Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Sunshine Hoosier

Why are orbs attracted to water?

179 posts in this topic

Dude, I can't even tell if you understand what I was arguing against. He was making the comparison between a photo and video.

...

But to compare a photo to a video is utterly pointless.

Why? A video is simply a number of photos, each of which is rendered thru a lens, has aperture and shutter speed settings, is captured on a sensor (or film) with a particular ISO sensitivity setting. Everything about each individual image is the same whether that image is part of a sequence, or a single frame.

About the only technical difference is that the original still image file has exif data attached which can help with analysis, and videos can (to a limited extent) be used for (angular) velocity analysis.

Declaring something as utterly useless seems to me to be what they call "Poisoning The Well" - and frankly it isn't what an imaging analyst will say, for the reasons above... As I've said, there are three main principles operating here in reagrd to the hotographic or video records of 'orbs', and most blurry bright blobs in any images show some or all of those characteristics - which, to an analyst / scientist / investigator / thinker is another data point...

Of those three principles (OOF blur, motion blur, and illumination by camera-supplied light), which were displayed in the basketball example? One might cynically suggest you picked it as it has little in common with the 'orbs' being discussed here. So yes, that one is almost utterly useless :D - if I do a comparison video, it is very unlikely to include a stadium and large round ball, as some here might (correctly) observe that it seems a bit offtopic..

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please be precise and define what is 'paranormal' in that video.

Let me first refer to a resident skeptic and see what they have to say on matter:

0:34 to 0:38

That is one magic flashlight, not limited to the appearance changing effect normal flashlights have when moving from different walls and surfaces, and able to give the size changing illusion that it is floating closer to the camera.

Now make up your mind: dust or flashlight? But pay attention to the video more carefully. 1 option doesn't work.

We have a skeptic noting of a magic flashlight, what is more paranormal than that. I've already noted several factors that have yet to be explained. I still want to see a speck of dust filmed in this manner or a bug with that same appearance.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

This doesn't even make sense. You want me to film something that I've been claiming is paranormal.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch any video of bugs/dust close to the camera and highlighted by a light source and you'll see a striking resemblance to the objects in the OP's video. No reproduction necessary, there are many examples already on youtube. So far I haven't seen any positive evidence provided to indicate these orbs are anything other than dust/bugs, just denial based on....what is it based on again?

Yet another example, bugs close to the camera, clearly highlighted by a light source yet no resemblance to the OP's video.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me first refer to a resident skeptic....

If you want to argue semantics instead of focusing on the topic at hand, feel free. But I'll be ignoring anything except that which is ontopic, and anything I've said that you (incorrectly) dispute. If you have a beef with someone else, go talk to them and stop quoting me unless you have the cojones to actually DISCUSS what I have said.

Here's the three items that seem to describe the appearance of the bug (and I've enlarged some bits that are relevant to your (deliberately?) poorly chosen video example):

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, which of those do not apply to the OP video? What in the OP video is not explained by those? And when you oh-so-carefully chose your video, did you miss the bit about the blurring that occurs when something goes very close to the lens? Did you also miss the bit about the lighting being on the camera, rather than being a flippin' great big fluorescent light that is not on the camera? Yeah, easy to miss that... :rolleyes:

You want me to film something that I've been claiming is paranormal.

Is english not your native language? Let me try in shorter words...

I may consider doing a comparative video, BUT there is no point if I am showing it to people who:

1 - have little or no knowledge of photography, bokeh, photogrammetry. To date you haven't addressed my 3 simple points above, so that would appear to put you in this category.

2 - will dispute comparative videos on ludicrous grounds, eg by showing a video of one particular bug shape in one particular lighting situation that is NOTHING like the original video, and then ignorantly complain it doesn't resemble the video...

Oh wait .. YOU just did that. OF COURSE it doesn't look like the original as the lighting is completely different, the bugs are far away from the camera, and they are obviously of a completely different shape. How could you have POSSIBLY selected a less relevant video?

Moeyoatey, I'm afraid you have just proven that you not only have a bias towards a particular result, you also have no clue about photography.. I am certainly not wasting my time on trying to convince you.

BTW, there's no absolutely no shame in having no clue about a topic - I have no clue about lots of topics (but photography isn't one of them).

The shame is when you pretend otherwise...

