"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

DanZ
Site Admin
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:44 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Contact:

Re: "There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post by DanZ »

fjgiie wrote:The coordinates put this movie off the field of view.
4986423V1


Movie coordinates located closer to the middle of this long track, should be bottom left corner for lowest point.
8437649V1

thanks,

f
Both reported as bad PMs. Thanks!

Dan

greuti
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:11 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: "There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post by greuti »

DanZ wrote:
greuti wrote:8569028V1 That's impossible, isn't it. I guess this track looks mostly misplaced.
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.

Dan
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?

As they appear in this movie for example.

Peter

greuti
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:11 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: "There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post by greuti »

DanZ wrote:
DanZ wrote:
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
I'll ask! Though your "out-rider" may just be an artifact of cut and paste for PM purposes.

Dan
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.

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.

It is a surface feature that got copied too.

fjgiie
DustMod
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:47 am
Location: Hampton, SC, US

Re: "There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post by fjgiie »

 

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  Image
 

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

Re: "There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post by jsmaje »

Thanks Dan, greuti and fjgiie for all that feedback, and (partly down to you all) for how the scientific team now seem to be paying more attention to the @Home half of their project as their hi-tech objectives that were always my reason for participation.
John

fjgiie
DustMod
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:47 am
Location: Hampton, SC, US

Re: "There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post by fjgiie »


DanZ
Site Admin
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:44 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Contact:

Re: "There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post by DanZ »

greuti wrote:
DanZ wrote:
greuti wrote:8569028V1 That's impossible, isn't it. I guess this track looks mostly misplaced.
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.

Dan
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?

As they appear in this movie for example.

Peter
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...

Dan

DanZ
Site Admin
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:44 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Contact:

Re: "There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post by DanZ »

greuti wrote: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.

It is a surface feature that got copied too.
Excellent sleuthing! Thanks.

Dan

DanZ
Site Admin
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:44 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Contact:

Re: "There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post by DanZ »

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  Image
Whatever's going on, it's only worth 6 points, which makes no sense to me. Thanks for the report!

Dan

DanZ
Site Admin
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:44 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Contact:

Re: "There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post by DanZ »

fjgiie wrote:8480847V1
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!

Thanks,

Dan

DanZ
Site Admin
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:44 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Contact:

Re: "There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post by DanZ »

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
We've bumped it up to 50! Please let me know if you notice the difference.

Dan

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

Re: "There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post by jsmaje »

DanZ wrote:We've bumped it up to 50! Please let me know if you notice the difference.
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.
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
Last edited by jsmaje on Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: "There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post by jsmaje »

Warning?
601003V1 value = 2, official coordinates 244/85.
Fooled into thinking it part of the obvious surface artefact!

Er?
8671580V1 value = 34.
Can only see vague features co-focussing with rest of surface dust at official coordinates 482/209 (even under high magnification), so was scored wrong having clicked on the possible double-dot & tail feature at ~ 450/120.

Neither movie number brought up as previously-reported by forum search facility.
John
Last edited by jsmaje on Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

fjgiie
DustMod
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:47 am
Location: Hampton, SC, US

Re: "There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post by fjgiie »

X=500, ha ha off the screen
1683157V1 No track there
Should we continue reporting these?

DanZ
Site Admin
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:44 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Contact:

Re: "There's a problem with this focus movie"

Post by DanZ »

jsmaje wrote:
DanZ wrote:We've bumped it up to 50! Please let me know if you notice the difference.
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.
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
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.

Thanks!

Dan

Post Reply