http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&message=36983479
How come is that multiple ghost image? What causes that?? I don't have a good enough technical explanation to it myself. But, I have never seen such an image for a moving object shot in similar conditions since I shot digital back to 2001. Since that, I guess I have already shot about 70k+ digital images with all my DSLRs/DCs - but never seen such irregularity. Really Strange and Weird, I have to say!
Logging you in...
ale · 746 weeks ago
Pentax jumpboater · 746 weeks ago
RiceHigh 110p · 746 weeks ago
Anu · 746 weeks ago
K10D
Funny how you love to dig dirt, but never bother to dig anything but it...
R.E. · 746 weeks ago
Under fluro's you can get it so long as the subject is moving.
Under sodium lamps you'll get the same thing as fluro's on moving objects.
Lets analyse this.
We can tell its a moving object because the position of the car changes while the background is steady.
We can predict the number of exposures at any given mains frequency if we know the shutter time.
At 60Hz we can expect 5 or 6 images simply because the shutter is not in sync with the mains and its taken in the USA.
We can tell the camera was not been panned since the background and foreground is steady.
We can tell the sensor was not moving because the background and foreground are steady.
One object and one only is the issue and its a vehicle on the street photographed at 1/20th of a second.
The car has moved roughly 50cm in 1/20th of a second so we can calculate its approximate speed, -.5 x 20 x 3.6 = 36kph.
Since this is the USA, thats about 36/1.6 = 22mph
Suburban streets in the USA have a speed limit of about 25mph.
Pretty close so far. The figure calculated is the lowest possible speed since only five frames were caught at 60Hz so the error final figure is 22mph with an error of up to +(1/5*22) or 0-4.5 mph.
Can't get much closer than that.
So I'd say the driver was very observant and following the speed limit.
With some more analysis we can show that he visited a McDonalds 2hours ago...
Come on rice. This was pretty easy to figure out. We could work it out more accurately be deriving the distance traveled based on the car type and thus get a more accurate base figure than my initial educated guess at 50cm based on tire dimensions vs light spread.
I find it fascinating that you're having trouble working this out.
Pentax jumpboater · 746 weeks ago
Michael · 746 weeks ago
Anu · 746 weeks ago
People who actually know about stuff and talk from their knowledge, do not have to tell the people how much they know as the message itself is enough.
Rice seems to be very insecure regarding the stuff he writes about - for a good reason I might add, considring how far off he usually is - and has to remind us how "he knows" because of all of his vast experience and knowledge. In comparison to his "vast knowlege" facts and logic will always lose.
Kirill · 746 weeks ago
ale · 746 weeks ago
Ronny · 746 weeks ago
teusrenes 48p · 746 weeks ago
Rice those picture's I usually throw away immediately that is why you wont see them posted...
Zebooka · 746 weeks ago
Don't you know such basic things and never saw them before ? :)
PS: It's a light flickering due to AC current highlighting moving car
Eddie Boschma · 746 weeks ago
Dirty Harry (Clint Eastwood), famous for his one-liners once said: opinions are like assholes, everyone has one!