Rods caught on camera, opinion please

Hi guys,

I was shooting some cutaways for a film project I'm currently working on this afternoon, anyway, when I got home and checked through the footage, I noticed these 'rods'!
















Here is a quick video showing some of the rods. If you look carefully at the last section (wide shot of towers) you will see quite a few in various locations around the main tower.



A couple of things I can point out immediately- these don't seem to be insects, one clearly flies behind the mosque, which was approximately 75 meters from the camera, which was on full zoom.

I was also shooting in progressive scan, not interlaced, so the multiple frames argument I've noticed being used to debunk does not apply.

Details of camera and settings:

Sony EX1 720/1280 50fps progressive scan
f 14.1
shutter 1/50

Let me know what you think. I have no experience or knowledge in this area...

Thanks

Robb

Originally posted by vagabondrobb
... these don't seem to be insects ...
I have no experience or knowledge in this area...

If you believe the first line, then the second line is correct.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by vagabondrobb


Vagabondrobb.....

Unfortunately, there are no such things as "Rods", as discussed on ATS & externally at great length & in huge detail.

"Rods" are films of bugs that stretch across several video frames, producing the classic "wavy stick" video & still-frame effects.

I recommend the excellent work of DepthOfField, who explains this effect very well.

"Rods" are a hoax perpetrated by Jose Escamilla. Here is Escamilla's "Rods" website.

Escamilla's Rods Hoax

Rods are now consigned to the ATS Hoax Forum as per my thread:

Should ”Rods” Threads Be Consigned To The Hoax Forum?

Here is what Springer said about that in that thread.....

Yes, I agree they should be in the [HOAX] Forum. To be honest, I had happily forgotten about the bugs by the time we created the [HOAX] forum.

If someone will u2u me links to any current threads (I already moved the one linked in this thread) on the bollocks, er topic, I'll move them too.

Springer..

You might find this collection of "rods" & "blurds" images & GIF's by the great DepthOfField interesting.....

I've already gone into searching of "ufo's" in my photos, and even put them online into one free online page and free web hosting, which now is broken (deh, it was free

) . Maybe they may help some of the readers. Anyway, i saved some of them here on ATS media, and i have the links already:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a4e2b66bfd6a.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/064369a4a5d3.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/de78c9b11dcc.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eb663e9ca587.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3bb19eb67f3.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5070bf91e75d.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/caefca8b55a7.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b6653726a682.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/97f8c82fac9f.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cbe6a0a16d64.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6cf79cffbab2.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d9c4e171a411.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/95f0b1a42460.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c59261a28618.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5f327da89217.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f9abc6232f80.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1a70784aad6a.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1b3b6b4283f4.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1e43a4b22cee.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a0e5b96c628a.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2a6b16ff1eb3.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9ceab39254ad.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3f7c03f36900.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e91ea0cc9772.gif[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aeaf65b6a6d1.gif[/atsimg]

Here is a video that covers the "rods" hoax quite well:



If you would like more specific info about "Rods", please let me know & I will be very pleased to oblige.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

reply to post by CHRLZ


Please explain, I'm not interested in UFOs but it's odd that I can film an insect at 75 meters, apparently the size of a cricketball??

I'm a cameraman, I haven't seen anything like this before...

An explanation would be lovely.

I just saw some rods earlier today as well. Cool shots. Unfortunately, this kinda thing is rather uncertain. Probably a bird or bug or plane or dust particles. Thanks for sharing.

edit: I should say that the things I saw were high up in the sky and went behind clouds. They looked kinda like the fuselage of an airplane minus the wings. When I looked through binoculars, I still couldn't see any wings, but could see very clearly defined rod/cylinder shape. My mom confirmed that I wasn't seeing things, that they really were just a cylinder. They were not bugs or birds, unless these were freaking huge bugs/birds. Video footage of a rod or orb flying around, though, is very difficult to be certain about. You can't tell from video if those objects were far away or close, unless you have HD video and got a really good shot of it.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Thanks!

It seems I may have indeed been rodded.

Interesting stuff anyhow!

reply to post by vagabondrobb


Hey OP,

You're just looking for answers, and you came to the right place! It's been proven that rods don't exist. Joe Escamilla keeps trying to prove that they do. They had a 1hr program on Discovery a few weeks back, where it was proven to be insects and moths. Video is split into 2 channels, and because standard cameras film at 30 frames per second, when the frames are put together, they don't synch due to the high speed of insect / moths movement.

