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

originally posted by: Lathroper

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.

My point is addressing the myth created by monsterquest leading to assumptions that insects require thousand dollar high frame rate cameras to capture them in focus. I want to show that its possible to capture the rods and insects in focus on simple cameras.
I recorded this rod in focus for the most part at a normal frame rate and auto shutter speed.



Its flying extremely fast straight towards the ground. The video is unedited. It appears at :14
youtu.be...

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
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?

First of all, please use the right words, "motion blur" is not the same as "out of focus", lack of motion blur is not the same as "in focus", an object can be in focus and present motion blur.

If you can capture a insect flying at 1/30 without motion blur then it means that the insect is not moving fast enough, a shutter speed of 1/1000 guarantees that motion blur will only appear in objects moving extremely fast.

The distance of the insect also affects motion blur, as the speed of the insect appears lower to far away insects while insects closer to the camera appear faster, as what matters is angular velocity. For example, in the "Caliente" video, the object crosses half of the scene in 0.266 seconds and appears in 8 frames, which gives us 30 frames per second. As the object appears blurred in the whole extension and where it ends in one frame is the start of the object in the next (no jumps) I suppose that means that the shutter was opened the whole time (1/30). If the video was filmed at 30 fps but with a 1/60 shutter the video would have less motion blur, the blurred area of the object would appear with half the length. At 1/1000 the shutter would be open for approximately 1/30 of original shutter speed, so the object would appear with a blurred are with a 1/30 or the original video.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I want to show that its possible to capture the rods and insects in focus on simple cameras.

First, start by using the correct names: it's motion blur, not focus.
Second, if you try to prove two different things at the same time it only makes things harder (specially if they are mutually exclusive), try first to prove (or disprove) one and then deal with the other.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: Lathroper

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.

My point is addressing the myth created by monsterquest leading to assumptions that insects require thousand dollar high frame rate cameras to capture them in focus. I want to show that its possible to capture the rods and insects in focus on simple cameras.
I recorded this rod in focus for the most part at a normal frame rate and auto shutter speed.
snip
Its flying extremely fast straight towards the ground. The video is unedited. It appears at :14
snip

The problem with your experiment, aside from ArMaP's comments, is that it doesn't add anything worthwhile to a discussion about rods. It's too far, therefore no usable details to isolate it as a rod. If you were to magnify it it would prove unusable as, again, it would be devoid of identifying details.

On another note, do you have any comments on the 3 videos I added to your thread? ArMaP already mentioned the 2 cheetahs. How about commenting on the "identical" David Blaine and CALIENTE rods?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I want to show that its possible to capture the rods and insects in focus on simple cameras.

First, start by using the correct names: it's motion blur, not focus.
Second, if you try to prove two different things at the same time it only makes things harder (specially if they are mutually exclusive), try first to prove (or disprove) one and then deal with the other.

Do you have any comments you can post on the almost identical David Blaine & CALIENTE rods?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I want to show that its possible to capture the rods and insects in focus on simple cameras.

First, start by using the correct names: it's motion blur, not focus.
Second, if you try to prove two different things at the same time it only makes things harder (specially if they are mutually exclusive), try first to prove (or disprove) one and then deal with the other.

I think we need to establish a baseline for what motion blur is. There are obviously more extreme motion blurs than others. From what I have seen of motion blur, you can still see an objects true length, even with the motion blur present. The motion blur is light shading while the object still has solid borders on most images, unless they were purposely done with an extremely slow shutter speed.
If an entire scene is moving extremely fast, would this be out of focus, motion blur, or both? Does a scene or the photographer have to be still in order for the camera to focus?

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: Lathroper

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.

My point is addressing the myth created by monsterquest leading to assumptions that insects require thousand dollar high frame rate cameras to capture them in focus. I want to show that its possible to capture the rods and insects in focus on simple cameras.
I recorded this rod in focus for the most part at a normal frame rate and auto shutter speed.
snip
Its flying extremely fast straight towards the ground. The video is unedited. It appears at :14
snip

The problem with your experiment, aside from ArMaP's comments, is that it doesn't add anything worthwhile to a discussion about rods. It's too far, therefore no usable details to isolate it as a rod. If you were to magnify it it would prove unusable as, again, it would be devoid of identifying details.

