SteveR Loc: Michigan

The SR-71 could get sharp pictures from 16 miles up, flying at 2000 mph, yet other military jets can only get blurry photos of supposed UFO's, no better than hikers with their throw away cameras.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Different camera systems?

therwol Loc: USA

I'm going to guess. Someone who knows can correct me if I'm wrong. The SR-71 was likely using high resolution film cameras. When we see those blurry images taken by today's fighter jets, we're looking at much lower resolution video images. You don't need to see acne on an enemy pilot's face to target a plane. Okay, now someone who knows can chime in.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

MrBossHK Loc: The West Valley of Phoenix metro area

[quote=therwol]I'm going to guess. Someone who knows can correct me if I'm wrong. The SR-71 was likely using high resolution film cameras. When we see those blurry images taken by today's fighter jets, we're looking at much lower resolution video images. You don't need to see acne on an enemy pilot's face to target a plane. Okay, now someone who knows can chime in.[/quote

I spent many years as a photo analyst preparing tactical targeting graphics for Navy Strike missions and Marine Corps Strike/Amphibious units from photos derived from the SR-71 and many other assorted exotic assets. Due to still being under the constraint of a 30 years long NDA, and as the somewhat trite old saying goes, "I can neither confirm nor deny" the existence of specific programs, my ability to comment is limited to only broad generalizations such as the "wow" factor of the focal lengths utilized and an image quality far beyond most folks' wildest dreams. Of course, by now, the goodies that I used in my analysis during the "pre-digital" age are most likely considered to be "old school". (Think touch tone home phone versus today's smart phone). I shudder to think of what are the actual advancements in technology which have occurred since I left the Navy 26 years ago. I, like most others, will never know but can only imagine. By the way, I really got an "informed" chuckle from reading your analogy about the enemy pilot's face. Well Done.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

Supposedly during the Cold War, we had planes, satellites, cameras etc that had the ability to read license plates on Moscow streets.

tshift Loc: Overland Park, KS.

If that is so why haven't we got better cameras now with (sharpness, focus). Just asking, I don't know. Thanks BE SAFE!!

Tom

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Exactly. All these shapes look like they could have be a result of film processors having a laugh. Nothing more definitive than the fake stuff we've seen before.

JeffL Loc: New Jersey

From my limited knowledge, I seem to recall that reconnaissance aircraft cameras are designed to accurately film what is beneath them, or at a downward angle. They are not meant for air-to-air photos. The blurry photos of UFOs are from targeting systems, which just need to “lock-on” to a target.

chikid68 Loc: Tennesse USA

That is just what I was going to say.

Daryls Loc: Waco, TX

Our photo recon satellites (KH-7, 8, & 9 (Keyhole) had powerful cameras that used long rolls of thin plastic light-sensitive film to make photo negatives -- the cameras were not digital like many of today's cameras. The negatives exposed in space then came back to earth in film return capsules. Our Film Recovery Vehicles captured the capsules and returned the film to the US Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) to be developed and studied.

The KH-9 featured two separate cameras working together to produce stereo images. These so-called “optical bar cameras” on the bottom of the satellite spun on their axes, taking overlapping images to form a very large panoramic picture. Objects smaller than two feet across could be imaged from around 80-100 miles altitude.

Some missions included a separate mapping camera mounted at the front of the satellite. This camera imaged wider areas to make very accurate maps for war planning and featured its own bucket-like film return vehicle.

You can read about some of our earlier reconnaissance satellites at the National Museum of the United States Air Force website <https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/195923/cold-war-in-space-top-secret-reconnaissance-satellites-revealed/>

Daryl

Canisdirus

Blur... usually is produced by speed...and distance from camera(s).

The SR 71 is designed to shoot from a very high altitude...at fairly distant objects.
It certainly is not designed to monitor flying aircraft...at incredible speeds and close distances.

The F series is ... but still...not designed for that kind of speed and maneuvers.

The pilots eyes capture the best images.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

Back in the 60’s - 70’s Russia had cameras in satellites far superior to ours. If a quarter was on the ground they could tell you if it was heads or tail.

marine73 Loc: Modesto California

Take my comments with a grain of salt since I have been out of the USMC for a few years and there have been advancements in technology that I am not privy to and these comments are coming from my memory.

Best details on recon film was from the oblique perspective, which if I remember correctly showed better details for the photo analysis. Depending on whether the environment was hostile or not they would make multiple passes that would be overlapping to ensure adequate coverage. This was critical if they were doing this for BDA (Bomb Damage Assessments) and could be done from multiple directions. If done for terrain mapping it was done in a more leisurely manner and in a grid pattern.

If I remember correctly the cameras used on my units Aircraft was KA-8 and they used three cameras in the following configuration; 1 fwd and two mounted aft of the fwd camera in the nose of the aircraft. The two mounted aft provided oblique views.

The SR-71 Blackbird (also known as Habu) or U-2 Dragon Lady were not the only aircraft that was used for photo Reconnaissance; other aircraft that was dedicated to this role was the RF4-B (USMC), RF4-C (USAF), A7 and and there are others that was used in this role. All aircraft used would have been designated as RF. In todays environment the F-18 is used with the TARP (Tactical Aerial Reconnaissance pod) system which can make any aircraft a photo recon bird. That was the plan when My EAS was up. They may have gone to a digital system which will be transmitted directly back to the commander with a backup saved to a disk for reviewing later.

I was a photo analysts in a reserve unit providing intel to the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff). I used a slide rule, I had never used one before and received my introduction to it in the photo analyst school. I worked with photos from various platforms to provide detailed intel. All the info had to be signed off by the unit commander before going up the chain.

KillroyII Loc: Middle Georgia

Of course the difference in equipment matters; however, shouldn’t we also consider that the amazingly sharpe pictures from the SR-71 has Air Force (& CIA) photographers and the blurry pictures come from Navy fighter pilots... maybe the photographer makes a difference.