Time Camera

[librisest]

I am very interested in any links or references to experiments and researches with photographic cameras that can get an image of other times, past or future, or remote targets.

George De La Warr, Georges Lakhovsky and Nikola Tesla all did reasonably successful experiments with such cameras of their own design. If anyone knows of original material on those cameras from those researchers or others, kindly post in this thread. Thanks.

 

[MODAT7]

I ran across a lady who claimed to be able to do time camera and even fairy shots with her digital camera. She posted a 100+page PDF book of her findings just on one picture that went on and on and on... In her case, it was 100% bunk. I'm not saying it's impossible to capture pictures like this, I'm saying her methods were flat out wrong. As a classically trained programmer and someone with a film degree, this is why:

* When zooming into compressed images from a digital camera (JPG in her case), the lossy compressing will create some very odd artifacting in high contrast regions. She was zooming in so far that she was seeing faces in the noise (sometimes only a few pixels wide). Humans are genetically programmed to pick out patterns in noise. It's part of our survival. The noise is by definition part of the CODEC artifacting. To reproduce this test, find a cluttered forest/grove with a lot of trees, bright sunlight behind you, and darkness between the trees going deeper into the woods. Take a very large, least compressed, highest resolution image your camera can do. Go home, load it in your favorite paint program, then save it as image-01.jpg with around 90% compression (that option should be in the save dialog box). Load image-01.jpg and save it as image-02.jpg. Repeat this process for a total of 10 times until you get to image-10.jpg. By now you should be seeing some clear generational losses from the JPG CODEC. Zoom into the high contrast areas (especially by the trunk of a brightly lit tree with a dark background behind it). You will see all sorts of things. You can jump to the in between numbers to see these artifacting patterns changing with each save.

* In her case, she was also doing some digital dark rooming to help bring out the "faces". There's nothing wrong with doing this (so long as your monitor is properly balanced) to help make the subject clearer. The problem is that she was doing this to the first point made above.

* In her case, she was also going through all the different Photoshop filters on the image looking for patterns. There's nothing wrong with this, except she was doing this to the 3-5 pixel wide face mentioned above. Many of these filters ARE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to make the image into a kind of artwork. "Line Art" was one of them. There was also (over) sharpen, posterize, pencil, and a bunch of others I can't think of at the moment. She was then finding more and more faces... and getting obnoxiously excited about it. Well, see above.

* If you've got the sun or a bright light source to your back, lens flares and sun dogs won't be much of an issue. If someone over processes an image, these might become visible, esp. off bright shiny objects. These's aren't ghosts or time images. Sometimes the internal reflections off the various glass lenses inside a lens assembly can produce some very odd images at these processing levels.

* Motion blurs... If there's a picture in a dark setting or at night, bugs that we will often ignore by eye sight will appear as streaks in a picture. This has to do with the longer exposure time. These are not interdimensional tears or monsters.

* Quick shots out of focus. Many will claim a ghost or time image with these when they're actually nothing but sloppy camera work and the human brain looking for the patterns mentioned above. "Noisy clutter" in the far distance of a picture can merge to form all kinds of false things.

* A real picture of interest would probably look more like a double exposure. The subject should be dozens of pixels wide at the minimum for clarity.

* Something that might be of interest is to use an infrared pass filter that blocks all visible light. Something might show up in IR only that would get drowned out in the usual visible light. On the flip side, ultraviolet may also produce something of interest.

* There are also some people looking for attention who will make deliberate fakes of the above mentioned. Gotta watch out for them.

I've been working with various paint and image manipulation programs off and on since the early 1990's and have been around the block with these. I've also been working with video encoding since the late 1990's. All the video CODECs used for mass distribution are also lossy and follow the same general guidelines. I haven't done as much video camera work as I should have for someone with my university degrees, but I have worked in a video duplication lab as one of my past jobs... and I've seen a bunch of things that took a few minutes to figure out... and they were all explainable. I'll also take a second to say that video interlacing is pure evil incarnate. Stills from interlaced video has confused many people.

So... if you find someone posting bad images kinda like I mentioned above, move on.

If you happen to find someone with a working chronovisor, you'd better post it here as there will be many who are interested... but still be aware of the points I made above as even a chronovisor could make a false image out of "noisy clutter".

 

[Mayhem]

Jane Tripp @MODAT7 ?

 

[MODAT7]

@Mayhem: I can't remember her name... but it sounded really interesting until I saw the PDF.

Edit: And I also deleted it and any notes on her as they held no value.

 

[Mayhem]

I think its the same person , she claimed to use infrared to some what determine what she was on about.

Lots of pics, i still have it somewhere i think, having a job in imaging for 20 odd years when i read this i initially thought it was similar to kirlian if you familar with that. But after looking at the rest of it i thought otherwise.