Therefore creating a distorted image - hence a rod looking creature. They setup 2 cameras, 1 a std 1, the other filmed at a ridiculous FPS. The results of the std camera showed a 'rod', the other showed a moth.

Case closed

^^
The Jose Escamilla version of Rods are a load of bull, but people still see rod/cylinder-shaped UFOs. If you are recording something on video and, as you review the footage, happen to notice that you also got some "rods" in the shot, then they are almost certainly bugs/birds/dust particles. But if you look in the sky and see something in the shape of a cylinder/rod flying about, well, I'd be hard pressed to say its a bird/bug/dust. Important distinction to make.

Originally posted by vagabondrobb
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

Please explain, I'm not interested in UFOs but it's odd that I can film an insect at 75 meters, apparently the size of a cricketball??

I'm a cameraman, I haven't seen anything like this before...

An explanation would be lovely.

Forgive my 'curtness', but I get a little cynical about the motives of posters sometimes...

My cynicism was based on the following:

1. You called them 'rods'. Either that's a fluke, or you had heard the term before, which would suggest that you might have done a little research. Even a little research shows the truth on these...

2. You have a er.. 'rather capable' camera, if it is the EX1 I know - which looks like this:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bf6cd83d1e0d.jpg[/atsimg]

Mmmhmm. Feel free to correct me there, maybe this is some other EX-1..

Now, you own such a camera and have not seen the effects of insects, bugs and birds when shooting in these sort of conditions, into the light? I'm a little surprised.

Further, that (very nice) lens gives the equivalent of a 440mm telephoto, before considering digital zoom on top of that... Now I haven't done any full-on calculations, and of course we have to take your word on the 75m business, but I certainly don't see any 'rods' that look like they are anything like the size of a cricket ball...

If you identify the object you were filming it may be possible to do a little photogrammetry. But I have to say I don't see anything here that warrants much further time.

Oh, and I gotta ask, why such a small aperture and slow shutter speed?

reply to post by CHRLZ


Hi Chris,

I can prove the '75mm business' if you really would like that?

I don't like the way you seem to think I'm trying to somehow pull the wool over your eyes, I'm really not- I'm just interested in what I saw.

The 'rod' that was so fascinating to me was the one which seemed to move behind the dome of the tower- at that distance it would be logical to assume that it was larger than an insect- have you watched the video?

I'm quite happy to accept that there is absolutely nothing 'mysterious' about these things...

As for the tiny aperture and 'fast' shutter speed, I was shooting into the sun, I wanted to silhouette and darken the towers for stylistic purposes- I was already using ND 3 and so closed the aperture- is that ok with you?

As for the 50fps, I'm making a film for a very well know broadcasting company here in the UK, as the EX1 does not meet their very high benchmark for HD, I am shooting for SD- the settings I use are the exact recommendation/advice of the broadcast company for achieving the best results for downscaling to SD.

Originally posted by vagabondrobb
Hi Chris

It's CHRLZ, ie charlz, geddit? That's why it's in capitals so you can see it's an L..

I can prove the '75mm business' if you really would like that?

I did fix my 'mm' error! You're too quick for me. As for proving it was 75m, I'll take your word for it, but the point I was trying to make was - how on earth did you come to the 'cricket ball' size conclusion?

I don't like the way you seem to think I'm trying to somehow pull the wool over your eyes, I'm really not- I'm just interested in what I saw.

I was simply trying to explain my initial cynicism. I accept that you may not be trying to wool-pull, but each of my points still stand! You still didn't explain why you called them 'rods'... and...

The 'rod' that was so fascinating to me was the one which seemed to move behind the dome of the tower- at that distance it would be logical to assume that it was larger than an insect- have you watched the video?

Yes, quite closely. What zoom setting were you at (inc. digital/post), and how were we, as viewers, to know that? It is not at all logical to assume any such thing, unless you back it up. It *is* however logical to assume the simplest explanation may be the best, and those 'rods' look exactly like insects (of indeterminate size, how's that?) do when shooting into the light, especially at low shutter speeds. You would surely agree that 1/50 is rather slow, and likely to create motion blur problems, surely..? No matter what the reason you were using it...

And how big do the bugs get thereabouts? I don't know, but in most places I have lived, some beetles and moths were quite large indeed, and when added to a little sensor blooming and all that blur from the digital zoom you applied... I trust you did notice just how blurred the edges of the mosque decorations were, so if they were at the same distance, the 'rods' were also blurred by that much... Cricket ball sized? Peewee marble maybe...

