Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo
- - - - -

Why infrared? I thought spirits' vibration was HIGHER, not lower?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 sororluna

sororluna

    Junior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Salem, Oregon, United States
  • Interests:Seances, Mediumship, Ghosts, Hauntings, Psychic stuff<br /><br />University Lecturer in Latin, Ancient Greek, and Biblical Hebrew<br /><br />Founding Member of Psychics and Ghost Hunters of Western Oregon<br /><br />Reiki Master <br /><br />Light Body Graduate (www.orindaben.com)<br /><br />Have studied Parapsychology in my spare time since 1989<br /><br />Medium-in-Training since 1994 (Mainly mental mediumship however have some knowledge of physical as well).<br /><br />Lived in Durham, England for 2 years (my husband is British) and have seen 60+ mediums live in various Spiritualist Churches in the UK and USA, as well as attending psychic worshops and mediumship classes in both countries.<br /><br />10 or more years of personal, detailed, hands-on experience with EACH of the following faiths: Baptist, Catholic, Pagan/Witchcraft. <br /><br />I do Biblical Hebrew (Old Testament) and Biblical Greek (New Testament), if anybody wants any literal translations of paranormal matters in the Judaeo-Christian Bible. My main area of interest however is Latin, which I speak fluently and teach, and also Ancient Greek, if anybody wants literal translations of any Pagan writings. Also fairly fluent in Italian. Two terms of German as well :).

Posted 12 December 2007 - 05:59 PM

Can anybody explain to me why people suggest to use infrared video cameras etc. which is LOWER in vibration than our visual spectrum, when spirit is at a HIGHER vibration than the physical matter our eyes can see?

Don't we need an "ultraviolet" filter instead? (not that I reckon that exists, I dunno)

#2 C_Tanner

C_Tanner

    Junior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbus, Ohio

Posted 15 December 2007 - 09:29 AM

Can anybody explain to me why people suggest to use infrared video cameras etc. which is LOWER in vibration than our visual spectrum, when spirit is at a HIGHER vibration than the physical matter our eyes can see?

Don't we need an "ultraviolet" filter instead? (not that I reckon that exists, I dunno)



Plain and simple, people didn't start using IR cameras to ghost hunt because of any deep scientific thought, they started using them because they can film in the dark.

I have tried filming regular, non-niteshot mode with the blacklight (how I discovered the BL/Niteshot trick) because I was thinking we need to play with other types of light. Nothing yet.

HOWEVER...

One of the best apparition videos I've ever seen was captured with IR, from the VERY FIRST model Sony put out. You can see it here:

http://www.centraloh...dapparition.htm

It appears at the left side right after you hear "Zach, I need your light" and quickly zips off the left side.

If you have trouble seeing it I have good news...I just found the person holding the camera after 7 years of looking and he still has it (and it is MUCH clearer!) We'll have the clearer video up soon, and it is nothing short of amazing, as you can actually see texture and such.

Anyway, THAT was IR, although it was a rare catch. I have once saw some REALLY goofy stuff appear and grow human-sized, with increasing brightness. THAT was with GEN-3 Night Vision, which works completely different than Video camera stuff. IMO< people should quit drooling over thermal imagers and get some Gen-3/Gen-4 equipment, as it is largely unexplored, but allows you to see a wider spectrum of light. They make Gen-3 modules that fit between the body and lens of Prosumer-level MiniDV cameras like the Canon XL-2.

FujiFilm also just made a high-end digital camera that takes pictures in the IR and UV spectrum, which was designed for CSI work.

There is lots of stuff to use, and I wish more people would think outside the box and try different things, instead of worrying what the guys on TV do.

#3 Ath

Ath

    Junior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts

Posted 09 July 2008 - 04:45 AM

Can anybody explain to me why people suggest to use infrared video cameras etc. which is LOWER in vibration than our visual spectrum, when spirit is at a HIGHER vibration than the physical matter our eyes can see?

Don't we need an "ultraviolet" filter instead? (not that I reckon that exists, I dunno)



I know this is old... but I just wanted to reply to this after finding it on google.

A) According to Black Body Radiation law, all objects (even black holes (which is why micro black holes that might be created by the lesser hadron collider would evaporate)) emit radiation, and this is in the infrared spectrum.


http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Black_body
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Planck's_law



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared

Anything falling within Near Infrared can be imaged by digital cameras with a infrared filter attachment (blocks visible light, allows only near IR to pass), or by a film camera with infrared film (and a yellow filter to block UV + blue light).

