OK...there it was again. The red blinking dot...I posted about it last time (http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=64621) we saw Jack in the OR, in the previous episode, "I Do". Except then, Jack was holding the walkie talkie, talking to Kate.

The dot is shown 3 times, blinking several times...starting at about 24 minutes into the "Not in Portland" epi (including commercials). It's when Jack is in the OR observation room with Tom, and they are looking down at Juliet talking to Ben, who's on the OR table.

The dot looks similar to what you see on a TV screen when your recording device begins or is in "record mode", or in a camera viewer to indicate a particular feature is "on". The red dot is octagonal-shaped like the well-known DHARMA logo shape. Maybe it's a reflection of the camera shutter...but if so, it could easily have been removed in post-production. In fact, it most reminds me of a "low light" indicator in a camera viewfinder.

Back in the "I Do" epi when I posted about it, other posters thought it was the light on the walkie talkie (however, I don't)... or the reflection of it. My thread only got 5 posts (thanks, Yellow Tang for the most supportive post).

Well, Jack and Tom were not using the walkie talkie this time...yet there was the blinking light. What can this mean? Are we looking at the story action through a camera...through some other type of viewing device? Well, of course we really are;) but seriously, in the story, what can this mean? Is this another hint about "watchers", and "who's watching the watchmen?"?

:confused:

ETA video of the dot in "NIP" (http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...01985260857320) provided by ommadawn
ETA2 from ommadawn:

Here's the red-dot from I do:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7831818282134936230
Thanks, ommadawn! It's not the exact occurrence that I posted about, but it's better.

Along with the other info posted, it proves to me that it's the light on a single surveillance camera, in the OR observation room.

Tabb I have never spotted this but it is very intriguing.

Isn't it just the camera in the corner?

Could it be a camara Tabby?? The whole flippin' place seems to be under surveilance - and I would think that one in the Operating Room would be crucial.

Either that or maybe a piece of O.R. equipment.

I believe it's just the camera. Remember, the room is observable.

I agree, I think it's simply a camera. 1) They have cameras all over the place; or 2) It's an observation room overlooking a surgery bay--hospitals record surgeries all the time.

Wow, I did not notice anything like this.. where on the screen is it? Oh I see, checked out your other post..

Well for this scene, it could be that they're shooting through glass maybe? .. I really don't know, but it's an interesting thought!

Yeah, sorry Tabby but I'm pretty sure it's just a surveilance camera. I think I've actually seen a focused shot of the camera in that corner in some previous episode.

Thanks, everyone! Yes, I'm sure it's related to the surveillance theme...

But it's a blinking dot in the corner of the image on my TV screen. It's not a blinking light on a camera or other device shown in the actual scene. Know what I mean? ;)

The only way I can describe it is that the whole image on my TV screen looks like what I would see, looking through a camera that has an indicator blinking inside the viewfinder. As if it's in "record mode" or the light meter is registering "low light", or maybe even that a battery is running down.

Maybe this is just an avant-garde or post-modern filming technique. Please tell me I don't need to go to film school to watch and discuss LOST (LOL)...
100%
I'll see if lost-media gets a screencap of it from this epi...

Best way to see it though is to view the epi...

Thanks, everyone! Yes, I'm sure it's related to the surveillance theme...

But it's a blinking dot in the corner of the image on my TV screen. It's not a blinking light on a camera or other device shown in the actual scene. Know what I mean? ;)

The only way I can describe it is that the whole image on my TV screen looks like what I would see, looking through a camera that has an indicator blinking inside the viewfinder. As if it's in "record mode" or the light meter is registering "low light", or maybe even that a battery is running down.

Maybe this is just an avant-garde or post-modern filming technique. Please tell me I don't need to go to film school to watch and discuss LOST (LOL)...
100%
I'll see if lost-media gets a screencap of it from this epi...

Best way to see it though is to view the epi...

