"There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post here if you are having any kind of problem with the Stardust@home website.

Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods

Post Reply
WorWizard
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:12 am
Location: Bridgeport Ct
Contact:

Re: Maybe I'm missing something here

Post by WorWizard »

DustBuster wrote:
WorWizard wrote: Sure looks like there's something coming into focus well below the surface focal plane. It goes NW then heads NE. But it appears to me not to be a part of the structure that it's near. But this is indeed a CM
That is a CM but there is NO track present.
My apoligies to you and your staff then. Fron this point forward I will select "No Track" Thank you for your time and effort in explaining this to me.

WW

jsmaje
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:39 am
Location: Manchester UK

Re: Maybe I'm missing something here

Post by jsmaje »

WorWizard wrote:My apoligies to you and your staff then.
While DustBuster will no doubt want to point out that there are no 'staff' here, may I also apologize and correct myself for having used the term 'low-level' rather than 'low-angle' track :) .

WorWizard
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:12 am
Location: Bridgeport Ct
Contact:

Re: Maybe I'm missing something here

Post by WorWizard »

jsmaje wrote:
WorWizard wrote:My apoligies to you and your staff then.
While DustBuster will no doubt want to point out that there are no 'staff' here, may I also apologize and correct myself for having used the term 'low-level' rather than 'low-angle' track :) .
LOL ok. well in that case I also again apoligize for posting here in the first place. I thought this area was a way to get this posting I made to the staff for an official reply. But yes, I meant "Low-Angle" LOL

Do you know where I should post, or re-post the message so that the staff will recieve it?

WW

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

Post by Nikita »

WorWizard (& all),

It is fine to post here. Please remember all that there is limited staff for the project. Mods do not have access to that information and we can only help as volunteers. The Stardust team does read the forum when they can and do reply with what they can. Different people on the Stardust team have different specialties so sometimes a question needs to be relayed to the correct person to get an answer. It's a long winded way of saying that questions are read, even if not readily answered. Sometimes however, there isn't a new answer to give. We know about the problem with the java script errors and the slow downloading. The team is doing all they can at their end to address it. If it could be fixed from our end, it would be. The best we can do as dusters is continue to provide input as to what is going on and be patient. Thanks!
From dust we come

WorWizard
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:12 am
Location: Bridgeport Ct
Contact:

Post by WorWizard »

Nikita wrote:WorWizard (& all),

It is fine to post here. Please remember all that there is limited staff for the project. Mods do not have access to that information and we can only help as volunteers. The Stardust team does read the forum when they can and do reply with what they can. Different people on the Stardust team have different specialties so sometimes a question needs to be relayed to the correct person to get an answer. It's a long winded way of saying that questions are read, even if not readily answered. Sometimes however, there isn't a new answer to give. We know about the problem with the java script errors and the slow downloading. The team is doing all they can at their end to address it. If it could be fixed from our end, it would be. The best we can do as dusters is continue to provide input as to what is going on and be patient. Thanks!
For you... anything..

Wor Wizard

stardust1
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:08 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Two Negative Calibration Movies

Post by stardust1 »

fjgiie wrote:These two negative calibration movies may need to be checked.

5220547V1 has no focus and no surface.
8407570V1 has no focus and no surface.

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =5220547V1
(Neg Cal with no focus)
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =8407570V1

Thanks,

fjgiie
Same with movie 863699V1 (Negative CM with no focus):

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... e=863699V1
Wir leben in einer Zeit vollkommener Mittel und verworrener Ziele. (Albert Einstein)

Jwb52z
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:05 am

Post by Jwb52z »

No matter how many times I reload movie number: 9788480V1, I always get the same error. I marked it "No Track", but I think there may be a problem with it because I've never seen or heard anyone say that reloads don't work and they always have for me until now.

bmendez
Stardust@home Team
Stardust@home Team
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:28 am
Location: UC Berkeley Space Sciences Lab
Contact:

Post by bmendez »

Hi all,

Thanks for the info. We are looking into these. There haven't been any new CMs added in months so it is a little strange that these CMs with bad focus are just now coming to light.

We are also looking into the javascript errors some more. We had believed that it was a random error not connected to any specific movie, but after checking ones reported by you all, we've found that some movies indeed exhibit the error always. Now to figure out why...

