It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:05 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:35 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:40 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: Billingham
OK guys, we all seem to have or have access to a digital camera.

I've owned one for about 5 years now, started out with a cheap Jenoptix 3 MP camera, upgrade to a Fuji Finepix S3500 4Mp camera. And recently I upgraded again, this time to a DSLR camera, the Nikon D40.

Now this DSLR is only 6mp, but what a camera. It can take pictures in the dark, without flash. It will calculate its exposure time automatically, but beware in very dark conditions it can take up to 4 minutes for the picture to "take" and you must use a tripod as the camera must be very still.

Heres some examples, taken in my back garden just after I got the camera. Total darkness, used a tripod, but forgot the autofocus so they arent that crisp.

Image

Image


Now my immediate thoughts on this are, no flash, no dust no orbs. But because the exposures are so long, if orbs were present there would be a streak across the picture. Perhaps at some point we can set up an experiment, one flash pic to one none flash pic, see if there are orbs on both????


anyway, as I get more and more advanced with this camera I shall post more.

_________________
I aint afraid of no ghost

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:45 pm 
Offline
Stone Thrower
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:49 am
Posts: 3787
Location: Tyne and Wear
good way of experimenting


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:07 pm 
Offline
Someone Very Strange

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:58 pm
Posts: 102
Location: Thornaby-on-Tees
If it has a removeable lens then you could buy an infra-red lens no flash needed.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:16 pm 
Offline
Professional Investigator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:55 pm
Posts: 705
Location: Sunderland
I think nowadays jsut about everyone has a digial cam, problem is pics can be easily tampered with so at times its best to use a normal camera with negatives then no one can say its tampered with.

_________________
Image
http://www.para-investigations.co.uk

The Mind is a Powerful tool


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:19 pm 
Offline
Stone Thrower
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:49 am
Posts: 3787
Location: Tyne and Wear
yeah but from a team POV we wouldNT tamper with pics, but I know some ppl may mess on and claim theyve caught a ghost on pic or sumit, but we dont need to worry about that within the team


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 4:59 pm 
Offline
The Ferryman
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:28 pm
Posts: 10488
sue wrote:
yeah but from a team POV we would tamper with pics


I hope you mean .. yeah but from a team POV we would NOT tamper with pics ... :shock: :shock:

_________________
Northern Ghost Investigations
Latest blatant plug for some stuff that I'm in the middle of!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:36 pm 
Offline
Stone Thrower
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:49 am
Posts: 3787
Location: Tyne and Wear
ha ha yeah I did -- ive corrected it now :wink:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:50 pm 
Offline
A Stiff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:58 pm
Posts: 1200
Location: Fulwell, Sunderland
The trouble is with trying to capture orbs in this way, if current theory is to believed, a flash IS required as apparently the orb absorbs the flash to emit radiation in the visible or near-infrared spectral range! It's a form of luminescence called Fluorescence.

Basically Photons from a light source are absorbed by electrons which move to a higher energy orbit. When the electrons return to their original orbit, new photons are released at a slightly lower frequency. The release occurs slowly in minerals but within microseconds with the orbs. Fluorescence caused by a beam of light (photons) is also called photoluminescence.

So even though the dust theory is proven (I've done it myself), there is now a counter argument where by both possibilities could be true for every orb photo! So which is it to be! :|

Lee

_________________
HauntedlandParanormal Research
Web: http://www.hauntedland.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:33 pm 
Offline
The Ferryman
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:28 pm
Posts: 10488
Lee wrote:
The trouble is with trying to capture orbs in this way, if current theory is to believed, a flash IS required as apparently the orb absorbs the flash to emit radiation in the visible or near-infrared spectral range! It's a form of luminescence called Fluorescence.

Basically Photons from a light source are absorbed by electrons which move to a higher energy orbit. When the electrons return to their original orbit, new photons are released at a slightly lower frequency. The release occurs slowly in minerals but within microseconds with the orbs. Fluorescence caused by a beam of light (photons) is also called photoluminescence.

