Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hey everyone,

Not sure if this is the right forum to ask this in (and I might post this same one in one of the biological sciences’ forums as well), but I had a quick question for anyone who has a solid understanding of how bats respond to photographs (and light)—and vice versa (the behavior of light as it captures a photograph of a bat):

When taking a picture of a bat you happened to have found, is it normal to have disruption in the photo’s light-frequency, so much so that there are areas of dark bars in the photo?

In the photo with the dark bars, the camera lens was within a foot of the bat. I’m wondering, do bats emit on the molecular level some kind of electro-magnetic frequency that disrupts a camera which tries to photograph it? 

Open to all ideas/discussion/questions... Just trying to figure out how/why this happened. All other photos were clear; only when the lens was within a foot of the bat would the photograph not be captured. Tried researching it but can’t find an article that explains it. 

Thanks!

BB82518B-0ADA-4E29-90A6-F9DEAF91702B.jpeg

0C9AEBF9-880D-4100-BACB-5B8F91C90F01.jpeg

Posted
!

Moderator Note

We've found it's better to have a single discussion thread we can move around if needs be, rather than starting multiple discussions in different sub-fora. I've hidden the one in Ecology & the Environment.

 
Posted
1 hour ago, tmx3 said:

When taking a picture of a bat you happened to have found, is it normal to have disruption in the photo’s light-frequency, so much so that there are areas of dark bars in the photo?

Interesting. I can only think that the ultrasound is affecting the camera somehow - causing jitter in the lens or something ... 

I tried googling for this but the results are all about ultrasonic imaging.

Posted
28 minutes ago, Strange said:

Interesting. I can only think that the ultrasound is affecting the camera somehow - causing jitter in the lens or something ... 

I tried googling for this but the results are all about ultrasonic imaging.

Hi, thanks for your response. 

I meant to add, the bat wasn’t screeching when the shots were taken. He was quiet. How can there be disruption caused by ultrasound in the light waves or what-have-you (sorry, not well versed with physics terminology), when the bat isn’t making sound? 

I mean, imagine taking a photo of your pet cat when he’s not meowing—same thing applies here. The bat was not making sound at all, and yet having the lens anywhere within a foot of him caused such disruptions in the photograph... 

So confused... I’ll continue trying to find articles on it, and I’ll look into the ultrasound thing as well, but I’m confused as to how that would apply when a bat is quiet. 

I had posted this same topic in the Ecology section hoping some biologist may know about I guess a bat’s response to the environment. Maybe bats emit some kind of energy on the molecular/atomic level that disrupts light/wavelengths or particles of light/whatever that won’t allow for them to be photographed. 

Posted (edited)

Are you using fluorescent or LED lighting? If so the the problem is Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) of the light source and the scanning nature of the camera's light sensor. Basically, The lights are flashing on and off faster than your eyes can see but the camera sensor can pick up that flashing during the course of a single exposure . For reasons I don't know, this  banding problem shows up in lowlight close-up pictures. The solution is to play with the shutter timing or use a light source that has no PWM, that is continuous in its output.

Edited by StringJunky
Posted
Just now, StringJunky said:

Are you using fluorescent or LED lighting? If so the the problem is Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) of the light source and the scanning nature of the camera's light sensor. Basically, The lights are flashing on and off faster than your eyes can see but the camera sensor can pick up that flashing during the course of a single exposure . For reasons I don't know, this  problem shows up in low light close-up pictures. The solution is to play with the shutter timing or use a light source that has no PWM, that is continuous in its output.

iPhone 4 was used. I didn’t have the light on the phone’s camera to flash when the picture was taken. 

The only light on in my room was my lamplight.

Does this help, or? I can look at the package but I don’t think it’s LED...? 

Posted
1 minute ago, tmx3 said:

iPhone 4 was used. I didn’t have the light on the phone’s camera to flash when the picture was taken. 

The only light on in my room was my lamplight.

Does this help, or? I can look at the package but I don’t think it’s LED...? 

Is it an incandescent lamp?

Posted
1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Is it an incandescent lamp?

Uhm... do the photos help?

41CD0DB3-6A8B-4671-82AE-6B258F865FCD.jpeg

7C8D6F7E-1736-4998-8C38-2363782BC0E4.jpeg

Posted
7 minutes ago, tmx3 said:

I meant to add, the bat wasn’t screeching when the shots were taken. He was quiet.

Do you have a bat detector? (Or really good hearing? :) )

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Is it an incandescent lamp?

Good question. The ultrasound could affect the bulb causing a change in brightness captured as the image is scanned by the sensor.

Posted
1 minute ago, Strange said:

Do you have a bat detector? (Or really good hearing? :) )

Well! When he screeched, I heard him! But he stopped so...:wacko:

Posted
1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

There's some sort of asynchronous modulation going on with the sensor and something somewhere. The lamp appears to be a continuous source.

