGeo photographers and the BBC folk that captured all the great "Planet Earth" images did so at a good distance. Sasquai is right that most photos are taken in clearings (or with unmanned trail cams)... So, super-telephoto lens (at hundreds of yards), manual focus, on a tripod, filming into clearings (meadows, stream beds, clear cuts, trails, etc...) with a SLR camera would be the ticket. If you want an animal to act naturally, you can't be there (nor, your stuff). Boring and expensive, but it could be the ticket. Take a friend to help pass the time and both use spotting scopes to survey the area. I haven't purchased gear to try this, but I also haven't spent my tax return, yet... Just need the lens and the scope.
ReplyDeleteJust one question that keeps me from doing so... Where would I point the camera? LOL
David from the PAC/NW
Read all the BFRO reports and others for your area, go to an already known active site with decent access...and just start! Or not, it can be a time and money pit, but what an exciting pit!
DeleteAlso, BFs do come within 100yards even in day b/c they can hide so well....some use those handycams where you can swing the flip out viewfinder backwards. They then are filming behind them while apearing to be looking forward....I haven't tried b/c those flip out screens too difficult in day to see....but who knows, creativity is a bonus out there
Delete@Apehuman,
DeleteGreat point about the filming backwards bit. I have heard many people using this trick and I am genuinely interested to see what results it will return!
You are right David. This I feel would be the best method and if a research(s) could employ the video type that are used by sports networks it just might work, but one would need the patience of the greatest snipers ever and maybe more.
DeleteChuck
I keep forgetting to try filming behind me. I must remember it next time.
DeleteI also take random photos, just point anywhere and shoot. So far it's only been squirrels in frame lol.
@apehuman, a FLIR is out of realm of possibility at this point in time, even as a rental. I'm now concentrating in an area that has had two sightings by two different hunters, and 8 years apart. I found these sightings on the BFRO database. There is literally a lot of ground to cover within the sighting area. I think I have it nailed down to within a mile of the spot.
I admit that I have to work on steadier hands and slower camera movement. I just need to slow it down. Practice, practice.
Gear, (potential) check. Motivation, check. Patience, (I'd like to think) check. Time... "not-check". Isn't that alway the case!
DeleteBut, what the hell... Time in the hills, relaxing would be the only product of failure. Sounds pretty good, right about now! :)
David from the PAC/NW
Bologna! There's plenty of wildlife photographed in the forests and the subjects come out clear. Don't believe this crap. A quick Google search is all you need.
ReplyDeletehttp://farm3.staticflickr.com/2493/3808346995_43b689dd73_z.jpg
^^^^Photographer clearly zooming in and is in reality much further away from the deer.
Furthermore, do a search for monkeys in trees, there's a plethora of images that are crystal clear and you know the photographer is a good distance away in some of those shots. When you consider the height of the trees and the very likely chance that the photographer is at ground level, what's the excuse for not having a good shots of Sasquatch again?
Nerves and shivers.
DeleteWhat from professional photograhers who spend hours watching them and photographing them with 20k cameras? Try capturing something less in numbers and are not tolerant of humans.
DeleteWhat is your personal success rate at doing this, or are you just a typical lounge lizard who has no idea of the technical and environmental problems in doing what you assume is just a point and shoot. Ignoramus!
DeleteI work as a prof. Photographer and this subject interests me. I have to say the person who said bologna must not be in the area of photography . They are only referencing things they see on the Internet. Not an expert. Owning a point and shoot doesn't qualify a person as an expert. I spend a lot of time in the field and the best shots are really hard to get and thats if you have the time to get ready and know what your shooting (like a monkey). For manual settings in shadowy , wooded areas is tough to shoot clear without some time and manual adjustments. It would be really tough to shoot a subject like a Bigfoot in an extremely rapid fashion with non ideal lighting while it's moving . You would have to prepared, take time to do your settings, and be the most patient person to catch a really rare ( yes I believe they exist) shot at the right time and place.
DeleteMost people who do get some hasty shots of Bigfoot are not professional photographers and are
Deletenot prepared. Personally if I saw one I would be so in shock that the last thing I would do is snap out of it and take a clear picture. Shake, haste, shock, unprepared, and limited time= aweful photography !
