
Difference between Orbs and/or dust?
#1
Posted 05 May 2009 - 06:11 PM
Is the orb in question perfectly circular? By definition an orb is a circular or sphere shaped object. If an orb in question is elliptical, oval, diamond shaped, etc. it is not a true orb.
Is the orb three dimensional? Does it stand out from its surroundings and / or have depth in the photograph? If not it is probably airborne particulate matter or something on the camera lens.
Is the orb self luminous - does it emit its own light?
Many “orbs” in paranormal investigators photos would be fortunate if they could be confirmed for at least one of the above traits. If an “orb” does not positively affirm all three traits it is not a true orb.
Does anybody else have anything that could help tell the difference between an orb and dust?
#2
Posted 05 May 2009 - 06:45 PM
#3
Posted 05 May 2009 - 07:51 PM
Note this only applies to photographed orbs. Any which are visually seen as well as photographed are worth a second look. But keep in mind those are VERY rare when it comes to evidence presented. I only accept as possible evidence an orb which either casts a shadow or is self illuminating and no flash was used.
#4
Posted 05 May 2009 - 08:04 PM
If an orb is photographed one can see its approximate size. An object of that size should cast a shadow behind it if it is really as it appears when a flash is used. Dust orbs are very small and only appear to be as large as they are because of the focal distance of the camera. Thus the lack of th shadow is indicative of a dust orb.
Note this only applies to photographed orbs. Any which are visually seen as well as photographed are worth a second look. But keep in mind those are VERY rare when it comes to evidence presented. I only accept as possible evidence an orb which either casts a shadow or is self illuminating and no flash was used.
I think this is the best way of getting to a decision! Thanks CaveRat
#5
Posted 05 May 2009 - 08:13 PM
#6
Posted 05 May 2009 - 11:59 PM
The main problem with these photographic artifacts is that they were allowed to inundate the mainstream as "proof of spirit activity" for such a long time that most folks who don't understand basic photography but have a great interest in ghostly studies believed they were proof of spirits. There has been a shift over the last couple of years and the very factual proof of what is happening in all these submitted photos being nothing more than flash reflections off of particulates near the lens is being accepted across the board. It's just unfortunate that having the information supplied by photographers and professionals who work with photos and developmental errors are basically ignored by a segment of society who cannot see reason through their own fancied beliefs.
Enough ranting...I know what causes them, and I won't even consider them as proof of anything paranormal.
Edited by OMPRDave, 06 May 2009 - 12:01 AM.
#7
Posted 06 May 2009 - 01:28 AM
#8
Posted 06 May 2009 - 08:29 AM
The movement? Just consider movement as a series of stills where the dust particle changes position slightly between frames. (Ever seen a dust particle stand perfectly still in free air?) Thus movement is displayed. And consider dust very near the lens doesn't have to move very far to go from one side of the frame to the other. And consider too that insects may also be moving past the lens and appear much as dust would.
If you are analyzing a video most important thing to remember is how video is done. Treat each frame as a separate still image and apply the same standards you would to a still. Look for either signs of self luminesence or the presence of a shadow from the orb. If those are not present you captured dust, pollen, or maybe an insect.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users