Flying Rod UFO's, The book should still be open

originally posted by: Cauliflower
What if you used a wide area array of photo sensors and used a shutter with a predictable frequency along with a synchronized frequency of a lens oscillation. You could then reconstruct a single image from the wider area of sensor readings.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "synchronized frequency of a lens oscillation".

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Did you set a different speed on the first video or was it an auto setting?

That's the only thing I don't like in my camera, when in video mode is fully automatic.

What do you think of the AP rod?

I think it's motion blur, all the characteristics are there: a background with little light, forcing the use of a slow shutter speed, a fast object moving in the foreground while getting direct light, making it appear more solid than on a common motion blur.

I tried to upload a video that was recorded at a normal frame rate and auto shutter setting to exif. It doesnt provide the shutter speed data.

Most cameras don't record enough EXIF data when in video mode. Also, if the camera is in automatic and changes the shutter speed and/or aperture it cannot record all the changes to the EXIF data block, as EXIF wasn't made for that, it only records (as far as I understand it) the settings when the recording started.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
What speed and distance do you think the rod is at in my video with the moth?

I don't have the slightest idea, as I don't have enough data. If I was the one making the video I would at least have an idea of how far away the background was, but I don't even know that.

To know the distance we would need to know the size of the object and the characteristics of the lens. To know the size we would need to know the distance and the characteristics of the lens.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

This is from the American Pickers. It shows the clear difference when there is motion blur and when there is not. The Rod has 5 sets of appendages or wings. The object can still be seen in it's true length in the picture on the right, even with the motion blur.

You cant see it's true length you just claim that, you need to find out the shutter speed used for the videos again I will ask did you read how the shutter speed works it electronic the sensor can still record some data after the effective shutter time has past most digital cameras use CMOS sensors which are not GLOBAL shutters they scan a line of pixels at a time this can lead to strange effects.

Watch this and learn something

So if you now realise a fast moving object can be stretch due to how a sensor works slower & stationary objects will look ok.

Also when the video file is stored not all frames are recorded fully read up on how that works do a search on mpeg

Also you have to take into account as already mentioned depth of field, small camera sensors have a large depth of field larger sensors a shallower depth of field the aperture and focal length also has an effect.

If you know focal length sensor size and focus distance you can get the range of acceptable focus were an objects appears in reasonable focus. So you can work out if an object was close to the camera.

This is the effect focal length can have on on image.

Those pictures were taken so that the statue looks around the same size on both images but look at the background.

That's why I always have a good laugh at people that make claims about speed and distance when looking at pictures/video and they don't have any details about the equipment used.

Next year I will have been using SLR/DSLR's for 40 years my first camera was of course film,manual focus & exposure even used to develop my own film that's the best way to learn.

How do you know the shutter speed that was used in the video you posted. The rolling shutter made the images appear bent, it didn't add length to the objects. The propeller is moving a lot faster than an insect would across a screen.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
What speed and distance do you think the rod is at in my video with the moth?

I don't have the slightest idea, as I don't have enough data. If I was the one making the video I would at least have an idea of how far away the background was, but I don't even know that.

To know the distance we would need to know the size of the object and the characteristics of the lens. To know the size we would need to know the distance and the characteristics of the lens.

Can you not get a judge on size and distance simply based on how many frames the object appears in? I can see and insect fly in front of my lens and usually easily determine the insect, size, and distance based on how many frames its in. Its not exact, but pretty close estimate.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Did you set a different speed on the first video or was it an auto setting?

That's the only thing I don't like in my camera, when in video mode is fully automatic.

What do you think of the AP rod?

I think it's motion blur, all the characteristics are there: a background with little light, forcing the use of a slow shutter speed, a fast object moving in the foreground while getting direct light, making it appear more solid than on a common motion blur.

I tried to upload a video that was recorded at a normal frame rate and auto shutter setting to exif. It doesnt provide the shutter speed data.

Most cameras don't record enough EXIF data when in video mode. Also, if the camera is in automatic and changes the shutter speed and/or aperture it cannot record all the changes to the EXIF data block, as EXIF wasn't made for that, it only records (as far as I understand it) the settings when the recording started.

We disagree on the lighting, I think the videos in question have more than enough lighting to have a fast shutterspeed. The images see to rely on whether or not the background is solid as much as they rely on lighting. The magnet would probably have appeared as solid in your first video with the same amount of light and 1 solid background. The magnet is clearer on the white background than when it moves into the darker area.

a reply to: ArMaP

There is no seperate mechanical shutter in a camera of this design.
The sensor is an array of photo sensors that can detect photon energy at or below a single photon.
Originally 1950's they used ultrasound to shake the image over the sensor array probably at around 500,000 hz frequency.
The readings from the sensor array could then be counted and voted electronically at that frequency.
It would be fun to reverse engineer the technology back to the Army SIS days when it was used for code breaking.
By the time the Oxcart aircraft were on the drawing board in the 1950's these kinds of camera designs were a mature science.

This link has some interesting historical sources listed for "multi look image fusion" and synthetic aperture photography.
Again I'm interested in the original sources not the public disinformation from the Corona program.

books.google.com...

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Can you not get a judge on size and distance simply based on how many frames the object appears in?

No, that's not possible. To know size or distance I would need to know the linear velocity of the object, and that's not what we see on a video, as we only get the time the object took to travel an (unknown in this case) field of view.

I can see and insect fly in front of my lens and usually easily determine the insect, size, and distance based on how many frames its in. Its not exact, but pretty close estimate.