Taking a picture is not rocket science. To this day I don't get why so many people cannot grasp the concept of attaining a quality image. Its frustrating to say the least. I'm a skeptic in this field and to this day I'm obviously not convinced we have "any" real photographs of Sasquatch (yes I believe the PG film is a hoax but that's another debate). However, the sheer number of supposed sightings is the most compelling evidence (to me) and the only reason I still keep up with this field of study. Surely (hundreds if not thousands) of people can't be imagining or mis-identifying the subjects they are reporting, can they? I mean I'm positive some of them (maybe the majority) are misidentifications but that doesn't explain ALL of them. What I'm getting at is its nearly impossible for 100% of the reports to be WRONG. That said, there's obviously some of those sightings that are POTENTIALLY an undiscovered species and that IS what keeps my hopes alive. Again, I'm a skeptic but I want SO BADLY for it to be a real creature/hominid roaming the forests of North America. One could suggest I'm a "believer" based off of my own thought or opinions of the sighting explanations BUT its just not that easy for me. I mean while I WOULD put my money on everyone NOT being mistaken, there's still A CHANCE that they are indeed mistaken even though I "personally" find that highly unlikely. But again, my opinion IS NOT FACT and that's the simplest explanation as to why I remain a skeptic.
Delete@anon 12:53 those wildlife photographers have cameras that cost hundreds if not more than a thousand dollars and have telephoto lens also that is why they can be further away and get clear photos, if using a small camera without a telephoto lens you won't be able to get clear photos 90% of the time unless you are right ontop of the subject, have camera turned on already and have steady nerves.
DeleteJoe Black already covered this subject, a day late and a dollar short as usual...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHuRKMoggA
And these are people who go specifically to an area where they know these animals are for hours and Have all the time to do the settings. Usually filming animals with little intelligence and They have very expensive cameras and lots of time observing them. . Now take an animal which is seen by chance in deep cover usually and try to quickly point and shoot after being shocked by seeing one in the first place usually makes the shot in haste and lots of errors.
ReplyDeleteWhat animals are you referring to?
DeleteYeah your totally right. The person talking about monkeys is nuts. Sending out professional photographers who sit for days focusing on monkeys ect... Of course will get great shots and are usually not using their cel phone or $200 camera. Plus I a agree that a rare ( chance )daytime sightings you would be lucky to even have a camera with or better yet have it on! I would bet very few people walk around with their camera on and at the ready to take a picture of something they don't even plan on photographing . It took 30 years in Minnesota to even photograph a mountain lion even though they have been here for years (and that includes the DNR ) with a regular camera. We had some ok pictures on trail cams , but that's it. Now take something with more intelligence, nocturnal, and in small numbers like a bobcat or mt lion and getting a clear picture by chance would be a miracle !
ReplyDeleteYou mean something with more intelligence like a Sasquatch?
DeleteYes, I meant Sasquatch rather than a mt lion or bobcat. Sorry, thought outpaced my typing.
DeleteAny animal that you have a perfect idea where they are and are in large numbers. If I need to photograph a deer all I have to do is go out at about dusk along any roadside ditch in a rural area point, focus, and shoot. If I get a bad shot do it again, again , and again. Most animals are that dumb. For rare (again dumb ) instinctive animals you will rarely get a picture. Now try and photograph a Sasquatch who is highly adaptive , intelligent, and nocturnal ( did I mention in small numbers over many square miles) you would be lucky. I live in an area where there is large areas of dense vegetation and woods for miles. I spend a lot of time out there. We have 39k bears in my state and a majority in our area yet I've only seen 4 in my life and I did get one picture. The reason I got the picture ( besides they are so numerous and dumb). Was because we suffered a bad drought and he came back many times during the day when he wasn't supposed to and got into the bird feeder. Sasquatch ( much much less in numbers ) can also be predatory during times of drought by taking deer at night so they don't have to driven to the day to eat . Yes bears do eat deer , but only scavenge them.
ReplyDeleteCorrection- not perfect area, but an area that animals are known to be at certain times and are fairly predictable in what they eat ( deer- saplings, alfalfa, clover ect..,). Sasquatch have a very large range of foods they eat so looking For them along ditches isn't always predictable like deer. I only used deer as one example.
