Indeed, it hardly takes a genius to pre-focus a camera, be it a still or video camera. Apparently none of the people involved have heard of the term "hyperfocal distance", which is the setting for the camera lens that allows a large depth of field.
However, in the days when you had to use film, one problem that contributed to grainy photographs was the fact that if you're using a camera in the dark, this places physical limitations upon what is possible. If the camera is being operated in low light, then you have the following options:
[1] Illuminate the subject with a flashgun. Not sure how you'd go about illuminating ectoplasm.
[2] Use a slow shutter speed. If your subject is moving, however, you end up with a blurred image. See, for example, all those photographs of light trails from car lights taken at night using B-stop, or star trails in astronomical work.
[3] Try and get round [1] and [2] above by using fast film emulsions. This is where the problem starts, because, for example, ISO 3200 film is
much more grainy than, say, ISO 200 (the usual stock of film I used to use in my 35mm days for insect work outdoors). The resulting prints from ISO 3200 negative film are visibly much more grainy than prints from ISO 200 negative film.
Even if you have some competent photographers on the case, who know about hyperfocal distance pre-focusing, and can operate the equipment without knocking things over or screwing up settings the moment something exciting is happening (this is one reason why it takes training and practice to be, for example, a good cameraman shooting footage in a war zone), then the moment something exciting is allegedly happening in some haunted house, it's usually taking place in the dark, requiring high ISO number film stock, which is grainy to start with regardless of the subject. Art-house photographers used to use this graininess deliberately for effect, especially if they were shooting low-key
film noir type subject matter, but I digress.
This, of course, doesn't apply to digital cameras with CCD chips, which can operate in low light without grain effects coming to the fore, because a high-quality CCD chip of the sort seen in, for example, a high-end Nikon DSLR, is capable of registering photons with
very good sensitivity. What's likely to get in the way here is software that seeks to eliminate pixelation noise at low light levels, which you need if your image isn't going to end up with lots of sparkly pixels that aren't actually a part of the image.
However, even given these technical issues, the failure of any 'paranormal researcher' to produce just
one unambiguous image that withstands critical scrutiny, almost certainly has more to do with the fact that 'paranormal' phenomena are quite likely as much a figment of the imagination as Zeus and Apollo.
by 
. It should be the holy grail for all mystics, supernaturalists and believers in the occult/mysterious to produce one genuinely clear photo that could prove me wrong? Difficult as that might be, it is even more difficult today with photo shopping in vogue. How would you prove a photo genuine to a bunch of skeptics?
