Both reported as bad PMs. Thanks!
Dan
Moderators: Stardust@home Team, DustMods
I've meant "impossible" because of the different movements in direction and spread of both the surface features and the track appearance when riding the focus bars. Generally speaking, by making real movies, that focus movement/image change of the aerogel features and a respective track in it get then the same "optical rhythm" especially by HATs, don't they?DanZ wrote:Why do you say that? It seems to "jump" a little and come into focus only at the very end of the available focus bars, but we've seen those before. What I can't understand is why it's only worth 6 points, so I'm bringing it up at a meeting tomorrow.greuti wrote:8569028V1 That's impossible, isn't it. I guess this track looks mostly misplaced.
Dan
John and Dan, did just a little search for the original movie 6721021V1 It's from this (older) list of real tracks we found during the earlier Phases, where you could find many of the original used for PMs in Phase 4, I guess.DanZ wrote:I talked to Dr. Westphal today John and he has no idea what that little "out-rider" is. His guess is just a surface feature. Notice that, although it does change when you focus down, it seems to change all at once vs. a more gradual "moving" change that we see in most tracks.DanZ wrote:I'll ask! Though your "out-rider" may just be an artifact of cut and paste for PM purposes.jsmaje wrote:Thanks fjgiie & greuti - I think I see what you mean now.
But that really would be a cheeky one, and I'd still like to know what that little out-rider parallel to my-so-called 'H-type' could be in both movies which you consider to be the entry region. Can Dan enlighten?
John
Dan
Dan
I see the difference in behavior, but I'm not sure why. Let me see if someone else know what's up. But I'm guessing even the "experts" won't know for sure (given the thousands upon thousands of scans that have been done). Nevertheless...greuti wrote:I've meant "impossible" because of the different movements in direction and spread of both the surface features and the track appearance when riding the focus bars. Generally speaking, by making real movies, that focus movement/image change of the aerogel features and a respective track in it get then the same "optical rhythm" especially by HATs, don't they?DanZ wrote:Why do you say that? It seems to "jump" a little and come into focus only at the very end of the available focus bars, but we've seen those before. What I can't understand is why it's only worth 6 points, so I'm bringing it up at a meeting tomorrow.greuti wrote:8569028V1 That's impossible, isn't it. I guess this track looks mostly misplaced.
Dan
As they appear in this movie for example.
Peter
Excellent sleuthing! Thanks.
Whatever's going on, it's only worth 6 points, which makes no sense to me. Thanks for the report!fjgiie wrote: This Power movie track has been pasted so high up in the air that it is out of focus at top focus. (bottom right quarter)
4299936V1
Only worth 10 points, but as far as I can tell, basically invisible. Not even sure what I think is the track is a track!fjgiie wrote:8480847V1
We've bumped it up to 50! Please let me know if you notice the difference.jsmaje wrote:I nevertheless did my job of identifying a potential track (albeit a test) at whichever end of it, I think the continuing 30-pixel radius tolerance for 'calibration' tracks first applied in phase I for the small range of purely circular example 'carrot-tracks' is now completely outmoded, given the greater diversity of test-track morphologies and dimensions we are now asked to look out for in phase 4
Well yes I will, but never suggested that a radius tolerance greater than 30 pixels would be a good idea, since that would seem to devalue careful observation.DanZ wrote:We've bumped it up to 50! Please let me know if you notice the difference.
Yes, probably would have taken a team of highly capable minds to have it do that. And we agree that there could be some issues with the alternative of increasing the pixel radius, but after some analysis, the benefits seemed to far outweigh the risks. Still, let us know your experience with the 50.jsmaje wrote:Well yes I will, but never suggested that a radius tolerance greater than 30 pixels would be a good idea, since that would seem to devalue careful observation.DanZ wrote:We've bumped it up to 50! Please let me know if you notice the difference.
In particular, it doesn't address the issue of taking into account the huge range between tiny circumscribed test tracks (of high value) and the larger and longer (of low value), which as discussed elsewhere often have ambiguous entry and lowest focus points.
My intended point was that for such latter cases there could well be a similarly-limited (e.g. 30 px) tolerance, but extended in alignment along such a track's trajectory.
Ok, I realise this would be time-consuming and complicated for the team to implement, and quite possibly more effort than it would be worth.
So, in the end, will be happy to go along with whatever is decided.
John