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: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
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.
You're welcome. I have a much better understanding of the techniques used after watching those two videos.

Regarding resolution, I assumed he was comparing vertical resolutions since he showed 720p and 1080p (you're familiar with those, right?) alongside 4000 and 5600 which I assumed meant lines of vertical resolution for IMAX, just like the 720 and 1080 are for TV or computer screens. Just like there's no "per inch" with the 1080p, i don't think there's any "per inch" with the IMAX resolutions. You can get a 1080p TV that's 24" or 50+" or any size in between, so the lines per inch varies depending on the display size, or in the case of IMAX, the screen size.

So if the IMAX screen is, for example, 56 feet tall, then 5600 lines results in 100 lines per foot or about 8 lines per inch. If it played on a screen half that height, it would have twice as many lines per inch.

That's my interpretation, I don't guarantee it's right, but I think it is!




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
OK, I think I am starting to understand it.


First, one I talk about "Cassini images" I am talking about the images created by Cassini's cameras. Those are 1024 x 1024 and cannot be bigger, that's the size of the sensor.

The other large image (image PIA11141) is made from 30 of those 1024 x 1024 images, making it impossible to use single images (and by single, in this case, I mean images from different filters but taken at the same (as close as possible) time) from Cassini to make such a large image as an IMAX image, even for the smaller resolution versions.

Thanks to Arbitrageur's link I now understand how the yellowish satellite may have been moved across the image to give the image a different perspective (that was the change in perspective that made me think it couldn't come from a single image), but I still don't see how they could have done the change in perspective when passing from one side of the rings to the other side, if they only used that image.

And that's my biggest problem, the way he "explains" things, we end up with more doubts than explanations (I guess he explains things like I do
), not knowing if for that small animation he used only "that" image (PIA11141) or more.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
And that's my biggest problem, the way he "explains" things, we end up with more doubts than explanations (I guess he explains things like I do
), not knowing if for that small animation he used only "that" image (PIA11141) or more.
We're on the same "wavelength" now! Normally I find your explanations clear and outstanding ArMaP!
This was one of the unusual times I had trouble following you, but I think we understand each other now.

Let's focus on the part of the OP clip that starts at 55 seconds that starts with the 1 image mosaic composite of 30 images. Now I could be wrong, and this depends on the time frame and distances apart at which those 30 images were taken. But then you look at the 2 most distant moons at around 1 minute, there is almost no detail visible in them since they are so small. Then around 2:10-2:15 the flyby shows a lot of detail of one of them. So I'm having difficulty seeing how that could be part of the original image, at least not the image which is a 5600 line resolution composite of the 30 images, it can't be detail from that resolution. But I suppose if 3 of the 30 images (3 needed for full color) had close-up detail of that moon, then it could possibly be from imagery from the 30 images, but not from the one 5600 line composite of those 30 images, if that makes sense. Actually the image you linked to at the bottom of page 1 is only 4613x2233 so it only has 2233 vertical lines of resolution, and not even 5600, so I don't think they can possibly get that much detail out of the moon that's zoomed in at 2:10.

But you're right, he doesn't give enough detail to explain fully how much imagery is used from 55 seconds to the end of the OP video.

Obviously there is other imagery used besides those 30 photos, in the earlier clips, before 55 seconds.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
This cassini animation is amazing
check this one out if you havent seen it on APOD already

cassini



new topics

top topics
 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join