You know what, I totally agree with you. I mean, at certain angles it can be dismissed as lens flare or the walkie talkie lights -- but really, at other times you can only describe it as looking like it's through a camera lens inside the viewfinder.

What that means exactly, who the heck knows? !

It'll be the camera above Jack's head. http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/4499/cameraii2.jpg

It's when Jack is in the OR observation room with Tom, and they are looking down at Juliet talking to Ben, who's on the OR table.

The dot looks similar to what you see on a TV screen when your recording device begins or is in "record mode", or in a camera viewer to indicate a particular feature is "on".

If you look here, http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=1251&pos=838, you'll see the camera in the upper corner of the observation room. There is glass between the operating room and the observation room. (Its at an angle as well.) So, when our camera angle is behind the actors, the red dot for the camera would be visible as a reflection on the glass.

Here in the operating room, http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=1251&pos=201, you can see a camera in the room itself. Also, if you look at a TV camera, they don't look like your camcorder. They have glass between the outside and the camera lense. So, if the angle was right, you would be able to see a grainy reflection. Kinda like if the sun shines just right onto your sunglasses and you can see a grainy reflection coming from, seemingly, nowhere.

I really believe this is what you are seeing.

Why doesn't someone just take a picture of the monitor and point out what they're talking about?

OK...there it was again. The red blinking dot...I posted about it last time (http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=64621) we saw Jack in the OR, in the previous episode, "I Do". Except then, Jack was holding the walkie talkie, talking to Kate.

The dot is shown 3 times, blinking several times...starting at about 24 minutes into the "Not in Portland" epi (including commercials). It's when Jack is in the OR observation room with Tom, and they are looking down at Juliet talking to Ben, who's on the OR table.

The dot looks similar to what you see on a TV screen when your recording device begins or is in "record mode", or in a camera viewer to indicate a particular feature is "on". The red dot is octagonal-shaped like the well-known DHARMA logo shape. Maybe it's a reflection of the camera aperture...but if so, it could easily have been removed in post-production. In fact, it most reminds me of a "low light" indicator in a camera viewfinder.

Back in the "I Do" epi when I posted about it, other posters thought it was the light on the walkie talkie (however, I don't)... or the reflection of it. My thread only got 5 posts (thanks, Yellow Tang for the most supportive post).

Well, Jack and Tom were not using the walkie talkie this time...yet there was the blinking light. What can this mean? Are we looking at the story action through a camera...through some other type of viewing device? Well, of course we really are;) but seriously, in the story, what can this mean? Is this another hint about "watchers", and "who's watching the watchmen?"?

:confused:
Tabby-

I checked out your last post with the red octagon and you are right, something funny is going on. Seeing as how the writers keep up with online chatrooms pertaining to Lost, one would think that if this had no significance, then it would not have popped up in another episode. Furthermore, I wanted to simply dismiss that dot as lens flare from the camera, but lens flare occurs in the shape of a circle, not an octagon.

Just to add some fuel to the fire here.... :) remember that Dharma is known to have been conducting experiments related to "Remote Viewing" capabilities... I have seen the red dots that Tabby was referring to, and it was especially noticeable last night. However, I dismissed it as the activity light on the security camera in the room Jack was in. If indeed they are distinctly in the shapes of octagons though (I haven't looked for myself yet...screencaps anyone?), we may have something else entirely on our hands here...which is why I brought up the "Remote Viewing" experiments...

Just to add some fuel to the fire here.... :) remember that Dharma is known to have been conducting experiments related to "Remote Viewing" capabilities... I have seen the red dots that Tabby was referring to, and it was especially noticeable last night. However, I dismissed it as the activity light on the security camera in the room Jack was in. If indeed they are distinctly in the shapes of octagons though (I haven't looked for myself yet...screencaps anyone?), we may have something else entirely on our hands here...which is why I brought up the "Remote Viewing" experiments...

