Quote from: Chris Bergin on 05/08/2014 05:59 pmQuote from: Swatch on 05/08/2014 05:44 pmChris, may I recommend you add links to the first post of this thread detailing how to start helping with this effort and some of the better posts in the thread describing what's going on? I think it will help orient people without going through 24 pages of stuff.I'd rather people read through what is only 24 pages. It takes 5-10 minutes to read and new people to the thread will gain an appreciation of the work and the processes involved. Maybe just a link to the wiki page then?
Quote from: Swatch on 05/08/2014 05:44 pmChris, may I recommend you add links to the first post of this thread detailing how to start helping with this effort and some of the better posts in the thread describing what's going on? I think it will help orient people without going through 24 pages of stuff.I'd rather people read through what is only 24 pages. It takes 5-10 minutes to read and new people to the thread will gain an appreciation of the work and the processes involved.
Chris, may I recommend you add links to the first post of this thread detailing how to start helping with this effort and some of the better posts in the thread describing what's going on? I think it will help orient people without going through 24 pages of stuff.
Quote from: ugordan on 05/08/2014 02:11 pmI don't know how much "better" such video would be. On another site I saw a claim that the telemetry plane on CRS-3 was over 20 miles away. The CASSIOPE launch aerial images released also suggest a pretty large distance from the vehicle. I guess safety trumps closeup observations.There was really bad weather, so ships and planes that were slotted to be much closer to the "action" weren't able to get there for safety reasons.
I don't know how much "better" such video would be. On another site I saw a claim that the telemetry plane on CRS-3 was over 20 miles away. The CASSIOPE launch aerial images released also suggest a pretty large distance from the vehicle. I guess safety trumps closeup observations.
Quote from: Swatch on 05/08/2014 07:12 pm...Maybe just a link to the wiki page then?I think he's saying that if you read the pages, you'll come across the link anyway, but by then you'll have much better context and appreciation for the incredible effort going on. As a Web publisher myself, I have to keep in mind (and be reminded) that I want to try to keep visitors ON my site for as long as I can. Besides, the best exhilaration is when you keep coming across ever new news here, right?
...Maybe just a link to the wiki page then?
Hi guys,This is just for inspiration:"We've always defined ourselves by the ability to overcome the impossible"Regards,arnezami
Just curious...The original releases (raw and 'repaired') had frames as the stage was descending through the cloud layer which fit before this sequence, and the stage falling over at the end which come after -- both best seen in raw IMO. Are those frames somewhere in this amazing recovery effort?
More cleanup of iframe 9. These are from try1, but not much changed at least in the top of the frame...Now that iframe 8 is almost done, pulled the clock position from it and set the top of this clock to that... gives us a reference point for the bottom of the frame.X:16410:01,X:19164:10,X:19903:1,X:20037:80,X:27244:1,X:32743:1,X:32551:80,20:04:-1,24:04:16023,16:5:-1,17:05:18692,24:08:-1,25:08:32410,1:15:-1,3:16:79127,41:19:-1,8:20:96220,15:04:16023,4:28:112147Bonus animation from when I was testing individual fixes against try1.ts from the old frame.-Bob
Quote from: Jakusb on 05/08/2014 05:52 pmQuote from: moralec on 05/08/2014 05:39 pmQuote from: SpaceX_MS on 05/08/2014 03:56 pmQuote from: wronkiew on 05/08/2014 03:48 pmI think it is likely that it could take weeks or months to get the video to a level of quality that is going to satisfy everyone working on it. Chris, can you ask PAO what timeframe would be most useful to them?You guys are ahead of the game, the only real game in town actually. Provide what you can, when you can. This is an unbelievable effort on show here.This is truly an d unbelievable effort. And is amazing to see the amount of details that have been recovered form the initial frames, and the conviction and talent of all people that have been involved....This is what we have so far guys! And let's keep with the good job:Great! I was about to ask for something like this. Or make it myself. One suggestion/request: a bit slower sequence? Either more realistic in terms of actual movie speed or even slower to be able to find common blocks?Sure. How about this:
Quote from: moralec on 05/08/2014 05:39 pmQuote from: SpaceX_MS on 05/08/2014 03:56 pmQuote from: wronkiew on 05/08/2014 03:48 pmI think it is likely that it could take weeks or months to get the video to a level of quality that is going to satisfy everyone working on it. Chris, can you ask PAO what timeframe would be most useful to them?You guys are ahead of the game, the only real game in town actually. Provide what you can, when you can. This is an unbelievable effort on show here.This is truly an d unbelievable effort. And is amazing to see the amount of details that have been recovered form the initial frames, and the conviction and talent of all people that have been involved....This is what we have so far guys! And let's keep with the good job:Great! I was about to ask for something like this. Or make it myself. One suggestion/request: a bit slower sequence? Either more realistic in terms of actual movie speed or even slower to be able to find common blocks?
