NASA's ISS Feed...

Just a thought I wanted to share and have been having for a long time. I often watch the live ISS feed on USTREAM and think to myself that the background (space) is so animated and pixelated that perhaps it is being adjusted real time to block out any objects we shouldn't be seeing. Like right now (18:50 GMT time) where I swear the is a large object in front of the station being blocked out. Anybody feel the same? Is anyone else watching the feed now?

Peace and good health to all!

Like right now (18:50 GMT time) where I swear the is a large object in front of the station being blocked out. Anybody feel the same? Is anyone else watching the feed now?

Looking…

Not seeing any other than the station and a solar panel filling center screen. What part do you feel is being "blocked out'?

Imo, if something came into view we're not supposed to see they would just cut the link.

Blue screen…

a reply to: kuraijanai2013

It would have helped your thread a lot if you put up a link to what you're talking about...

Probably too late now though...

a reply to: kuraijanai2013

probably just compression software, creating blocky squares for space, and updating every keyframe .. making it look like something could be blacked out and moving around in a shuffling motion ...

it would do this, since it detects there is not much action, or light, in this area, one frame to the next .. so focus the data, on the parts of the frames that require it ... and update the blocky space bits, on each 'keyframe' .. which could be about 1 to 10 seconds apart .. ish

you would see the same, in dark scenes of many 'ripped' movies of days gone by .. encoded with divx or xvid or the likes... especially low bitrate ones

At least .. i assume that's what's happening .. haven't seen the vid or feed in question .. but sure sounds like it by your description

cheers

a reply to: kuraijanai2013
That would be pretty incredible algorithm to be able to determine what we "shouldn't see" and block it out in real-time.

Of course, the more reasonable (and correct) answer would be that it's a camera whose resolution may not be the best (I'm not familiar with it), subjected to the harsh conditions of space. You take a medium resolution camera anywhere and film something against a dark background, and you're going to see pixellation and video artifacts. Why would that be any different with this camera?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: kuraijanai2013
That would be pretty incredible algorithm to be able to determine what we "shouldn't see" and block it out in real-time.

Of course, the more reasonable (and correct) answer would be that it's a camera whose resolution may not be the best (I'm not familiar with it), subjected to the harsh conditions of space. You take a medium resolution camera anywhere and film something against a dark background, and you're going to see pixellation and video artifacts. Why would that be any different with this camera?

Actually that algorithm would be rather simple...well, IF One was a software type anyway...

All of the cameras, with only a few known exceptions, are rather high end, designed and manufactured for use in space.

ALL of the video being sent from ISS is H.264 a very standard form/format (protocol) for video.

And, yes H264 does not update areas that have no changes, however, this does not produce areas that are visibly "blocky" or visibly distorted in normal operation. Great lengths have been taken to prevent this type of "exception" since it would make all video unusable. The H264 video is something that we all have become quite used to since it is used virtually everywhere. And, IF there is such "distortions" visible in these videos, it is produced by the video player you are using...which unfortunately is probably Adobe Flash...which uses it's very own flavor of video compression and playback. It is almost like; "lets compress the compression...no one will notice."

While I don't think that NASA is doing this; it would be rather easy to do...from a software and technology pov.

You're probably right