Here you go bro...I will once again repeat that lens flare is caused by a reflection of a light source on the lens itself. Because a camera lens is round, the lens flare, or reflection, will be round as well. Whereas the shape of this object is an octagon.

http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=1196&pos=1037

Thanks to all for the replies, especially those who posted screencap links and even took screenshots.

You know what, I totally agree with you. I mean, at certain angles it can be dismissed as lens flare or the walkie talkie lights -- but really, at other times you can only describe it as looking like it's through a camera lens inside the viewfinder.

What that means exactly, who the heck knows? !

Just to add some fuel to the fire here.... :) remember that Dharma is known to have been conducting experiments related to "Remote Viewing" capabilities... I have seen the red dots that Tabby was referring to, and it was especially noticeable last night. However, I dismissed it as the activity light on the security camera in the room Jack was in. If indeed they are distinctly in the shapes of octagons though (I haven't looked for myself yet...screencaps anyone?), we may have something else entirely on our hands here...which is why I brought up the "Remote Viewing" experiments...

Here you go bro...I will once again repeat that lens flare is caused by a reflection of a light source on the lens itself. Because a camera lens is round, the lens flare, or reflection, will be round as well. Whereas the shape of this object is an octagon.

http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=1196&pos=1037
I see that some are jumping on the bandwagon...yay!:biggrin: And if I'm not mistaken, it's occurence in "I Do" was in the open OR, not from the upper observation room (which has the glass window).

And again, it's most interesting to actually watch it in the epi(s). ETA: HH81's screencap is from "I Do"; here is the only one I can find on lost-media from "NIP", and it's not a very good indication of what it looked like:
http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=1251&pos=322

Could it be a reflection of a camera shutter, HH81? Along with a red filter (although we don't see the whole scene in a red tint)?

It could be anything...from nothing...to a hint/clue...to thematic...to a joke...to foreshadowing...to avant-garde filming technique...to water-cooler intrigue...to :confused:.

If its a reflection of the camera aperture, then Ive honestly never seen one the shape of an octagon in all my years shooting photos. All different kinds of lens flare, glare, etc.; but never in the shape of an octagon. And that does resemble a little too closely the Dharma logo. Unless of course TPTB are throwing out a red herring.

Here you go bro...I will once again repeat that lens flare is caused by a reflection of a light source on the lens itself. Because a camera lens is round, the lens flare, or reflection, will be round as well. Whereas the shape of this object is an octagon.

http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=1196&pos=1037


That lens flare has 9 sides. It's not an octagon.

That lens flare has 9 sides. It's not an octagon.

I think the point is that it is not a circle, which is what shape lens flare assumes when it is present. 8 sides, 9 sides....its all just splitting hairs anyway. Ummmmm, and I actually count 8 sides by the way. Of course I accept the possibility that my elementary school education didnt pay off(public schools, geez) and I am miscounting, but I dont think so.

I see that some are jumping on the bandwagon...yay!:biggrin: And if I'm not mistaken, it's occurence in "I Do" was in the open OR, not from the upper observation room (which has the glass window).

This reminded me of something .. and my memory is terrible so please forgive my vagueness ... does anyone remember the photos that were shown a little while ago that showed the OR room door with the head of the lady looking in. And there was a ton of speculation on if she was intentional, or an extra that wandered in the shot, or whatever-- well in that same batch of photos there was a few other photos that showed the reflection of a person (I think) and possibly a camera and some other stuff. Point being, that it seems that there could be glass on the lower floor, too. And that could be indicitive of why we're seing Tabby's Red Dots, at least in the OR.

I promise this makes more sense and will seem more cohesive if I could just. find. those. photos. Help?

I promise this makes more sense and will seem more cohesive if I could just. find. those. photos. Help?
From the promotional photos (spoiler-fonting link, since they're not canon):

http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=1197&pos=14

I think the point is that it is not a circle, which is what shape lens flare assumes when it is present. 8 sides, 9 sides....its all just splitting hairs anyway. Ummmmm, and I actually count 8 sides by the way. Of course I accept the possibility that my elementary school education didnt pay off(public schools, geez) and I am miscounting, but I dont think so.

