High-speed camera lightning on YT

[Tim Samaras]

Paul, Jayson:

Yes, I have hundreds of files of similar images that I've captured with a Phantom camera running at 15,000 frames/second since 2006. What is displayed on YouTube is collected from a guy in South Dakota using the same camera I used. NatGeo has prevented me from publicly posting any of my imagery--I'm only able to show 'em at conferences, etc., where I have to maintain control over the imagery.

Pretty amazing stuff--I have some imagery of a positive strike thats simply mind blowing.

Tim

 

[Jayson Prentice]

Ahh... Thanks for the clear-up Tim, I knew they looked pretty familiar, but couldn't be 100% sure that they were yours... All of the imagery from both you and this guy is amazing!

 

[Darren Addy]

Is it my imagination or is National Geographic these days less about scientific inquiry and more about cable channel ratings and sensationalism? (see their "Gospel of Judas" academic debacle as just one recent example) You would think that the "Battle of Kruger" video (lions, alligator and cape water buffalo in tug of war over baby water buffalo) would have taught them the BENEFITS of public interest in a (admittedly low-res) version of something - in order to DRIVE THE MASSES to your programming. In that case, they were able to take 5 minutes of video and make a 60 or 90 minute special about it with filler. I don't think National Geographic really "gets" the web yet.

The Hubble Space Telescope is another example of a scientific venture that would not have had it's lifespan extended, if not for the public outcry - an interest that was fueled by the savvy release (by NASA) of the incredible imagery to the public.

It saddens me when an organization, particularly one that purports to hold dear the education of the public, as National Geographic does, mandates the withholding of that information in any form. At the very least, National Geographic should be using any rights they have to post this stuff in the interests of increasing inquiry and interest in the subject - and in benefit by having their name associated with the public interest that is sure to follow something like this.

 

[Tim Samaras]

Darren:

Its important to know that there are several different divisions of the Society. The NG 'Channel' as they call it--is actually 60% owned by FOX.

The Magazine portion of the Society (100% NatGeo) is the main driver that is partially supporting my lightning work--amazingly enough its not the Channel. The Magazine is their 'rock' at the Society, while the Channel strives to keep up with the rest of the so-called science TV networks. Channel was not interested in my lightning work.

Pick up a copy of the Magazine--science/history content is every bit as good as it was many years ago-if not better.

I hope this clears the air somewhat.

Tim

 

[Jason Foster]

Tim:

I hope for you and those you work with that National Geographic will allow you to release the footage soon, or broadcast it. I meant to write you an email a few weeks ago regarding this exact question (if programming or print work was in the works yet). Now that the other footage is out, I think it would be in their best interest to release the footage.

I have been dropping hints to folks to keep a look out for such footage from N.G. and Tim S. I remember your comments during the conference, so I don't give too much information and or description...partly to keep the interest high, and ratings good.

Perhaps we here on the message board, and those who got a peek at the footage in Denver need to put pressure on N.G. Channel and Magazine to release the footage (or program). It is such a cool thing...and a great discovery.

 

[Dan Robinson]

While I like most of us are itching to see this, NG is probably being smart by carefully guarding the release of the footage. Once something gets 'played out' on places like YouTube, it loses its 'never before seen' value - viewers are less likely to want to watch it again when it airs on TV, and therefore production companies will be less enthusiastic about it.

I personally would love to be doing this myself, but I certainly couldn't make it work without a good business sponsorship and plan (or a generous grant). Tim can probably attest, I would imagine the cost of this project is beyond the 6 figure mark. Those cameras are beyond the financial reach of any hobbyist. As such, the numbers won't work by getting the video up on YouTube so everyone in the world sees it in 3 days. After that, who's going to tune into the NG special when it airs?

 

[Jeff Miller]

I almost didn't believe it was real until I watched it over and over and over again. I believe it is absolutely amazing photography of lightning - and am excited to see more incredible visions of this for years to come.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

While I like most of us are itching to see this, NG is probably being smart by carefully guarding the release of the footage. Once something gets 'played out' on places like YouTube, it loses its 'never before seen' value - viewers are less likely to want to watch it again when it airs on TV, and therefore production companies will be less enthusiastic about it.

I personally would love to be doing this myself, but I certainly couldn't make it work without a good business sponsorship and plan (or a generous grant). Tim can probably attest, I would imagine the cost of this project is beyond the 6 figure mark. Those cameras are beyond the financial reach of any hobbyist. As such, the numbers won't work by getting the video up on YouTube so everyone in the world sees it in 3 days. After that, who's going to tune into the NG special when it airs?

Except now someone else's video of the same stuff has been released on YouTube. I'm not sure how sitting on footage of the kind of trancendent quality that Tim's lightning shots apparently have helps NG, unless NG is in the process of slapping together a production around the footage/research.

