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

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I noticed that when I try to record at the slowest shutter setting possible during the day, I can only slow the exposure down so much or the image becomes too bright to see anything.

You need to reduce the aperture, that's the best way of controlling how much light enters the camera.

I also saw that most, if not all videos that I could find on youtube with slow shutter speeds were done at night.

How do you know what was the shutter speed used on those videos?

Here is a zoomed and out of focus wasp flying close past the camera at near full speed.

It doesn't look like it's flying in a path that is perpendicular to the lens' axis, that would result in a higher angular velocity.

If I wanted to try and make insects appear as rods, how would I go about making them appear like the rods posted in the OP?

Slow shutter speed, resulting in a long exposure. If there's too much light then reduce the aperture, so less light enters the camera in the amount of time the shutter is opened, giving a darker image.

I have analyzed in focus and out of focus insects, none appear as the rods. I have caught birds when the shutter speed was lacking, they had some interesting appearances, but still not close to the rods.

There's no way the shutter speed in that image was slow, if it was we would see motion blur on the bird's wings. As the upload feature on ATS rewrites the images they lose the EXIF data, so I cannot see what the shutter speed was on that photo, but if you still have the original you can see with ExifTool.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I use slow shutter speed and out of focus kinda the same because the slow shutter speed makes the fast objects appear out of focus.

You shouldn't, out of focus means exactly that, that the camera was not focused for that distance. What you are talking about is motion blur.

a reply to: Lathroper

I'm glad you pointed where the rod appears, as I was looking to the wrong object, the one in the area marked below.



PS: those aren't leopards, they are cheetahs.

a reply to: Lathroper

Thanks, that would be interesting.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: Lathroper
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails
snip
I think it's a rod, but I don't think it is equivalent to videos showing rods in higher resolution with newer camera technology. Even with the resolution, I don't think rods can be replicated by insects under slow shutter speed. The only way to really prove them to a skeptic would be to catch them on 2 or 3 different cameras at the same time with them recording at different shutter speeds.

Since Jose became a public figure in the '90s and the critics started claiming that rods were the result of camera equipment, Jose accepted the challenge and being in the business he quickly started setting up banks of various equipment to neutralize the critics. It's been done many times over with all kinds of equipment from cheap camcorders to expensive professional-grade used by TV stations field reporters. It doesn't matter what kind of equipment is used, rods don't care. They exist on the perimeter of our reality.

Not all rods are white or transparent. I have on tape some fish-bodied dark one. When magician David Blaine stood on top of a pedestal a large, wide black one zoomed by. I have it on tape. I couldn't find the footage on YouTube because what I taped was a Brazilian or Portuguese documentary.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Lathroper

I'm glad you pointed where the rod appears, as I was looking to the wrong object, the one in the area marked below.

PS: those aren't leopards, they are cheetahs.

Thanks for the correction, I appreciate it.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I noticed that when I try to record at the slowest shutter setting possible during the day, I can only slow the exposure down so much or the image becomes too bright to see anything.

You need to reduce the aperture, that's the best way of controlling how much light enters the camera.

This link says that it has a fixed aperture. www.cameradebate.com...

edit on 20-3-2018 by Thoseaintcontrails because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I noticed that when I try to record at the slowest shutter setting possible during the day, I can only slow the exposure down so much or the image becomes too bright to see anything.

You need to reduce the aperture, that's the best way of controlling how much light enters the camera.

This link says that it has a fixed aperture. www.cameradebate.com...

a reply to: ArMaP


This link says that it has a fixed aperture. www.cameradebate.com... Please delete the previous 2 posts.

I can't find any day videos of insects with slow shutter speeds. What shutter speed do you think I should use with the fixed aperture?

I don't think I can't use the Exif Tool on videos, only pics. The image was taken from a video. The wing flaps do show blur at some images. It is relatively clear because they are at the top of the flap before going back down.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
a reply to: Lathroper

I do a lot of random sky recordings and caught this ufo.youtu.be...
I mislabeled it a disk, it is more shaped like a rod or cigar. Do you believe this is a rod? If its a rod, I think it could be one of the largest ever recorded.

If you mean the "little" black dot that appears at :40 on the lower portion of the screen, that's not a rod. I'll venture it's a bird as I think I see wings flapping and it's as slow as a bird. A rod would have gone from left to right in a second. And it's shape would have been elongated without visible appendages such as wings or a tail. They are so fast that seeing their bodies is almost impossible. For example, on an old show titled "USHUAIA" (sp.?), they go to the Cave of Swallows and take an unassembled hot air balloon to the bottom. They put it together and float up. As the balloon is seen clearing the cave's opening, you see swallows swarming and you can tell they are birds. But then you see another swarm, flying much faster than the swallows and they resemble just long sticks maneuvering. Those were rods en masse. I have it on tape.

