28 replies to this topic

[Old Guy]

peepers, on Dec 27 2008, 11:56 AM, said:

The Nikon D60 DSLR is a great peice of equipment.... it has a built in image sensor cleaning function which eliminates the "dust orb" and other non-paranormal distractions ......

The D60 is one of the best cameras for the money I've ever owned. But...

The sensor cleaning function will not remove orbs. Orbs are airborn dust particles (IMHO - with or without faces). Unless removed, particles that have landed on the sensor will be in the same place - shot after shot, and will generally be outside of the image focal plane.

http://imaging.nikon..._tour/index.htm

[peepers]

Old Guy, on Dec 28 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

peepers, on Dec 27 2008, 11:56 AM, said:

The Nikon D60 DSLR is a great peice of equipment.... it has a built in image sensor cleaning function which eliminates the "dust orb" and other non-paranormal distractions ......

The D60 is one of the best cameras for the money I've ever owned. But...

The sensor cleaning function will not remove orbs. Orbs are airborn dust particles (IMHO - with or without faces). Unless removed, particles that have landed on the sensor will be in the same place - shot after shot, and will generally be outside of the image focal plane.

http://imaging.nikon..._tour/index.htm

Orbs are caused by many natural elements.... the Nikon's sensor ability controls those elements from spoiling the photo... it would be a worthless "extra" to add to the camera otherwise... that is the point of the function...

[Old Guy]

peepers, on Dec 28 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

Orbs are caused by many natural elements.... the Nikon's sensor ability controls those elements from spoiling the photo... it would be a worthless "extra" to add to the camera otherwise... that is the point of the function...

Well... since I've already hijacked this thread...

Wikipedia: "Dust is a general name for minute solid particles with diameters less than 500 micrometers." (Just as a reference. I'm not a Wikipedia bigot.)

I will concede that particulates, which could be percieved as orbs, can have many sources. However, I must reassert that particulates which have settled on a CCD or CMOS sensor, will not appear as orbs. In the worse case secnario, they will manifest themselves as either hot or stuck pixels, and will be fixed and stationary from one shot to the next.

I'll not get into the merits and value of a self-cleaning camera here. IMHO, It's a pheechur akin to a "ghost" detector.

[peepers]

Old Guy, on Dec 30 2008, 12:00 PM, said:

peepers, on Dec 28 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

Orbs are caused by many natural elements.... the Nikon's sensor ability controls those elements from spoiling the photo... it would be a worthless "extra" to add to the camera otherwise... that is the point of the function...

Well... since I've already hijacked this thread...

Wikipedia: "Dust is a general name for minute solid particles with diameters less than 500 micrometers." (Just as a reference. I'm not a Wikipedia bigot.)

I will concede that particulates, which could be percieved as orbs, can have many sources. However, I must reassert that particulates which have settled on a CCD or CMOS sensor, will not appear as orbs. In the worse case secnario, they will manifest themselves as either hot or stuck pixels, and will be fixed and stationary from one shot to the next.

I'll not get into the merits and value of a self-cleaning camera here. IMHO, It's a pheechur akin to a "ghost" detector.

Personally, I don't rely on Wiki due to the editing source being unsound---that is, anyone can define anything they want, any way they want--- leaving the source of information useless, unreliable and lacking in validity.....

Secondly, anyone wanting more info on the Nikon D60's sensoring system and how it operates just needs to google the camera.... there are many Nikon sources out there that explain the function and will allow the reader to understand how it is important in eliminating many unparanormal obstacles....

Old Guy, I think you may have undervalued its worth.... there is more to this camera's function than the old ideal of "self-cleaning".....

Edited by peepers, 03 January 2009 - 12:46 AM.

[GPPI_JMe]

peepers, on Dec 28 2008, 02:51 PM, said:

Orbs are caused by many natural elements.... the Nikon's sensor ability controls those elements from spoiling the photo... it would be a worthless "extra" to add to the camera otherwise... that is the point of the function...

This is true. Moisture is often one of these elements - except this sensor is not capable of controlling that element from spoiling the photo. At least, not through the method the sensor uses (i.e. "specially designed vibrations").

peepers, on Jan 2 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

Secondly, anyone wanting more info on the Nikon D60's sensoring system and how it operates just needs to google the camera.... there are many Nikon sources out there that explain the function and will allow the reader to understand how it is important in eliminating many unparanormal obstacles....

Like the Nikon link he posted earlier?

Old Guy, on Dec 28 2008, 12:30 PM, said:

http://imaging.nikon..._tour/index.htm

So we've established the D60 is a good camera for the price. The promise that the sensor would eliminate other "non-paranormal distractions" is where the issue lies.

[CaveRat2]

Generally speaking a camera should not in any way alter or correct an image for the best evidence. While it may improve a picture to get rid of anomalies, the problem is that any corrective measures done by the camera rely on the camera to identify these anomalies. And how can a camera determine what is paranormal or not when we as investigators can't even do it with certainty?