 

[IncommensurableLoop]

I ran across a lady who claimed to be able to do time camera and even fairy shots with her digital camera. She posted a 100+page PDF book of her findings just on one picture that went on and on and on... In her case, it was 100% bunk. I'm not saying it's impossible to capture pictures like this, I'm saying her methods were flat out wrong. As a classically trained programmer and someone with a film degree, this is why:

* When zooming into compressed images from a digital camera (JPG in her case), the lossy compressing will create some very odd artifacting in high contrast regions. She was zooming in so far that she was seeing faces in the noise (sometimes only a few pixels wide). Humans are genetically programmed to pick out patterns in noise. It's part of our survival. The noise is by definition part of the CODEC artifacting. To reproduce this test, find a cluttered forest/grove with a lot of trees, bright sunlight behind you, and darkness between the trees going deeper into the woods. Take a very large, least compressed, highest resolution image your camera can do. Go home, load it in your favorite paint program, then save it as image-01.jpg with around 90% compression (that option should be in the save dialog box). Load image-01.jpg and save it as image-02.jpg. Repeat this process for a total of 10 times until you get to image-10.jpg. By now you should be seeing some clear generational losses from the JPG CODEC. Zoom into the high contrast areas (especially by the trunk of a brightly lit tree with a dark background behind it). You will see all sorts of things. You can jump to the in between numbers to see these artifacting patterns changing with each save.

* In her case, she was also doing some digital dark rooming to help bring out the "faces". There's nothing wrong with doing this (so long as your monitor is properly balanced) to help make the subject clearer. The problem is that she was doing this to the first point made above.

* In her case, she was also going through all the different Photoshop filters on the image looking for patterns. There's nothing wrong with this, except she was doing this to the 3-5 pixel wide face mentioned above. Many of these filters ARE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to make the image into a kind of artwork. "Line Art" was one of them. There was also (over) sharpen, posterize, pencil, and a bunch of others I can't think of at the moment. She was then finding more and more faces... and getting obnoxiously excited about it. Well, see above.

* If you've got the sun or a bright light source to your back, lens flares and sun dogs won't be much of an issue. If someone over processes an image, these might become visible, esp. off bright shiny objects. These's aren't ghosts or time images. Sometimes the internal reflections off the various glass lenses inside a lens assembly can produce some very odd images at these processing levels.

* Motion blurs... If there's a picture in a dark setting or at night, bugs that we will often ignore by eye sight will appear as streaks in a picture. This has to do with the longer exposure time. These are not interdimensional tears or monsters.

* Quick shots out of focus. Many will claim a ghost or time image with these when they're actually nothing but sloppy camera work and the human brain looking for the patterns mentioned above. "Noisy clutter" in the far distance of a picture can merge to form all kinds of false things.

* A real picture of interest would probably look more like a double exposure. The subject should be dozens of pixels wide at the minimum for clarity.

* Something that might be of interest is to use an infrared pass filter that blocks all visible light. Something might show up in IR only that would get drowned out in the usual visible light. On the flip side, ultraviolet may also produce something of interest.

* There are also some people looking for attention who will make deliberate fakes of the above mentioned. Gotta watch out for them.

I've been working with various paint and image manipulation programs off and on since the early 1990's and have been around the block with these. I've also been working with video encoding since the late 1990's. All the video CODECs used for mass distribution are also lossy and follow the same general guidelines. I haven't done as much video camera work as I should have for someone with my university degrees, but I have worked in a video duplication lab as one of my past jobs... and I've seen a bunch of things that took a few minutes to figure out... and they were all explainable. I'll also take a second to say that video interlacing is pure evil incarnate. Stills from interlaced video has confused many people.

So... if you find someone posting bad images kinda like I mentioned above, move on.

If you happen to find someone with a working chronovisor, you'd better post it here as there will be many who are interested... but still be aware of the points I made above as even a chronovisor could make a false image out of "noisy clutter"

I agree with this guy. I found similar things in these occurrences after deep thought and analysis. I like the idea of using different spectral frequencies like IR and maybe UV or who knows maybe even other frequencies like X-ray, microwave. Whatever. But light and cameras give off tons of phenomenon illusions. I don’t have experience with video interlacing but its pure evil lol I agree. Oh also I been working on observations using slow motions as well. In theory if something moved faster then what our eyes can pick up. your slow motion camera could maybe pick it up. I.e. light on camera in a houses flashes on slow motion because the hertz is slowed down to the point it can be seen. Otherwise light remains constant in our real time vision

 

[MODAT7]

With my severe sleep deprivation, I have trouble remembering things, but I think you're right about the name. I guess to be fair, I should also add a disclaimer that some of her other photos may be real... just not the ones in the categories I've mentioned above. Mayhem, with your imaging job, you probably have more experience than I do.

Kirlian images have some interest with me, but someone pointed out that an image was taken of something recently dead (maybe a dead human or animal, can't remember) and it still produced a colorful image. From what I read, anything dead that is somewhat hydrated can produce a colorful image, so it's probably not capturing an aura. A way to test this would be to take an image of a wadded up wet shirt straight out of the clothes washer.

