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 different perspective.
> "their flight wasn't as controlled as I had thought of"
I had the same reaction, and it reminded me of other slo-mo videos of insects crawling -- it looked like they are falling all over themselves, with none of the gracefulness that I see in mammals (cheetah running, for example). I wonder if it has to do with insects having much smaller mass, hence they are more easily jerked around by things like airflow.
It could also be due to the way some insect musculature works, they typically don't have the same extension/contraction methods we have by pulling on either side of a bone, which doesn't work in an exoskeleton. My understanding is that they instead rely on a combination of flexors and vascular pressure to extend which is a jerkier-looking process.
See the muscle section here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_physiology
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.
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".
How funny, in Italian we kind of have the reverse! We say "andare a zonzo" which mean "wandering without a clear direction", and "zonzo" is onomatopoeia for the sound of a flying insect.
> BTW I always found it suspicious that "moth" is so similar to "motyl" yet it's apparently unrelated.
Ha, ha, only as an adult I learned that that's not actually powder on their wings, but scales, similar to the ones on a fish. And rubbing it off impedes their flight.
It's the hairs of hairy caterpillars (and, rarely, hairs on some adult moths) which cause dermatitis, rather than scales on adult moths' wings, so its wise to avoid contact with hairy caterpillars. For a list of species to avoid, see https://ccsuniversity.ac.in/bridge-library/pdf/Biology-Paras...
There were videos floating on the webs of bugs taking flight—looked way messier than this, pretty much jumbling around with legs swinging this and that way, until finally going in the air.
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.
The fact that those objects have different scales and speeds does not mean that faster objects automatically appear smaller. You pointed out a correlation.
If we are pointing out random anecdotal examples, ice cubes melt slowly, and don't appear huge to the observer.
I have to disagree both in the case of animals and the volcano example. With animals, there are real underlying physics principles that dictate the strength-to-weight ratios at various scales that lead to smaller animals being able to move more quickly (muscle strength is proportional to cross section, while mass is proportional to volume).
In the case of the avalanche, the force at work is the same (gravity) it's just that we are zooming way out and so crossing the same distance takes much more time.
Slightly off-topic, but I really love the video[1] embedded in the article. Just a slow motion video, no nonsense.
Most slow motion videos on youtube has a section on the setup, the backyard of the producer, the equipment etc. Just give me a slow motion video without all the interruptions.
That's because this video is the sixth in the series. The first video goes into all those details.
The setup is meaningful to people who want to know how it was filmed. If you don't care for it you can always skip it. Why ask for the video to have less content that other people might want to watch just because you don't?
I mean, that's kinda like saying "why skip ads, someone made that content" or "why not watch whatever is on the tv on whatever channel happens to be open with you turn it on". People like different things, and tastes change with mood, timing, etc.
Ads are content with an ulterior purpose of, well, advertising.
And the suggestion to skip is precisely the opposite of "just watch whatever's on TV", it's more of "if you don't like that channel, why don't you switch to another one?"
---
Regardless, the argument is not whether or not one should watch the behind-the-scenes content, it's the existence of the content in the first place. If the behind-the-scenes is there, you can skip it if you want, but if it is not, then the one who wants to know how it was filmed will be left with no options.
Of course it doesn't mean it has to all be on the same video, but the nature of social video platforms ends up requiring that, otherwise the BTS is monetarily inefficient (if the channel in question is in it for the money).
More than that, this video series has noticeably less "Look at MMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!" to it. Which is refreshing. Less filler, just the good stuff, like a professional production about the subject rather than the maker.
If I click a link to a video that has the person suggesting to subscribe, follow, smash, etc, I just stop watching. If you feel the need to prompt for followers, you're content is more than likely not good enough for me to want to follow it naturally.
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, but boy do they mess with my mind like nothing else.
When I was young, I was also afraid of insects, especially flying ones. But I've read somewhere that you are afraid of animals if you don't see what they are thinking. Take for example dogs or cats, you can easily see what they are "thinking", by their movement, ears, tails...
Insects are so small that you can't see that, you don't know where they are looking, or if they are afraid or not.
Looking at macro photography of insects, you can see how they are build and the spiders (especially the jumping spiders) are quite cute. Knowing how they look and their behavioural patterns, and just reading more about them, allowed me to be less afraid of them.
Now I don't know if that is "scientifically correct", but it helped me.
I have something similar with cows. I can't read their intentions. If I am walking in a field with them it just seems like they are always 'mildly annoyed by my presence' and yet they will amble straight at you. And they are big and heavy enough to do damage if they need to.
Horses on the other hand, are a lot more nervous, but I can read them and I can 'manipulate' them. They are probably more dangerous, but they are less scary to me.
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 get the same thing with any form of biological 'inside', but outsides I"m usually fine with. Hand drawn depiction of how nasal cavities work? Eugh, dizziness and instant relation to my own gaping head.
Bug shots, bug squishing, blood in movies? Squished brain etc.? All good to most degrees.
I pass out during 2D animation demonstrations on how bodies work.
I pass out during nasal allergy tests. I can't imagine how I'll go with a covid test.... pass out most likely.
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 temperature or both.
I'm just an amateur though. But as beekeeper, I do have a lot of interest for other pollinating and nectar eating insects.
The number of moths in the UK has declined by 28% since 1968. There are various causes, including use of pesticides and other changes in agricultural practices, destruction of habitat, and anthropogenic climate change. See https://butterfly-conservation.org/moths/why-moths-matter/mo...
> moths are just butterflies
It's more accurate to say that butterflies are a kind of day-flying moth, those belonging to the superfamily Papilionoidea of the order Lepidoptera.
