posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 08:41 PM
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
It seems you've miss taken my point slightly on my post. I apologise in advance if my wording seems in any way seems patronising when I come to
explain in a moment but its purely down to my lack of command over the English language necessary to try to explain without seeming this way.
I was trying to indicate that the comment made about part of the object being behind and part of the object being in front of a telegraph line could
be explained. The part that appears infront of the line is the extremely bright underside of the object. and this is due to the light diffracting
around the telegraph line and into the camera lens. this is because the effect of diffraction is possibly 100s if not 1000s of times more noticable
due to the intensity of the light. The part of the object IE the "solid" looking part which is not highly luminous appears behind the line as you
would expect for a normal object.
You seemed to be commenting on the fact that with motion blur and camera shutter speeds normal objects in the sky can appear stretched and bizzare
like the photos in your link and also in this post. It just seems to me that the two aren't really related - the diffraction and motion blurring
techniques that is.
regardless of that little mix up i think you've got a very good point about the motion blurring thing.