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't even make sense. You want me to film something that I've been claiming is paranormal.

And why are you claiming it is paranormal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The lighting is similar, both subjects are out of focus, and there is even a reflection behind the subject. For Chrisz's description you can't very well give added translations to fit what has been shown to be false.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And why are you claiming it is paranormal?

Because it is easier than doing research and accepting the truth.

*SNIP*

Edited by Lilly
personal remark removed
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another example, bugs close to the camera, clearly highlighted by a light source yet no resemblance to the OP's video.

[media=]

[/media]

Watch any video of bugs/dust close to the camera and highlighted by a light source and you'll see a striking resemblance to the objects in the OP's video. No reproduction necessary, there are many examples already on youtube. So far I haven't seen any positive evidence provided to indicate these orbs are anything other than dust/bugs, just denial based on....what is it based on again?

post-135786-0-39181100-1403026980_thumb.

Now looking looking at the two examples I see no strinking resemblance.

I'm quite interested to see if Slave2Fate will argue against his own quote or concede the entire bug idea.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Because it is easier than doing research and accepting the truth.

*SNIP*

We have certainly put up the bulk of the evidence which both sides have openly discussed. Unlike the other skeptics, you haven't added much to this discussion but negativity. *SNIP*

Edited by Lilly
edited quote/please use report button
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do not resort to personal comments. If you see posts that you feel are in violation of UM rules use the report function (don't get 'into it' with other members).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this and its a vid which DOESNT belong to the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

post-135786-0-39181100-1403026980_thumb.

Now looking looking at the two examples I see no strinking resemblance.

I'm quite interested to see if Slave2Fate will argue against his own quote or concede the entire bug idea.

Really? The 'orb' phenomena requires certain criteria which ChrLzs has thankfully covered. I was alluding to such videos that possess such criteria. Perhaps I should have been more clear however I was under the impression that it was implied.

Edited by Slave2Fate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lighting is similar, both subjects are out of focus, and there is even a reflection behind the subject. For Chrisz's description you can't very well give added translations to fit what has been shown to be false.

Oh, really? It is ChrLsz by the way - attention to detail helps...

The ONLY light source that would be comparable would be one:

- coming from the camera at the same angle (in other words even if it is mounted above the lens to the right rather than left, it WILL make a difference)

- of the same size - in other words, if the light is a single small LED source, that will be quite different to say a standard xenon flash, or a fluorescent light, or ambient / diffuse light

- one of the same brightness (these lights may have different levels) and colour spectrum

- in a room with similar ambient lighting

IF I was motivated enough to create a comparative video, I'd need to gather all of that information JUST about the lighting conditions in order to emulate JUST that aspect. And then there are the shutter speed settings, the aperture, th camera's white balance setting, the precise distance of the object from the lens, the zoom and focus settings (if adjustable), let alone the size, color and appearance of the bug / whatever.

ALL of those things can and of course WILL make a BIG difference to the appearance of anything near to the camera, mainly illuminated by a light on the camera, and out of focus.

At some point those who are pushing this might realise that:

1. It would take a LOT of effort to get a video to anywhere near a useful close match..

2. That they don't have anywhere near the required expertise to know what they are looking at or trying to understand all the factors that are relevant.

THAT is why I challenged any of them to create a vaguely similar video - in doing so, they might finally start to learn.. but no, that won't happen...

The comments offered by those dismissing videos, or offering them for comparison and saying that they don't match and therefore this is unexplained or proven paranormal/spiritual, have given me enough info to realise that I will be completely wasting my time trying to overcome the bias and lack of understanding shown.

You want them to be spirit orbs. Fine - knock yourselves out, and whatever you do, don't learn about photography, optics, photogrammetry, bokeh. And when one of these orbs affects your life in a way that is measurable or evidenced, perhaps start a new thread. I've had it with this one.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have certainly put up the bulk of the evidence which both sides have openly discussed. Unlike the other skeptics, you haven't added much to this discussion but negativity. *SNIP*

I have to agree I'm seeing a lot of negativity here as well. All coming from the close-minded individuals that don't accept scientific processes and proof, and won't do the research and just lazily claim it was "supernatural" or "paranormal".

