Lens effect, or Aliens disturbing the circles of Archimedes?

Kyriakos said:
^It would then follow that you regard yourself as grasping more (sic).
Click to expand...

Generally, people use "sic" in English (not sure how it works in the dying native language of yours) when quoting colloquialisms or linguistic errors. Given that his usage of "grasping" is correct and proper, the linguistic error and/or incompetence appears to be on your part.
 
It was a lesson in English. Take it or leave it, but don't blame other people for belittling your linguistic abilities in the future if you leave it :)
 
Space alien cloaking devices have a weakness Spock, I will exploit it. ...and erm, you guys too I guess.
 
Kyriakos said:
+0,8

So why does the camera capture this specific pattern? In other words: can you give some detail on why the flow of the move seperates the wing span in this particular manner of the pic in the OP? Since that is what i asked about, due to the creation by effect of a nicely symmetric image with (apparently) a stable degree of the 'movement' progression angle of the insect (in your account it is all in one point of movement captured with a delay due to the smaller frame rate of the camera). The camera is immobile. The insect by that account only appears before it for an instant. I am asking of an elaboration on the optical properties, so as to gather why the optical effect produced would not have the consecutive images appear at less continious and less progression-like manner, but instead in the straight-line which seemingly is produced in the above pic.
Click to expand...

Optical effects are not really relevant here. It is the process of collecting light by the camera that is the key. If the camera was a high-speed camera, you could take a series of pictures that individually would show the insect in one place. If you took all the pictures and made an average of them, you would see this blurry shape. The camera isn't high-speed so it already does that averaging and that is what you see. The insect flies in a straight line and regularly flaps both its wings at the same time, therefore the shape is symmetric.

The only optical effect is, that the insect flies by at a close distance, so it is out of focus for the camera. That adds to the blurryness.
 
Kyriakos said:
^That is their less than technical name, yes :) Also i now read that they are not the result of time-lapse camera capture, but something about the lens set to a specific distance (far horizon-related i suppose).
Click to expand...

More specifically, it's the focal distance and aperture.

The camera is set to focus at infinity, and the aperture is likely wide open, allowing in lots of light. Anything passing close to the lens (meaning, ~<1m) will be severly out of focus. but due to the wide aperture, the passing object will reflect enough light onto the sensor to show up.

Because the wings are beating open --> close --> open --> close we see a sine wave traced by the wing tips.

Bees, for example, beat their wings around 10,000 cycles per minute, and 5.3m/s. This translates to a flight path of 5cm in 1 second. Combining the two, we find ~30 wing strokes per cm.

So, in your image we see 7 cycles. Using the Bee model stated above this translates to a travel distance of 2.5mm.

I don't think we are looking at a bee here. Primarily because the body of a bee is much larger compared with the wingspan. Perhaps a wasp, which can bu much smaller. IN any event, you can see that this sort of analysis gives an entirely plausible explanation.
 
it's not even out of focus in the example given, it's only blurred because it's moving.
 
peter grimes said:
More specifically, it's the focal distance and aperture.

The camera is set to focus at infinity, and the aperture is likely wide open, allowing in lots of light. Anything passing close to the lens (meaning, ~<1m) will be severly out of focus. but due to the wide aperture, the passing object will reflect enough light onto the sensor to show up.

Because the wings are beating open --> close --> open --> close we see a sine wave traced by the wing tips.

Bees, for example, beat their wings around 10,000 cycles per minute, and 5.3m/s. This translates to a flight path of 5cm in 1 second. Combining the two, we find ~30 wing strokes per cm.

So, in your image we see 7 cycles. Using the Bee model stated above this translates to a travel distance of 2.5mm.

I don't think we are looking at a bee here. Primarily because the body of a bee is much larger compared with the wingspan. Perhaps a wasp, which can bu much smaller. IN any event, you can see that this sort of analysis gives an entirely plausible explanation.
Click to expand...

+0,2

(would be given more, but i already gave the rest of 1 to uppi, so 0,2 was the maximum left ;) ).

As for the elaborated lens mechanics, i will just wiki them myself, cause it is of interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom