The key
difference between a digital camera and a normal camera and a
digital one is that the digital camera has no film instead; it has a
sensor that converts light into electrical charges. At its
most basic level, this is all there is to a digital camera. Just
like a conventional camera, it has a series of lenses that focus
light to create an image of a scene. But instead of focusing this
light onto a piece of film, it focuses it onto a semiconductor
device that records light electronically. A computer then breaks
this electronic information down into digital data.
The
image sensor employed by most digital cameras is a charge coupled device
(CCD). Some low-end cameras use
complementary metal oxide semiconductor
(CMOS) technology. The CCD is a collection of tiny light-sensitive
diodes, which convert photons (light) into electrons (electrical
charge). These diodes are called photosites. In a nutshell, each
photosite is sensitive to light, the brighter the light that hits a
single photosite, the greater the electrical charge that will
accumulate at that site. The
important difference between the lens of a digital camera and the
lens of a 35mm camera is the focal length. The focal length
is the distance between the lens and the surface of the sensor. The
surface of a film sensor is much larger than the surface of a CCD
sensor. In fact, a typical 1.3-megapixel digital sensor is
approximately one-sixth of the linear dimensions of film. In order
to project the image onto a smaller sensor, it is necessary to
shorten the focal length by the same proportion. Focal
length is also the critical information in determining how much
magnification you get when you look through your camera. In 35mm
cameras, a 50mm lens gives a natural view of the subject. As you
increase the focal length, you get greater magnification, and
objects appear to get closer. As you decrease the focal length,
things appear to get farther away, but you can capture a wider field
of view in the camera.
Now
that I have outlined a little about the digital camera I will go
onto the orbs themselves. There is a common belief that an orb is
the first manifestation of a spirit, personally I disagree with this
statement, and think of orbs as being merely dust particles
circulating in the air. With the above information on the digital
camera, in particularly the focal length of the lens, for it is the
lens that distorts the dust particle into the shape of an orb.
Because of the nature of the lens inherent with the digital camera,
it tries to focus upon the dust particle and bring it into focus;
however the resulting orb is a factor of both the circular lens of
the camera, and the distance between the lens and the surface of the
sensor. This does not happen with a 35mm camera, due to the distance
between the lens and the surface of the sensor being much larger,
thus more time is allowed for the image to be produced.
The reason
why there are different coloured orbs appearing on photographs is
primarily down to the clothes being worn by the person behind the
camera. People have emailed me with questions such as why do faces
appear in orbs? this is easily answered. We learn through repetition
and association, as such the brain tries to associate the things we
see with what it knows or has previously experienced. How many times
have you looked up into the clouds and seen the shape of a person's
head, or what appears similar a cat or dog. Again think of the many
times you have seen faces in knots of wood on your doors or in the
fabric of curtains or the patterns of wallpaper and carpets; the
mind is trying to make sense of things; simple!
For those of
you who are still undecided I have place a couple of links, one from
each side of the argument, enjoy.
(photographing
the paranormal) Provides a lot of photographic evidence regards orbs
(Parascience)
This link about the orb phenomenon provides a scientific
viewpoint of how orbs are produced and the technology behind
the phenomenon. It offers a good grounding of the inherent
technology and science without to much of the techno blurb,
very much worth the read.