FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Can we capture ghost image/video?





heridlia
Any latest technology that we can capture ghost image/video?

Many story about that. But I'm not sure.

Please sharing your experience.

Thanks a lot.
rheanna
I'd have to say anything is possible. Don't let The Conspirator bring you down and say it's just dust. I doubt it. Cool Wink
Indi
heridlia wrote:
Any latest technology that we can capture ghost image/video?

Many story about that. But I'm not sure.

The first question is what "ghosts" are made of. In order to be captured by any kind of camera, still or video, they must be able to emit electromagnetic radiation within a very narrow range of bandwidths. In other words, they must emit photons.

If they can do that, they must be detectable by any photon detector that functions in that frequency range, not just cameras.

Exactly what are ghosts made of? Until someone can answer that question satisfactorily, there's no reason to presume that blurry blobs on your video are ghosts and not glitches or dust.
Daisie
Well if you believe in gosts then that little blurr on the photo is one, if you dont believe, it's just a blurr...
It's all a question of perspective!

I like your explaination Indi, wtg.
The Conspirator
First ghosts would have to exist, there is no evidence of that. Sure you can pull a bunch of story's some of with might be based on real events but people often assume something is a ghost for instance I once had a creepy (for some reason, it didn't look creepy, there wasn't anything in there that would make it creepy, but it was) my mother thought it was haunted, there are places that are creepy and those creepy places are associated with ghosts, people often assume the place is haunted. And peoples memory is very fallible for instance I saw a show on ghosts talking about this bar that is thought to haunted, a woman that works there claims she was pushed down by it but as I've said human memory is very fallible, she could have just fell, blamed in on the "ghost" and then convinced herself of it and remembers it as being pushed, not fallen. And that is who anecdotal evidence is not used by scientific studies.

Now assuming ghosts are real, do they give off or reflect light? Cameras capture images of only a small spectrum of light so ghosts would ave to reflect or give off light in that small spectrum, that is the viable spectrum (the spectrum that we can see). And cameras cant capture "energy" as paranormalists like to say (thats not even what energy is). To know if they give off or reflect light you have to know what they are made of. What are they made of?

So no.

Now for images that are said to have ghosts in them. Think critically and be skeptical. What could those be? What are the possibility's? What s most plausible? Use Occam's Razer. Unless there is evidence otherwise go with the most plausible answer. Dust , a drop of water on the lens, smoke, breath on a cold night, error in the film, problem with camera, a problem with the lens. All these are possibility and account most of the images.
powers1983
heridlia wrote:
Any latest technology that we can capture ghost image/video?


If any object/being/entity/whatever emits any form of electromagnetic radiation or any form of matter that we know about then chances are that yes, modern technology can detect and record it.

However until someone can identify what 'ghosts' are and what they are emitting then getting the right equipment into the right place is far more difficult.

I think that it is quite safe to say that 'ghosts' exist - but by that I mean that it is entirely possible that 'ghosts' are merely figments of peoples imagination. Have you ever felt sure that someone was calling your name? Or thought you saw something out of the corner of your eye? The brain is the most complex thing on the planet and we only understand a fraction of what it does. A mis-firing neuron could perhaps spark off something in the optic nerve?

I know that people will still cite unexplained cases where things move by themselves, but is it still not impossible that it is merely fame-hungry people with nothing better to do?

David.
indeedwrestling
Absolutely not. For the all reasons posted above. And more. The modern fear of ghosts is just a supressed dealing with man's isolation in technology. It's clearly a Jungian reaction.
olskar
[James007:]
Please don't copy/paste text from other websites.
[/James007]
Shake
Ahem. *cough* Okay. I guess it all depends on whether ghosts can be seen.
If ghosts can be seen by the human eye, then it is guaranteed that someone will devise a way to capture it on film, or digitally
If not, it will be quite a lengthy task to undertake. That mean we would have to try and guess what kind of technology would show us a ghost, and even then, how would we know that that particular "ghost" we see in an image is real?

