Billpacer Posted June 15, 2014 #126 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Well, it only allows me to post 2 videos, but you know you can find more pretty easily: Even paranormal investigators (many, including some of the most famous known investigators who have their own multiple shows on SyFy) are stepping up to attempt to squash the 'orb' fanaticism: [media=] This page gives a clear description on what you (or more correctly, your camera lens' eye) are seeing and a short description why: http://en.wikipedia....iki/Orb_(optics) At least you showed some evidence but mostly a weak comparison. The first video half of it shows lens flare then the second part is still photos. The second video is more interesting but nothing that really stands. All of them are easily observed to be bugs and reflections. I fail to see any comparison to the op's video. What I found most interesting, is that I see where the skeptics got their echoed burden of proof line. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted June 15, 2014 #127 Share Posted June 15, 2014 At least you showed some evidence but mostly a weak comparison. The first video half of it shows lens flare then the second part is still photos. The second video is more interesting but nothing that really stands. All of them are easily observed to be bugs and reflections. I fail to see any comparison to the op's video. What I found most interesting, is that I see where the skeptics got their echoed burden of proof line. What is your reasoning for why _Only's comparison is weak? What is your reasoning why the orb(s) in the OP's video aren't out of focus objects close to the camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billpacer Posted June 15, 2014 #128 Share Posted June 15, 2014 And your video of bugs shot in broad light shows us nothing, because cameras can't translate the true look of a tiny bug (or any airborne 'thing') in a dark setting. Oh here we go somehow those were special bugs that the camera couldn't get their orb shot. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billpacer Posted June 15, 2014 #129 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Still no positive evidence I see. You are still trying to disprove that the orb is a bug/dust. Where is the evidence then for what it actually is? Supportive evidence. That was my point. Dude that is weak. You have to at least explain why there a difference in appearance and movement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakka25 Posted June 15, 2014 #130 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Oh here we go somehow those were special bugs that the camera couldn't get their orb shot. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted June 15, 2014 #131 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Dude that is weak. You have to at least explain why there a difference in appearance and movement. Ummm, because bugs are different size and shape. Because different cameras have different capabilities. Because the amount of light shining on the 'orb' will vary. Because the presence or lack of a breeze will affect movement. Do I really need to go on and list all of the possible variables or do you get the idea? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted June 15, 2014 #132 Share Posted June 15, 2014 What is your reasoning for why _Only's comparison is weak? What is your reasoning why the orb(s) in the OP's video aren't out of focus objects close to the camera? He labels it "weak" because it is damming evidence to his own side of the argument, and the fact that he can't come up with any type of sensible rebuttal, except pure dismissal. It's zoser all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Only Posted June 15, 2014 #133 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Oh here we go somehow those were special bugs that the camera couldn't get their orb shot. It was in broad light. I am going to say this one more time and then let repeating it go. Light is everything to a camera. Everything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moeyoatey Posted June 16, 2014 #134 Share Posted June 16, 2014 It was in broad light. I am going to say this one more time and then let repeating it go. Light is everything to a camera. Everything. Who would have guessed, a naysayer is shown to be wrong, so they make up bogus excuse. I can't change your mind but what about a resident skeptic, one who claims be an expert in both photography and optics. Let's see what they conclude about light brightness: So WHY do I say that it is probably bugs? 1. It is strongly out of focus. The blurring is of two types, motion blur and out of focus. The out of focus component is significant, and given that the lens appears to be focused several feet away, the 'thing' would appear to be a LOT closer than that. If you are not sure about how to tell the different types of blur, please say so (but if that is the case, then I'd have to ask what makes you think you should be offering analyses?) 