So even though the dust theory is proven (I've done it myself), there is now a counter argument where by both possibilities could be true for every orb photo! So which is it to be! :|

Lee


Yeah, what Lee says ... :mrgreen:

The Dust Theory is the simplest explanation for Orbs - and science likes the simplest answers .. and so in 95% of cases it probably is the explanation (along with lens flares, reflections, water droplets etc) for most Orb pics.

"Real" Orbs will be irregular in shape (circular - but not a perfect sphere) and very bright and 'solid' in appearance - the type you see with concentric rings sprinkled with colour are probably (mostly) produced by the 'reflection' from an atmospheric water droplet and the refraction of the light .. Also, look out for those Orbs that are partly obscured by an object in the photograph .. ie. Half an orb showing behind a chair .. this indicates that the Orbs Z coordinate is 'deep' into the photograph and not within the 6 or so inches from the camera where most dust is shows up ..

There are a few Orbs (or more accurately, light anomolies) that can be detected with the naked eye and without the use of any flash and those will be the ones you'll be able to catch using this technique Anth (will probably catch them as streaks if your doing a long exposure). But whether these are paranormal or atmospheric in nature is open to debate.

_________________
Northern Ghost Investigations
Latest blatant plug for some stuff that I'm in the middle of!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:15 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:40 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: Billingham
Well as it is a DSLR, I can add an IR lens. I can also add a shed load of filters to the lens. One I really need to start off with is a Polarized filter, that should cut down the chance of stray reflections.

_________________
I aint afraid of no ghost

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:48 am 
Offline
Someone Strange
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:56 pm
Posts: 90
Location: South Yorkshire
I have a theory of my own regarding digital cameras :D
I have noticed that when I use a lower resolution camera, say 5.1mp as apposed to my 10.1mp I am more prone to capture Orbs.
I still take as many pictures with the 10.1mp camera as I ever do with the 5.1mp so I don't think it is just a question of odds.
How about in some cases, nothing has been caught because just like some people can see Orbs (spirit orbsthat is) with the naked eye, then why not be the case that different resolutions shouls be like different eyes and brains, therefore the information received is either processed or overlooked.
Well it's a thought anyway :D

_________________
Associate Member of the Institute of Forensic Parapsychology


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:32 am 
Offline
Guest Investigator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:54 pm
Posts: 352
Location: Castle Acre
A camera with a lower resolution will pick up more orbs than one with a higher resolution as the CCD in camera only captures a relatively low percentage of the light falling onto it. Due to interpolation the signals picked up by the CCD get averaged out and this can result in orbs.

I'm not totally convinced by that to be honest but it is true that the CCD's do vary with regards to their quality and light collecting power so different cameras will record differing amounts of orbs. Compacts are the worse as the flash is so close to the lens. A DSLR will record the fewest.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:19 am 
Offline
Guest Investigator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:54 pm
Posts: 352
Location: Castle Acre
Lee wrote:
The trouble is with trying to capture orbs in this way, if current theory is to believed, a flash IS required as apparently the orb absorbs the flash to emit radiation in the visible or near-infrared spectral range! It's a form of luminescence called Fluorescence.

Basically Photons from a light source are absorbed by electrons which move to a higher energy orbit. When the electrons return to their original orbit, new photons are released at a slightly lower frequency. The release occurs slowly in minerals but within microseconds with the orbs. Fluorescence caused by a beam of light (photons) is also called photoluminescence.

So even though the dust theory is proven (I've done it myself), there is now a counter argument where by both possibilities could be true for every orb photo! So which is it to be! :|

Lee

The problem I have with this is it's an engineered excuse and not based on any evidence whatsoever. The science behind it is fine, the extra photon that is released is how a laser works, for example.

But you can destroy this theory anyway when you delve a bit deeper.