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have certainly put up the bulk of the evidence which both sides have openly discussed. Unlike the other skeptics, you haven't added much to this discussion but negativity. *SNIP*

Any more *SNIPs* and I'm going to snap. Quit with the snips, already. It's rude and annoying.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree I'm seeing a lot of negativity here as well. All coming from the close-minded individuals that don't accept scientific processes and proof, and won't do the research and just lazily claim it was "supernatural" or "paranormal".

t

"Close-minded individuals" who happen not to be scientists, nor have scientific training; we're all doing the best we can here, folks. And none of us are set up or qualified to judge or determine what criteria is acceptable, really, check the guidelines. "Close-minded individuals" and "lazy", that's pretty negative in itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another example, bugs close to the camera, clearly highlighted by a light source yet no resemblance to the OP's video.

The lighting is similar, both subjects are out of focus, and there is even a reflection behind the subject. For Chrisz's description you can't very well give added translations to fit what has been shown to be false.

I see that both of you are making comparisons between 2 videos that just can't be compared. In one there is a camera pointed right at huge flourescent bulb with bugs flying through its light. The other is a dark room with no light source other than the cameras own createdlight source which, as you can all see, doesn't light a room, and anything in it, well at all. Just as your own eyes would see things differently in those 2 vastly different settings, the camera (which is a mechanical eye) absolutely does also. But it has more trouble being a robot eye and overcompensates for things it thought it saw in low visibility situations, where our eyes just see a low light speck, or notice nothing.

I'm not making this stuff up, but I feel like you aren't understanding simply because you want my info to be wrong or twisted, so you can be right.

Maybe someone will go to the trouble of setting up the same scene and experiment with catching and releasing various bugs and hoping they catch the cameras eye the same way and produce the effect and similar movement.

Cm on, no ones going to want to go to that work. Writing this reply on my phone was almost too much troubling work for me to want to give this matter.

You can accept my info or not. Its pretty basic stuff, though, you guys.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

BTW, how ironic is it that this was just posted:

http://www.telegraph...hem-before.html

Pick your orb path, o-o-f level and bug shape from those... Then we just have to match the lighting...

:P

Edited by ChrLzs
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, how ironic is it that this was just posted:

http://www.telegraph...hem-before.html

Pick your orb path, o-o-f level and bug shape from those... Then we just have to match the lighting...

:P

I really liked that video, reminds me of spring time near some ponds not far from our house. I think anyone who thinks bugs have to fly in predictable straight paths has never been out in the woods/country much. Most insects fly irregularly as a form of defense against predators. They are constantly in a state of 'evasive maneuvers'.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t

"Close-minded individuals" who happen not to be scientists, nor have scientific training; we're all doing the best we can here, folks. And none of us are set up or qualified to judge or determine what criteria is acceptable, really, check the guidelines. "Close-minded individuals" and "lazy", that's pretty negative in itself.

Close-minded and lazy are accurate descriptors of those people who immediately jump to the same old paranormal or supernatural conclusions. These things could be MANY different things; bugs, dusts, light, medical problems...and yes, even something "unexplained". To simply pick "ghosts" or "aliens" without doing any critical thinking, then bashing those that do the research and come up with an actual explanation IS close-minded and IS just plain lazy. And incredibly negative.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t

"Close-minded individuals" who happen not to be scientists, nor have scientific training; we're all doing the best we can here, folks. And none of us are set up or qualified to judge or determine what criteria is acceptable, really, check the guidelines. "Close-minded individuals" and "lazy", that's pretty negative in itself.

Those who challenge your assumptions are not necessarily closed minded, they just don't see it the way you do. True skeptics are open to all hypotheses but rank them based on the current best evidence. On the other hand, limiting your view to a single hypothesis without substantial evidence is decidedly closed minded.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

post-135786-0-39181100-1403026980_thumb.

Now looking looking at the two examples I see no strinking resemblance.

I'm quite interested to see if Slave2Fate will argue against his own quote or concede the entire bug idea.

This is a ludicrous comparison since the objects are not even remotely the same shape or size. You might as well have been comparing a wren to an eagle or a houseboat and an aircraft carrier.

Ooops. Already pointed out and written up better.