If you saw it with you own eyes then you can get an idea of distance, as your binocular vision gives an idea of depth. If you didn't see it with your own eyes then you are not basing your "estimate" in pure guessing work. I don't do that.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
We disagree on the lighting, I think the videos in question have more than enough lighting to have a fast shutterspeed.

If you can see details in the dark areas then the shutter speed was at a low value. Cameras are much worse than our eyes in adapting to light conditions, we can easily see a relatively dark area on a bright scene without getting too much light on the rest of the scene, cameras cannot do that. That's why they invented HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography, to make photos that more like we see.

The images see to rely on whether or not the background is solid as much as they rely on lighting.

No, that doesn't influence the camera, the camera is only affected by how much light enters the lens.

The magnet would probably have appeared as solid in your first video with the same amount of light and 1 solid background.

No, the only thing that makes it look solid is the shutter speed, and the shutter speed is a result of more or less light: more light, faster shutter speed, no motion blur; less light, slower shutter speed, motion blur.

The magnet is clearer on the white background than when it moves into the darker area.

Obviously. If it was white it would be the opposite.

Edited to add that a brighter background would help getting a faster shutter speed, as it would reflect more light than a dark background, but it wouldn't be enough for the magnet to appear as sharp as in the second video, with the white background getting direct Sun light.

a reply to: Cauliflower

Thanks, I didn't know about that.

a reply to: ArMaP

You guys seem to have drifted from the topic which is about rods, real rods, and not created by the recording equipment. So rates of frame, shutter speeds, lens openings, etc., do not have anything to do with the reality of rods: fast, unknown flying species who laugh at these meaningless arguments.

Some people seem to believe that regular modern cameras arent able to capture insects and birds without motion blur. Over 3 years of recording and birds and insects have never motion blurred or looked longer than they were.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

The propellers are rotating look at other videos & images on the net. You have to remember the image that falls on the sensor from the lens is inverted vertically and flipped horizontally so lets see how good you are at working out what that does to an object like the insect in the American Pickers still.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

The propellers are rotating look at other videos & images on the net. You have to remember the image that falls on the sensor from the lens is inverted vertically and flipped horizontally so lets see how good you are at working out what that does to an object like the insect in the American Pickers still.

Propellers are bad comparisons to insects, the speed is non comparable. Its easy to argue that every unidentified object is a camera effect, then you dont have to provide any visual evidence. If you were to show birds and insects motion blurring like the rods, I would see that as credible. Even if you were to shorten the length of the American Pickers rod, it doesnt match any insects.

originally posted by: Lathroper
You guys seem to have drifted from the topic which is about rods, real rods, and not created by the recording equipment. So rates of frame, shutter speeds, lens openings, etc., do not have anything to do with the reality of rods: fast, unknown flying species who laugh at these meaningless arguments.

They do when we are talking about rods seen in movies, videos and photos, as we are looking at the result of how the cameras work, not at the original objects.

As I have never seen a rod with my own eyes I cannot comment on that.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Some people seem to believe that regular modern cameras arent able to capture insects and birds without motion blur.

Only ignorant people believe that, in the same way only ignorant people believe that modern cameras are able to capture any object in any condition without motion blur.

Over 3 years of recording and birds and insects have never motion blurred or looked longer than they were.

That means nothing, as it all depends on the conditions in which the recordings were done and on the characteristics of the recording equipment. If you don't have any data reporting the conditions then I suggest you start taking notes from now on, so you are able to know at least the light conditions of the scene. As it looks like the camera you use doesn't record EXIF data on the videos I suggest you take a photo before or after making a recording so you can have the photo's EXIF data to help you know the conditions the video was made.

Unless you aren't interested in the truth.

a reply to: wmd_2008

That effect from the rolling shutter, as you said, only happens in CMOS sensors, but only the ones used on cheap cameras.

I doubt very much that a professional camera like the ones used on that American Pickers video used a rolling shutter, even if it had a CMOS sensor.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Some people seem to believe that regular modern cameras arent able to capture insects and birds without motion blur.

Only ignorant people believe that, in the same way only ignorant people believe that modern cameras are able to capture any object in any condition without motion blur.

Over 3 years of recording and birds and insects have never motion blurred or looked longer than they were.

That means nothing, as it all depends on the conditions in which the recordings were done and on the characteristics of the recording equipment. If you don't have any data reporting the conditions then I suggest you start taking notes from now on, so you are able to know at least the light conditions of the scene. As it looks like the camera you use doesn't record EXIF data on the videos I suggest you take a photo before or after making a recording so you can have the photo's EXIF data to help you know the conditions the video was made.

Unless you aren't interested in the truth.

Noted, I have been taking a pic while recording videos to record shutter speed. I have also been doing videos like yours to observe motion blur.

a reply to: ArMaP

Really Red Camera Builder Red Weapon Brain starts at $49,500 with a CMOS sensor.

More Here

Here is an interesting comment from the above link

In that case, fast-moving subjects can appear angled or sheared, and rapid camera movements are more likely to appear as a wobble. Effects are most pronounced with whip pans, fast subjects, high shutter speeds or run and gun type shots. Strobes can also partially illuminate the frame if they go off when the full sensor area isn’t collecting light.

Here is a link to some TV shows Shot On Red

CMOS sensors work the same way in a $300- Multi thousand $ cameras.

originally posted by: Lathroper
a reply to: ArMaP

You guys seem to have drifted from the topic which is about rods, real rods, and not created by the recording equipment. So rates of frame, shutter speeds, lens openings, etc., do not have anything to do with the reality of rods: fast, unknown flying species who laugh at these meaningless arguments.

NO such thing they are created by the equipment and exposure it's that simple.