I'm quite happy to accept that there is absolutely nothing 'mysterious' about these things...

That's excellent to hear. Bravo!

As for the tiny aperture and 'fast' shutter speed, I was shooting into the sun, I wanted to silhouette and darken the towers for stylistic purposes- I was already using ND 3 and so closed the aperture- is that ok with you?

No, actually, it isn't. That makes not a lot of sense. A tiny aperture will indeed reduce the incoming light so you got that right... But 1/50 second is a SLOW shutter speed - ie it lets lots of light in, and will result in significant motion blur... If you wanted to darken the towers, you could/should have taken it down to 1/250 or 1/500 or higher and used a wider aperture or removed the ND. The fact you were already using an ND indicates you WANTED to use a slow shutter speed...

As for the 50fps, I'm making a film for a very well know broadcasting company here in the UK, as the EX1 does not meet their very high benchmark for HD, I am shooting for SD- the settings I use are the exact recommendation/advice of the broadcast company for achieving the best results for downscaling to SD.

While I'll take that at face value (it makes a little more sense than the previous paragraph did...), BUT frame rate and shutter speed are NOT the same thing, so 50fps does not necessarily mean the shutter speed is 1/50...

.. but I don't think this thread is about video lessons... I've yammered enough, you'll be pleased to know..

reply to post by CHRLZ


OK,

I thought you meant frames per second, not shutter speed.

No, actually, it isn't. That makes not a lot of sense. A tiny aperture will indeed reduce the incoming light so you got that right... But 1/50 second is a SLOW shutter speed - ie it lets lots of light in, and will result in significant motion blur... If you wanted to darken the towers, you could/should have taken it down to 1/250 or 1/500 or higher and used a wider aperture or removed the ND. The fact you were already using an ND indicates you WANTED to use a slow shutter speed...

If you are a photographer then to adjust the shutter speed to dictate exposure and would be the correct thing to do. I'm afraid with video it's the other way around- exposure is controlled with iris and ND filters, shutter speed stays the same (optimum in normal conditions for EX1 is 1/50), only circumstances it would be changed would be either for stylistic purposes (1/12 or 1/25 for that blur/slur) or for high speed action, such as sport coverage (1/500 for formula 1), you get the idea...

Below is a combined screen grab of the meta data displayed with two different framings of the tower- the frist the close up, the second fully wide, illustrating the distance from which I was filming:

Originally posted by vagabondrobb
If you are a photographer then to adjust the shutter speed to dictate exposure and would be the correct thing to do. I'm afraid with video it's the other way around- exposure is controlled with iris and ND filters, shutter speed stays the same (optimum in normal conditions for EX1 is 1/50), only circumstances it would be changed would be either for stylistic purposes (1/12 or 1/25 for that blur/slur) or for high speed action, such as sport coverage (1/500 for formula 1), you get the idea...

I'm sorry, but that is simply WRONG. Shutter speed is variable on most half-decent video cameras. It is independent of the frame rate (but lower-limited by it, naturally) and adjusting the shutter speed controls the amount of light just as adjusting the aperture does, in EXACTLY the same way as on a still camera. You really need to do a little more research on how your camera works.

Yes, you *can* use different shutter speeds for artistic purposes as you explained. JUST AS you *can* use aperture settings to get different depth of field effects.

BUT AS YOU ADJUST EITHER APERTURE OR SHUTTER SPEED, YOU AFFECT THE INCOMING LIGHT.

Smaller aperture (eg going from f5.6 to f14 as per your example) - LESS light to the sensor, darker image.
Shorter shutter speed (eg going from 1/50 to 1/500) - LESS light to the sensor, darker image.

Part of the problem here is that people new to camcorders confuse shutter speed with frame rate. The frame rate of a camcorder is the number of times every second that the camera takes a picture of the world it sees. The shutter speed represents how long the frame stays open for to record any particular image. The shutter speed on camcorders is variable; the frame rate is not. [this reference is to typical 'non-pro' camcorders] For example, you would use a slow shutter speed in low-light situations to let in more light, but in bright situations you would use a fast shutter speed to restrict the amount of light coming in.

www.camcorderinfo.com...

I have a very cheap camcorder with a variable shutter speed in manual mode, and as you change it you can watch the exposure going up and down, just as I have explained above.