The only reason I'm pointing out that it has 9 sides and not 8 is that some posts have suggested it is related to the Dharma logo.

R2D2 is standing in the corner :r2d2-4: just messing with everyone.

*****sorry...just joking. Couldn't resist. :biggrin: :biggrin:

From the promotional photos (spoiler-fonting link, since they're not canon):

http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=1197&pos=14


Ahhh! Thank you, and my, aren't you quick!?

So, where I was going with this thought (I think) was that if you look in this photo:
http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=1197&pos=15

you can clearly see the reflection of a guy in glasses - kind of a side view of him right where the left IV bag is hanging. (Why he looks to me like HRG from Heroes is another topic entirely!) But it's kind of just another indication that there seems to be a glass wall in that room, too. And does that explain the mystery red dots (at least in the OR scenes)? Who knows.

Ahhh! Thank you, and my, aren't you quick!?

So, where I was going with this thought (I think) was that if you look in this photo:
http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=1197&pos=15

you can clearly see the reflection of a guy in glasses - kind of a side view of him right where the left IV bag is hanging. (Why he looks to me like HRG from Heroes is another topic entirely!) But it's kind of just another indication that there seems to be a glass wall in that room, too. And does that explain the mystery red dots (at least in the OR scenes)? Who knows.
Well, I would imagine that they would need a glass wall to keep the OR sterile during surgery... JUST KIDDING!:biggrin: ;) Thanks for the additional info...but I agree: "Who knows.".

Mojave...yes, the initial reason that it seemed like "something" was the shape, in addition to the "what the heck is that?" factor.

Dezdemona...R2D2...:biggrin:

Here you go bro...I will once again repeat that lens flare is caused by a reflection of a light source on the lens itself. Because a camera lens is round, the lens flare, or reflection, will be round as well. Whereas the shape of this object is an octagon.

http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=1196&pos=1037

This is not a lens flare, it's an out of focus highlight that takes the shape of the camera aperture. You can notice this in a billion movies, usually in out of focus backgrounds during dialog scenes.

Lens apertures on 35mm film cameras are generally not round but have a certain number of blades, thus creating polygonal shapes, or in this case an octogonal shape. No mystery there, and certainly no implied Dharma logo.

This is not a lens flare, it's an out of focus highlight that takes the shape of the camera aperture. You can notice this in a billion movies, usually in out of focus backgrounds during dialog scenes.

Lens apertures on 35mm film cameras are generally not round but have a certain number of blades, thus creating polygonal shapes, or in this case an octogonal shape. No mystery there, and certainly no implied Dharma logo.
Cool, so at least, one of my guesses might be right.

Why would it be red, though?

This is not a lens flare, it's an out of focus highlight that takes the shape of the camera aperture. You can notice this in a billion movies, usually in out of focus backgrounds during dialog scenes.

Lens apertures on 35mm film cameras are generally not round but have a certain number of blades, thus creating polygonal shapes, or in this case an octogonal shape. No mystery there, and certainly no implied Dharma logo.


Well good sir, that makes sense except for the fact that it is impossible to shoot a video using a 35mm camera. And for the record, I was not arguing that it was lens flare; and how do TPTB not remove this eye-sore during post production? Those "blades" that you refer to is actually the shutter(which does indeed have blades), but is not a function of aperture. They are linked as they almost accomplish the same thing(light control) with different ways to arrive at the desired result. Aperture relates to the movement of fractals inside the lens to let in more light, or shut out light depending on your F-Stop.

Well good sir, that makes sense except for the fact that it is impossible to shoot a video using a 35mm camera. And for the record, I was not arguing that it was lens flare; and how do TPTB not remove this eye-sore during post production? Those "blades" that you refer to is actually the shutter(which does indeed have blades), but is not a function of aperture. They are linked as they almost accomplish the same thing(light control) with different ways to arrive at the desired result. Aperture relates to the movement of fractals inside the lens to let in more light, or shut out light depending on your F-Stop.


where do you get your info?? wikipedia? thats a little detailed...great info, though!!!

