Orbs demystified...
Moderators: DJKeefy, 4u Network
- LivinginLuxor
- Top Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 am
- Location: Luxor, Egypt
- Been thanked: 249 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
Orbs demystified...
That strange phenomenom of orbs in digital photos, which some people consider to be spiritual phenomena has finally been accurately explained.
By taking stereoscopic pictures, if an orb was anything other than a dust particle, it would appear in both pictures - but it doesn't!
Here's the full article explaining the theory behind orbs..
http://www.parascience.org.uk/articles/orbkill.htm
By taking stereoscopic pictures, if an orb was anything other than a dust particle, it would appear in both pictures - but it doesn't!
Here's the full article explaining the theory behind orbs..
http://www.parascience.org.uk/articles/orbkill.htm
I might agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong!
Stan
Stan
- Bullet Magnet
- Royal V.I.P
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:38 am
- Location: Le Manège Enchanté
- Has thanked: 5362 times
- Been thanked: 1475 times
- Contact:
I noticed these things when I started taking pictures in Luxor. To me it was pretty obvious it was dust. No shortage of it around the temples etc...
Also I recall taking a picture of my garden and a strange mist appeared in the picture, of course the strange mist was infact the remnants of my cigarette smoke I had just exhaled prior to taking the shot.
I guess the digital camera's are much faster and sharper than the old celluloid technology.
The only annoying part of digital filming, is the vertical white line you get from a reflective surface. Even the BBC suffer from this anomaly with on board shots from race cars and the like.
Thanks to digital camera's, I can now pick up a decent Nikon 35mm SLR camera for as little as 50 quid. A tenth of the original price....
Also I recall taking a picture of my garden and a strange mist appeared in the picture, of course the strange mist was infact the remnants of my cigarette smoke I had just exhaled prior to taking the shot.
I guess the digital camera's are much faster and sharper than the old celluloid technology.
The only annoying part of digital filming, is the vertical white line you get from a reflective surface. Even the BBC suffer from this anomaly with on board shots from race cars and the like.
Thanks to digital camera's, I can now pick up a decent Nikon 35mm SLR camera for as little as 50 quid. A tenth of the original price....
- Grandad
- Senior Member
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:13 pm
- Location: SE England
- Has thanked: 75 times
- Been thanked: 163 times
- Gender:
Yep! I remember that CC when we were discussing the phenomena....
I am sure I could dig out some old examples. In my opinion, if they are caused by flash reflecting back into the lens from dust particles (and I can accept that as an explanation) why is it suggested that it only happens with digital?
Surely roll film is infinitely more sensitive than a digital sensor.
I am sure I could dig out some old examples. In my opinion, if they are caused by flash reflecting back into the lens from dust particles (and I can accept that as an explanation) why is it suggested that it only happens with digital?
Surely roll film is infinitely more sensitive than a digital sensor.
Grandad
- LivinginLuxor
- Top Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 am
- Location: Luxor, Egypt
- Been thanked: 249 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
Possibly - but remember that film exposure is a chemical reaction to light, as opposed to an electronic reaction. The emulsion in a film is basically a paste, that is smeared over the celluloid, and thorough mixing before spreading ensures that the granules of silver nitrate (or whatever) is evenly mixed. In a digital camera, there are individual cells spread on a regular grid, which is not the case with film - the grains are randomly mixed. So, although orbs might well have appeared with film, they are probably easier to obtain in the regular structure of the digital processor.
I might agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong!
Stan
Stan
- Bullet Magnet
- Royal V.I.P
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:38 am
- Location: Le Manège Enchanté
- Has thanked: 5362 times
- Been thanked: 1475 times
- Contact:
Like stan just said and beat me to the post...
The electronics work faster than the shutter of a camera Grandad.
An old film type camera had an .125 second exposure time on the flash, typically.
a Digital camera needs much less exposure time with a flash.
I think DrWho needs a couple of exorcists to visit. cant move for them orbs. That scarab looks like a vicious bugger too
The electronics work faster than the shutter of a camera Grandad.
An old film type camera had an .125 second exposure time on the flash, typically.
a Digital camera needs much less exposure time with a flash.
