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.

 

Ultra-HD Video of Curiosity Rover’s Landing Is the Best Yet - you are gonna love this!!

page: 4
45
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by wildespace
 


So if it is NOT the original, then it is now a just an enhanced version of the original?


But what if there was something that was missed in the frames which was originally moving and now due to editing that movement was no longer there? I am referring to something alien of course



As far as I am aware, Curiosity hasn't sent any video back to Earth. The original 'footage' as was shown above is actually a series of images, put together as an animation. Just like a flick book animation, everyone used to make as kids.




posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by wildespace
 


So if it is NOT the original, then it is now a just an enhanced version of the original?


But what if there was something that was missed in the frames which was originally moving and now due to editing that movement was no longer there? I am referring to something alien of course



As far as I am aware, Curiosity hasn't sent any video back to Earth. The original 'footage' as was shown above is actually a series of images, put together as an animation. Just like a flick book animation, everyone used to make as kids.
Isn't all video "a series of images, put together as an animation."?

The only difference is the frame rate. What we've downloaded so far has a frame rate of maybe 3-4 fps and typical video is more like 25-30fps. Curiosity has more frames and more data but we apparently haven't downloaded all if it yet.
Eventually, we should download more of it.

There are some types of movement that might not show up at 3-4fps and this is certainly not a 9/11 thread but low frame rate was one of the issues with the security cam video of the pentagon impact if anyone looked into that. A higher frame rate can help, no doubt about that.
edit on 14-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Ha, technically yes. But I think they were talking about the 'footage' being videoed and beamed back rather than a series of stills, which were put together as an animation by keen amateurs (they did a very good job btw, not meant as a slight).


As for you other comment in regard to fps, I'm not sure why NASA would need a stream of high fps footage. It takes nearly 14 minutes to get a single, low resolution image back from Mars, so when you only have limited time before Curiosity loses it's broadcasting window, it would take an extremely long time to get a very basic, short film.


Like you said before, all the images from the decent aren't even back yet, and that was stills. Can you imagine how long it would take for a video? There were roughly 2700 images used in the making of that animation, the mission has been going for nearly 40 days. So therefore, with a quick rough and ready calculation, it would take 400 days or just over 13 months to download a video at 30fps, for a 27000 frame video.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 
Video? What video? I couldn't find any video of the landing on your link. Has it been removed?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


Now that was totally awesome! F&S



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmask
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 
Video? What video? I couldn't find any video of the landing on your link. Has it been removed?


Nope, the video is there, I can see it right now. Maybe your page didn't load properly.
Here it is on Youtube:

edit on 15-9-2012 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I really do not understand why people get so excited about this. if they sent someone there I might be. When i first saw it I decided it was fake. When I read it was computer enhanced from the original which incorporated stills and added sound I realized it was a fake but using real footage. It is fake because the original footage does not look like that, it is real because it did happen just not like it is depicted by that film.

Kinda like when you see the photoshop work on a model. yeah she is beautiful but photoshop makes her look perfect.

Its like junk food for your imagination, enjoy.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by papazen
Did anyone else see that thing move across the rocks ? top screen to the right at 1:23, alien?


This is exactly why I love coming to this website, whenever something remotely strange occurs people will straight away go down the "aliens!?" route.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
I love this video.and I have to give you props on the find.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by votan
 


The descent does look like that, only with poorer frame rate and lots of shaking. If you film a video, but your camera has poor frame rate and your hands shake a lot, and then a video expert improves the frame rate and reduces shaking, it is still the same video, not a fake. This thread has a link to the original footage, so you can compare the two.

A video of a descent to Mars _is_ an exciting item, because nothing like that has been filmed before. It makes it look like you are descending to Mars yourself, and the martian landscape looks great. It's sad that some people don't appreciate this footage and instead call it a fake.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


Right. According to description of the video in the article listed in the OP, the person who created the video in the OP has added some smoothing and interpolation of frames in between the frames of the original. So I suppose you could say that the video in the OP is "a little" tampered with.

Some of the blur you get is from this interpolation. The guy who made this did a fantastic job, but it's not exactly perfect.

However, as you said, the original video the OP's was based on (with a lower frame rate and no smoothing or interpolation of frames) is readily available.
edit on 9/16/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Gosh! Sorry, I have been away for the weekend.

Everybody: Thank you very much for you kind comments!

I am glad you all enjoyed it as much as I did........this Vid rocks.




posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Nevermind. This is what happens when I don't read the article.
edit on 18-9-2012 by roblot because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join