Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moths in slow motion [video]

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 129 posts

Re: Moths in slow motion [video]

#111

Post by remram »

foobarian wrote: post #99
gamerDude wrote: post #17

This made me feel so much better about moths. With the video so close up they looked super cute and snuggly. Something I have never associated with a moth before. Secondly, I found it pretty cool to see how their flight wasn't as controlled as I had thought of. It looked like a bit of a mess on take off. Again, just disarmed me from the moths I've grown to despise flying around the house. Very cool to see them from a…

I found it interesting that the extreme slow motion made them seem a lot larger. As if they were furry dog-sized flying animals.

That's probably due to the lens more than the speed.

Re: Moths in slow motion [video]

#112

Post by pengstrom »

SwiftyBug wrote: post #80
SyzygistSix wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Rosy Maple moth is my favorite so it makes me happy to se it as the first one. It's a good moth to represent the cute or adorable aspect of moths. There is a similar, almost identical fuzzy wig moth like them that is entirely white. I think their flight is a good representation of Douglas Adams' description of flight being falling without hitting the ground. Such a great channel and good start to the day.

Yes, Douglas Adams sums up pretty well the flight of moths. But the Guide is even funnier, it says that to fly, one must "throw themselves at the ground and miss".

That's how you get orbits.

Re: Moths in slow motion [video]

#113

Post by heleninboodler »

kevincox wrote: post #88
Aissen wrote: post #44

This is incredibly nice, but I kept wondering how it looked like in real time. 6000 fps is a lot , so how much is it slowed down ? 100x ? (6000 -> 60 fps?)

I agree. I find it so strange when people talk about the frame rate. The is a product of filming and doesn't directly matter to the viewer. To the viewer I care what the slowdown is. Presumably it is 6000/30 which is 200x slower, but it doesn't actually say anywhere that I can find. I guess bigger number is better click-bait?

I think it's because the frame rate is usually used as shorthand for the amount it slowed down, since a fixed playback rate is assumed, but yes, it drives me crazy and when I heard "shot in 6000fps" I immediately thought to myself, "well tell us what fps it's being played back in so I can tell how much slower it is!"

When the guy filming it switches his camera from 30fps to 120fps, 240fps, or 6000fps, he knows exactly what the result will be so he starts thinking of "6000fps" as a specification for how slow it is, which it isn't.

Re: Moths in slow motion [video]

#116

Post by foobarian »

remram wrote: post #111
foobarian wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found it interesting that the extreme slow motion made them seem a lot larger. As if they were furry dog-sized flying animals.

That's probably due to the lens more than the speed.

It has to do with the scale and physics of the motion. When you film an avalanche from far away, it appears to descend very slowly at the normal replay rate. But if you made your typical science fair volcano on a tabletop, the foam descends a lot more quickly at the same time scale.

Re: Moths in slow motion [video]

#117

Post by anderspitman »

chelonian wrote: post #27
hbn wrote: post #14

I don't know what it is, but I get a weird, visceral, wincing reaction seeing bugs up close like this. Bugs are a real weakness for me. I don't get put off by blood at all. I can handle (and in fact enjoy) gore in movies, horror movies, etc. But man, I don't know what it is with insects. Their tiny spindly legs, weird beady eyes, the wings, their hair, their antennae. Can't stand looking at it. Fascinating creatures,…

You have to try to see them as kind of Muppets. These moths are easy in that regard. They are sort of a mixture of silly looking, beautiful, and cutely clumsy. There are some repellant looking arthropods, but these moths are the beginner level in getting used to looking at such creatures.

I think Muppets might be worse than insects for me.

Re: Moths in slow motion [video]

#119

Post by whichquestion »

berkes wrote: post #56
j7ake wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt moths will be gone after we’ve “destroyed” the planet. They survived before us and will survive after us. We are destroying the habitat for many large animals though.

We are destroying the habitat of a lot of moths too, though. Edit: but, indeed, quite probably not of the entire group. Many are specialists. In fact, moths are just butterflies, and what we call butterflies are specialists in being able to navigate by daylight. Some moths need very special plants for their time as catterpillar, others need very special flowers to drink from. Again others need a goldilock humidity or…

Taxonomically moths aren’t butterflies. Butterflies are in a different suborder, Rhopalocera, and moths are in the suborder Heterocera. They are all a part of order Lepidoptera. Additionally, there are moths that aren’t nocturnal, like some species in the family Uraniidae.

Re: Moths in slow motion [video]

#120

Post by frosted-flakes »

fooqux wrote: post #89

There's a surprising amount of dust and what look to be "moth bits" flying around during take off. Between that, and the old admonishment from parents not to touch the wings or it'll knock off the dust they need to fly, I'm left wondering if moths only have a certain number of flaps in them before they can no longer fly. Since it's their last stage before death, I could see the evolutionary advantage to not wasting r…

You can also see some small rips and tears in their wings.
Post reply on HN