I think DrWho needs a couple of exorcists to visit. cant move for them orbs. That scarab looks like a vicious bugger too
- Bullet Magnet
- Royal V.I.P
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:38 am
- Location: Le Manège Enchanté
- Has thanked: 5362 times
- Been thanked: 1475 times
- Contact:
- Grandad
- Senior Member
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:13 pm
- Location: SE England
- Has thanked: 75 times
- Been thanked: 163 times
- Gender:
But 'Z', the exposure with electronic flash is governed by the flash strength/duration and the iris f aperture. The limiting factor for the shutter speed is that the FP shutter must be fully open when the flash fires and that applies to roll film SLR's just as much as to DSLR's. Otherwise part of the frame would be unexposed.
Grandad
- LivinginLuxor
- Top Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 am
- Location: Luxor, Egypt
- Been thanked: 249 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
- LivinginLuxor
- Top Member
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 am
- Location: Luxor, Egypt
- Been thanked: 249 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
- BBLUX
- Egyptian God
- Posts: 7272
- Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: Winter in West Bank, Luxor and La Vienne, France in Summer
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 357 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
One thought. Digital camera's tend to be the all in one compact variety with the flash assembly very close to the plane of the lens. This is more likely to cause bounce back along the return path from the dust particles. The much higher mounted external flash gun on the film SLR...which we often angled to bounce the flash, is less likely to cause reflection back along the plane of the lens.
Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
- BBLUX
- Egyptian God
- Posts: 7272
- Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: Winter in West Bank, Luxor and La Vienne, France in Summer
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 357 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
Agreed, but a compact film camera had the same layout as the modern compact digital so maybe that is where the film era orb shots come from?
Also, the film processing labs were inclined to"edit" bad pictures and not print them so who knows?
Also, the film processing labs were inclined to"edit" bad pictures and not print them so who knows?
Life is not measured by the breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
- Grandad
- Senior Member
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:13 pm
- Location: SE England
- Has thanked: 75 times
- Been thanked: 163 times
- Gender:
Are we not going off at all hypothetical tangents here???
Roll film certainly worked with X synch faster than 1/8th second as Z suggests. At least 1/100th was normal. Most digital cameras use X synch of 1/150th or 1/200th so not much difference there.
And I don't think labs did too much sorting of poor shots BB, they certainly didn't with me, I got everything back even the rubbish and paid for it.
And a modern digital sensor behaves in a very similar manner to roll film, i.e. the amount and colour of the light that falls on each cell or grain when the shutter opens.
One aspect of digital that I can't yet get my head round is how the sensor can be set to different ISO sensitivities.... Now that is something I really would appreciate an informed explanation for.
Roll film certainly worked with X synch faster than 1/8th second as Z suggests. At least 1/100th was normal. Most digital cameras use X synch of 1/150th or 1/200th so not much difference there.
And I don't think labs did too much sorting of poor shots BB, they certainly didn't with me, I got everything back even the rubbish and paid for it.
And a modern digital sensor behaves in a very similar manner to roll film, i.e. the amount and colour of the light that falls on each cell or grain when the shutter opens.
One aspect of digital that I can't yet get my head round is how the sensor can be set to different ISO sensitivities.... Now that is something I really would appreciate an informed explanation for.
Grandad
- Bullet Magnet
- Royal V.I.P
- Posts: 2530
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:38 am
- Location: Le Manège Enchanté
- Has thanked: 5362 times
- Been thanked: 1475 times
- Contact:
I too need to fully understand how the digital camera flash works, but Stan is going along the right lines.
The elctronic circuitry can guage the light entring the camera, and close it off when required. there is a way of fiddling this to create different effects, by tampering with the light sensor on front of the camera.. ie, partially blanking it off, or using a thin cloth to "trick" the camera into how much light it has received.
I'll take a look when I get home, as I am sure I have an explanation somewhere on how to do this and how it works on my PC...
The elctronic circuitry can guage the light entring the camera, and close it off when required. there is a way of fiddling this to create different effects, by tampering with the light sensor on front of the camera.. ie, partially blanking it off, or using a thin cloth to "trick" the camera into how much light it has received.
I'll take a look when I get home, as I am sure I have an explanation somewhere on how to do this and how it works on my PC...
-
- Member
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:25 pm
- Location: Staffordshire, England
- Has thanked: 55 times
- Been thanked: 76 times
- Gender:
- Kevininabydos
- Senior Member
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:13 pm
- Location: Kernow near England.
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 102 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
If the orbs are light reflection from dust particles, how do you explain the faces in them when you zoom in on them on the computer? Sometimes there are 2 or 3 different faces in each orb. I have some photos of friends in Merenptah's passage way in Abydos and there are dozens of them, all with faces in every shot. They vary in size some tiny some huge!
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 14 Replies
- 1457 Views
-
Last post by Once bitten