visual phenomena that can't be filmed or videotaped

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

i.e. when i was just a wee Tracer i saur a documentary on TV about grizzly bears in Alaska and they were talking about how grizzlies swipe salmon out of freezing streams for their grizzly dinner, and they noted that these bears move their paws so fast that a normal 24-frames-per-second camera can't record this act - and they show it - yes - one moment a paw is poised above the cold cold water, the next moment it's got a fish in it - like magic.

what are some other things that you can see with your eyes but that can't be filmed or videotaped because of the pragmatic vagaries of the medium?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Saturday, 12 October 2002 19:30 (twenty-one years ago) link

vampires.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 12 October 2002 19:36 (twenty-one years ago) link

explain Buffy.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Saturday, 12 October 2002 19:38 (twenty-one years ago) link

not real. also, lon chaney, christopher lee, and bela lugosi (resisting all junkie jokes right now.)

the guy in the murnau "nosferatu" is kind of a gray area.

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 12 October 2002 19:40 (twenty-one years ago) link

what about high fps cameras that can do 100+?

― boxcubed (boxcubed), Saturday, 12 October 2002 19:43 (twenty-one years ago) link

oh, oh i got one: a sober irishman!

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 12 October 2002 19:45 (twenty-one years ago) link

also, "the real world."

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 12 October 2002 19:52 (twenty-one years ago) link

Yeah boxcubed, maybe the bear fishing thing doesn't work anymore. And with fiber-optics they can even photograph the inside of your gall-bladder.

okay i've got one: the reflection of candle-light on the ceiling (i could be wrong but i THINK it's impossible)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Saturday, 12 October 2002 20:03 (twenty-one years ago) link

kubrick used some fancy military low light cams to film the candlelight scenes in barry lyndon. might be summadat in there, or at least possible w/ those cams

― boxcubed (boxcubed), Saturday, 12 October 2002 20:09 (twenty-one years ago) link

can we film the activity of the brane? like synapses and such?

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 12 October 2002 20:11 (twenty-one years ago) link

Is that activity visual at all? I know TV shows have synapses sending cute little sparks across the gaps, but I'm guessing that isn't what you would really see. I suspect there isn't anything much to see.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 12 October 2002 20:17 (twenty-one years ago) link

TELEVISION HAS LIED TO ME FOR THE LAST TIME

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 12 October 2002 20:24 (twenty-one years ago) link

Phosphenes.

― Captain Sleep (Captain Sleep), Sunday, 13 October 2002 02:17 (twenty-one years ago) link

this is a good question. I can;t think of anything to say.

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Sunday, 13 October 2002 02:23 (twenty-one years ago) link

Most photos of seals dont work. In the photos they loose all texture and muscular form and look like big rocks. This is can be true of people.

― ducklingmonster, Sunday, 13 October 2002 03:03 (twenty-one years ago) link

real human beauty

― petra jane (petra jane), Sunday, 13 October 2002 03:34 (twenty-one years ago) link

Does St. Elmo's Fire show up on film?

― ciaran, Sunday, 13 October 2002 03:37 (twenty-one years ago) link

My funny valentine's looks are unphotographable.

― Captain Sleep (Captain Sleep), Sunday, 13 October 2002 04:35 (twenty-one years ago) link

those sentences that are in spanish when you're not looking at them

― ejad, Sunday, 13 October 2002 15:27 (twenty-one years ago) link

Why can't the candlelight thing be filmed?

― Graham (graham), Sunday, 13 October 2002 15:31 (twenty-one years ago) link

the third dimension

― A Nairn (moretap), Sunday, 13 October 2002 15:35 (twenty-one years ago) link

There's a third dimension?

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 14 October 2002 11:50 (twenty-one years ago) link

It comes after the second dimension which was discovered in 1986.

― Graham (graham), Monday, 14 October 2002 11:55 (twenty-one years ago) link

you know like when they film PC screens and they're all wibbly wobbly with all lines on them and shit? well, there's that.

― g-kit (g-kit), Monday, 14 October 2002 11:55 (twenty-one years ago) link

I used to think that high performance computers must do that in real life from being so vewy powerful. I believe that if you can set the camera up in sync this is not a problem.

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 14 October 2002 11:57 (twenty-one years ago) link

no, it's the power, really. no camera can film so much power.

― g-kit (g-kit), Monday, 14 October 2002 12:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

(except one with a low speed shutter)

― Graham (graham), Monday, 14 October 2002 12:03 (twenty-one years ago) link

that mch power would break your puny shutter into a million pieces. we're talking over 200mhz here.

― g-kit (g-kit), Monday, 14 October 2002 12:08 (twenty-one years ago) link

Movie people have special monitors whose screens refresh at a different rate, so they look normal on film and don't do the "roll" effect.

The candle-light reflection thing is a light problem - cameras need much more light than the eye does, which is why movie sets look so ludicrously bright. A modern video camera can shoot passable (if grainy) video of candles but the reflection of said light as it dances on the ceiling is probably too dim for even the gainiest DVcam. (yes I am brushing up to write the gadget column for Parade magazine)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 14 October 2002 12:20 (twenty-one years ago) link

"Does St. Elmo's Fire show up on film?"