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.
It's tough to say anything "political" on HN. Damned if you, damned if you don't.
If you are clearly seriously concerned, you are likely to get downvoted and dismissed as histrionic.
I don't know what the solution is. But maybe best to give it a charitable reading and assume that it constitutes sticking their neck out to mention concern at all.
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?)
Yeah, that's precisely this type of guessing I wanted to avoid :-). YouTube supports 60fps uploads, although this one does not seem available in a 60fps format. And of course there's the possibility of pre-processing :-)
The video on YouTube has exactly 30fps, you can right click and view the information for nerds (I think its called in English).
Of course this doesn't help with the issue of pre-processing, but assuming no frames have been removed or interpolated the factor 200 should be more or less correct.
Problem left: at least I can't really mentally process what 200× faster/slower would look like. (Besides turning the light on tonight, opening the window and watching at moths flying into my room and taking off again...)
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 find it so strange when people talk about the frame rate.
Calling out the frame rate is a quick and easy way to tell you that you are going to be able to see some details that you ordinarily don't get to see. Yes, the higher the number the more nuanced the detail can be. They could call it HFR, but until recently 60 fps was considered HFR and not normal. So 120 fps would be HFR as much as 6k fps, but lets face it 6k fps is much more impressive than 120 fps.
I don't find it to be click-baity at all to include the frame rate in a title of a video. In fact, I find it quite useful metadata.
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.
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 resources healing / replenishing your wings. Something to read about later.
I noticed this too. It goes to show how wasteful and unrepairable nature can be at times. Leaves and flowers also fit the bill. Maybe Apple shouldn't be blamed so easily for making something that is becoming more and more perishable without being able to be repaired. After all nature does it too. As long as they do a good job recycling also like nature does.
This is mind-boggling, to think how the flight is almost perfect, I could not even imagine how evolution could work such wonders considering this is a 6000 fps shot. This is some insane level optimization for my brain to understand
Semi-related, moth larvae (in my case Wooly Bears) are astonishingly intelligent. Put in a challenge arena they immediately begin a beam search and will learn over time what paths are futile, which require further exploration, how to pass particular obstacles, etc. They also have the ability to id humans and will "warm up" to individuals over a session of exposure.
Unfortunately this memory does not seem to persist long term -- after a day passes all it all resets. I was hoping a friendly Wolly would turn into a friendly tiger moth, but that does not seem likely based on my observations. I ended up releasing my Wolly back to the wild, he appeared to lose will when placed in captivity and I couldn't bring myself to keep him that way given my observations of his intelligence.
due to the frame rate, I would not be surprised if this was a smaller image sensor. you could get away with not needing a macro lens to fill the frame.
this kind of slow motion and macro stuff is really eye opening, a perspective shift that gives us an opportunity to reflect on life - how intricate, beautiful and perfect the millions of different species we have on our planet are.
I think we're unable to fully appreciate biodiversity - a lot of it is too small for us to take notice, or too large to comprehend at ecosystem level. Similarly we are also unable to fully appreciate the loss of it - it's too abstract and happens at timescales our biological planning capabilities haven't evolved for (decades instead of minutes or days).
Such a shame to lose millions of years of amazing parallel optimisation by evolution, across so many species.
I like your point about the slow motion stuff being eye opening - I agree.
I don't get why _every_ point about 'the wonder of nature' has to suffixed with a downer.
It actually leaves the impression with me that you actually want to put everyone on a downer, while trying to signal to us how much you love nature.
Its like saying the ice cream is great, but its so unhealthy for you to eat. The way I see it, eat the ice cream if you like, but don't also moan about how bad it is for you.
I recognise that! Did not want to put you on a downer though, just reflect on why it often feels like we are on a slow motion train wreck, incapable of doing much about it.
Feels like we should generally have more positive narratives and stories of the future, like this
The truth is also that this is not a problem you or I created. We leave our lives fairly simply I'm sure, choosing not to harm others. When we make choices, these choices are provisioned for us by the governance structure and the corporations. The same entities that cause environmental damage (eg wrt fires - cutting down pristine forests rather than farming them, poor forest management in not undertaking controlled burns, etc). This is not our fault. To me, this is directly equivalent to the Christian idea that we are born in sin. We are not.
However, it is expedient that this is the message that we receive and so we are being blamed for 'climate change'. Those doing the blaming are those that caused the problem - corporations and governments.
Rather than take a positive action to address the problem, even if there is a hit to the bottom line (money), it is far easier and cheaper to 'socialise' the risk. So corporation use lobbyists etc to make government put the costs on the general population (carbon taxes, 'smart' cities, etc). And, as it happens, this provides the same corporations with the opportunity to make even more money, providing us with the governmental solutions that they lobbied to achieve!
Its a win/win for the corporations. Its lose/lose for the general public.
I wonder what the purpose/benefit is of the holes in their wings from an aerodynamics standpoint. Maybe it helps them deal with sudden gusts of wind? It’s like having a hole in the bottom of a boat.
I recently learned woolly bears are moth caterpillars. I see them all the time but I can't say I've ever seen the distinctive moth they apparently turn into. I wonder why.
if you are interested in insects I recommend this book:
"Extraordinary Insects: Weird. Wonderful. Indispensable. The ones who run our world."
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0008316376/
Yeah, Richard Dawkins finally cleared it up for me that the primary stage of insects like butterfly is the larva. The larva sits around eating stuff and generally having a good time, whereas after turning into the butterfly it's gonna just mate and die.
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 different perspective.