Well good sir, that makes sense except for the fact that it is impossible to shoot a video using a 35mm camera. And for the record, I was not arguing that it was lens flare; and how do TPTB not remove this eye-sore during post production? Those "blades" that you refer to is actually the shutter(which does indeed have blades), but is not a function of aperture. They are linked as they almost accomplish the same thing(light control) with different ways to arrive at the desired result. Aperture relates to the movement of fractals inside the lens to let in more light, or shut out light depending on your F-Stop.
Thanks for pointing out that when I posted "aperture", I meant "shutter"...hehe. :redface:

where do you get your info?? wikipedia? thats a little detailed...great info, though!!!

Most of my speculative theories I read stuff on Wikipedia, but as for the camera stuff, I have that knowledge in my noggin. For once my photography skills came in handy when I wasnt out in the field.

Most of my speculative theories I read stuff on Wikipedia, but as for the camera stuff, I have that knowledge in my noggin. For once my photography skills came in handy when I wasnt out in the field.


which field do you refer to? is it the one with where all the capsules were coming out of the tube from the pearl??

EXACTLY!!! When Im not out in the field with my HAZMAT suit(cant get sick) while Desmond stays in the hatch wondering what the heck is going on. Unfortunately I havent been to visit the field with the capsules in some time. Any news from there friggnlost?

EXACTLY!!! When Im not out in the field with my HAZMAT suit(cant get sick) while Desmond stays in the hatch wondering what the heck is going on. Unfortunately I havent been to visit the field with the capsules in some time. Any news from there friggnlost?

no need to be sarcastic hoarding....cause you know what they say about sarcasm....

no need to be sarcastic hoarding....cause you know what they say about sarcasm....


Oh you were being serious about the "field" comment?

But it's a blinking dot in the corner of the image on my TV screen. It's not a blinking light on a camera or other device shown in the actual scene. Know what I mean? ;)...
The only thing I'm sure of is that it is intentional. :eek2:
no need to be sarcastic hoarding....cause you know what they say about sarcasm....
What? What?! What do they say lol?! i bet its really sarcastic! Sorry, OT! :biggrin:

They say that sarcasm prevents intimacy.....but how that is relevant on an internet forum is lost(pun intended) with me.

Let's get the thread back on topic please and stop the back-and-forth...

Gotcha.....sorry BD

This is not a lens flare, it's an out of focus highlight that takes the shape of the camera aperture. You can notice this in a billion movies, usually in out of focus backgrounds during dialog scenes.

Lens apertures on 35mm film cameras are generally not round but have a certain number of blades, thus creating polygonal shapes, or in this case an octogonal shape. No mystery there, and certainly no implied Dharma logo.

Well good sir, that makes sense except for the fact that it is impossible to shoot a video using a 35mm camera. And for the record, I was not arguing that it was lens flare; and how do TPTB not remove this eye-sore during post production? Those "blades" that you refer to is actually the shutter(which does indeed have blades), but is not a function of aperture. They are linked as they almost accomplish the same thing(light control) with different ways to arrive at the desired result. Aperture relates to the movement of fractals inside the lens to let in more light, or shut out light depending on your F-Stop.

There is an article about actual fractals in Wikipedia.
As Chris_TC says, apertures are made out of multiple blades.
Good sir, what is the point about a video camera?
http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=1141&pos=45

There is an article about actual fractals in Wikipedia.
As Chris_TC says, apertures are made out of multiple blades.
Good sir, what is the point about a video camera?
http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=1141&pos=45


That a TV show cannot be shot with a 35mm camera, as Chris_TC stated, but rather with a video camera. The discussion revolved around blades, be that shutter or what-have-you, and whether or not the shape was lens flare. Also, wikipedia is good for references to entertainment, but you might consult some photography sites for better info.

http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=667&pos=30
Sorry, this is a better photo. Looks like a Panavision 35mm film camera.