I don't want to destroy your beliefs on ghosts, so I won't be one to say they aren't real. (Who really knows? Who cares?) Our society has either a) lost touch of the definition of a ghost; or b) never knew what a ghost was in the first place, so how can we know the laws governing ghosts? That is the true question.
jharsika
Well... I believe I've caught "ghosts" on my digital camera. They are "orbs", most people believe it is spiritual energy or residue left behind from someone who used to be associated with the place where the orbs are seen. Most people can't see these orbs, but video cameras and cameras in general can capture them. Check out my website for pictures:
http://ghosts.digilynn.frih.net

Note that none of these pictures have been altered other than to make the orbs more visible, and it is noted when and how they have been altered.
Subsonic Sound
Well here's a question, then. Why is it that 'orbs' are only strongly visible with flash photography? If they're emitting the light on their own because of spectral energy or what have you, they'd be the most clear without a flash, because they'd be set against darkness.

On the other hand, a sudden flash of bright light could easily pick out dust, spores and pollen for something as quick and accurate as a camera lens, though the time period would be far too short for our own eyes to capture.

Also, if they're turning out energy in a form a camera can see, as Indi pointed out that means light energy. So we should be able to see it too. Why can't we?

Some friends of mine run a relatively respected ghost-hunting magazine, so I see quite a lot of this stuff. :p
Jinx
not weighing in on the real/not real argument here, because I'm not sure one way or the other, but...
I don't know if it would effect digital photography, but don't other types of radiation outside the visible spectrum have an effect on film? Or would it have to be a special type of film (like x-ray film)?
While I like to keep an open mind when it comes to the existance of ghosts, most of the ghost photography I've seen isn't convincing, and could easily be dust or smoke. Or worse... a manip.
marcuse
Indi wrote:
heridlia wrote:
Any latest technology that we can capture ghost image/video?

Many story about that. But I'm not sure.

The first question is what "ghosts" are made of. In order to be captured by any kind of camera, still or video, they must be able to emit electromagnetic radiation within a very narrow range of bandwidths. In other words, they must emit photons.

If they can do that, they must be detectable by any photon detector that functions in that frequency range, not just cameras.

Exactly what are ghosts made of? Until someone can answer that question satisfactorily, there's no reason to presume that blurry blobs on your video are ghosts and not glitches or dust.


First we need a good and precise definition of ghost. What exactly is a ghost? A product of our imagination (or a manifestation of some kind of mental condition) or something physical, with physical existence beyond our minds? If we do not have such a precise definition how can we call ghosts to some strange pictures on camera? You can call ghost to almost all things unexplained.
Indi
Jinx wrote:
not weighing in on the real/not real argument here, because I'm not sure one way or the other, but...
I don't know if it would effect digital photography, but don't other types of radiation outside the visible spectrum have an effect on film? Or would it have to be a special type of film (like x-ray film)?
While I like to keep an open mind when it comes to the existance of ghosts, most of the ghost photography I've seen isn't convincing, and could easily be dust or smoke. Or worse... a manip.

It's certainly possible for enough light of a frequency outside the range of human vision to cause an image to appear not only on film but on a digital camera's sensor. Both film and the kinds of sensors used for digital cameras are designed to react more to visible light than non-visible light, for obvious reasons, but enough non-visible light could "burn" images on them, depending on the frequency and strength of that light.

Of course, that still means that "ghosts" would have to be electromagnetic radiation emitters, and they could be easily detected by even cheap modern equipment. If they can show up as fuzzy blobs on a conventional civilian camera, there's absolutely no reason they can't be clearly imaged by a slightly more advanced "camera" designed to image wider ranges of wavelength and lower power. Hell, give me a couple weeks and a couple hundred bucks and i could build an imager that could do it. It's not hard.

If ghosts exist, i have a hard time believing that they could emit electromagnetic radiation and not have been clearly imaged by now. And if they don't emit electromagnetic radiation, how can they be affecting film/digital cameras? Conclusion: the idea that ghosts are being photographed is a crock.
Bikerman
jharsika wrote:
Well... I believe I've caught "ghosts" on my digital camera. They are "orbs", most people believe it is spiritual energy or residue left behind from someone who used to be associated with the place where the orbs are seen. Most people can't see these orbs, but video cameras and cameras in general can capture them. Check out my website for pictures:
http://ghosts.digilynn.frih.net

Note that none of these pictures have been altered other than to make the orbs more visible, and it is noted when and how they have been altered.