That is very basic stuff, I'm afraid...

reply to post by CHRLZ



YES!!!!

I am not arguing that changing the shutter speed does not change the amount of light reaching the sensor! And YES fps IS independent of shutter speed!

I AM NOT AN IDIOT!!!!

I can't help but be a little offended.

For example, you would use a slow shutter speed in low-light situations to let in more light, but in bright situations you would use a fast shutter speed to restrict the amount of light coming in.

You sound like you are coming from the understanding of a photographer- in which case there is nothing wrong with your reasoning. But you're obviously not a cameraman are you?

You obviously do not know much about professional broadcast video. As I said, you do not change shutter speed to adjust exposure on a video camera.

You say that a shutter speed of 1/50 is too fast?

If I shoot slower then yes, I will obviously allow more light to hit the sensor, however, because of the nature of video, there will be an increase of motion blur. By broadcast standards, 50 is the lowest we can usually go in normal situations. Likewise shooting much higher shutter speeds can make things jerky.

Shutter speed

Do some research,

Please believe me on this one.

OK, to some extent we are talking at crossed purposes. I do understand that particular speeds can be regarded as 'ideal' for the 'smoothest' effect, and might be regarded as 'optimum'.

But you are missing the point. If you are shooting at 1/50 second shutter speed, then anything moving through the frame, even at a slow speed, will be blurred. That needs to be incorporated into your perception, and should be something that you are familiar with.

So the simple fact is that if you wished to document the 'anomaly, or *anything* moving', you would most certainly NOT use 1/50 sec shutter speed. Given you WERE using 1/50, it needs to be pointed out that the objects will be significantly blurred in the direction of travel. Like I said, I'm puzzled that you haven't seen similar effects with birds and bugs in the past

Is this location near you? If it is, humour me and go back, take the ND out of the equation as necessary, and show us the results when you film that same scene at 1/100, 1/250, 1/500, and 1/1000.

reply to post by CHRLZ


I agree maybe we are misinterpreting each other.

If I were LOOKING to film 'rods' then I would indeed shoot with a higher shutter speed- but it so happens I was shooting broadcast.

You asked why such a slow shutter, I gave you an answer you thought was the wrong one. If I had known that you were concerned with blurring, then no problem, but the point is, I used the correct shutter speed for what I was intending to do!! I had no intention of filming 'rods'!

My gripe was that you seemed to be telling me how to operate a camera!

Look no hard feelings.

Robb

reply to post by vagabondrobb


Yeah the OP has some rods or aircraft but the other posts are clearly bug
photos used over and over again.

Truly a mystery.

My partner and I were canoeing in the UK last year, taking pictures of the trees and canal etc. There was a dead tree standing tall amongst the greenery, so we took a picture of it. At home, on looking at the photos, we saw a strange object seeming behind the tree. Almost rectangular, but blurred. You could zoom in and make out a sort of solid shape. We began to think we'd captured a shot of a UFO, but on seeing this post, and the photos above, oh my god there was such a similarity.

Here's our photo..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/00dc64de9118.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by ckitch
At home, on looking at the photos, we saw a strange object seeming behind the tree.

Behind the tree??? Based on what?? You obviously didn't see the thing at the time, and despite claims to the contrary, digital cameras have a response to the same region of visible light that our eyes do. That tends to suggest it wasn't a plane or ufo... So let's look at it dispassionately.

The object is not obscured by anything, it is unclear, so the ONLY clues we have are that it seems blurry, and it looks like a long streak

Looking at the trees (which seem to be slightly motion blurred, suggesting it isn't a hugely fast shutter speed), and the clouds (which appear to be pretty detailed and as clear as they could be given the slight motion blur), it would appear that the camera was focused on infinity. Which of course means only CLOSE objects would be blurry from being out of focus. Now what would be close to the camera and moving at a reasonably high angular speed?

There is also the possibility of it being a bird that was moving fast and flapping wings so as to create a blurred shape, but I'd go with a bug.

I'm not quite sure if you are simply suggesting that you too have captured an insect or 'blurd', or whether you think there is something more to 'rods'. If the former, then yes, I'd suggest everyone who takes a lot of images, particularly on cheaper digital cameras, will be able to find lots of similar images if they pore over them (somewhat pointlessly) looking for 'anomalies'.

If you think there is something more to 'rods', I'm afraid that image doesn't show anything new...