Here's the red dot.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3581601985260857320

So, where I was going with this thought (I think) was that if you look in this photo:
http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage.php?album=1197&pos=15

you can clearly see the reflection of a guy in glasses - kind of a side view of him right where the left IV bag is hanging. .

OH MY GOD! You're right! How strange is that? If there is a thread where this photo and others like it are being discussed, please post it here!

Thanks, ommadawn! The blinking red dot is so obvious on that clip! How could I have missed it during the show?! Of course, I never noticed all the chldren with goggles on, either...

Here's the red dot.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3581601985260857320
Thanks for taking the time to make the video! :cool: I am adding your link to the first post...

If you have the time/motivation to also make one from the dot in "I Do"...I don't know if it's important, though...it might be "nothing".;) :redface: :rolleyes: It was in the last several minutes of "I Do" (OR scene).
OH MY GOD! You're right! How strange is that? If there is a thread where this photo and others like it are being discussed, please post it here!
It was posted earlier in the thread that the photo in question is a promotional photo. So it is not from the aired episode, and thus not "canon". So it's probably a reflection of someone on the set.

Well, first off you'd have to wonder if the Red blur can mean anything when it only seems to pop up in that one room. The same room in which various "ghosts" have been spotted - reflections on the glass, that woman peering through the window (which Gregg recently said was nothing more than a production error). And I'm no expert, but I agree that lined shapes (as opposed to simple circles) are very common in that type of thing.

On the other hand,
I'd say I also agree that it's strange that TPTB haven't made efforts to avoid the effect. And along the lines of Remote Viewing and perhaps seeing something through a viewfinder, there was also one of the recent Lost Moments, which several people said looked like it was being seen through a car window.

And this means nothing, I'm sure, but the Pre-Season 3 "clip show" had a very similar combination. The images of Lost were seen in a funny-shaped "window", with blurred coloured spots and lights all around. However, I THINK it was a clip show for other shows too, and that maybe those screens were common to all the shows. Does anyone know that for sure?

In terms of a little theory of mine that just about everything on The Island is a manifestation of the Losties's memories (dnalsI ehT), I suggested there that those cameras were a manifestation of Locke's memory of his father's camera by the entrance to his house, which also had a little Red light.

I just watched the scene you mentioned Tabby and if you look at the room just as Jack is walking in, it looks like there's a security camera in the corner and that the camera has a blinking red light. When it does the close up on Jack's face it's hard to see the camera (or whatever it is that screwed into the wall) since the red light obscures it from view.

Here's the red dot.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3581601985260857320

Based on that video, it is obviously the security camera:
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/4499/cameraii2.jpg

100%
That a TV show cannot be shot with a 35mm camera, as Chris_TC stated, but rather with a video camera. The discussion revolved around blades, be that shutter or what-have-you, and whether or not the shape was lens flare. Also, wikipedia is good for references to entertainment, but you might consult some photography sites for better info.

Not sure where you get your information, but according to imdb, here is the technical data:

Technical Specifications for
"Lost" (2004)

Camera
Arri 35-3 (effects shots)
Panavision Gold II, Panavision Platinum Cameras, Primo Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Lightweight Camera (Steadicam)

Laboratory
Technicolor

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm (Kodak Vision2 500T 5218, Eastman EXR 100T 5248)

Cinematographic process
Super 35 (3-perf) (source format)
HDTV (1080p/24) (master format)

Printed film format
Video (HDTV)

Aspect ratio
1.78 : 1

Could it be that we are watching the scene through one of the surveillance cameras with another as yet unidentified viewer?

Could it be that we are watching the scene through one of the surveillance cameras with another as yet unidentified viewer?

And how are they going to reval to us that part (but not all) of some of the episodes we have watched were through a surveillance camera viewed by a previously unidentified viewer? I think you'd get a massive, "huh?" as millions of viewers say, "what red dot?" No, it is clearly the security camera. The simple explanation caries the day again.

