It pretty much was, you chose to make a false ASSumption!



As do probably 99% of the people on this forum, so what is your point?

It's a nice image. Thanks for sharing.

How or where did you get the impression that the original video was the work of another person ??? I don't see that implied in the OP nor in any post other than your own.
This is why I ask if you are privy to information not apparent to the rest of us? Is that simple question so hard to understand?
If you have a valid reason to believe it was not the OP's work, then share it with us! Otherwise it seems you are jumping to false conclusions.

? ? ? TV set ? ? ? Did I miss something here, or is your vivid imagination filling in missing information that only you are privy to? I think the OP captured the video how is that so difficult to understand?

Tom,
I do hope you fared well, I have friends and family in both North & South Carolinas. Friends 100 miles inland were hit harder than some family right on the coast. Thanks for sharing the photos.

Florence is a lousy boat driver!

I've been using this lens for a few months now on my Canon 70D. I don't know if I'm a good enough critic to give you the info you're looking for, but I've been very pleased with the performance of the lens. Is it perfect? No!, I wish it were a little faster, and you can expect to see some chromatic aberration on the long end in high contrast situations. But these are limitations I fully expected when I purchased the lens.
In a nutshell, it totally depends on your expectations. I've been very happy with it, but I was not expecting the performance of a $4,000 lens. Hope this helps.

It may be 49, but it's not 50. I'm living proof that #24 is incorrect, regardless of what your dentist tells you.

Fascinating read though, Thanks for sharing.

Never know when you might run across an otherwise perfectly serviceable squirrel that's missing a tail.

Okay, I've heard if you have to eat crow, it's a dish best served hot, so . . . .

I'll take mine now please.

If you look at the lines in a net, they usually tend to run in a slight zigzag, this is what I thought I could see in the first image. However, after trying to enhance and sharpen the lines to validate my theory, what I thought I was seeing is just not there. Therefore I'll have to concede, I now believe it is most likely moiré we're seeing in both images, and that it most likely appeared during post processing. Why it would have only occurred in the first several images is a mystery to me.

I would ask that you all please forgive me for defending my position. I try to be correct in my logic all the time, but sometimes I'm wrong.

(Download)

Scotty, "The lines in the first image are clearly moiré." I'll have to respectfully disagree and, as I said, I'll have to work on some images to show you why. I've understood the OP's question from the start, and the fact there was no glass and no netting between the lens and the subject, with the exception of his UV filter.

"Where they are 'from" (what caused them) is the real question. Was it temperature, ISO or processing?"

In my opinion, none of the three! I believe they were caused by a secondary reflection on the back of the filter. I could be wrong, and you could be right, but I'm not through working on this problem yet.

I did read from the top, and I'm not talking about anything between the camera and the subjects. I'll post some pics to try to explain what I'm referring to.

Scotty, The second image does look somewhat like a moiré pattern, and they both certainly could be, however, if I'm seeing what I think I am seeing, I don't think it could be. I'll try to enhance the pattern to show you what I'm talking about.

Hey Poop for brains, looks like you can't even remember what you've said in your own post, and we're supposed to go by what you think you remember.

I didn't overlook this statement, however the lines in the image do not appear to be indicative of a moire type pattern, nor do they match what I would expect to see resulting from pulsating light from gas tube lighting. Therefore I would, contrary to your findings, rule out about everything but reflections. Perhaps there were only a few shots taken where the camera was at such an angle as to make the reflections noticeable, but that doesn't rule out reflections. I would bet that if and when the op goes to the trouble of recovering the raw images, he'll find the lines there as well. If you look at the lines, they look like a distorted, and unfocused, image of a net, with the type of distortion I would expect to see from the image reflected off the convex surface of the objective lens and onto the flat surface of the filter. We don't even have to guess as to whether or not a net was present, we already know it was.
If it looks like poop, and it smells like poop, you probably don't need to taste it to know what it is!