 

[Dan Robinson]

As it has already been mentioned, these videos are the work of Tom Warner of ZT Reasearch from Rapid City, South Dakota. The original clips were unauthorized postings from an unaffiliated YouTube user. However, Tom has added many more of his videos to YouTube - you will not want to miss these!!!! My favorite so far is the intracloud negative leader-fest in the rain shaft, followed by a CG connection.

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=ztresearch

This footage definitely is revolutionary to me, greatly visualizing and clarifying the things I've always known about lightning better than anything I've ever seen (dart leaders, M-components, etc). There are also components and phenomena I've never known about before that these videos show - like the recoil leaders - wow!

 

[Paul Knightley]

I believe that some of the footage was shown on the BBC series, "The Power of the Planet".

 

[Darren Addy]

The only good reason (that I can think of) for NG's restrictions on showing it have to do with fund-raising. Most organizations have different levels of donors and the "elite" donors provide a substantial amount of money. To encourage donors reaching (or remaining) at that level, an organization will often provide some kind of perks. Being "let in" to see stuff like this (or receive reports or white papers) while the general public is (for the time being) left in the dark, might be one way to do that.

Otherwise, I would not automatically conclude that NG is being "smart". Take a look at this:

The Battle at Kruger

Toward the end of the video, you can hear a fellow traveler remark, “You could sell that video!” After returning home, David Budzinski, the tourist from Texas who had recorded the stunning scene, did try to sell it, but National Geographic and Animal Planet weren’t interested. Only after the battle, which is alternately horrifying and inspiring, became one of the most popular videos in YouTube’s history did the buyers come calling. Last summer The National Geographic Channel purchased the television rights to the video, and on Sunday night, May 11th, at 9 p.m. Eastern time, it will devote an entire hour to a documentary that deconstructs this thrilling wildlife drama. Caught on Safari: Battle at Kruger is believed to be the first hour-long documentary to be inspired by a YouTube video.

Budzinski's video had intrinsic human interest, but an organization as "smart" as NG couldn't see that until it had received millions of views and was being forwarded via email all around the world. THEN they decided that maybe they were interested in it and built and hour-long special around it. Had Budzinski NOT released it on YouTube, I'm sure his bank account would be a lot smaller.


That's what bugs me about the arrangement with Tim Samaras. By doing researchers a favor (partially funding their research) should they also be able to handcuff them? I'm sure this is pretty standard stuff and NG is being no worse than other organizations, but I don't see how either the interests in the advancement of science, of inspiring others to take a greater interest in this area, or the scientist's best interests are really being promoted by such a policy — particularly if it doesn't have a limit to it (say 12 months after scientific publication).

Also, I don't think things "get played out" on YouTube. We tend to assume that once we see something that it is "old hat", but there is a rather huge percentage of the population that gets cable and watches a particular station (like Nat'l Geog. or Animal Planet) who has never seen that particular YouTube video (if they are even aware of YouTube at all). I think outlets that are "savvy" are seeing things like YouTube as being their "pointer dogs" towards things that will also resonate with their audiences. Internet forums (and YouTube view statistics, as a big example) are like free Focus Groups for these savvy organizations. Others just don't quite "get it" yet. Believe it or not, there are a heck of a lot of people who have no idea what getting Rick-Rolled is.

 

[Melanie Kern-Favilla]

Hi everyone --

I've just recently caught up with this amazing video/thread.

{{ ignorance alert! ignorance alert! }}

Can someone please tell me the difference between a positive and negative ground flash? I know that positives are more dangerous and that anvil crawlers tend to be positively charged, but what's the difference?

I was watching this video in particular and it had little indicators pointing out the positive leader, recoil leader, etc, but to a naive person like me, it just all looks like lighting.

Thanks...and thanks for excusing for the lack of knowledge in advance...

 

[Peter Wharton]

Have only just caught up with the thread as well - what amazing high-speed footage at http://www.ztresearch.com/ - and the regular lightning photos in his gallery are the most stunning I've ever seen

 

[Jared Farrer]

Except now someone else's video of the same stuff has been released on YouTube. I'm not sure how sitting on footage of the kind of trancendent quality that Tim's lightning shots apparently have helps NG, unless NG is in the process of slapping together a production around the footage/research.

I secound that. I am actually very confused as to why its taking them so long. I know Tim was very adament about keeping this a secret. And I dont want to go into any sort of detail out of respect for Tim.
But I hope they hurry with whatever they are doing. I know of one other person thats doing some ground breaking research regarding lightning. I really am not trying to anger anyone. I learned my lesson, once is enough.
I am a Purdue student I might add and I hear these things come down the pipes.