Kell >
And how are they going to reval to us that part (but not all) of some of the episodes we have watched were through a surveillance camera viewed by a previously unidentified viewer?


I think whatever the explanations are in the end there'll be one scene or moment given within the episode that explains it, and then it will be down to us to go back and re-watch the show seeing how the explanation was applied from the beginning.

An example of this that we have already seen is Smokey. We saw the implication that it was taking the form of Yemi - Do you need them to go back and explain how it was also Kate's horse and Christian?

Hello yall, this is my first post at this forum, altough I've been reading this a lot, since I joined it.
This topic, in specific, caught my attention, as I was thinking about it seeing back the episodes this past weekend.
I have no idea if the blinking dot means something or not for real, but technically it's very simple:
As said before, it has an octagonal shape, and that is caused by the number of blades inside the lens of the camera shooting this particular frame. If you want to "remove" distractive elements from the background of an image, you must throw it out-of-focus, and to do that, you have to use a large aperture, resulting in a smaller area in focus (known as depth-of-field). To make it even more obvious, you can use longer lens (more zoom) to give the impression that the object in focus is stacked up against the background, thus enhancing the "out-of-focus" area, and making the subject stand out on the shot. Making it simple: zoomed in image + large aperture (small depth-of-field) = BLURRED BACKGROUND. This "effect" in photography is called BOKEH.

In the shot where Jack is in the OR, this effect is pretty clear, as it's obvius that for this shot that the cameraman zoomed in all the way to jack, and caught the reflection of the surveillance camera red blinking dot in the back of the room.

Wheter or not this has a meaning, it's just a photographic effect. In my opinion, it's just to reinforce to us "lost-maniacs", that the hydra station is under surveillance 24/7 and everyting that jack and the other cast members do while in there is going to be recorded.

All of this is based on my personal knowledge, as I shoot pictures for a living (or should I say in order to survive, LoL). Been a photographer is not easy. But some1 has to do the dirty job.

More information on this effect can be found on wikipedia at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

I apologize in advance for any spelling and/or grammar mistakes (brazilian guy typing here). English seems to be a lil' rusty!

I'm not sure what we're looking at, but it's not an octagon, it has nine sides.

Don

I think whatever the explanations are in the end there'll be one scene or moment given within the episode that explains it, and then it will be down to us to go back and re-watch the show seeing how the explanation was applied from the beginning.

An example of this that we have already seen is Smokey. We saw the implication that it was taking the form of Yemi - Do you need them to go back and explain how it was also Kate's horse and Christian?

You are right about that. But even a casual viewer is aware of Smokey and could put that together. If this "theory" about the blinking dot is right (and can't we all just agree that it is the security camera over Jack's right shoulder and put this to bed?), the response by millions will be a collective "Red, what? What, dot? What, what?"

Yeah it's definitely 9 sided, the top has a slight point and I think it is just the light of the security camera that's out of focus. I need pretty strong glasses and when I look at my Cable box with them off the round lights don't appear round so I think that just shows it's down to the light being out of focus.

Thanks once again for the feedback! As expected, there are different interpretations and opinions.

Thank you, scuds, for the technical info, and for making your first post here. :) I had no problem understanding your English. Welcome to the 'Lage!!!

I'm more than happy to accept that the technical effect is Bokeh (as scuds said) and in the story, that the light is an indication that the room apparently has a camera functioning, and even that it may have been "left in" mainly for intrigue and artistic reasons. There's many different "levels" of LOST to discuss.

It might support Lucidity's "Sewing Kit" theory, and be a hint that "Deception" is occurring.

I still think the dot in "I Do" may have occurred downstairs, and thus not with Jack behind glass (in the story). But I'm not sure and probably won't look into it.

But I don't see the need to shut down the discussion. What's wrong with people discussing it, or posing theories about it? IMHO, it's a valid topic, even if "only" to discuss the technical and artistic qualities of the blinking dot.

