It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
I highly doubt this picture was an "over exposure" of any object, let alone a helicopter.
1. Over exposures are the realm of film cameras, which went out of style over a decade ago. This picture was likely taken with a portable digital camera that uses a fixed exposure time.
Originally posted by gavron
Ummm, no. Digital cameras don't all have a "fixed exposure time". Ever try and take a picture at night of city lights with a digital camera? Your shutter speed will usually be so slow it will alert you that you need a tripod or something. You can clearly see the image was blurred because of this long exposure (looking at the buildings).
The object in question is most likely a helicopter or small aircraft, taken with maybe a 2 or 3 second exposure. Examples of pictures of helicopters taken with similar long exposures have been posted here already, so no need to duplicate other members hard work here.
Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
The row of lights on the object, whatever it is, has a pattern of 2, 2, 1. If this were an over exposure, a 2, 2, 2 pattern would be visible in the row of lights. The 1 light alone on the end would be duplicated in an over-exposed image. I believe the fact that the pattern is 2, 2, 1 indicates this was absolutely not an over-exposed picture.
Originally posted by gavron
.....or, the photo captured the 2,2 and only 1 of the third white light strobe flashes before its exposure was done.
[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]
Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
I'm sorry, but that response is non-sensical. The camera collects the entire image during the exposure time. It doesn't selectively capture one part of the image with one exposure time, and another part with a different exposure time.
I believe my logic is sound here. A double-exposure, over-exposusure can be sufficiently ruled out by the 2, 2, 1 light pattern capture on the top of the object.
Originally posted by gavron
The photograph that was taken clearly shows the blurred buildings, correct? Please tell me you can at least see the buildings are blurred as well.
The blurring affects both the building on the left, as well as the power lines, and building on the right....PLUS the object in the air. The strobe light from the passing aircraft causes the "white dots".
[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]
Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
Hang on there. First of all, the buildings were clearly not 'moving'. Therefore, if you wish to attribute the building shadows to motion, then you must hypothesize that the camera itself was moving as the image was captured. Camera moving slightly right to left as the image was captured, because the shadows are on the right. However, the 2-2-1 patter left to right is contrary to what would be achieved if the camera was panning right to left (in which case you'd get a 1-2-2 pattern).
Originally posted by gavron
Umm...you can achieve the pic by the following:
- 1st strobe of light goes off
- shutter is released, captures 2nd strobe, and slight shift to right.
- exposure completes (2 secs later?) capturing remaining strobes in sequence.
Strobe flashes can be quite quick, not seconds as you have stated.
"Conventional ( xenon) strobes provide all of their light in a short 100 micro-second long burst each time they flash, whereas the LED strobes are on for 80 milli-seconds for each flash. This provides a longer period of time for the human eye to see the flashes."
www.zenithair.com...
[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]
Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
. Secondly, a long exposure like this would result in a band of light across the image, three of them to be exact, not 5 separate bursts of light.
Originally posted by gavron
The dots ARE consistent with a strobe. Why would it be a blur if it was only on for a fraction of a second? Have you seen photographs that show a strobe light passing? There is a beautiful night pic on airliners.net that shows the cool effect you can get from a strobe light on a plane taking off:
blog.makezine.com...
red dot in center...single flashing strobe.
Have you seen posted somewhere that he was using a stock digital camera, set on the night setting? Can you be so certain that he didn't just pick up his camera, power it on, point and shoot? Where have you seen more information on the camera that was used?
[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]
Originally posted by gavron
The dots ARE consistent with a strobe.
[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]
Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
Originally posted by gavron
The dots ARE consistent with a strobe.
[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]
And actually you can be proven wrong here yet again. The dots in the picture are not spaced evenly across the image. There are a set of two lights, one space, another set of two lights, a much larger space, and then a single light. If your strobe theory was even close to being correct, the spacing between the strobe pulses would be equidistant throughout the image.
Originally posted by draknoir2
You make the assumption that the helicopter was traveling exactly perpendicular to the camera at constant speed throughout the exposure. Helicopters can slow, hover, rotate... double pulse strobing seems right, and the single pulse is at the end of the exposure, which probably occurred before the second pulse.
Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
Originally posted by gavron
The dots ARE consistent with a strobe.
[edit on 12-7-2010 by gavron]
And actually you can be proven wrong here yet again. The dots in the picture are not spaced evenly across the image. There are a set of two lights, one space, another set of two lights, a much larger space, and then a single light. If your strobe theory was even close to being correct, the spacing between the strobe pulses would be equidistant throughout the image.
Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
You are referencing a professional photograph that has a custom-set exposure time on the order of dozens of seconds. The fact is that there's no way a hand held digital camera has a shutter speed any longer than 1/3 second, even in the darkest of conditions. A strobe with a frequency of 1-second would require a 5+ second exposure time. It's as simple as that. Neither of us know what we're looking at in this picture, but we know it isn't a picture of strobe light.
Originally posted by UofM.Physicist
The typical shutter speed on a handheld digital camera is 1/3 second. The typical strobe frequency on aircraft is 1 second. These facts indicate we are not looking at a moving strobe light, because A) the lights are not evenly space, and B) the camera's exposure time would have to be 5+ seconds in order to capture 5 strobe flashes.
Originally posted by Superiorraw
So i guess everyone just completely ignores the FACTS now at ATS?