Quote from: SpaceX_MS on 05/08/2014 03:56 pmQuote from: wronkiew on 05/08/2014 03:48 pmI think it is likely that it could take weeks or months to get the video to a level of quality that is going to satisfy everyone working on it. Chris, can you ask PAO what timeframe would be most useful to them?You guys are ahead of the game, the only real game in town actually. Provide what you can, when you can. This is an unbelievable effort on show here.This is truly an d unbelievable effort. And is amazing to see the amount of details that have been recovered form the initial frames, and the conviction and talent of all people that have been involved....This is what we have so far guys! And let's keep with the good job:
Quote from: wronkiew on 05/08/2014 03:48 pmI think it is likely that it could take weeks or months to get the video to a level of quality that is going to satisfy everyone working on it. Chris, can you ask PAO what timeframe would be most useful to them?You guys are ahead of the game, the only real game in town actually. Provide what you can, when you can. This is an unbelievable effort on show here.
I think it is likely that it could take weeks or months to get the video to a level of quality that is going to satisfy everyone working on it. Chris, can you ask PAO what timeframe would be most useful to them?
Quote from: arnezami on 05/08/2014 08:28 pmHi guys,This is just for inspiration:"We've always defined ourselves by the ability to overcome the impossible"Regards,arnezamiTerrific video. And also useful to note the side view of the rocket descending into the smoke, much like the stage returning as it hits the surface of the water. I suppose this is obvious to the rocket scientists that we would see just parts of the struts.
Quote from: AncientU on 05/08/2014 05:52 pmJust curious...The original releases (raw and 'repaired') had frames as the stage was descending through the cloud layer which fit before this sequence, and the stage falling over at the end which come after -- both best seen in raw IMO. Are those frames somewhere in this amazing recovery effort?The answer is yes and no...MPEG encoding has different types of frames... I-Frames, which contain All of the information needed to reconstruct that frame, the other types B and P frames only contain partial information, just information about what's changed since the last i-frame. In our example here, we have a 30 second video with about 307 frames (I think), and of those 307 frames, only about a dozen or so are I-Frames. Those are the frames we are working on, because the rest of the frames will be generated from data within the I-Frames. A given block of pixels on the screen can rely on blocks before it, after it, or from the I-Frame that was several frames back.When you see us talking about frame 1, frame 2, frame 3, etc, we're not talking about the first 3 frames of the video, we're talking about just the iframes. There are (by my guess) about 20-25 intermediate frames between each iframe. We'll be getting to those once the iframes are fixed, at that point, we'll re-encode the video replacing the bad iframes with the good ones, and once the video is re-encoded, the intermediate frame data will be regenerated from the repaired iframes, and hopefully we'll have a much cleaner video.Moral of the story... MPEG cheats... ALOT !I tried not to get too technical with the explanation, hope that clears it up for you though.John
Quote from: CraigLieb on 05/08/2014 08:48 pmQuote from: arnezami on 05/08/2014 08:28 pmHi guys,This is just for inspiration:"We've always defined ourselves by the ability to overcome the impossible"Regards,arnezamiTerrific video. And also useful to note the side view of the rocket descending into the smoke, much like the stage returning as it hits the surface of the water. I suppose this is obvious to the rocket scientists that we would see just parts of the struts.The only problem is that in iframe 13, you can see both being the same size again....Weird....http://spacexlanding.wikispaces.com/
Quote from: moralec on 05/08/2014 09:07 pmQuote from: CraigLieb on 05/08/2014 08:48 pmQuote from: arnezami on 05/08/2014 08:28 pmHi guys,This is just for inspiration:"We've always defined ourselves by the ability to overcome the impossible"Regards,arnezamiTerrific video. And also useful to note the side view of the rocket descending into the smoke, much like the stage returning as it hits the surface of the water. I suppose this is obvious to the rocket scientists that we would see just parts of the struts.The only problem is that in iframe 13, you can see both being the same size again....Weird....http://spacexlanding.wikispaces.com/The stage has bobbed back up to the surface (mostly) and just has the thrust structure underwater.The thin 'legs' are actually just the pistons.
Quote from: grythumn on 05/08/2014 08:51 pmMore cleanup of iframe 9. These are from try1, but not much changed at least in the top of the frame...Now that iframe 8 is almost done, pulled the clock position from it and set the top of this clock to that... gives us a reference point for the bottom of the frame.X:16410:01,X:19164:10,X:19903:1,X:20037:80,X:27244:1,X:32743:1,X:32551:80,20:04:-1,24:04:16023,16:5:-1,17:05:18692,24:08:-1,25:08:32410,1:15:-1,3:16:79127,41:19:-1,8:20:96220,15:04:16023,4:28:112147Bonus animation from when I was testing individual fixes against try1.ts from the old frame.-BobOne key thing to note about the clock. The blocks for it are abnormally large so corruption chance increases. They average around 1000 bits each for me.Also, every timestamp in the video is of the form: 19:35:XX.XXImportantly, the lower portion of the colons are entirely in the lower two sub-blocks of the bottom row and the upper portions are entirely in the lower two sub-blocks of the second from bottom row. Further, for the "." character its slightly wider than the lower portion of the ":" meaning you can recognize where to put it easier.