If a Mod or Admin thinks otherwise, then it will get locked or moved to "Lost Luggage".
:shrug:

Hey guys!
This is my first post..... in this thread.

And I guarantee that it will be my last.

It is a freaking 9 sided non-dharma red speck of light from the walkie talkie.




Well, either that or smokey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!omg

In "Not In Portland" it is a shot of the actual security camera with a blinking red light on it. As stated, it can be seen in other shots. It is behind Jack and out of focus.
In "I Do" it is a shot of the actual walkie talkie with a red light on it. If you watch the footage you can see Tom lift the walkie talkie into frame. It is in the foreground, out of focus, but you can make out the antenna and the volume knob. As he is about to speak he pushes the transmit button and the red light comes on, as it should.
No production errors. Nothing to fix.

TPTB are sitting back laughing at us for this one.....

Well, according to the "amount" of misterious things presented to us on lost, I wouldn't doubt that there could be something behind this, but I truly think there's nothing behind it besides an effect achieved at that particular shot, due to the way the director wanted us viewers to VIEW this particular scene.

Well, can't wait for the next episode and for the intriguing appearance of our friendly blinking red dot!

TPTB are sitting back laughing at us for this one.....

And for the "Hurley polaroid"; the "who shot shannon"; the "two Marvin Candle filmstrips"; the "Michael is now an Other (and guarding Jack)"; the "Juliet is Sarah"; the "Juliet is Libby"; "Juliet is Penny"; the "Penny is Sarah"; the "Penny is Ms. DeGroot"; the "Desmond's Girlfriend is the Blonde Seabilly"; the "Zeke is DeGroot"; the "Kelvin is not Dead"; the "Jack's twin is at the South Pole"; "Kate's Husband is Ethan"; "Picket is the Cop that Pulled Over Locke"; and many, many, many more . . .

Thanks for taking the time to make the video! :cool: I am adding your link to the first post...

If you have the time/motivation to also make one from the dot in "I Do"...I don't know if it's important, though...it might be "nothing".;) :redface: :rolleyes: It was in the last several minutes of "I Do" (OR scene).

Happy to help.
Here's the red-dot from I do:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7831818282134936230

Happy to help.
Here's the red-dot from I do:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7831818282134936230
Thanks, ommadawn! It's not the exact occurrence that I posted about, but it's better.

Along with the other info posted, it proves to me that it's the light on a single surveillance camera, in the OR observation room.

I think some of the confusion is POV-related (for the occurences that I was questioning). They filmed from the OR observation room, and the OR room. It's the same camera light and the same glass window, but the red dot shots are taken from opposite sides of the glass. So one occurence is a reflection.

:cool:

Yeah that video also looks like the security camera, but that really sloppy camera work if it's not intentional, they should have changed to angle to avoid the red light, or even just turned the light off, maybe it was for effect.

That a TV show cannot be shot with a 35mm camera, as Chris_TC stated, but rather with a video camera.

A TV show cannot be shot with a 35mm camera? Says who?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411008/technical

Lost is one of very few TV shows that look incredibly "cinematic". Among other things, such as well done lighting, shooting on 35mm helps achieve this beautiful look.

A TV show cannot be shot with a 35mm camera? Says who?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411008/technical

Lost is one of very few TV shows that look incredibly "cinematic". Among other things, such as well done lighting, shooting on 35mm helps achieve this beautiful look.

There is nothing like filme, YET.

Yesterday I rewatched the entire 3rd season. As when it came up to "I do" and "Not in portland" it became even clearer to me that there is no biggie behind this dot thing. I'm 101% sure it's just the surveillance cam behind jack, and the led from tom's walkie-talkie. It's no relative to smokey or patchey. :biggrin:

So, if the surveillance camera is recording, who is watching?
Jacob??? :confused:

So, if the surveillance camera is recording, who is watching?
Jacob??? :confused:

Don't you remember the bank of video screens that Juliet observed to find Alex?