|
Post by redmetal on Oct 19, 2006 20:03:21 GMT -5
how do u take pictures of psiballs? like on psipog.net in the media section of the site
and when i make psiball me hands are resisting when i push them together almost like a magnetic resistance. does that mean i have a psiball cause i never get a tingling feeling or hot or cold feeling...
and has there been any scientific testing of psiballs like under special type of light they can be seen just wondering.... most of all how do u take pictures of them liek they did in psipog.net
|
|
|
Post by Lancefighter on Oct 20, 2006 9:04:07 GMT -5
you can only take pictures of a psiball when you flare it - making it give off light. then, you can take a picture.
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Oct 20, 2006 12:58:21 GMT -5
There is an article on flaring in the articles section.
As for scientific testing of the psiball, there have been a few attempts, usually by individuals in their homes rather than laboratories, but I haven't heard of anything concrete comming out of those experiments.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by wolfdancer on Oct 20, 2006 23:10:20 GMT -5
Nor have I. A comment on the pictures. When you can successfully flare a psiball and are considering photgraphy of the occurence, it is reccomended that you use a good quality digital camera. The experiences I have heard from others is that these work infinitely better than your standard 35mm.
|
|
neveza
Junior Member
I may be biased, but I'm usually right.
Posts: 91
|
Post by neveza on Oct 22, 2006 4:29:49 GMT -5
It's difficult to do. I mean, Flaring and camera at the same time...it just isn't practical. I hardly think psi has the physical property to flare and we push it into the boundery making it almost impossible to keep a flared construct.
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Oct 22, 2006 21:19:42 GMT -5
This is why Web Cams were invented. Set to record... keep recording until flare is successful. From what I understand this is why digital is prefered to film.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by wolfdancer on Oct 22, 2006 21:52:42 GMT -5
Actually, from what I know, digital is preferred because of the quality of the photography and the ability to pick up better in very low light than any other type of camera. Also, whoever said you had to be the one operating the camera or that you had to be near the construct to flare it? You can either have a friend operate the camera or better yet flare the construct far enough away to make photography possible.
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Oct 22, 2006 22:10:04 GMT -5
Which is odd, since film is much clearer and more detailed by nature until you get into near professional grade digital cameras. If the difference actually was the optical quality and optical processes, a good film camera SHOULD yield better results than a similarly priced digital. (I have both a good film and a good digital.) I don't dispute what you have been told, but I do wonder at the difference between reported quality and what SHOULD happen if it was truely just optical properties that were in question.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by wolfdancer on Oct 22, 2006 22:23:05 GMT -5
Posting after a detailed discussion with DA via IM. Yes, you are perfectly correct in this matter. It is my opinion that a large portion of this opinion may be the lack of knowledge the users have about photography and how to use the various films (and/or camera settings). It still remains that those who haven't researched what their doing will have better results with digital (and be able to more easily alter the image for clarity with a a computer) than will those using old fashioned film. However, with a good knowledge of cameras and film, I now agree you can get better results with that if you know what you are doing.
~Wolfd@ncer
|
|
|
Post by mistassailant5 on Dec 3, 2006 14:28:28 GMT -5
The only way 2 make it visible is either trying to flare it or programing it to be visible
|
|
TC
Respected Member
Formerly known as Yokusa
Posts: 338
|
Post by TC on Dec 3, 2006 15:44:02 GMT -5
Try not to resurrect a thread, especially if you're just reitterating all of what was just said. Reiterate? re-iterate? re... aw forget it.
|
|
NightHawk
Full Member
The Adrenaline Does Best
Posts: 149
|
Post by NightHawk on Dec 4, 2006 12:08:23 GMT -5
re-irritate? Sometimes when I speak english I get my toungue stuck with my teeth, anyways, mistassailant, look around you in both forums and articles.
|
|
|
Post by wolfdancer on Dec 5, 2006 7:49:36 GMT -5
I think the people asking the question already knew that. There are tricks to capturing it in a media format vs. merely those present being able to observe and view the phenomena. In addition, if you understand the definition of flaring you will realize that what you said was redundant and repetitive. Flaring /is/ programming a construct to be visible.
|
|
|
Post by confuded92 on Dec 9, 2006 22:45:59 GMT -5
Hm... I personaly could make constructs with one hand (never tried no hands) so with the other icould operate the camera . Btw, i think you should take the camera "argument" to the D&D lol (or even better to the "Gas chamber" lol lol )
|
|
TC
Respected Member
Formerly known as Yokusa
Posts: 338
|
Post by TC on Dec 13, 2006 18:26:56 GMT -5
Confuded this thread is over.
|
|