DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Mammalia
HTML https://mammalia.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Cryptid Profiles
*****************************************************
#Post#: 24--------------------------------------------------
Sky Fish
By: Are thou sleepy Date: September 25, 2018, 5:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What are flying rods?
Flying rods (or simply 'rods' or 'skyfish') are flying linear
anomalies caught (usually) on video, having not been seen at the
time of filming. They generally have appendages along their
sides. Their overall appearance is of a long straight stick with
horizontal branches. Sometimes these 'branches' may have curved
'flaps' (called 'membranes' by some people) trailing behind.
They occur all over the world and have even been observed being
pursued by swallows! So what are they?
Some people believe they are cryptozoological and represent a
previously undiscovered form of life, maybe even of alien
origin. Others think they are paranormal, perhaps related to
orbs. However, many people think they are actually insects (or
bugs) caught in the act of flying. It is certainly possible to
reproduce 'flying rods' by photographing flying insects.
Where are the blurred rods?
An interesting point in the flying rod debate surrounds the fact
that they are only ever caught by video (or sometimes still
cameras) but never seen with the naked eye. This is usually
explained by saying that they fly too fast for humans to notice.
So, if these rods are flying so fast (faster than insects or
birds, presumably), how come their bodies and, particularly,
wings or appendages are always perfectly frozen by every camera?
Shouldn't they appear as motion blurs in all but the shortest
exposure times? It is inconceivable that every camera that has
ever caught rod photos was set to extremely short exposure
times, so where are all the blurred rods?
Rods are almost always caught by video cameras. Their
distinctive shape is thought to be due to the fast flapping of
insect wings causing motion blur. This is because the flapping
is much faster than the relatively long frame (fields, in fact)
exposure time in video cameras of 1/50th or 1/60th of a second,
used in low light situations. In that time, some insects can
beat their wings several times and move a significant distance
in the air. In fact, typical insect wing beat rates vary between
10 and 250 per second (though some small insects have rates up
to 1000/s) while flight speeds vary between 0.5 m/s and 7 m/s.
So, a horsefly, for instance would beat its wings twice in 1/50
s and fly around 8 cm. This would yield a 'rod' 8cm long with
two 'branches'. The apparent length of the rod on film would, of
course, depend on the insect's distance from the camera (and
also in which direction it was flying).
Technical issues with video
There are technical problems with obtaining stills of moving
objects from video. These surround the fact that most video
cameras use interlacing and only record half the picture at a
one time (using 'fields' rather than frames). Although there are
software tricks to obtain reasonably good stills from video,
they are not perfect. This leaves open the small possibility
that videoing an insect, and then obtaining a still from it, may
result in an inaccurate image which might resemble a flying rod
only for technical reasons. Having said that, the same problems
apply to recordings of what are claimed to be 'real' rods. So,
in reality, a video of an insect looking just like a rod ought
to be good enough for most people. However, it does leave open
the possibility of endless arguments surrounding technical
details that muddy the water, particularly if videos are
obtained under different conditions.
So is there a way to cut through these technicalities and see if
flying insects really look just like rods? Yes there is - still
photography! Still digital cameras record whole frames
simultaneously (when taking stills) so all considerations of
interlacing, field rates, scanlines, de-interlacing algorithms
etc. are removed. Another big advantage of using still digital
photography is that the exposure time is automatically recorded
in the EXIF information removing any arguments about 'field
times'.
Are rods caught with still cameras? It is rare but it happens.
If you take photos with relatively long exposure times then it
is perfectly possible. Such exposure times (1/50 s) are at the
limit of what can be hand-held with a still camera. However,
with a tripod, such relatively long exposures can yield
sufficiently sharp photos. The insects would also need to be
quite close and well lit (or silhouetted) to see the 'rod'
structure.
That implies a wing beat. rate of 240 to 320 per second*. As
these are midges, you would expect such rapid wing beats.
Broadly speaking, the smaller the insect the quicker its wing
beat rate. These photos show that it IS possible to catch rods
with still cameras, with a little effort and perhaps a bit of
luck. The results look very much as they do in still frames
taken from video recordings.
If you want to take rod photos with a still camera yourself,
find some backlit insects swarming in front of a dark
background. Then zoom in on them and try to get a longish
exposure (the dark background should help reduce the shutter
speed) of around 1/50s or longer. You will probably need a
tripod to avoid camera movement. The biggest problem is likely
to be getting the focus right. You may need to select manual
focus and use something at the same distance as the insects to
get the right focus. The whole thing will be a lot easier if you
have manual override on your camera!
What are rod appendages?
An interesting question that arises is, why should the
'branches' of the rods correspond to wing beats? It's because
most insects wings are almost transparent. They only reflect
light well at certain angles to the sun (or other light source).
So you only see the part of the beat where the wing 'catches the
sun' and produces a bright reflection - a 'branch'.
Some appendages are not straight 'branches' but more like
continuous curved 'surfaces' that appear to undulate up and down
(so-called 'membranes'). These may be caused by insects whose
wings are more opaque than other species, like moths and
butterflies. In the following section you can see a close-up of
a rod showing both 'branches and 'surfaces' produced by a single
insect.
*****************************************************