Are tutorials more "contrasty"?

Archived here are older posts which are no longer relevant or were redundant.

Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods

Post Reply
Lomic
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:51 pm

Are tutorials more "contrasty"?

Post by Lomic »

Take a look at this one:

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=41876

3 of 6 so far on Agreements - and I've spotted several others just like it only slightly fainter. Size and shape looks identical to one in the tutorial, but it doesn't have the high contrast edges seen in the tutorial. What do you guys think? I don't want to keep reporting these if it's dust on the lens or something.

Nikita
DustMod
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 8:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA

Post by Nikita »

I think it is one to draw attention to! If it isn't a track, it is certainly one that they may want to investigate! Good job searching! Dust on the lens doesn't change. See tutorial #6: http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_number=6
that shows a piece of non-stardust.

Good luck! I hope you are having fun!
From dust we come

LeeRyder
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:27 pm
Location: Redondo Beach, CA.
Contact:

Re: Are tutorials more "contrasty"?

Post by LeeRyder »

Lomic wrote:Take a look at this one:

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=41876

3 of 6 so far on Agreements - and I've spotted several others just like it only slightly fainter. Size and shape looks identical to one in the tutorial, but it doesn't have the high contrast edges seen in the tutorial. What do you guys think? I don't want to keep reporting these if it's dust on the lens or something.
Im not seeing it.. what portion of the video is "it" in??? (eg, Upper left? etc)

From what I've "learned" from the tutorial, the tracks will appear to move independantly from the sample when the movie is "played" to a very small degree...
everything I was able to see in the above one didn't react as such.. so im missing it somehow :(

Nikita
DustMod
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 8:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA

Post by Nikita »

And the controversy on this one continues! It will be interesting to see what the final result is! This certainly makes it fun. (And reminds me I need to schedule a vision screening....)
From dust we come

Lomic
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:51 pm

Re: Are tutorials more "contrasty"?

Post by Lomic »

LeeRyder wrote: Im not seeing it.. what portion of the video is "it" in??? (eg, Upper left? etc)

From what I've "learned" from the tutorial, the tracks will appear to move independantly from the sample when the movie is "played" to a very small degree...
everything I was able to see in the above one didn't react as such.. so im missing it somehow :(
50 microns from the bottom, 150 microns from the right. You'll notice it get sharper as you focus down, meaning it's below the surface. I guess the question I'm asking is should there ever be anything below the surface besides tracks?

4 out of 7 Agreement now, but my others that are almost identical to this have no agreement, though with less total views. Guess I'll find out when I finally get a UCB response on one of them.

LeeRyder
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:27 pm
Location: Redondo Beach, CA.
Contact:

Post by LeeRyder »

ok, I see what your looking at..but (this is imho, so don't be offended if I disagree please :))..

if something got into the lower areas of the Aerogel.. to me, it had to enter from the top... which would suggest (again, imho) that an entry hole would be clear, sharp and at least visible from the surface layer as well..

no??

Lomic
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:51 pm

Post by Lomic »

Not necissarily. I've been seeing some calibration movies where the track is nothing more than a black dot you can't make out till the last few steps focusing down. I think the only reason I'm seeing them is the greyscale banding on these movies, which I made a seperate thread about - I can tell when a calibration movie with a "fake track" comes up before I even start focusing - or at least my 94% sensitivity says, and I'm in the top 50 atm.

LeeRyder
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:27 pm
Location: Redondo Beach, CA.
Contact:

Post by LeeRyder »

well, I'm not questioning your ability.. I am simply trying to find the method your using, sharing my methods and trying to reach a concenses on "what" yours is exactly.

94% is good though :) (thats the number that counts I believe in that regard)

since we're not talking about a calibrated one, im not sure if the grey scale would matter as much.. but, since I am colorblind, it's the only way I have to do it lol. maybe the grey scale is good though, based on my 94% as well??? wouldnt surprise me.

I zoomed in on yours to 200% but I just don't see the sharpness of the calibrated ones in this.. nor the entry path it would have taken.. but I will keep trying..

Lomic
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:51 pm

Post by Lomic »

Sorry, didn't mean to sound snippy. Been doing this 7 hours now ;)

Feel free to question my methods, I started this thread to do so. I agree the tracks in the samples tend to be much more dominant.

By greyscale banding I mean you can see where one shade of grey stops and the next stops. If you turn your monitor down to 256 colors and look at the "color space" in your display control panel, you'll see what I mean by banding.

Lomic
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:51 pm

Post by Lomic »

Ok, this movie has 2 of them. One at the extreme right in the middle and the other slightly up and to the left, they both come into focus at the same time. Crap, there's actually a 3rd at the very top right corner. If there's supposed to be what - 40 to 100 impacts in all million+ movies, these must be something else unless their estimates are way off.

I'd just like to know what they are :x

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=44649
Last edited by Lomic on Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LeeRyder
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:27 pm
Location: Redondo Beach, CA.
Contact:

Post by LeeRyder »

well this is something thats interesting.. and hopefully other (if there are some??) Vista testers can verify with me??? (as per the banding)

Vista uses a "better" was of displaying graphics that the old school pixel style..its really rather neat:

hard to explain, but essentially vista will only shade half the pixel if needed for finer deffinition. umm, im trying to find a way to explain this quyickl;y so I can watch more videos lol..but Ill prolly end up trying to grab an explanatory link for you later so you know what i mean cause I suck at explaining things like this, especially when I barely grasp them myself :)

but overall, I guess what Im thinking is that the levels of details for me are extremely sharp for when I zoom in.I will try to zoom again on yours at 400% to see the deffinitive answer cause if what you found "is" a track.. then I need to readjust my scanning techniques *sigh*

Lomic
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:51 pm

Post by Lomic »

The one thing I now notice about the calibration movies is that the tracks don't come into focus - as in being a ring getting smaller and sharper... they just appear.

I'm starting to think these are regular dust particles that are slightly impacted into the gel.

LeeRyder
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:27 pm
Location: Redondo Beach, CA.
Contact:

Post by LeeRyder »

lol, thats funny. cause im tending to believe you cause others are voting your way.. and now your doubting.

so if your feelings are correct though, why would these by so.. insignifigant as compaired to the calibration tracks? (eg, the rings arent as well defined or as dark..etc)

Lomic
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:51 pm

Post by Lomic »

I give up :) I'll just keep clicking these until I get a UCB response on one. Thanks for helping along though, will be very neat if these are all tracks. I now have 3 of 5 agreement on another so we'll see.

cldrjones2
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:25 pm

Post by cldrjones2 »

This is also a nice one: http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e_id=42376.

I Found 2 tracks, and very small ones: one is 100 micron from the right side, totally at the bottom.
The second one is 80 micron from the right, and 100 micron from the bottom.

Heeeey... just spotted a third one, about 10-20 microns below the dust on the lens that you have on the top of every movie.

These tracks are tiny!

edit: only 4 out of 12 agree with me.

Post Reply