Edited by stereologist
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone. I am new here, but I think I can contribute a little to this thread. My educational background is professional chemistry with a minor in physics. For 11 years, I worked daily in spectroscopy (optics), I freelance in photography (primarily wedding and low-light situations), and have been a paranormal investigator for 18 years. During this time, I have had the pleasure of reviewing a multitude of photography anomalies. Twelve years ago, I set up an optics bench to explore "orb phenomenon". Back then, it was a much more debated topic in the paranormal field than today (hard to imagine, I know). However, it was not a debated topic for professional photographers. I spoke with several and showed examples. The individuals I spoke with were quick to grumble about it being dust, pollen, or other air contamination.

The optics bench testing utilized a 4 ft by 8 ft optics table which ended in a three foot by three foot backdrop. Table and backdrop were black with 1 inch gridded increments in white. At one end of the table was a tripod mount. Four feet from the mount was a black stage with a focus target. During these experiments, we used a 2 oz. blue bottle for ease of focusing. Various cameras were utilized including compact point-and-shoot, bridge cameras, and SLRs. Additional DSLRs were later incorporated in later years of testing. Camera manufacturers included Canon, Nikon, and Sony. To simulate dust or pollen, we used finely ground standard sized titanium dioxide pigments with a mean average size of 35 microns. A fan exhaust system was used to provide perpendicular uniform cross breeze and distribute the particles.

What was confirmed that small particles under the focal length of the camera system created blooming effect identical to orb phenomenon. This was especially true for compact point and shoot cameras in which the flash unit is mounted close to the lens system. The bloom orb effect was diminished in large sized professional cameras which utilized an external flash. Even with a standardized particle, all different color orbs were produced. Orb size also varied considerably, so did transparency. Transparency ranged from approximately 90% transparent to full opaque. Depending on the optics of the camera, even the orb shape varied. In fact, with one camera the orbs were shown as hexagonal. Conclusion: orbs can be any color, shape, size, and transparency and that does not indicate it is in any means paranormal. It can be natural phenomenon.

To minimize orbs:

Use full sized cameras and when possible external flash with a defuser.

Maintain clean shooting environment when possible.

A lens hood that shields part of the minimum focal length of the camera can reduce traveling dust from entering this region.

Utilize longer shutter speeds when possible and avoid flash.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone. I am new here, but I think I can contribute a little to this thread. My educational background is professional chemistry with a minor in physics. For 11 years, I worked daily in spectroscopy (optics), I freelance in photography (primarily wedding and low-light situations), and have been a paranormal investigator for 18 years. During this time, I have had the pleasure of reviewing a multitude of photography anomalies. Twelve years ago, I set up an optics bench to explore "orb phenomenon". Back then, it was a much more debated topic in the paranormal field than today (hard to imagine, I know). However, it was not a debated topic for professional photographers. I spoke with several and showed examples. The individuals I spoke with were quick to grumble about it being dust, pollen, or other air contamination.

The optics bench testing utilized a 4 ft by 8 ft optics table which ended in a three foot by three foot backdrop. Table and backdrop were black with 1 inch gridded increments in white. At one end of the table was a tripod mount. Four feet from the mount was a black stage with a focus target. During these experiments, we used a 2 oz. blue bottle for ease of focusing. Various cameras were utilized including compact point-and-shoot, bridge cameras, and SLRs. Additional DSLRs were later incorporated in later years of testing. Camera manufacturers included Canon, Nikon, and Sony. To simulate dust or pollen, we used finely ground standard sized titanium dioxide pigments with a mean average size of 35 microns. A fan exhaust system was used to provide perpendicular uniform cross breeze and distribute the particles.

What was confirmed that small particles under the focal length of the camera system created blooming effect identical to orb phenomenon. This was especially true for compact point and shoot cameras in which the flash unit is mounted close to the lens system. The bloom orb effect was diminished in large sized professional cameras which utilized an external flash. Even with a standardized particle, all different color orbs were produced. Orb size also varied considerably, so did transparency. Transparency ranged from approximately 90% transparent to full opaque. Depending on the optics of the camera, even the orb shape varied. In fact, with one camera the orbs were shown as hexagonal. Conclusion: orbs can be any color, shape, size, and transparency and that does not indicate it is in any means paranormal. It can be natural phenomenon.

To minimize orbs:

Use full sized cameras and when possible external flash with a defuser.

Maintain clean shooting environment when possible.

A lens hood that shields part of the minimum focal length of the camera can reduce traveling dust from entering this region.

Utilize longer shutter speeds when possible and avoid flash.

Yay another expert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.