I sincerely hope there is better video (preferably from observation ships/aircraft) following Saturday's launch.
Quote from: Shanuson on 05/08/2014 09:20 amQuote from: dorkmo on 05/08/2014 03:45 amQuote from: wronkiew on 05/08/2014 03:21 amQuote from: Asmegin on 05/08/2014 02:36 amFrame 3 is disgusting I can't do anything with it (disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm doing)Agreed. It seems to be totally random noise.yeah i think its just the fact that it has so few bytes, its got 8927. while the best picture so far (iframe8) has 20428. i think its interesting that iframe 6 has the at most 29622 but so far looks just as garbled as others. might be the one with most room for improvement?Can it be that due to bit errors the size of Iframe3 is not correctly determined and part of IF3 is interpreted to be part of the next frame?CheersShanusonPossible. Possibly with some better work on the transport stream that can be determined to be the case or ruled out. The try1.ts file's iframe3 is a bit larger than the others at 9005 bytes.
Quote from: dorkmo on 05/08/2014 03:45 amQuote from: wronkiew on 05/08/2014 03:21 amQuote from: Asmegin on 05/08/2014 02:36 amFrame 3 is disgusting I can't do anything with it (disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm doing)Agreed. It seems to be totally random noise.yeah i think its just the fact that it has so few bytes, its got 8927. while the best picture so far (iframe8) has 20428. i think its interesting that iframe 6 has the at most 29622 but so far looks just as garbled as others. might be the one with most room for improvement?Can it be that due to bit errors the size of Iframe3 is not correctly determined and part of IF3 is interpreted to be part of the next frame?CheersShanuson
Quote from: wronkiew on 05/08/2014 03:21 amQuote from: Asmegin on 05/08/2014 02:36 amFrame 3 is disgusting I can't do anything with it (disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm doing)Agreed. It seems to be totally random noise.yeah i think its just the fact that it has so few bytes, its got 8927. while the best picture so far (iframe8) has 20428. i think its interesting that iframe 6 has the at most 29622 but so far looks just as garbled as others. might be the one with most room for improvement?
Quote from: Asmegin on 05/08/2014 02:36 amFrame 3 is disgusting I can't do anything with it (disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm doing)Agreed. It seems to be totally random noise.
Frame 3 is disgusting I can't do anything with it (disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm doing)
If it was that simple and at no additional cost (like increase in b/w requirements) I imagine they'd already have done that. After all, even the video on the way up breaks up fairly badly at times.
ASIDE: Watching all this amateur Kremlinology on some badly-corrupted individual video frames reminds me somewhat unpleasantly of watching the internets go nuts over similarly-confusing bits of video and tidbits of information following STS-107. I can see why SpaceX didn't rush to release the video immediately. I sincerely hope there is better video (preferably from observation ships/aircraft) following Saturday's launch.
iframe 13 from try1:40:1:-1,0:10:-1:0:-10,1:10:-1:,4:10:49027,8:29:-1
If they'd turn off interlacing they'd get a big boost to compressibility. Compressing interlaced video at the frame level rather than field level gives you nightmare terrible compression.
Quote from: SwissCheese on 05/08/2014 02:51 pmiframe 13 from try1:40:1:-1,0:10:-1:0:-10,1:10:-1:,4:10:49027,8:29:-1Looks like the stage moved to the right, compared to the initial splash?
Quote from: mvpel on 05/08/2014 07:52 amBut then after looking at the emerging details of frames 7 and 8, I'm beginning to fear your suspicions may be correct that they are not bugged bits but rather a big gnarly dent in the leg. Hi, I think it might be some sort of splodge of high refractive index stuff on the camera bending light around it (see attached image: red circle in same place on the two frames, aligned them using the black mark above it) Its an oval region without any internal texture (ie blurred) in all other frames AFAICS, bordering another dirty mark, and still appears to be there in frame 12 where the leg is underwater. I reckon the leg was probably OK until hitting the water, but it would be nice to get more clear images of the "splodge".Great work guys, although I don't understand a word of what you are talking about re: video decoding !!
But then after looking at the emerging details of frames 7 and 8, I'm beginning to fear your suspicions may be correct that they are not bugged bits but rather a big gnarly dent in the leg.
I'd guess its because they got some stock "space rated" (super old technology) cameras that are old analog NTSC cameras and they transcode that to a digital video signal for downlink.
More work on iframe8. Will post the mmb later.
Quote from: wronkiew on 05/07/2014 05:43 pmThis is a good point, and it got me thinking. If everything goes as planned, SpaceX will launch again in a few days, and I think they're planning to attempt recovery again. This could upstage the (arguably more historic) first landing video. We need to put together a video with what we've got today, tomorrow at the lastest. If necessary, I can hand-assemble something from the iframes and pieces of the pframes. It wouldn't be as pretty as what arnezami and mlindner can do, so I'll wait until I hear from them.It's actually a lot easier than that. If no one else does it by Friday Eastern time then I'll be modifying ffmpeg to add a frame specifier to the mmb options. Then we simply pile all the mmb options into one long entry and run ffmpeg with it. viola, produced video. This would also allow us to try tweaking some p-frames if we so wish.Producing a video now with what we have won't be very attractive yet. We need to fine tune a lot of the frames still. I'm doing that now for iframe8, which should hopefully look really really good. This means doing things like whenever you use -1 and replace the block, fine tune all the luma and chroma settings for it to have the least effect on surrounding blocks.
This is a good point, and it got me thinking. If everything goes as planned, SpaceX will launch again in a few days, and I think they're planning to attempt recovery again. This could upstage the (arguably more historic) first landing video. We need to put together a video with what we've got today, tomorrow at the lastest. If necessary, I can hand-assemble something from the iframes and pieces of the pframes. It wouldn't be as pretty as what arnezami and mlindner can do, so I'll wait until I hear from them.
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?