DeleteGo to cabelas store in hamburg P.A. i walked through the deer room about 10 times before i realized that there was a black bear in there behind a small white pine tree about 20 feet away.bigfoot or no bigfoot just an example of how if your not looking for something it might be there in front of you.
ReplyDeletePlease point me to one photo on this website that you are convinced captured a bigfoot/sasquatch/yeti/wild man etc....other than the Patterson Gimlin film...which is amazingly clear by modern photographic standards of evidence.
ReplyDeleteSome tips:
http://www.tutorial9.net/tutorials/photography-tutorials/wildlife-photography-tips-take-better-wildlife-photos/#2
"Remember the rule of thumb to eliminate camera shake: you should be shooting at a shutter speed at or above the effective focal length of your lens. That means if you shoot like I do with a 70-300mm lens on an Olympus body with a 2x sensor crop factor, you need a shutter speed of at least 1/600th of a second to help ensure that your image will be as sharp as it can be......... With this rule of thumb, you help reduce the chances of being disappointed with what you thought were great shots in the field, but turned out to be blurry or soft when loaded onto your computer."
new anony
In any forest, even in the middle of the day, there is a lot less light then in a house or anywhere else. So shutter speeds are always going to be very slow, incurring blur. A bigfoot is never going to be caught close to someone, so there is always going to be a distance problem. Many of the stills are actually stills from video, which is inherently low resolution. There are umpteen factors stacked against someone trying to catch photos of bigfoot. There's a reason why the only decent photos of animals are taken by people who devote their lives to it, and invest tens of thousands of dollars in equipment. I've often thought it's a miracle that there's been as much footage of bigfoot as there has been.
ReplyDeleteGo to fb/ fb. There are over 70. I personally have seen 8 that were privately given to me , but the owner will not allow me to publish
ReplyDeleteMe too
DeleteI was considering this the other day. I was in the woods, stationary, and a few deer came walking by at a relatively close distance through the trees. I took some photos of them and they turned out being not very clear. Now, I am no professional and do not have a great camera, but it made me think how similar my deer photographs were to the blobsquatch effect. And these were just slow walking deer within probably 60 feet of my location!
ReplyDeleteit seems to me that all these jokester's are nothing but no-it-alls! they knock every comment down, and they themselves don't have not one picture of a blobsquatch! trolls this isn't a laugh factory website. seriously leave the troll humor to the laugh sites. seems that you can't produce anything except welfare babies in life. your not funny at-all.
ReplyDeleteI see that TimberGnat has offered up a new video. Take a gander at it to see how well his $2400.00 video camera (given by a Subscriber )is still not producing videos with Quality above a cheap Walmart camera. Take a look his backyard looks like the height of fall color (it's all yellow) LOL. If you want a hint on what to expect on his latest video offering just listen to what he talks about in the begining of everY video, because you will soon start to get it Hot & Heavy...LOL Notice you'll never hear anything he hears. TimberGnat appearing from his backyard for the next 6 weeks !
ReplyDeleteBIGFOOTZ
At least he is out trying? I give him a lot of credit for going out and doing a lot of follow up. I see a lot of comments criticizing , but if your not spending the time out ( which I do) the comments are made from the arm chair. Take some equipment out and try to get some stuff that contributes to the common good.
ReplyDeleteSasquatch can be within 20 feet of you and your camera and it's still hard to get a great photo! My suggestion if someone ever gets that close; "THROW A MOTHA FUCKIN' POKE-BALL INSTEAD OF USING YOUR CAMERA!!!" Oh yeah! to the other guy; "Timbergiantbigfoot goes to the same area every single time. He knows the forest there and what changes are made from visit to visit. He goes out simply blabbering aimlessly about those changes and doesn't claim to be any kind of bigfoot professional or know it all. I'd believe him before I believed anyone. I see lots of information coming from people who aren't posting videos, photos or offering their time to do some real out-in-the-wild research... HUMANITY IS FUCKING STUPID! Most don't even see a deer in the fucking wild unless they happen to run it over while it's crossing the road! Get out and put your time in!!!
ReplyDelete