On another note, do you have any comments on the 3 videos I added to your thread? ArMaP already mentioned the 2 cheetahs. How about commenting on the "identical" David Blaine and CALIENTE rods?

I made comments on the videos on YouTube. I wrote that the objects were probably rods, but that it could be argued that there is poor resolution and motion blur, and they could be birds gliding in between wing flaps. Most of the ideas that rods are just insects is based on the idea that insect motion blur responsible for the appearance of rods. I am saying that even if insects or birds have motion blur, they will not appear as rods. I am talking specifically about rods captured in the day time.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails

originally posted by: Lathroper

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.

My point is addressing the myth created by monsterquest leading to assumptions that insects require thousand dollar high frame rate cameras to capture them in focus. I want to show that its possible to capture the rods and insects in focus on simple cameras.
I recorded this rod in focus for the most part at a normal frame rate and auto shutter speed.
snip
Its flying extremely fast straight towards the ground. The video is unedited. It appears at :14
snip

The problem with your experiment, aside from ArMaP's comments, is that it doesn't add anything worthwhile to a discussion about rods. It's too far, therefore no usable details to isolate it as a rod. If you were to magnify it it would prove unusable as, again, it would be devoid of identifying details.

On another note, do you have any comments on the 3 videos I added to your thread? ArMaP already mentioned the 2 cheetahs. How about commenting on the "identical" David Blaine and CALIENTE rods?

I made comments on the videos on YouTube. I wrote that the objects were probably rods, but that it could be argued that there is poor resolution and motion blur, and they could be birds gliding in between wing flaps. Most of the ideas that rods are just insects is based on the idea that insect motion blur responsible for the appearance of rods. I am saying that even if insects or birds have motion blur, they will not appear as rods. I am talking specifically about rods captured in the day time.

Those that would argue that the the video shows a bird gliding between wing flaps should post a video showing such. The space in both videos from the entrance of the rod 'til it's out of frame is a large space and no bird that I know of can fly as fast. If you play the YouTube video in slow motion (1/4) and as soon as the rod shows, freeze it and move it along frame by frame so that when the rod is seen complete you'll see white or transparent "appendages" that disappear as the rod continues into the frame. And also as it is about to leave the frame. Same for the CALIENTE rod. I don't know what their method of propulsion is but it seems they don't need to "flap" their "wings" continuously. Just a "flap" here and there. From the thousands of images and videos that I've seen, there is variety among the species. A Peregrine falcon can reach 180 mph, it is claimed. But that's in a straight dive and when you see one do it you also see its wing once in a while. The rods in the videos are hauling horizontally at probably more than 180 mph.

Many years ago I read of someone who found what they identified as an obviously dead rod on the pavement but it soon dissolved.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

Here's another rod treat. I was watching YouTube videos at 1:45 am and was enjoying this video: "19 UFO Sightings Caught on Live TV" when this segment came on at 6:32 of two people (maybe a live newscast) chatting with the view outside their window of the London Bridge(?) when something zipped by outside. On the video it is treated as a UFO but I'm pretty sure it's a rod. The segment is repeated and slowed down so that you can definitely conclude it's rod or a new, as of yet, undiscovered type of bird that doesn't need wings!

At 6:32!

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails


The problem is YOU think a video camera shutter works the same as a still camera it doesn't,

Video camera shutters work quite differently from still film camera shutters but the result is basically the same. (The technical difference is that, rather than using a mechanical device, the shutter speed is adjusted by electronically varying the amount of time the CCD is allowed to build a charge. If this means nothing to you, don't worry. It really doesn't matter how the shutter works, it's the effect it has that counts.)

The shutter "opens" and "closes" once for each frame of video; that is, 25 times per second for PAL and 30 times per second for NTSC. Thus, if a camera has its shutter set to 1/60, each frame will be exposed for 1/60 second. If the speed is increased to 1/120, each frame will be exposed for 1/120 of a second. Remember, the shutter speed does not affect the frame rate, which is completely separate and in most cases always stays the same (see shutter speed vs frame rate).

The main effect of higher shutter speeds is that individual frames appear sharper, due to the minimisation of motion blur. Motion blur occurs when the subject moves within the frame while the shutter is open. The less time the shutter is open (i.e. the faster the shutter speed), the less movement will take place.

One side-effect of higher shutter speeds is that movement appears more jerky. This is because motion blur tends to smooth consecutive frames together.