Thanks,
Bryan
"I am made from the dust of the stars, and the oceans flow in my veins"
- RUSH

Tom_Gutman
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:38 pm

Post by Tom_Gutman »

bmendez wrote:Hi all,

Thanks for the info. We are looking into these. There haven't been any new CMs added in months so it is a little strange that these CMs with bad focus are just now coming to light.
Not all that surprising. Most people will simply click on bad focus and never notice that these are calibration movies. If you look at the number of bad focus clicks on CM's these movies should stand out clearly. And I reported some calibration movies where it looks like a single picture was repeated for all the frames quite some time ago.
Tom Gutman

cgbs2007
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:53 pm
Location: Maryland, USA

prob w/ cal movie

Post by cgbs2007 »

my last three movies were 9504095V1; 4001684V1; 6273279V1; at some point in the last three movies my incorrect calibration score went up by 1. I indicated no track in the first two and a small track in the third (approx 11 o'clock just up from center) --I believe it was the 2nd in the list that registered incorrectly.

did I miss a track there?

thanks

Gale

GelDelve

Re: prob w/ cal movie

Post by GelDelve »

cgbs2007 wrote:my last three movies were 9504095V1; 4001684V1; 6273279V1; at some point in the last three movies my incorrect calibration score went up by 1. I indicated no track in the first two and a small track in the third (approx 11 o'clock just up from center) --I believe it was the 2nd in the list that registered incorrectly.

did I miss a track there?

thanks

Gale
Hi Gale,

I keep a spreadsheet record of my movies with columns to indicate whether I clicked no track, track, bad focus, and whether it was a calibration movie along with columns that automatically keep track of my score (I use an "x" in the calibration column to indicate it is one, or a "w" if I got it wrong, otherwise I leave that column blank) and number of real movies reviewed not marked bad focus. I don't have 4001684V1 as a movie that I reviewed, but I do have 9504095V1 and 6273279V1. My record shows those two as calibration movies, the first with no track and the second with a track. Both of those clicks were correct, but I don't know if you and I clicked on the same feature in 6273279V1.

the moon
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 12:34 am

Post by the moon »

On this negative CM
http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =6536207V1
There's a very small dot below the surface in the upper left corner. Normally I wouldn't click this because it looks like an inclusion, but movies with inclusions have a certain feel to them and this one didn't. So I knew it was either a track or a negative CM that would mark me wrong, but I clicked anyway.

My point is, I don't think negative CMs should have mysterious dots below the surface.

Wolter
DustMod
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 2:23 am
Location: Enkhuizen, the Netherlands

Post by Wolter »

CM are there to train you to look for specific tell tail signs of a track. This movie does not contain any of those signs. So it is valid test of required abillities.

Furthermore the continued use of the CMs is there to keep you on your toes. A slap on the wrist now and then does keep you sharp, all be it that it also does hurt your pride (well, mine at least :oops: ).

Anyway, Happy hunting :wink:
Just dusting... Image

jsmaje
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:39 am
Location: Manchester UK

Post by jsmaje »

Wolter wrote:CM are there to train you to look for specific tell tail signs of a track.
Hang on, Wolter. The CMs are there to train us 'to look for the specific tell tail signs' of the sort of track they thought we would most likely see, from previous lab and cometary dust track experiments. It was nevertheless made plain that no one has ever seen a truly interstellar particle impact into this particular aerogel collector, and that we should keep an eye out 'for the unexpected'. As far as I'm aware, after a quarter of the collector has been looked at, far fewer similar-looking 'tell-tail' tracks have been found so far than had been predicted.

While it may be sensible to reject those movies with multiple 'inclusions' all at the same level, or even distributed at various levels, it is undeniable that (disregarding the jpeg artefacts) the smallest CM tracks are not much (if any) bigger than some singular sub-surface black dots such as the moon, quite rightly in my opinion, clicked on. After all, the CMs were made before any of the team knew just what might actually be found.

Personally I'm finding it very difficult to give up clicking on what I nevertheless think might eventually turn out to be an isolated inclusion, just in case.

And I would really like to see an official explanation (if one exists - I've only seen vague theories so far) of exactly what these ínclusions actually are in the chemical/aerogel structural sense, and why some are dot-like whilst others look like very short splinters. Zack G. - we need you!

Bram
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:39 pm
Location: Amsterdam the Netherlands

Post by Bram »

jsmaje and the moon have a correct line of thinking. If we are not supposed "to look out for the unexpected" just programmes would do. As a matter of fact I keep on clicking on anything I think and feel out of the "ordinary" while stardusting.(For the good of the project we all should)

Post Reply