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
a reply to: Lathroper

I do a lot of random sky recordings and caught this ufo.youtu.be...
I mislabeled it a disk, it is more shaped like a rod or cigar. Do you believe this is a rod? If its a rod, I think it could be one of the largest ever recorded.

If you mean the "little" black dot that appears at :40 on the lower portion of the screen, that's not a rod. I'll venture it's a bird as I think I see wings flapping and it's as slow as a bird. A rod would have gone from left to right in a second. And it's shape would have been elongated without visible appendages such as wings or a tail. They are so fast that seeing their bodies is almost impossible. For example, on an old show titled "USHUAIA" (sp.?), they go to the Cave of Swallows and take an unassembled hot air balloon to the bottom. They put it together and float up. As the balloon is seen clearing the cave's opening, you see swallows swarming and you can tell they are birds. But then you see another swarm, flying much faster than the swallows and they resemble just long sticks maneuvering. Those were rods en masse. I have it on tape.

No, please watch the video again and read the description. It appears at around :02. I let the video run to show how slow and small the birds were compared to the rod.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
Please provide proof of insects being too hard to accurately capture at 240fps. Why would you think that you need 1000 fps to record an insect?

Go ahead an believe that rods are something other than a camera artifact. You'll just be wrong.

No, you are wrong. People with your mindset will always be wrong because you are ignoring the hard evidence provided by the variety of equipment used. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and show us a rod that is the result of camera artifacts, the oldest and stupidest argument from non-thinkers. There are always people like you in the audience.

I recently saw this rod recorded from a DJI Phantom 4. It's pretty amazing.


youtu.be...

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
a reply to: ArMaP


This link says that it has a fixed aperture. www.cameradebate.com... Please delete the previous 2 posts.

I can't find any day videos of insects with slow shutter speeds. What shutter speed do you think I should use with the fixed aperture?

I don't think I can't use the Exif Tool on videos, only pics. The image was taken from a video. The wing flaps do show blur at some images. It is relatively clear because they are at the top of the flap before going back down.
I think the shutter speed was around 1/30 or 1/15.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Here are 2 more videos I uploaded to YouTube to contribute to this thread and to quiet the naysayers. I'd like to see them saying these rods are camera artifacts, etc.

You'll notice that the rods seen in these 2 videos look identical and you can imagine the rod from David Blaine exits and enters in the CALIENTE video!

If you play the David video in slow motion (1/4 speed) when the rod enters the frame you see it extend "transparent" wings. In the CALIENTE video the opposite happens. As the rod is about to exit you see white or transparent appendages come out. BTW, CALIENTE is Spanish for hot.

David Blaine buzzed by rod


CALIENTE rod - When the dancer claps his hand

On 2 attempts the videos didn't come in. I'll have to do a separate reply. In the meantime go to YouTube and type:
David Blaine buzzed by rod

CALIENTE rod - when the male dancer starts to clap

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I can't find any day videos of insects with slow shutter speeds. What shutter speed do you think I should use with the fixed aperture?

1/1000 should be enough to "freeze" the motion of most objects.

I don't think I can't use the Exif Tool on videos, only pics.

It's possible, I used it with a video from my camera.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I think the shutter speed was around 1/30 or 1/15.

That's too slow.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I think the shutter speed was around 1/30 or 1/15.

That's too slow.

I was trying to catch things in a slow shutter speed to see how the objects look. I will try to catch a rod at your suggested speed.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I think the shutter speed was around 1/30 or 1/15.

That's too slow.

If I can catch insects at 1/30 or slower in focus enough to know what they are, why would I need a shutter speed near 1/1000?

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I think the shutter speed was around 1/30 or 1/15.

That's too slow.

If I can catch insects at 1/30 or slower in focus enough to know what they are, why would I need a shutter speed near 1/1000?

Because by their nature most insects fly slow, while others are quite speedy. The faster the shutter speed the clearer the object becomes and the more definition that is recorded. Overkill is a factor but it all depends on what you are trying to prove. Rods require high shutter speeds, that is a given. Slow shutter speeds will result in blur and that's when critics come out of the woodwork. And proving rods are not your average insect need no longer be proven. Enough videos of rods exist to put them in their own individual category. Only the hardon critics continue to use bs explanations. My 2 videos, above, should be enough to silence them.