Review: The 2 highest-rated candidates.

[stardust1]

Having not yet read any posts on this thread besides the initial,
Alpha:
A) Doing the fast scanning mode: Yes, because it´s the only object in focus and looks very much like what we learned on the tutorial
B) Doing the slow mode: No, because the surface slopes thus: surface feature
C) Doing the very slow mode: Maybe, because of the conspicuous asymmetries of the blur above focus
Beta:
Mode A: No, other objects on the same focus >> Surface features
Mode B: No (s. Alpha)
Mode C: Maybe (s. Alpha)
Prefering mode C these days and clicking maybes:
Alpha: Yes
Beta: Yes

[farpung]

I didn't get either, and would probably have marked both as "bad focus."

BUT I think I can see why Alpha (but not Beta) is a good candidate. Although it only comes into focus at the bottom of the range, and although other features come into focus at the same time, as you move up something strange happens.
If this was just a surface feature going out of focus, the fuzzy out-of-focus image should expand with the same shape as the focussed image. It definately doesn't expand symmetrically! That suggests that what we see may be actually the entrance portion of an impact track.

That suggests that the gel is higher where the "track" is than in most of the rest of the slide, and that it is merely a confusing coincidence that the "track" becomes narrow and well defined at exactly the same height as surface features elsewhere on the slide.

[the moon]

I see what you mean about how the object doesn't go out of focus symmetrically in Alpha. I'm not sure what causes it, but if you'll notice, all the other dots also have the same property, although they're all smaller so it's not as prominent. It's just something about that specific movie and doesn't indicate any unusual feature in the suspect track.

[jdrockster]

I clicked on them both but they are not as convincing as others in review. After looking at thousands of them, we get a feel for subtle features or anomalies that have enough potential to be "the unexpected". To simply discard a potential candidate is not why we are here. If computers were anywhere close to having the abilities of our perception, we would not be needed. If it feels right...click it. They can sort it out later. We are here to prioritise their search. Happy hunting! A clicking we will go.

[Sebastian]

I would have marked both of them "bad focus"

It is easy to find samples with similar light object with dark border thingies at the surface level. Fortunately most of the movies go at least some microns deep into the gel so we can see these objects go out of focus and hit no track.

In my understanding, we are looking for sub surface tracks. If we would start speculating what something might look like if we would be able to go below the surface level, we are totaly lost.

I really dont understand how these movies could pass cut 1.

I would hope the stardust team spend their precious time on rescanning the many bad focus tiles to enable us doing the real subsurface search instead of examining suface phenomenoms.

[GelDelve]

I can't believe "Alpha" and "Beta" are top candidates for possible tracks. I wouldn't have clicked either of them. The obvious features that "look" like tracks similar to the "test/training" frames are on the surface of the gel and are only available for a frame or two, unlike actual tracks that exist in several frames of a movie.

On the other hand I have to wonder what I was thinking when I clicked whatever I thought were tracks in "My Events," especially the first bunch. Except for the time that my dog got excited and managed to leap up on my mouse twice in a row with her front paw, the last several movies I've clicked on have proven to have a lot more agreements from other members. Even so, when I review those movies I can't find a reason why I clicked on something I thought was a track.

This is indeed a difficult endeavor. I guess all we can hope to do, at least, all I can hope to do, is to do the best we can when we are faced with a decision about marking a possible track, or choosing no track or bad focus. Hopefully the team effort will overcome the many individual faults that must necessarily occur.

[PolyMath]

ALPHA - I would have clicked
BETA - I would have clicked no track lloks like an aerogel fragment to me.

Side note - I'm starting to think that the chances of being the first person to view a movie are even less than finding a real track.

[LaTriviata]

Would definitely have clicked them. They look obvious to me. What's the problem?

[Sebastian]

Would definitely have clicked them. They look obvious to me. What's the problem?

The problem is, that they are both bad focus movies. In both movies, the ring like objects get clear focus just in the bottom most picture. This is exactly where the surface is reached. With BETA you see the neigbouring object come into focus at the same layer. With ALPHA you clearly can see the ring starting to dissolve even one image above the bottom.
Marking objects on the surface makes no sense. After seeing more than 10000 real movies so far, I can tell you that there are hundreds of similar viewings on the surface level that dissolve when you dive deeper into the gel. These are no tracks.

We are asked to search for tracks because this task can not be automated. Making movies that have good focus can be automated. Making guesses what one might find below surface level when you can not see ist is a waste of time. In this case the stardust team waste their limited time and I should not care too much. However, as I said, I would prefer if they would spend their time to redo the tiles with a majority of bad focus movies.

I am also in doubt that it was a good idea to publish exactly these two movies as the first two "real samples" of proming findings. They should come up with a complete list of their cut 1 passes to give us a broader view.

[quasarmv]

I would have click on Alpha but not on Beta ( there is a slope on this film and the mark seems to be on the surface, not below)

[starbright]

I would have clicked bad focus for both. Alpha does look interesting, but you can't focus deep enough to see if leads below surface.

Starbright

[fflo]

I just got ALPHA and clicked it , wondering wether it was another calibration movie with an "obvious" track.
After that I looked up DustBuster's post on "The 2 highest rated candidates" and reverted to BETA. Would this movie have been presented to me, I would have clicked the track for the same reason as above.

[Louis Wu]

Tough call, but the fact that neither of those anomolies completely disappears if you focus up, makes me think that they are likely bubbles instead of tracks. I would have clicked them, but i wouldn't give them a high probablility of paying out.

Here's my personal best to date, and it does fade out completely on up-focus...

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =6415745V1

[the moon]

Tough call, but the fact that neither of those anomolies completely disappears if you focus up, makes me think that they are likely bubbles instead of tracks. I would have clicked them, but i wouldn't give them a high probablility of paying out.

Here's my personal best to date, and it does fade out completely on up-focus...

http://stardustathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ... =6415745V1

I wouldn't pay too much attention to how fast something disappears when you focus up. Bottom line is, tracks have to be under the surface. Your movie never focuses under the surface and should be marked bad focus.

[marymouse]

I didn't get them, but I would have clicked both alpha and beta. They seemed so exactly like the calibration movies.

Would Wolter please explain how beta is slanted? Is it the little suggestion of waves at the bottom right hand corner? Thanks.