Suppose for example a camera takes a picture and for some reason two pixels out of a field of black appear white? Corrective algorithms in many cameras would determine this to be a camera fault and "correct" the image by turning them black. But is this right? Are we sure they weren't SUPPOSED to be white? Maybe by turning the pixels dark the camera just obliterated what might otherwise be the evidence we were looking for.

This is an oversimplified example, but similar corrective methods are used in many digital cameras. Which is why the best method is to turn off any "AUTO" features, and opt to use manual settings with no auto correct functions. It's a little more work but the reliability of evidence increases by doing it.

[Old Guy]

peepers, on Jan 2 2009, 10:45 PM, said:

Personally, I don't rely on Wiki due to the editing source being unsound---that is, anyone can define anything they want, any way they want--- leaving the source of information useless, unreliable and lacking in validity.....

Secondly, anyone wanting more info on the Nikon D60's sensoring system and how it operates just needs to google the camera.... there are many Nikon sources out there that explain the function and will allow the reader to understand how it is important in eliminating many unparanormal obstacles....

Old Guy, I think you may have undervalued its worth.... there is more to this camera's function than the old ideal of "self-cleaning".....

<sigh>
I said, "(Just as a reference. I'm not a Wikipedia bigot.)"

I said, "http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/..._tour/index.htm"

I said, "The D60 is one of the best cameras for the money I've ever owned."

I'm starting to feel as though we're flogging the same dead horse. No?

[Old Guy]

GPPI_JMe, on Jan 2 2009, 11:08 PM, said:

The promise that the sensor would eliminate other "non-paranormal distractions" is where the issue lies.

Exactly! All I said was, "The sensor cleaning function will not remove orbs."

[peepers]

Old Guy, on Jan 3 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

GPPI_JMe, on Jan 2 2009, 11:08 PM, said:

The promise that the sensor would eliminate other "non-paranormal distractions" is where the issue lies.

Exactly! All I said was, "The sensor cleaning function will not remove orbs."

Agreed! Just HOW MUCH doesn't it remove? No one really knows because no one knows what the parameters really are.... but, the best way to determine what the camera can do is to take pics with several different cameras at the same time and compare the results....

This camera, as most, are designed to function in real time, that is, in our realm of human existence.... just what something paranormal looks like when photographed is very much still in question as are the qualifications of paranormal..... so, any debate of the issue would be best clarified by the philosophical ....

Edited by peepers, 03 January 2009 - 02:43 PM.

[GPPI_JMe]

First off, I have to agree with Jim on this. If the camera is "correcting" anything, it is automatically altering and editing the photo. As he said, this could completely eliminate what it is we're trying to catch.. Already, this sensor sounds like a bad idea.

Secondly..

peepers, on Jan 3 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

Agreed! Just HOW MUCH doesn't it remove? No one really knows because no one knows what the parameters really are.... but, the best way to determine what the camera can do is to take pics with several different cameras at the same time and compare the results....

That wont work. Period. You can set up as many cameras as you want, and take the same picture at the same time - except the additional cameras will not be in the exact same location.. This will result in different "orbs" or other things captured, because the lights from the flashes will be hitting the objects at different angles. Compare away, but that wont prove a thing in that respect.

And how much will it not remove? Anything in front of the camera and/or wet that hits the sensor. That little sensor can vibrate to its hearts content - that's not going to knock "dust orbs" out of the air in front of the camera. And if moisture is the issue, vibrating will just streak the beaded up moisture falling on the sensor.

So far, the only perk I see to that idea is that it helps keep the sensor clean from internal dust, but I fail to see how that will cut down on natural, free floating, contaminants - also known as "dust orbs."

[CaveRat2]

GPPI_JMe, on Jan 4 2009, 12:57 AM, said:

So far, the only perk I see to that idea is that it helps keep the sensor clean from internal dust, but I fail to see how that will cut down on natural, free floating, contaminants - also known as "dust orbs."

I would have to question any idea to remove internal dust from anything in a camera. First of all, step back. Consider, a GOOD camera should be nearly airtight, at least lenses and optics should have seals around them. As such how much dust should even be able to get in there? If I had a camera that allowed enough dirt in that it should become a problem I would be getting a better camera, or get this one fixed. Even cheap cameras have some form of seal around their cases to keep out dirt.

[GPPI_JMe]

Excellent point.

[Old Guy]

CaveRat, on Jan 4 2009, 08:26 AM, said:

As such how much dust should even be able to get in there?

Unless you change lenses in a clean room, or under a dust hood with a HEPA filter, airborn particulates are generally unavoidable. Then there are the microscopic shavings that occur due to the friction between the lens and camera mount. Fortunately, most cameras (typically) have a filter between the mirror and the sensor. Which is where those pesky orbs are just waiting to congregate.

[peepers]

peepers, on Jan 3 2009, 02:40 PM, said:

This camera, as most, are designed to function in real time, that is, in our realm of human existence.... just what something paranormal looks like when photographed is very much still in question as are the qualifications of paranormal..... so, any debate of the issue would be best clarified by the philosophical ....

....um... I guess we agree, huh?

I try to follow this piece of old-fashioned advice my psych professor uses to pontificate....

"Contempt prior to investigation leads to everlasting ignorance...."