It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Amazing 5.6k Saturn Cassini Photographic Animation - No CGI no 3D

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


The images from Cassini are close to square aspect ratio, 1080p and iMAX are very horizontal, they simply had room to tilt for 'effect'. Square, tilt, crop to 16x9 aspect ratio horizontal field of view.




posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Its not perspective, load and layer the images and see.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Not because of the rotation of Saturn, but because one of its satellites (the one on the left bottom corner in the original image) cannot appear in front of the rings just by zooming, rotating or panning the larger image.

Is it better this time?
Yes it's better this time, if I correctly understand your question now.

It seems to me like your question presupposes that no photographs were taken by Cassini between those two views, if I am understanding that correctly, Am I? And if so, why would you assume that?

I make no such assumption.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I found the death star.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Actually it is images from a different orbit, look to the left of the big moon in the rings on the last image, then look further to the left, there is now another tiny moon visible. The creators of the film took artistic license to merge images from different orbits, possibly to fill in gaps and possibly to make the film more exciting, that's what film makers do.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 
Yes this is my take also, meaning they actually subtracted, or edited out images, rather than adding them. Going from one orbit to another, to cut out the boring parts makes perfect sense.

Cassini took a lot of images. Here are some links:

Cassini image viewer (free): petermasek.tripod.com...

Cassini images: pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov...

There are 53 volumes. I just downloaded volume 2 and extracted it, there are roughly 13,000 images, about half of them unique. If most of the other volumes are similar then 13,000 x 53 = 689,000 images, half of them unique.*

The images in sequence I looked at in volume 2 are so similar, it's hard to tell them apart. They don't have to add any images to make a movie, from what I've seen.


Originally posted by keepureye2thesky
I found the death star.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that!


*Edit to add: I looked more closely, half the images are full size, and the other half are thumbnails of the full size images. So divide that number by 2 for the approximation of unique images.
edit on 6-6-2011 by Arbitrageur because: added text/clarification



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Ha ha, Mimas is a very small moon, nearly got blown apart from an ancient impact.

There are some wonderful pictures at this link.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


The images are square, 1024 x 1024 pixels.


Originally posted by Illustronic
Its not perspective, load and layer the images and see.
I don't understand what you mean, could you please rephrase that? Thanks in advance.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It seems to me like your question presupposes that no photographs were taken by Cassini between those two views, if I am understanding that correctly, Am I? And if so, why would you assume that?
Not really.

The first problem is that they say that they only used one photo, so there are no two views.

With only that image there aren't several positions for that yellowish satellite, so it could not be on all those places in just one image.

The only thing I'm assuming is that, as they said, they only used that 30 photos mosaic.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
The first problem is that they say that they only used one photo, so there are no two views.
I interpreted their claim much differently, as described below.


The only thing I'm assuming is that, as they said, they only used that 30 photos mosaic.
OK I see your misunderstanding now. The 30 photos wasn't for a fly-through. The 30 photos only made up that one single image.

As you quoted in your earlier post in this thread, the fly-though used hundreds of thousands of photos, not 30.

Originally posted by ArMaP
They say it on their site:


Using hundreds of thousands of still images manipulated to create full motion, using “2.75D” photographic fly-through technology.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Well I didn't say that, what I read was Cassini images were from 5600 x 4200 32-bit color images, NEAR square, HD and iMAX are at least 16/9 ratio, or in simple math, a 1,600 x 900 (whatever) aspect ratio, not 56 x 42 hundred, much more horizontal, a wide rectangle.

Meaning that a HD image can be cropped out of a full Cassini image with much numbers to spare, thus one can tilt the images without breaching one limit of pixel value.

Do I really have to do this? (1080 means lines high, 1,920 is the pixel count wide, 'p' means the image is not Interlaced images from two scans like the old 1080i–i for Interlaced two scans, p for one single Progressive scan, a whole image)

But the Cassini images are also 32 bit, and 1080p is 12 bit, it gets complicated, and I don't have a simple direct answer except that 16 bit is 8 bit squared, so you can do the math from there.




posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
LOL IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING IN LIFE YOU WOULD KNOW THATS CGI

what the F



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I can watch 1080p videos on my 24" computer monitor at full resolution without exceeding the width of my monitor resolution. TV sets are usually about 1/4th the resolution of a new computer monitor.

Now they say iMAX is quadrupled (not a definitive reference on this yet) the resolution of 1080p, but it is projected to at least a 77-foot wide imaging screen, up close it is quite blurry.

When watching a motion picture, resolution of each image is beyond human perception, believed to be at most one thirty-second of a second per frame per second, (most normally 1/24th of a second). Oh you may notice something that flashes at 1/60th of a second in a single frame, but you will never recognize it, until it gets closer to lasting about 1/12th of a second.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by WanderingThe3rd
 


It is post production, but the images are real.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


oh wow they have real textures... its still CGI



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by WanderingThe3rd
 


Explain your theory. I can give you all the links to the resolutions and maybe even some of what bit depth means.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
The beauty of space telephotography is it is recording light wavelengths way out of our visual spectrum, and later (post production) assigned what light we can see. So you see why all data looks black and white as RAW data? Its because its more than we can actually see!

No space scope takes natural color images, they would be too blurry to see detail, (interlaced 3 lightwave images). I attempted to explain.

This is all out there you know. Just look up more precise search terms.
edit on 6-6-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WanderingThe3rd
oh wow they have real textures... its still CGI
It's more like a video version of photoshop, not CGI. This is the movie that inspired the technique:

Tutorial: “The Kid Stays in the Picture” Effect Using Photoshop and Motion


In this tutorial I show you how to create the so-called “The Kid Stays in the Picture” effect (sometimes referred to as the 2.5D effect). The idea is to separate a still image into distinct layers, move those layers in respect to the Z-axis, then animate movement on those layers to give the impression of 3 dimensions.

The effect is named after the documentary, The Kid Stays in the Picture, which uses the technique extensively and in many creative ways. If you have not seen this film, I highly recommend checking it out.
So it's still based on photographs. CGI is based on computer generated imagery, not photographs.

The inspiration is discussed in this clip called "Inside Outside In":
vimeo.com...



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
That video was really cool there Arbitrageur, thanks for finding that.

As he stated, the iMAX resolution is still very ambiguous, and not clearly stated. The terms he used (for resolution) I don't quite understand in pixel count per square inch.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
This should also be proof that NASA is transparent, this guy is not employed by NASA, he's just a guy that found it interesting to use NASA data to make a film, totally un-financed by a U.S. government agency.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join