2. It is quite brightly lit and the color balance is consistent with led lighting - the brightness is also consistent with being only a short distance from the lens. If this is disputed I will be happy to give examples - I believe I have a camera of similar performance to this one.. If we need to crunch some numbers (eg RGB color balance), I'm up for it.. 3. The objects move just like bugs... Here we have an expert skeptic who seems to think the bright light is the key for a bug to be shown as an orb. Now we have skeptics vs skeptic that's something you don't see everyday. Either way another skeptic/s is proven to be wrong. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Only Posted June 16, 2014 #135 Share Posted June 16, 2014 You're misunderstanding what people are trying to explain to you. The orb artifact appears only in low light and or visibility situations, of which your fruit fly video wasn't. Chriszs description of the reflection of light creating the orb has nothing to do with needing a lot of light to see orbs. I don't think you really thought that anyway. You're just grasping for something here it seems, no offense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted June 16, 2014 #136 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Good Grief! I come back after a few days living my life, to find this mess? Looking at some of these posts has made me shake my head at the demands of some people. So I'll respond in the same way... To all those demanding a duplicate of the OP video to prove it wasn't something out of this world: Q1. How much will you be paying me to duplicate the video? Q2. Who will be the arbiter of whether or not it is 'close enough'? (That person will obviously have to be unbiased and with significant imaging experience, so they will need to be paid too, right?) Or if the arbiter will be you, do you not see any problem with that? Do elaborate and try to think why others might have a problem with it.. What, NO TAKERS to Q1? You expect someone ELSE to go to all this trouble, on your demand? That is incredibly ill-mannered, especially when, let's face it, we know what will happen - even if I go to great lengths to produce a 'similar' video, it too will be dismissed on the basis that it isn't absolutely identical... by those who seem just a bit biased towards wanting these to be 'spiritual' or remain unexplained.... But wait - before you think this is a copout - I'm not saying I won't still do it... But FIRST I'm going to provide a challenge to all you IMPATIENT and seemingly ungrateful folks who are demanding this video duplication as if it is some right that you deserve.. here's what you need to do first: YOU present YOUR video (not someone else's) that YOU have done showing something usefully related to this topic. Note that I am making this easy for you - it doesn't have to be a match of the OP one, it can be any old orbs you like... So, I'm challenging YOU guys to do ONLY A SMALL PART of what you are asking of me/others. You obviously think this stuff is easy to do, so DO IT. Go on, get off your backsides and do *any* orb video of your own, and then I'll get motivated (but first we'll talk about how good your effort is). And rather than offer subjective dismissals of the information I and others have posted, please address the points below in detail and tell us PRECISELY why they don't adequately describe what is seen in the original - if you cannot do that, then you have no place impolitely demanding others produce 'matching' videos, as you clearly don't understand even the most basic concepts (- no harm in that unless you claim otherwise..) So, kindly address the following points properly - in particular tell us in detail why this does NOT describe the OP video: 1. Objects close to a camera lens will be blurred from being out of focus - the closer they are, the larger and more blurred they appear. The blurring effect (look up 'bokeh') may include patterns and artefacts that are related to the lens design and have nothing to do with real detail from the scene. 2. Objects that are moving near the camera lens may also be motion blurred, which gives a directional smearing effect, with the amount depending on the shutter speed. Slow shutter speeds (as are selected by cameras in low light or in movie mode) will exaggerate that additional blurring. 3. Objects close to a camera with LED (or flash) lighting, will be illuminated by that light. They will tend to take on more of the colour of the lighting and be brighter as they go closer to the lens - at some point they will become saturated or 'blown out' to bright white. So, please explain in detail which of those are incorrect or do not apply to the OP video. In your own time.... And then AFTER I see any of you do even a tiny part of what you are asking others to do, I might just create a similar video ..as best I can without spending anything but a bit of time... BTW, for those who think I may be all talk - here's an (admittedly trivial) example of where I have taken the time to create a similar effect to a supplied image (not orb related).. I'll be back later to address some specific MIS-information and deliberate twisting of words being posted by some folks here... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted June 16, 2014 #137 Share Posted June 16, 2014 This proves otherwise because it was shot from the other end of the room, and moves toward the viewer. Sunshine, please explain HOW, from a 2D 'flat' video/frame, you determined that the object was at the other end of the room? Using image analysis terms, there is NO, I repeat NO distance information in a flat image, except that which can be accurately inferred by such techniques as: - observing items being obscured/affected by something at a known distance - "CofC" analysis using measured out-of-focus blurring levels - a full analysis of light sources and shadows, including illumination levels from the camera itself So do explain in detail which of those (or any other) technique did you use to determine the distance. Or did you just think it looked like it? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted June 16, 2014 #138 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Then its pointless to make a comparison if its with different media. It's only pointless if: - you refuse to address information and consider alternatives (aka 'don't have an open-mind'.....) - you do not consider precisely how the comparison may be valid or invalid. Comparing dust to an insect (may) show results that differ somewhat in size or colour or movement, but it still shows the same overall characteristics, namely that: Objects close to a camera lens are frequently out of focus / blurred and large, and brightly lit - if the camera (or something behind it) has a light source. It is only if you start defining measurements that any differences may be calculable, and I see no sign of you doing that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted June 16, 2014 #139 Share Posted June 16, 2014 If the video was created with a flashlight it should be simple to reproduce. Yet so far none of the naysayers have done that. Until a naysayer steps up and films a similar video using a flashlight, a speck of dust or whatever means then it is foolish to call anything but an orb. Like I said - why not prove that by doing your own little video and posting it. Make it ontopic and relevant - and here's a hint - you could use fishing line and a tiny piece of crumpled up paper (coloured in if you want) suspended in front of the camera.. EASY! So you go first - if not, stop demanding others do stuff YOU claim is easy. How the heck are we supposed to duplicate the image precisely when we don't have the exact same camera, the exact same bug, the exact same settings... (Funnily enough, I know the answers to that question, Moey - do you?) Maybe you should think a little deeper before dismissing something as trivial or easy - I'll be waiting to see your video with interest - and you don't even have to emulate the OP one - just show an orb.. So my challenge to you is much easier than yours to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted June 16, 2014 #140 Share Posted June 16, 2014 If an expert such as yourself cannot recreate what is shown in the video then it most likelihood it is impossible to recreate and thus something that is unknown ie an orb. That is simply ludicrous. If I can't (or won't...) reproduce the video it more likely means that I don't happen to live in the OP-video owner's house, don't have their camera, don't have the same bugs in my region of the world, and don't have them inside my house, or that I haven't the motivation to waste my time with people who will not be convinced by anything, no matter how close it is... And of course it will remain technically unknown, even though the most likely and simple explanation is a bug (which fits the imagery in EVERY possible aspect).. But the dictionary definition of 'orb' says nothing about being unknown, so perhaps you should now explain precisely what you mean by an orb... Unknown is VERY different to unexplainable. I suggest you google the terms... You are doing the same thing that you have accused the die hard skeptics of ignoring the reality that the object shows paranormal qualities. Please be precise and define what is 'paranormal' in that video. Which segment of the video is not explainable by the effects I outlined earlier? - please explain in detail. Who would have guessed, a naysayer {_Only?} is shown to be wrong, so they make up bogus excuse. I can't change your mind but what about a resident skeptic, one who claims be an expert in both photography and optics. Let's see what {ChrLzs} concludes about light brightness:1. It is strongly out of focus... 2. It is quite brightly lit... 3. The objects move just like bugs... Here we have an expert skeptic who seems to think the bright light is the key for a bug to be shown as an orb. Now we have skeptics vs skeptic that's something you don't see everyday. Either way another skeptic/s is proven to be wrong. ??????? I'm afraid you completely lost me there, Moey. Treat me as a simpleton, and tell me exactly what was said that contradicts my 3 points, or which of them is incorrect, and how this bolsters your paranormal claim. I'm happy to be told I'm wrong and I'll even happily concede it - IF I AM.... Thanks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted June 16, 2014 #141 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Love this conversation. What do you make of this photo I took one night in my garden? Dust, bug, or orb? Beany, to investigate that image properly, there are a number of things that would help... but I have to say that those round circles (including the roughness and concentric circles that most of them have) are textbook examples of