New Straker Photo (sorta)

Hi all,

UFO fan Joe Occhiuto has been sending me some scans of his UFO photo
collection, and I've just added the first of these to my UFO website.
It's the standard "Straker in his car" photo that most of you have
probably seen before, but I think Joe's copy of it is a bit clearer
than any other version I've seen.

If anyone has an even *clearer* version of this shot, I'd be
interested in getting a scan of it... :-)

Oh, here's the link: http://ufoseries.com/straker

Thanks Joe!

--
Marc Martin, [hidden email]

Whoooooooooo!

KERPLOP!

Actually, this is very nice - thanks, Joe and thanks, Marc!

This is from a different angle than the one I have - mine is a more side
on view and you can't see the stick holding open the door. This one is
great!

:-)

-- Y


Marc Martin wrote:
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Yuchtar zantai-Klaan | [hidden email]
I am not a number! I am a FREE FAN!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"As for you - do not make me tongue you."
-- D'Argo
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
http://yuchtar.users4.50megs.com/
http://nunzie.users2.50megs.com/

Oh, I take it back about my copy being a different angle - same angle -
only cropped differently. This one looks to be 8x10, while mine is 10x8
..... no, there really is a difference .....

-- Y

Yuchtar wrote:

> > Oh, here's the link: http://ufoseries.com/straker

--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Yuchtar zantai-Klaan | [hidden email]
I am not a number! I am a FREE FAN!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"As for you - do not make me tongue you."
-- D'Argo
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
http://yuchtar.users4.50megs.com/
http://nunzie.users2.50megs.com/

>
> If anyone has an even *clearer* version of this shot, I'd be
> interested in getting a scan of it... :-)
It's amazing!
>
> Oh, here's the link:
LOL

http://ufoseries.com/straker
>
> Thanks Joe!

Very many thanks Joe for making this Strakerbabe a happy Strakerbabe.

Kerplop! Material most definitely!

Sheila

Sheila

"A dEdicatEd Ed Strakerite"

At 11:44 PM 4/28/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Whoooooooooo!
>
>KERPLOP!
>
>Actually, this is very nice - thanks, Joe and thanks, Marc!

Is it me or do his sunglasses look a little crooked?

<Ducking from the flames>

--- Marc wrote:
> It's the standard "Straker in his car" photo that most of you have
> probably seen before, but I think Joe's copy of it is a bit clearer
> than any other version I've seen.

"A BIT clearer?" Are you joking, Marc? :-)
That's the "clearest clearer" I've ever seen! Hehe.

> If anyone has an even *clearer* version of this shot, I'd be
> interested in getting a scan of it... :-)

Me too.
Brilliant sharpness. Thanks, Joe!

CU Christian

> "A BIT clearer?" Are you joking, Marc? :-)

Not at all... this photo may be sharp, but there are a lot of areas
which show up as just black... especially inside the car. On my 8 x
10" photo of this shot, you can see stuff inside the car -- it's not
all black inside. However, my photo is a bit blurry, which is why I
never used it on my website. So, ideally, the photo would be sharp
and you could also see stuff inside the car.

Also, all of the color photos on UFO were shot on cameras in which
the entire image is in the shape of a square. So the fact that this
photo came from an 8 x 10 means that some stuff has been cropped
off...

--
Marc Martin, [hidden email]

Subject: Re: [SHADO] New Straker Photo (sorta)


Perhaps he has one ear higher than the other?
Coz the spex look crooked to me too!

Sheila (applying aloe just in case)

--- Marc wrote:
That's interesting. Thanks, Marc, for the informations; didn't
know that. But isn't the right shape of the cameras 1.33:1 (a near
square shape)? Or don't you mean the movie cameras (35mm or 16mm
respectively)?

CU Christian

>That's interesting. Thanks, Marc, for the informations; didn't
>know that. But isn't the right shape of the cameras 1.33:1 (a near
>square shape)? Or don't you mean the movie cameras (35mm or 16mm
>respectively)?

Yes, the movie cameras which were used to film the TV series do
expose the film in a rectangular shape in which two sides are 33%
longer than the others. However, in this case, I'm talking about
the still-picture cameras used on the set, which is the source
for all the very high quality pictures you see in magazines,
my website, etc. These cameras created transparencies (not
negatives, but positives, like slides) which are BIG -- 2.25"
by 2.25". Then the magazines crop the image to whatever shape
they like.

--
Marc Martin, [hidden email]

My hubby paints as a hobby and he gets transparencies done of all his work
and it's the same thing you're talking about Marc.

Cheers,
Lesleyxx

In message <v04210101b715cee69a8b@[10.0.0.2]>, Marc Martin
<[hidden email]> writes
>However, in this case, I'm talking about
>the still-picture cameras used on the set, which is the source
>for all the very high quality pictures you see in magazines,
>my website, etc. These cameras created transparencies (not
>negatives, but positives, like slides) which are BIG -- 2.25"
>by 2.25". Then the magazines crop the image to whatever shape
>they like.

You just answered one very big question that's been bugging me for some
time Marc. I've got hauppage winTV installed on my PC but the video
captures I get are extremely poor in comparison to your images. I
stupidly assumed that there was a much higher quality capture device out
there that was responsible for the pictures...

Thanks for putting me out of my misery :)
Di

--- Marc wrote:
Thanks, Marc!
I didn't know that. One can learn a lot on this list, great! :-)

CU Christian