No, but you can probably still get it on video. Fnarrgh.

Umm, yes, dim light on walls is very difficult to pick up, esp. when you only have crappy university DV cam to work with. Which is why the footage of my final degree piece doesn't look as fabulous as it should - sexy refraction of focused torchlight through large lenses rotating suspended from mirrorball motors. Gah.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Monday, 14 October 2002 12:40 (twenty-one years ago) link

You should have refracted St. Elmo's Fire instead.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 14 October 2002 12:42 (twenty-one years ago) link

what about ghosties? whoooooooo! scary ghosties on video! woooooooo!

― g-kit (g-kit), Monday, 14 October 2002 12:45 (twenty-one years ago) link

The bubbles in your eyes after you rub 'em - a visual phenomenon which cannot be adequately reproduced.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 14 October 2002 12:51 (twenty-one years ago) link

the female orgasm.

well, not for sure anyway.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 14 October 2002 16:54 (twenty-one years ago) link

ACTUALLY, i can't remember if it was channel 4 or bbc2 that did this some years ago, but they inserted a tiny medical camera thing into a woman's vagina while she was having an orgasm and filmed it.

the results were most disturbing. it looked like something out of Alien.

― Wyndham Earl, Monday, 14 October 2002 18:08 (twenty-one years ago) link

three years pass...

Aurora borealis? I know you can get still pix, but I don't think I've ever seen them in motion.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:29 (eighteen years ago) link

That little reflection of your own eye that you sometimes get on the inside of sunglasses when light hits your face in the right way sideways.

― sgs (sgs), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:36 (eighteen years ago) link

The magic eye thing

― Øystein (Øystein), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:40 (eighteen years ago) link

oh yeah, and that thing where when you stare at an inverted colour image for AGES, and when you look away you'll have that image, in its proper colour, burnt into your eye for a few minutes!

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 5 December 2005 14:46 (eighteen years ago) link

one-eye-out-of-socket-whilst-looking-at-the-other-eye visual feedback

― Sailor Kitten (g-kit), Monday, 5 December 2005 15:04 (eighteen years ago) link

haha, i'm all over this thread with shit ideas.

― Sailor Kitten (g-kit), Monday, 5 December 2005 15:05 (eighteen years ago) link

for a change.

― Sailor Kitten (g-kit), Monday, 5 December 2005 15:13 (eighteen years ago) link

oh yeah, and that stuff where you look through a toilet roll with one eye and look at your hand with the other and it looks as if there's a hole in the middle of your hand

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 5 December 2005 15:17 (eighteen years ago) link

and that one where it LOOKS like you've got CS:Source, but really you haven't. *cough*

― Sailor Kitten (g-kit), Monday, 5 December 2005 15:30 (eighteen years ago) link

no one was ever able to film a live giant squid before a few months ago!

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 5 December 2005 15:32 (eighteen years ago) link

haha! sooooon. xpost

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 5 December 2005 15:34 (eighteen years ago) link

Moon-bound Astronauts get flashes of light in their eyes from cosmic rays. I imagine that no technology we have can reproduce the perception of these events.

― GET EQUIPPED WITH BUBBLE LEAD (ex machina), Monday, 5 December 2005 15:57 (eighteen years ago) link

pretty much anything purely subjective. until they make brain recorders.

― latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:02 (eighteen years ago) link

also: flying saucer refuelings.

― latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:17 (eighteen years ago) link

Also, don't be fooled by them bears. See the video filmed from behind, the fish was up its sleeve the whole time!

― mark grout (mark grout), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:27 (eighteen years ago) link

LOVE.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:28 (eighteen years ago) link

sasquatches mating

― latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:29 (eighteen years ago) link

a babies-eye view of masturbation.

― latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Monday, 5 December 2005 16:43 (eighteen years ago) link

sasquatches mating

-- latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (posercore247@yahoo.com) (webmail), December 5th, 2005 11:29 AM. (latebloomer) (later) (link)

http://nyquil.org/archives/424-Amazing-Bigfoot-Photo-Debunkery.html

― GET EQUIPPED WITH BUBBLE LEAD (ex machina), Monday, 5 December 2005 17:00 (eighteen years ago) link

yeah but where's the humping?

― latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Monday, 5 December 2005 17:04 (eighteen years ago) link

ok then leprechauns in the shower

― latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Monday, 5 December 2005 17:07 (eighteen years ago) link

stripey suits. i wonder if suits with very thin stripes still strobe on high def television? (actually, that's the exact opposite of the posed question, visual phenomena caused by tv)

― koogs (koogs), Monday, 5 December 2005 17:07 (eighteen years ago) link

koogs, yea, there's all kinds of weird rasterfication artifacts. Also, frame based visual medium have things like wagon wheels spinning backwards!

― GET EQUIPPED WITH BUBBLE LEAD (ex machina), Monday, 5 December 2005 17:08 (eighteen years ago) link

eye floaties!

xxx-post: the best bigfoot-related debunking though was the yeti photo that turned out to be distant rocks exposed by snow that had melted away.

― latebloomer: The Corridor (Yes, The Corridor) (latebloomer), Monday, 5 December 2005 17:15 (eighteen years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.