bokeh, in other words, they are what MUST happen if your camera has little brightly illuminated specks near to the lens. The flash illuminates them, and because they are so close they are rendered severely out of focus, ie in bokeh 'blobs'. Sometimes, depending on the lens quality, the blobs are smooth 'creamy bokeh', but on smaller lenses, you often get that rough effect with the concentric circles. In order to work out how far away they were and then how large they might be, would involve a bit of work and I'd need to get at the unstripped full version of that file including all exif data and at full resolution, along with details of the camera and lens settings (probably in exif, but useful to verify). I'd also want to know where it was taken, so we can look at the weather as it was then, rather than how you remember it (i'd *never* trust my own memory of such details!). Frankly, I don't think it is worth it - as I see nothing there that doesn't have the characteristics of either dust or fine mist droplets in front of the camera. And I'll wager a 99.99 surety that the analysis will simply verify that. Sure, we may not be able to positively identify what the stuff was. It may well have been invisible to the eye - first up they were only bright for the flash duration which was probably only 1/200 of a second or less, and it is only the specks very close to the lens that got lit up - I'm guessing 20" or closer. That stuff isn't *on* the lens, btw, as the specks are obviously at varying distances from the lens, hence the differing brightness and size of blob - the closer ones are big blobs, the farther away ones are smaller, down to the point where they become invisible.. BTW, if anyone really truly wants to better understand these bokeh circles, hold onto your hat and try this link... and they are not always circles! but that is for another thread... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beany Posted June 16, 2014 #142 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Beany, to investigate that image properly, there are a number of things that would help... but I have to say that those round circles (including the roughness and concentric circles that most of them have) are textbook examples of bokeh, in other words, they are what MUST happen if your camera has little brightly illuminated specks near to the lens. The flash illuminates them, and because they are so close they are rendered severely out of focus, ie in bokeh 'blobs'. Sometimes, depending on the lens quality, the blobs are smooth 'creamy bokeh', but on smaller lenses, you often get that rough effect with the concentric circles. In order to work out how far away they were and then how large they might be, would involve a bit of work and I'd need to get at the unstripped full version of that file including all exif data and at full resolution, along with details of the camera and lens settings (probably in exif, but useful to verify). I'd also want to know where it was taken, so we can look at the weather as it was then, rather than how you remember it (i'd *never* trust my own memory of such details!). Frankly, I don't think it is worth it - as I see nothing there that doesn't have the characteristics of either dust or fine mist droplets in front of the camera. And I'll wager a 99.99 surety that the analysis will simply verify that. Sure, we may not be able to positively identify what the stuff was. It may well have been invisible to the eye - first up they were only bright for the flash duration which was probably only 1/200 of a second or less, and it is only the specks very close to the lens that got lit up - I'm guessing 20" or closer. That stuff isn't *on* the lens, btw, as the specks are obviously at varying distances from the lens, hence the differing brightness and size of blob - the closer ones are big blobs, the farther away ones are smaller, down to the point where they become invisible.. BTW, if anyone really truly wants to better understand these bokeh circles, hold onto your hat and try this link... and they are not always circles! but that is for another thread... Thanks for your opinion, it's helpful to know & consider. The images do look like orbs I've seen without the aid of a camera. Edited June 16, 2014 by Beany Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted June 16, 2014 #143 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Oh please. He was certain it was a flashlight. When that was shown to be weak he moved to the next popular theory. Instead of 'adjusting position' why can't the skeptics just start by saying I don't know what that is instead of being certain on one idea. I'm open to ideas on what it is, but no one has shown a video that that have filmed that is similar. Oh please. Not what I asked. I asked if the orb-o-philes would be willing to change their position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted June 16, 2014 #144 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) It was a clear, dry night. But back to the OP, they aren't necessarily attracted to water. There is a water hose in the photo. A clear dark night still allows for water drops. Thanks for the correct term ChrLzs. I've encountered bokeh in many photos I've taken in caves where there are drips and splashes overhead. I've