Many members on here are long time amatuer photographers some even pro next year I will have been using SLR/DSLR for 40 years started of obviously film and manual focus & exposure,rods don't exist they are a creation of relative speed & exposure settings.

Forgot to mention this.

The issue with electronic shutters is that they cannot make the sensor stop being sensitive to light, so while it is being discharged, some light still gets accumulated.

I hope you understand what that could mean !

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

" rod UFOs " - a delusion of the stupidest hoaxers and or terninally gullible idiots

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails


So what are the exposure details frame rate shutter speed aperture etc.

a reply to: Lathroper

Nothing special, only that the object in the first video looks like a bird to me.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
This is one of the clearest rods in existence. This object is clearly in focus. youtu.be...

You clearly don't know what focus means, you see motion blur NOT detail.

I would have thought the fact that these supposed "Rod UFO's" are only appearing in photos/videos and not actually being seen by people ought to be a pretty good steer as to what these might be?

Judging by the length of this ridiculous thread, apparently not.

originally posted by: Thoseaintcontrails
I think we need to establish a baseline for what motion blur is.

That was done a long time ago.

Wikipedia's definition is as good as any other:

Motion blur is the apparent streaking of rapidly moving objects in a still image or a sequence of images such as a movie or animation. It results when the image being recorded changes during the recording of a single exposure, either due to rapid movement or long exposure

In motion blur you have the edges of an object blurred by the fact that the object was moving during the time the image was captured. Those edges are the ones in the direction of movement, so if an object is moving from left to right you will see the left and right edge of the object are blurred while the top and bottom edge are not. If the object is out of focus then the top and bottom edge will look like any other out of focus object, but that is not motion blur.

There are obviously more extreme motion blurs than others. From what I have seen of motion blur, you can still see an objects true length, even with the motion blur present. The motion blur is light shading while the object still has solid borders on most images, unless they were purposely done with an extremely slow shutter speed.

That depends on several things, one of them being how the camera captures the light, but an object captured with motion blur will have its length in the direction of movement extended by how much it moved during the time the shutter was open.

If an entire scene is moving extremely fast, would this be out of focus, motion blur, or both?

The scene would appear with motion blur, while the objects could appear in or out of focus, depending on their distance to the camera and the distance the camera was focused at. That happens when the camera moves instead of the objects.

Does a scene or the photographer have to be still in order for the camera to focus?

In autofocus mode the camera "looks" at a scene and decides where to focus (usually the centre of the scene, but some cameras have modes to detect faces and focus on the faces), so if the camera is trying to focus on a moving (in relation to the camera) object it may not be able to do it. With manual focus you can focus to a specific distance, regardless of the objects or the whole scene being in motion.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

" rod UFOs " - a delusion of the stupidest hoaxers and or terninally gullible idiots

Do you think it helps your case and makes you look intelligent to attack me while having nothing to support your opinion? What do you base your faith on that rods are bugs? We already came to the conclusion the monsterquest debunk is invalid, sorry.

a reply to: Thoseaintcontrails

No your conclusion is that the video is wrong but you don't seem to understand how things actually work have you read my posts above regarding video shutters.

I always like to show an example so here is a shot showing motion blur at a race track



That was taken at 1/60th of a second the car would have been doing at least 80 mph plus at that point , the camera was panned to keep the car sharp so because the camera was moving relative to the background the background has MOTION blur. How much blur depends on the shutter speed, panning speed and also how far behind the subject the background is the further the more blur.

With the same respect an insect flying between the background and the camera will blur again depending on its speed, shutter speed and direction relative to the camera.

You have to look at the method used to create the shutter speed with digital video and also the process to store the file have you even attempted to find that out.

The shutter speed required to freeze an object in motion depends on the relative direction to the camera an object moving directly towards or away from the camera requires a slower shutter speed than an object travelling at an angle and object across the frame needs the fastest speed.

So next time you are on a road/highway look at objects travelling towards you the an object at say 45 degress the objects looking out the door window without changing speed what appears to move faster.

The are insects and sometime birds it is that simple.

If there are loads of these things flying about all over the place why does no one ever actually see them with the Mk One eyeball? How come they only show up in photos and videos?

It couldn't be because they are just bugs, could it?

a reply to: Lathroper

So how do you calculate a speed of 180 mph ?