The rolling shutter effect - Don't believe everything that the camera sees....

For fun, another incredible and astonishing effect:

One of the first pictures in this thread, the one with a different reflection of the child's eyes reminded me of this Japanese Kid:

Originally posted by DanUKphd
One of the first pictures in this thread, the one with a different reflection of the child's eyes reminded me of this Japanese Kid:

I have no doubts about the reflection picture on page 1 being a possible camera effect.

However that video I have serious doubts about it being a camera effect. The lag seems long for a video. I know it's slow motion at the end, but I'm not sure if it's camera effect, or if it's edited.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I have no doubts about the reflection picture on page 1 being a possible camera effect. However that video I have serious doubts about it being a camera effect. The lag seems long for a video. I know it's slow motion at the end, but I'm not sure if it's camera effect, or if it's edited.

I think the Japanese Kid reflection delay was a camera fault. I've done a bit of video editing and I've seen similar things happen on older video cameras. A small portion of the frame can sometimes freeze. Some youtube videos, the ones that look like they've come from early 1990's VHS tapes, have partial frame delays from the original tape. Wish I could link to an example. Sometimes the whole frame sticks. - I think it was a bit of a fluke that the mirror part of the frame in the Japanese video got stuck.

interesting... S&F

As I said in that ridiculously long thread on the temple mound UFO, we should not dismiss videos based on normal film operation when dealing with CMOS cameras. For the most part they are good enough to be used when taking pictures of the environment, or weddings, however when they are used for things that need to be verified using standard techniques we need to remember their unreliability.

Not that I have an opinion on these events either way, I just ever want the truth, but it is hard to find truth when your taking sub par technology and believing their faults, be it to prove or disprove a video.

During my drugged out teen years I used to do stuff like this with just a strobe light.

I'd put lots of stickers on my ceiling fan blades and set the timing of the strobe just right so they appear stationary but all stickers are changing. It also works when twirling things around your finger like a hanger. You can do some pretty awesome things with this effect.

Originally posted by DanUKphd
I think the Japanese Kid reflection delay was a camera fault...- I think it was a bit of a fluke that the mirror part of the frame in the Japanese video got stuck.

I won't rule out a camera fault, but notice it's not really stuck, it looks like there's some eye movement in the "stuck" reflection.

Originally posted by Aziroth
Not that I have an opinion on these events either way, I just ever want the truth, but it is hard to find truth when your taking sub par technology and believing their faults, be it to prove or disprove a video.

There are lots of reasons for UFOs. This UFO was filmed by an old film-style camera so the optical illusion has nothing to do with CCD or CMOS image sensors:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6554174e811.png[/atsimg]
www.abovetopsecret.com...

If the image sensor explains what we see, fine. But plenty of times there are other explanations. Most people would think that looks more like a real, solid object, than an illusion. But most people aren't aware of the wide range of illusions that are possible. That's just an illusion.

Another example of the title of this thread: "Don't believe everything that the camera sees"

Very cool, it's kindof like how with certain wheels on cars, if the car is traveling at a certain speed, you can see the individual spokes or whatever they're called.

This is almost like seeing 4 dimensional objects in a 3 dimensional plane. It's theorized that a 4D object passing through our 3D world would fade in and out of existence. It's like passing a 3D sphere through a 2D plane. On the 2D plane, the sphere would first appear as a single point of mass. As it passes through, it would appear to expand until it reaches the halfway point, where it will be largest. Then, as it continues on, it would again shrink until it was a single point, then disappear completely. 4D objects passing through 3D space would behave the same way, kind of like the plane propeller or the fan.

We actually live in a 4d world where the fourth dimension is time.

Wow, I find this amazing. I can't help but wonder what the implications will be in regard to the video 'evidence' that we all try to prove or disprove the validity of. I wonder if any of the good UFO videos, etc. could have this effect in them. Nothing comes to mind off the top of my head, but now there is no way I can ever watch a video again without thinking about whether this effect could be causing some anomaly, etc...

Na, really I just think that was a magic helicopter. Great thread!!!