encountered them in photos taken during light rains. It's always good to read an explanation of they they appear as they do. Edited June 16, 2014 by stereologist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Hoosier Posted June 16, 2014 Author #145 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Sunshine, please explain HOW, from a 2D 'flat' video/frame, you determined that the object was at the other end of the room? Using image analysis terms, there is NO, I repeat NO distance information in a flat image, except that which can be accurately inferred by such techniques as: - observing items being obscured/affected by something at a known distance - "CofC" analysis using measured out-of-focus blurring levels - a full analysis of light sources and shadows, including illumination levels from the camera itself So do explain in detail which of those (or any other) technique did you use to determine the distance. Or did you just think it looked like it? Well the orb is getting larger and brighter as it gets closer to the camera the video. Unless your assuming the orb is not getting brighter or changing size which would be truly paranormal, it reasons that it is getting closer to the camera. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Hoosier Posted June 16, 2014 Author #146 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Oh please. Not what I asked. I asked if the orb-o-philes would be willing to change their position? I can't speak for the others but I'm always open to different ideas. Here's the difference, the skeptics will say any video with an object that resembles an orb is fake. While the 'orb-o-philes' have has said that every other video that has been shown is easily explained, except for the noted video. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redefining Success Posted June 16, 2014 #147 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Im struggling with this thread, so many negative waves coming through, everyone needs to drink some wine, eat some cheese and catch some rays. Seriously though sunshine, it isnt your video is it? Im sure it was only a comparison, which, if totally unrelated to you, I dont understand why people are getting worked up by it as the origins could be totally fake. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billpacer Posted June 16, 2014 #148 Share Posted June 16, 2014 It's only pointless if: - you refuse to address information and consider alternatives (aka 'don't have an open-mind'.....) - you do not consider precisely how the comparison may be valid or invalid. Comparing dust to an insect (may) show results that differ somewhat in size or colour or movement, but it still shows the same overall characteristics, namely that: Objects close to a camera lens are frequently out of focus / blurred and large, and brightly lit - if the camera (or something behind it) has a light source. It is only if you start defining measurements that any differences may be calculable, and I see no sign of you doing that.... Dude, I can't even tell if you understand what I was arguing against. He was making the comparison between a photo and video. No one is saying it is dust but that is generally the cause on still photos. I agree. A photo is rather weak evidence. I'm a skeptic of photographic orbs/ghosts ect. But to compare a photo to a video is utterly pointless. A photo shows no motion or more importantly change in motion/shape or any other change/time. Here's an example: Does the ball go into the hoop? Anyone's guess. http://www.youtube.c...sv1bJ34D5aE2fVQ Oh, look the video shows change/time and gives the answer. Unless you didn't understand what I was agruing against it is utterly pointless to make the comparision between photos and video. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billpacer Posted June 16, 2014 #149 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Im struggling with this thread, so many negative waves coming through, everyone needs to drink some wine, eat some cheese and catch some rays. Seriously though sunshine, it isnt your video is it? Im sure it was only a comparison, which, if totally unrelated to you, I dont understand why people are getting worked up by it as the origins could be totally fake. I'm actually sunburned but I hope that I haven't personally said anything that made you or any other members feel upset. I think were just having a friendly discussion. I'm used to having heated discussion with my brothers/sisters and this seems pretty tame in comparison. If anyone feels otherwise please note those concerns here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redefining Success Posted June 16, 2014 #150 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) I'm actually sunburned but I hope that I haven't personally said anything that made you or any other members feel upset. I think were just having a friendly discussion. I'm used to having heated discussion with my brothers/sisters and this seems pretty tame in comparison. If anyone feels otherwise please note those concerns here Of course you havent offended me, my tablet is like a shield of steel. I like how people are 'discussing' a vid picked for comparison. Edited June 16, 2014 by Redefining Success Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts