• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How the hell did my camera do that!

M

MigAce312

Senior member
Look at this freaky pic. No photoshop, no editing, no nothing. I was playing around with the shudder speeds. By the way...the camera is a Sony DSC-P5
 
aliens, definetly aliens

run, don't walk to the nearest covered bridge and crack a goose egg on your head and wait for the mother ship
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
definitely monitor vs camera sample rates
Click to expand...

how would that account for the shifting of the glare/reflection?

plus there were 7 reflected glares, suggesting that the exposure time was 7 * monitor frequency (assuming each glare was caused by a refreshed image). Estimate that at 75 hrtz and you get an exposure time of 1/10 of a second. thats tooooo long to record a crisp image with a hand held camera.


Edit:

i just noticed this:
I was playing around with the shudder speeds
Click to expand...

So i bet it was an aliasing problem. Still don't understand the smearing effect tho

 
Hmm.. Its kinda like this picture of me here. Of course, the wall isn't that reflective, so I'd say the light is coming out of the monitor, reflecting off the door, coming back to the monitor, and so forth. Since light moves super super super (forgot how fast, physics was so long ago) fast speeds, its possible. This was done with a Canon S40 and I can duplicate it on my Sony P7.

<== monkey dance
 
Originally posted by: MigAce312
Look at this freaky pic. No photoshop, no editing, no nothing. I was playing around with the shudder speeds. By the way...the camera is a Sony DSC-P5
Click to expand...

That shouldn't be too hard to duplicate, although it's a bit difficult for me to explain the reason behind why it happened. Well, here goes, You jerked the camera sharply while taking the picture. The room you were taking the picture in probably wasn't too well lit, as a result, the flash fired. The flash fires for a much briefer period than the shutter is open for (this is for a traditional film camera, I'm not sure what you'd consider the shutter in a digicam.) The image of the room is one that the flash illuminated, the rest of the time the shutter was open the room was to dim to be caught on film. The monitor, however, was significantly brighter than the room, so multiple images (almost a blur, but since it's a monitor and refreshes, looks like individual frames on film) were caught in the picture since the monitor didn't need the illumination of the flash to be caught on the "film."

Yeah, I know that's really hard to understand, just try to duplicate this by dimming the lights in the room (they don't have to be off, just not bright like daylight.) Then take a pic of your monitor while sharply jerking the camera in one direction. You should get similar results to that picture. And if your camera has a "slow sync flash" feature, turning it on will give better results. Sorry, your camera's not possessed.

 
Originally posted by: mikebb
Originally posted by: MigAce312
Look at this freaky pic. No photoshop, no editing, no nothing. I was playing around with the shudder speeds. By the way...the camera is a Sony DSC-P5
Click to expand...

That shouldn't be too hard to duplicate, although it's a bit difficult for me to explain the reason behind why it happened. Well, here goes, You jerked the camera sharply while taking the picture. The room you were taking the picture in probably wasn't too well lit, as a result, the flash fired. The flash fires for a much briefer period than the shutter is open for (this is for a traditional film camera, I'm not sure what you'd consider the shutter in a digicam.) The image of the room is one that the flash illuminated, the rest of the time the shutter was open the room was to dim to be caught on film. The monitor, however, was significantly brighter than the room, so multiple images (almost a blur, but since it's a monitor and refreshes, looks like individual frames on film) were caught in the picture since the monitor didn't need the illumination of the flash to be caught on the "film."

Yeah, I know that's really hard to understand, just try to duplicate this by dimming the lights in the room (they don't have to be off, just not bright like daylight.) Then take a pic of your monitor while sharply jerking the camera in one direction. You should get similar results to that picture. And if your camera has a "slow sync flash" feature, turning it on will give better results. Sorry, your camera's not possessed.
Click to expand...

Damn! What am I gonna tell the Ghostbusters now!
 
Originally posted by: FoBoT
aliens, definetly aliens

run, don't walk to the nearest covered bridge and crack a goose egg on your head and wait for the mother ship
Click to expand...

Take your time...I'll get one of my b*tch*s to lay it for you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top