Another image type comes to mind that I saw on the Science Channel recently: Using a cheap china web cam in a semi dark room, a person can look like a ghost walking by in the distance. This has to do with low frame rate, over exposure, and motion blur. It is easily reproducable since a cheap china web cam costs $5 or less. Unfortunately, many of the "professional security cameras" also do this. Some are illuminated by an IR LED lamp.

 

[MODAT7]

Oh also I been working on observations using slow motions as well. In theory if something moved faster then what our eyes can pick up. your slow motion camera could maybe pick it up. I.e. light on camera in a houses flashes on slow motion because the hertz is slowed down to the point it can be seen. Otherwise light remains constant in our real time vision

There are a couple of camera methods with what you're talking about.

First is just a high frame rate (slow motion if played back at normal speed). These are often used in bright light situations since the camera needs extra light for the shorter exposure time. Depending on the settings and CCD, the chip may take a shorter than needed time for the frame and sit idle for the rest of the frame time. An example would be a video recorded at 100fps, but the CCD chip is only using half of that time to record the frame, so some video information is lost. If played back in slow motion, these frames have very little motion blur in them. The other part to this is the CCD chip taking the full frame time, so for a 100fps video, the chip would really take 1/100th of a second per frame. If played back in slow motion, these will have more motion blur. Oddly the latter description looks better because the first description will look jerky when the camera is moved. If you're looking to catch a fast moving object in a bright light situation like you're mentioning, the latter description is better for not losing visual information. On the flip side, the CCD not taking the full fps rate to capture an image might mean you'd get a clearer picture of the object streaking by if the object is in frame enough... if it isn't, you'd get one of those "back half of the animal" pictures.

The second method deals with a slow frame rate in the dark similar to what I just posted from the Science Channel video. (The time stamp shows you beat me to posting by a few minutes.) If there's enough light to catch something fast moving, and the camera CCD is using the full frame rate time to capture an image, you could capture something fast, but it would be a blur. At your mentioned "faster then what our eyes can pick up" phrase, it would be a big blur in this instance, but you'd probably be able to figure out something was there if the overall image quality was good enough.

The original Star Trek series "Wink Of An Eye" episode comes to mind. While I doubt it is biologically possible to do something like in the episode, Project Phoenix is rumored to have personal cloaking devices similar to "Predator". If one of those devices also manipulated time (highly likely), there's a possibility of someone moving much faster as seen from our time reference. Depending on your view of non-corporeal beings, it is theoretically possible for one of those to be moving much faster than our time reference.

 

[IncommensurableLoop]

There are a couple of camera methods with what you're talking about.

First is just a high frame rate (slow motion if played back at normal speed). These are often used in bright light situations since the camera needs extra light for the shorter exposure time. Depending on the settings and CCD, the chip may take a shorter than needed time for the frame and sit idle for the rest of the frame time. An example would be a video recorded at 100fps, but the CCD chip is only using half of that time to record the frame, so some video information is lost. If played back in slow motion, these frames have very little motion blur in them. The other part to this is the CCD chip taking the full frame time, so for a 100fps video, the chip would really take 1/100th of a second per frame. If played back in slow motion, these will have more motion blur. Oddly the latter description looks better because the first description will look jerky when the camera is moved. If you're looking to catch a fast moving object in a bright light situation like you're mentioning, the latter description is better for not losing visual information. On the flip side, the CCD not taking the full fps rate to capture an image might mean you'd get a clearer picture of the object streaking by if the object is in frame enough... if it isn't, you'd get one of those "back half of the animal" pictures.

The second method deals with a slow frame rate in the dark similar to what I just posted from the Science Channel video. (The time stamp shows you beat me to posting by a few minutes.) If there's enough light to catch something fast moving, and the camera CCD is using the full frame rate time to capture an image, you could capture something fast, but it would be a blur. At your mentioned "faster then what our eyes can pick up" phrase, it would be a big blur in this instance, but you'd probably be able to figure out something was there if the overall image quality was good enough.

The original Star Trek series "Wink Of An Eye" episode comes to mind. While I doubt it is biologically possible to do something like in the episode, Project Phoenix is rumored to have personal cloaking devices similar to "Predator". If one of those devices also manipulated time (highly likely), there's a possibility of someone moving much faster as seen from our time reference. Depending on your view of non-corporeal beings, it is theoretically possible for one of those to be moving much faster than our time reference.

Thanks for the extra detailed breakdown. I love reading posts from someone who knows his stuff

 

[jiangnanah]

The current technology of mankind cannot allow time to travel. So it is very difficult to bring a dead scientist back to life. Who told me how to make electronic devices to contact aliens. I am indeed making a Nikola Tesla soul radio these days, and I want to hear the voice of another dimension world.