Why does this sound so scary

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

There's some sort of asynchronous modulation going on with the sensor and something somewhere. The lamp appears to be a continuous source.

I’m thinking that it’s the bit itself. It has to be emitting some kind of energy because the photos had dark bars in them only when the lens was close enough to it... 

Am I in the right forum??

Posted
4 minutes ago, tmx3 said:

I’m thinking that it’s the bit itself. It has to be emitting some kind of energy because the photos had dark bars in them only when the lens was close enough to it...

I am fairly certain that the "energy" is ultrasound.

Again, when you said it was "quiet", how do you know that? (You do realise that you cannot hear bats?)

4 minutes ago, tmx3 said:

Am I in the right forum??

Arguably "Physics" might have been better, but it doesn't matter.

Posted
7 minutes ago, tmx3 said:

Well! When he screeched, I heard him! But he stopped so...:wacko:

You can't hear the ultrasound a bat uses for navigation. The screeching you did hear must have been some other sound bats make.

Possibly, the ultrasound hit the resonance frequency in some component of your camera.

Posted
Just now, Strange said:

I am fairly certain that the "energy" is ultrasound.

Again, when you said it was "quiet", how do you know that? (You do realise that you cannot hear bats?)

He was screeching, I did hear him... Maybe he was a different kind of bat, I don’t know, but I heard him loud and clear when he was screeching at some times. 

Just now, Bender said:

You can't hear the ultrasound a bat uses for navigation. The screeching you did hear must have been some other sound bats make.

Possibly, the ultrasound hit the resonance frequency in some component of your camera.

Oh...but how does ultrasound distupt light waves? It works like that?? Sound waves disrupt light waves? Am I on the right track here?

Posted
Just now, tmx3 said:

He was screeching, I did hear him... Maybe he was a different kind of bat, I don’t know, but I heard him loud and clear when he was screeching at some times. 

What Bender said.

It was almost certainly generating ultrasound all the time. That is almost certainly what was affecting the camera. (Some cameras might use ultrasound to assist focusing, maybe?)

Posted
5 minutes ago, tmx3 said:

Why does this sound so scary

I’m thinking that it’s the bit itself. It has to be emitting some kind of energy because the photos had dark bars in them only when the lens was close enough to it... 

Am I in the right forum??

Does it sound a bit technical? All I'm saying with 'asynchronous modulation' is that the timings of the two sources are different. This is definitely a phenomenon specific to digital cameras

Posted
14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Does it sound a bit technical? All I'm saying with 'asynchronous modulation' is that the timings of the two sources are different. This is definitely a phenomenon specific to digital cameras

Which sources? 

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

What Bender said.

It was almost certainly generating ultrasound all the time. That is almost certainly what was affecting the camera. (Some cameras might use ultrasound to assist focusing, maybe?)

Sound affects light? Aren’t the two supposed to be independent of one another? How can one disrupt the other?

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, tmx3 said:

Which sources? 

The camera's sensor, which is writing line-by-line, and the bulb, which I have just found out is flashing at twice the line frequency; 120Hz. Here's a video of that happening:

 

Edited by StringJunky
Posted
8 minutes ago, tmx3 said:

Sound affects light? Aren’t the two supposed to be independent of one another? How can one disrupt the other?

There is a possible mechanical affect: the ultrasound could vibrate the filament and hence modulate the brightness.

Posted
3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The camera's sensor, which is writing line-by-line, and the bulb, which I have just found out is flashing at twice the line frequency; 120Hz. Here's a video of that happening:

 

Lol I loved the background music though it made me feel twice as dumb. :P Watched it the whole way through! 

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The camera's sensor which is writing line-by-line and the bulb, which I have just found out is flashing at twice the line frequency; 120Hz.

Good point. We don't know it is anything to do with the bat! Although, I have never noticed strobing effects from incandescent bobs (and I would have thought the camera would have been designed not to be affected by that).

Posted
3 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is a possible mechanical affect: the ultrasound could vibrate the filament and hence modulate the brightness.

How does ultrasound travel through an iPhone’s lens to disturb the filament? 

So confused. 

I get the whole particles moving past one another whatever is going on. I don’t understand how ultrasound could affect a photograph so much so as to create those bars. Disturbed the filament? Then shouldn’t there be a crackly image instead of straight bars??? 

Posted
1 minute ago, Strange said:

Good point. We don't know it is anything to do with the bat! Although, I have never noticed strobing effects from incandescent bobs (and I would have thought the camera would have been designed not to be affected by that).

It's just a line of enquiry, like yours, which is  perfectly feasible as well, from what I can see.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.