Ranges for IR photography with normal cameras is 700-900 nanometres, which is 0.7 to 0.9 Ám, which is not much on the Planck's law scale.

To image far infrared you need thermal imaging equipment.

There's much 'ghost folklore' that says spirits can change the temperature around them, 'feel a cold presence' 'shiver down my spine', this if true, would most certainly show up in far infrared.



The wavelength of electromagnetic radiation is different to what you call the "vibration of matter".

#4 DeadTrish

DeadTrish

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 561 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hamilton/Philadelphia

Posted 09 July 2008 - 07:38 AM

I've started thinking about a new theory about IR filming. If you film in IR aren't you limited yourself to just 1 spectrum of light? Don't we have many other factors working against us already. I say use IR but not all the time. Why not film with a regular light in the dark. It opens back up the spectrums. Just my thoughts.
TrishDirector/ConsultantAfterlife Investigations: A Paranormal Research SocietyMEMENTO MORI

#5 Ath

Ath

    Junior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts

Posted 09 July 2008 - 11:46 AM

I've started thinking about a new theory about IR filming. If you film in IR aren't you limited yourself to just 1 spectrum of light? Don't we have many other factors working against us already. I say use IR but not all the time. Why not film with a regular light in the dark. It opens back up the spectrums. Just my thoughts.



Exposure levels are different.

Most digital cameras have UV and IR blocking filters in them so as not to muck up your picture with false colour and weird brightness levels of dark objects.

You can get visible light blocking filters that allow UV, IR, X-Ray etc as the inbuilt blocking filters into digital cameras do not block 100% of it, therefore if you have enough amplification (digital equivalent of film ISO speed, called gain, measured in decibels, but given in ISO equivalencies on still cameras) or exposure or use a flash (most people use a IR filter over the flash head to, so its not distracting).

X-Ray needs a source of radiation (X-Ray "light") behind the object, and the object between this "light" and the camera to image.

If you caught anything in IR or UV, but your camera was recording visible light spectrum of electromagnetic radiation as well, you wouldnt be able to see it as the difference in pixel values would be so small there might even be 0 difference, due to exposure differences (depending on your scene, flash, etc.).

IR is longer than visible light, UV is on the other side, being shorter.

These are both outside the visible spectrum, and are easy to image for consumers and budget equipment, thus are quite practical for use.

I must mention, like Infrared, we can only image a part of the UV spectrum with most film and digital cameras - because of the lenses can only pass a portion of it.

http://en.wikipedia....l_sources_of_UV

"Ordinary glass is partially transparent to UVA but is opaque to shorter wavelengths while Silica or quartz glass, depending on quality, can be transparent even to vacuum UV wavelengths. Ordinary window glass passes about 90% of the light above 350 nm, but blocks over 90% of the light below 300 nm"

I have read gelatin lenses can also transmit more of the UV spectrum

#6 Ath

Ath

    Junior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts

Posted 09 July 2008 - 11:52 AM

I recommend reading this page which is about IR and UV photography, highly insightful.
http://www.naturfoto...V_IR_rev00.html

#7 CaveRat2

CaveRat2

    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 09 July 2008 - 02:41 PM

While it is known that black body radiation is given off by all material above absolute zero, this radiation level is far below the ability of anything we use to detect. A camera, reagdless of filtering or ISO rating is not sensitive enough to record this radiation. (The source of this is the motion of the atomic structure within the atoms.)

The use of various IR and UV bands does extend our ability to "see" into those wavelengths. however with that comes additional problems that must be considered. For instance something captured in UV but not seen does not mean paranormal. Certain materials have the ability to shift frequency of light. Consider how some irridecent materials "glow" under UV light such as certain posters and clothing. This is an example of shifting, the material shifts the UV light which we don't see down in frequency to the visible spectrum which we do. thusnthe material appears to glow. We need to be aware that this same characteristic might cause an otherwise invisible stain on a wall to appear as a visible shadow. Use all spectrums that you can, but be aware of the hazards in doing so.

But maybe the more fundamental question should be Who says spirits "vibrate" at all? Who says they don't do as most objects, that is reflect back the light which strikes them at its original frequency? If that is the case, they should be detectable under any spectral bandwidth, although admittedly the appearance may change in different bands.

#8 Ath

Ath

    Junior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts

Posted 09 July 2008 - 04:19 PM

If a spirit/whatever you want to call it has a 'physical' but non-corporeal I would suggest that the majority of EMR would more likely to be refracted, diffracted, and polarised then reflected.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users