You would need to supply details of the camera, exposure, compression and equalisation before I would even think about attributing the 'orbs' to a real phenomenon rather than an artefact produced by compression/equalisation or a distortion produced by a poor quality CCD in the camera.
jharsika
I'm not really sure what those are, if you tell me where I can find them I can tell you.
jharsika
Subsonic Sound wrote:
Well here's a question, then. Why is it that 'orbs' are only strongly visible with flash photography? If they're emitting the light on their own because of spectral energy or what have you, they'd be the most clear without a flash, because they'd be set against darkness.

On the other hand, a sudden flash of bright light could easily pick out dust, spores and pollen for something as quick and accurate as a camera lens, though the time period would be far too short for our own eyes to capture.

Also, if they're turning out energy in a form a camera can see, as Indi pointed out that means light energy. So we should be able to see it too. Why can't we?

Some friends of mine run a relatively respected ghost-hunting magazine, so I see quite a lot of this stuff. :p


One thing I know, is that it can't be dust or reflections that we have captured, the really clear images of orbs seem to have a membranous outline, like a single celled organism. Some even have what could be nucleous type stuff. Also, in some images, the only way to see anything is if you invert the colors, or equalize the image. There are pictures we have that dozens of orbs are visible, when seconds before a picture was taken and nothing is in that other picture. If it was dust on the lens, or moisture drops, they would be in both pictures right?

I think we can't see them because they are sort of out of the human range of I think it's called color range, light range or something.

All this is mostly theorizing, but I do know that it isn't a trick of the camera.
creezalird
theoritically can..but no one ever approve this evidently..
polis
Define Ghost.

Anyway, cameras capture light, if the ghost can reflect light, then the camera will get it.
Bikerman
jharsika wrote:
I'm not really sure what those are, if you tell me where I can find them I can tell you.

a) What was the camera?
b) What method of equalisation did you use?
c) How is the image stored in computer format? (jpg, pcx, png, bmp etc)
Lord Klorel
I must say that i will not belive in ghosts as long that there is no scientific proof that they should excist.
I am no disbeliever, but i am sceptical about this. Sometimes i have the feeling that something is watching me and when look around i can't find anything. So what is this small line between the world of imagination and reality.

I hope that one day someone can proof that ghosts really excist. For that time i don't belive in it.
jharsika
Bikerman wrote:
jharsika wrote:
I'm not really sure what those are, if you tell me where I can find them I can tell you.

a) What was the camera?
b) What method of equalisation did you use?
c) How is the image stored in computer format? (jpg, pcx, png, bmp etc)


a) it's a Kodak EasyShare C533/C503, digital zoom
b)Photoshop 7.0: Image>Adjustments>Equalize
c)jpg
The Conspirator
jharsika: I looked at the pictures on your ghost site. Sorry but those orbs are dust, out of focus dust.
Bikerman
jharsika wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
jharsika wrote:
I'm not really sure what those are, if you tell me where I can find them I can tell you.

a) What was the camera?
b) What method of equalisation did you use?
c) How is the image stored in computer format? (jpg, pcx, png, bmp etc)


a) it's a Kodak EasyShare C533/C503, digital zoom
b)Photoshop 7.0: Image>Adjustments>Equalize
c)jpg

OK..
a) The camera is not the best and is noted for producing overexposed shots. It also has a fairly noisy capture.
b) jpg is a 'lossy' compression system which often produces artefacts on the compressed image - it is not suitable for zoom/detail work.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1970664,00.asp
ktak1
I've read some excellent posts above talking about how the camera/recording device works and the technologies involved in such. And as stated in many posts above, it is actually unknown if ghosts truly exist, and if they do, on what plane of existence that may be.

I believe there are a great many things we don't know or have yet to discover. How many planes of existence are there in reality? People are still having trouble thinking in terms of 4 dimensions... what if there were 5, 6 or more?

When dealing with unknowns, like ghosts or "other-worldly" matters, who can say whether they exist or not? Only the ghost.
barryforever
One cannot get a live picture of a ghost .First we need to understand what ghosts are made of .. well as far as i know they are energy accumulated in one place .So if one can take a picture of electromagnetic spectrum in that area i think we will be able get what we are looking for
Gagnar The Unruly
barryforever wrote:
a picture of electromagnetic spectrum in that area


You mean a photograph?
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.