Usually takes me 12 cups of coffee, 3 ibu provens, and after 9:30 am before I believe my own eyes.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
However that video I have serious doubts about it being a camera effect. The lag seems long for a video. I know it's slow motion at the end, but I'm not sure if it's camera effect, or if it's edited.

edit on 18-4-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Yes, I agree.
Even with the slow motion, this cannot be a rolling shutter effect, as the bottom of the image will be only 1/24 or 1/30 or 1/60th of a second *later* than the top.

Anyone knows more about this odd video?

This when combined with other artifacts and we have a reptilian super army hosting our news and making our pop songs. Reflections, iso noise, bokeh, fringe etc. etc. explain many 'unknowns' too.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by Hawking

 

Yeah it's pretty amazing, and really our eyes do the same thing just at such higher rates that we barely notice it, our brain is fantastic at interpolation.

Now if you can convince people to take this into account instead of crying "alien tech" every time they catch something weird on camera we'll be golden.

This effect doesn't apply when the naked eye sees the same anomoly -- so, for people who caught something awesome on film, they have a scientific base comparison they can make, provided the object is visible by the naked eye.

Seems like most claims of "Alien" tech follow suit. It's usually "I saw something and grabbed the camera" or "I caught it in my camera than verified by eye."

Just saying chief, don't be so quit to right everything off as some kind of camera anomoly, especially when the originator of the footage says they saw it with his/her own eye.

Originally posted by elevenaugust

Credits: Flickr's user sorenragsdale.

Look closely at the eyes of user's son in both original and reflection image

Credits: Flickr's user Douglasspics.

This one is sort of spooky to me. Even knowing that it is an effect of the camera my mind wants to scream...

Parallel universe, evil twin, I'mwatching you, dopleganger, I am taking your place in this dimension filthy earth child.

Just sayin'.

Originally posted by elevenaugust
Yes, I agree.
Even with the slow motion, this cannot be a rolling shutter effect, as the bottom of the image will be only 1/24 or 1/30 or 1/60th of a second *later* than the top.

That's pretty much the logic I used to conclude that it's unlikely to be the effect described in the OP.

It's possible there is some other type of camera artifact I'm not familiar with that might explain it which is why I used the word unlikely rather than impossible to be a camera artifact. But I've studied camera artifacts a fair amount, and I'm not familiar with this effect.

Not related, here's another type of video artifact which results from interlacing:


That's the only example I found in a quick search, but I've seen it turn a regular car with 4 wheels into something that looks like a stretch limo with 8 wheels, it's almost like a ghost image or double exposure in a frame from an interlaced video. The cause is similar to the pictures in the OP, it results from scanning, but the scanning sequence is different, as explained here:

neuron2.net...

I will explain if it hasn't been done yet I havn't read all the comments but here I go. Basicly the framerate is too low. imagine below





The roling away of the blades I cannot explain, an image can refresh from top to bottom line by line so I think the problem is there.

Originally posted by Laokin
This effect doesn't apply when the naked eye sees the same anomoly -- so, for people who caught something awesome on film, they have a scientific base comparison they can make, provided the object is visible by the naked eye.

Right. the eye doesn't scan things the way a CCD or CMOS image sensor does, not exactly. However, the eye and the human brain which interprets the signals the eye sends it have an even wider repertoire of misinterpretation capabilities than a camera does. So I'd say that with all the technological faults with inaccuracies in camera images, human eye/brain recording is much worse in terms of reliability as any good lawyer or judge knows.

Seems like most claims of "Alien" tech follow suit. It's usually "I saw something and grabbed the camera" or "I caught it in my camera than verified by eye."

I have no idea what you're talking about. The absence of any good UFO footage is legendary. I don't think that verifying it with the eye is much of a supporting argument. Please watch this video and tell me why you think eye verification would help...I don't think it will help at all. For one thing, the camera can zoom in to get a closer look at the object faster than the eye can:

CAUTION: to all UFO videographers

By the way, the diamond shape of the "UFO" in that video is another camera artifact, it's the light source being shaped by the camera's diamond shaped aperture, and as you can see later in the video, the object itself is not diamond shape. This is a common effect in many UFO videos.

Just saying chief, don't be so quit to right everything off as some kind of camera anomoly, especially when the originator of the footage says they saw it with his/her own eye.

If you meant quick to write everything off, I'm just saying chief, don't be quick to assume that it's not also explainable as that example video demonstrates.