With flourescence, as Lee has already stated, the emitted light is at a wavelength longer than the light that is absorbed, ie. at the far end of the visible spectrum. But with flourescence the resulting luminescence is in the visible range, not the infra red. But even if it was in the IR then the flash from the camera that would be causing the flourescence in the first place would wash out the IR and you'd see nothing. You can actually try this for yourself by photographing the end of a remote control with a button pressed. Without flash you can see the IR bulb lit up. With flash you don't. Another argument here is that if orbs were shining with IR light then they wouldn't appear with different colours.

But here's the kicker. A flashgun provides light close to bright daylight in intensity. That is to say, almost as bright as natural sunlight. If orbs emitted visible light through the process of flourescence then you'd see them during the day as well, with the naked eye and they'd be much brighter than how they appear on photos.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:22 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:40 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: Billingham
Scipios wrote:
Lee wrote:
The trouble is with trying to capture orbs in this way, if current theory is to believed, a flash IS required as apparently the orb absorbs the flash to emit radiation in the visible or near-infrared spectral range! It's a form of luminescence called Fluorescence.

Basically Photons from a light source are absorbed by electrons which move to a higher energy orbit. When the electrons return to their original orbit, new photons are released at a slightly lower frequency. The release occurs slowly in minerals but within microseconds with the orbs. Fluorescence caused by a beam of light (photons) is also called photoluminescence.

So even though the dust theory is proven (I've done it myself), there is now a counter argument where by both possibilities could be true for every orb photo! So which is it to be! :|

Lee

The problem I have with this is it's an engineered excuse and not based on any evidence whatsoever. The science behind it is fine, the extra photon that is released is how a laser works, for example.

But you can destroy this theory anyway when you delve a bit deeper.

With flourescence, as Lee has already stated, the emitted light is at a wavelength longer than the light that is absorbed, ie. at the far end of the visible spectrum. But with flourescence the resulting luminescence is in the visible range, not the infra red. But even if it was in the IR then the flash from the camera that would be causing the flourescence in the first place would wash out the IR and you'd see nothing. You can actually try this for yourself by photographing the end of a remote control with a button pressed. Without flash you can see the IR bulb lit up. With flash you don't. Another argument here is that if orbs were shining with IR light then they wouldn't appear with different colours.

But here's the kicker. A flashgun provides light close to bright daylight in intensity. That is to say, almost as bright as natural sunlight. If orbs emitted visible light through the process of flourescence then you'd see them during the day as well, with the naked eye and they'd be much brighter than how they appear on photos.



I've been playing with my Hoya R72 IR lens.

In order for the lens to capture IR, you really need a bright sunny day, need to do a white balance by taking a picture of some grass for example. You do this right with the right exposure and you will get the rather excellent dream like pictures.

All Digital camers have a build in IR filter. this is to block IR light. So if a digital camera is capturing orbs, they are not emitting IR because the camera automatically blocks it. It has to or the IR would ruin daylight pictures. The only way to remove this filter is mechanical, and would involve opening the camera and de-soldering several components.

So what are orbs? I sit with many others on this and say its a bug in the way the camera captures the available light, or they are reflections, insexts, dust and moisture. And thats why we dont see them with the naked eye.

_________________
I aint afraid of no ghost

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:48 pm 
Offline
Guest Investigator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:54 pm
Posts: 352
Location: Castle Acre
The IR filter isn't absolute though, it still lets some through. Try taking a picture of the end of a TV remote when you press a button and your camera will capture the IR light being emitted.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:40 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: Billingham
Scipios wrote:
The IR filter isn't absolute though, it still lets some through. Try taking a picture of the end of a TV remote when you press a button and your camera will capture the IR light being emitted.


But to get IR you need 30second and above exposure as a rule of thumb, and on most point and shoot digi cams, you dont get exposure settings to deal with that.

for example, to take a really good IR pictur eon my setup I am looking at around a 60 second exposure, with a small apperture setting. This reqiures a tripod and absolute stillness from the camera. The reason for htis is the IR filter on my camera, it is recommended that my camera be converted to IR only because its filter is so good.

_________________
I aint afraid of no ghost

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:59 pm 
Offline
Guest Investigator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:54 pm
Posts: 352
Location: Castle Acre
Anth wrote:
But to get IR you need 30second and above exposure as a rule of thumb, and on most point and shoot digi cams, you dont get exposure settings to deal with that.


No you don't, just set your camera on auto and point it at the remote with the flash off. You'll get an image that basically looks like a small lightbulb switched on.

Do you have an IR filter fitted or are you talking about the built in one?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:45 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:40 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: Billingham
Scipios wrote:
Anth wrote:
But to get IR you need 30second and above exposure as a rule of thumb, and on most point and shoot digi cams, you dont get exposure settings to deal with that.


No you don't, just set your camera on auto and point it at the remote with the flash off. You'll get an image that basically looks like a small lightbulb switched on.

Do you have an IR filter fitted or are you talking about the built in one?



I am talking about both. My built in IR filter that blocks IR, and my Hoya R72 IR filter that blocks visible light and allows IR through.

Bollocks useless at night as it needs IR light coming in to be bale to take the picture.

_________________
I aint afraid of no ghost

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:57 pm 
Offline
A Stiff
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:28 pm
Posts: 1170
Anth, try taking a photo of your remote whilst someone is pressing a button!

_________________
Barra- tone

http://velvetslayer.invisionzone.com/index.php?act=idx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:01 pm 
Offline
Guest Investigator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:54 pm
Posts: 352
Location: Castle Acre
Anth wrote:
I am talking about both. My built in IR filter that blocks IR, and my Hoya R72 IR filter that blocks visible light and allows IR through.

Bollocks useless at night as it needs IR light coming in to be bale to take the picture.


Ah okay, well the built in one lets quite a bit of IR light through. That's why most pros in this area like to take it out instead of fitting a filter as you then don't have to worry about long exposures. I've never tried it myself but I'd like to.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:18 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:40 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: Billingham
Scipios wrote:
Anth wrote:
I am talking about both. My built in IR filter that blocks IR, and my Hoya R72 IR filter that blocks visible light and allows IR through.

Bollocks useless at night as it needs IR light coming in to be bale to take the picture.


Ah okay, well the built in one lets quite a bit of IR light through. That's why most pros in this area like to take it out instead of fitting a filter as you then don't have to worry about long exposures. I've never tried it myself but I'd like to.


Yeah I've seen websites dedicated to removing the IR filter to permit IR photography. But it renders the camera useless for "normal" photography.

I'm simply fighting the camera, I am using a Filter to permit IR light in and block visible light, and the camera is trying to block IR and permit visible. Thats why I have to use long exposures.

_________________
I aint afraid of no ghost

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 5:53 pm 
Offline
Guest Investigator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:54 pm
Posts: 352
Location: Castle Acre
I know the IR filters really don't like visible light so a long exposure is a necessity but have you tried upping the ISO while having the aperture wide open?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:05 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:40 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: Billingham
Scipios wrote:
I know the IR filters really don't like visible light so a long exposure is a necessity but have you tried upping the ISO while having the aperture wide open?


I'm getting there, some pics turn out OK, some dont.
I need to get the white balance right, and I just cant seem to get it.

I works better when you take the pic in B+W too, and you can enhance it on photoshop.

I was wanting to use the IR filter on investigations but I cant seeme getting much from it. I dont think it will show anything unless something emits IR.

_________________
I aint afraid of no ghost

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Digital Cameras
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:56 pm 
Offline
Guest Investigator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:54 pm
Posts: 352
Location: Castle Acre
My IR lantern torch I just bought would be perfect for lighting scenes up. It shouldn't need such a long exposure either.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Theme designed by stylerbb.net © 2008
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
All times are UTC [ DST ]