I answered a calibration movie right but was scored wrong

[bmendez]

Hi there,
I have just done a CM which I feel is not totally correct. There is one dot on the CM that stood out in particular, however as this dot appeared above and below the surface when I zoomed up and down. I marked the CM as "No Track" as this dot appeared above the surface. I then recieved a point for an incorrectly answered CM.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you are not meant to see tracks when you are focused above the surface?

The details are;
ID # : 952390V1
VM Username : KieranC
Date : 17 Oct 2007
Time : 13:05 BST (London) (12:05 Univeral Time)

Many thanks,
Kieran

Hello Kieran,

You are correct that it doesn't make sense to see a track in focus above the surface, because above the surface there is nothing for there to be a track in.

But in this movie I don't see that the inserted feature is in focus above the surface, merely that there is something right on the surface, so it would be visible above it, but out of focus.

The calibration movies in Phase 2 contain inserted features that are copies of the candidates found in Phase 1. Note that I call them features rather than tracks, because we are not yet certain that they are in fact tracks. But they are candidates for particle tracks because they have some of the right features of a track.

-Bryan

[jsmaje]

Bryan, I understand and accept what you say above about Kieran's 952390V1.

But surely 3861689V1 is still pushing the boundaries a bit, where there is nothing anywhere on the surface coming fully into focus at all, while the track focusses a few bars above bottom.

Ignoring the mis-planted track, this movie would undoubtedly be considered 'bad focus', don't you agree?
And if one were to miss a 'point' by judging it as such seems unreasonable.

John

[bmendez]

Bryan, I understand and accept what you say above about Kieran's 952390V1.

But surely 3861689V1 is still pushing the boundaries a bit, where there is nothing anywhere on the surface coming fully into focus at all, while the track focusses a few bars above bottom.

Ignoring the mis-planted track, this movie would undoubtedly be considered 'bad focus', don't you agree?
And if one were to miss a 'point' by judging it as such seems unreasonable.

John

Hi John,

I think you have a legitimate complaint about that movie. It should be marked as bad focus (which you would not lose a point for marking it as such). I'll remove it from the database.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention,
Bryan

[pluk]

Movie ID# : 338523V1

To my eyes there are in fact two candidate tracks present, one very near the surface at coords (247,124) and one that just starts to appear at the very end of the focus range at coords (315,45).

I clicked the latter and was penalized for missing a track no fair

This happened about half an hour before this post (had to figure out where I could report, locate the forum, read the "read this first"s, identify this topic, sign-up, activate, and finally post )

[pluk]

Please consider this cm: 543202V1.

Apparently it must contain a track, for I was penalized for judging it a no-track movie . However, even in retrospect I still cannot seem to locate it.

I do realize there's a very distinguishing feature almost near the center (285,221) of the movie, but because it, as focus changes, remains in the exact same position on my screen whereas everything else "moves" up and down, I took this to be camera dust more than anything else.

Now if this isn't the track I should have spotted, which is? And if it is, isn't it too peculiar to be a real track?

[jsmaje]

Pluk,
I think it's clear that the track in 338523V1 is your first one. Note how there is evidence of it (initially an entry blur) right from the surface to the bottom frame, by which time it shows a 'terminal flare'.
The second one (which you clicked on) is a typical inclusion, showing no sign at the surface, then only focussing over just two or three bars at a clearly subsurface level. If there had been any more depth to the movie I suspect it would have defocussed just as quickly.
Can I suggest you have a look at my animated Demo 3 here, which attempts to point out the admittedly subtle differences.

On the other hand, regarding the central track in543202V1, unfortunately this is yet another example of a poorly-pasted fake CM, and you were quite right to question it. Hopefully they'll remove it from the database, since it only serves to confuse.
Apparently, CM tracks are now being inserted by a computer program rather than by eye/brain/hand. As a result, they do remain more or less stationary on the screen regardless of optical context, inevitably resulting in such nonsensical movies.

Of course, you'll be aware that this is all part of a cunning NASA Roswellian plan to keep us all in a perpetual state of confusion and uncertainty about what's actually going on

[pluk]

The second one (which you clicked on) is a typical inclusion, showing no sign at the surface, then only focussing over just two or three bars at a clearly subsurface level. If there had been any more depth to the movie I suspect it would have defocussed just as quickly.
Can I suggest you have a look at my animated Demo 3 here, which attempts to point out the admittedly subtle differences.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look into it. I think I've marked a few more inclusions as suspected tracks, though I've seen cm's where the intended track is nearly indistinguishable from an inclusion too. (that is, appears to have the same focus behaviour from what you describe here).

On the other hand, regarding the central track in543202V1, unfortunately this is yet another example of a poorly-pasted fake CM, and you were quite right to question it. Hopefully they'll remove it from the database, since it only serves to confuse.
Apparently, CM tracks are now being inserted by a computer program rather than by eye/brain/hand. As a result, they do remain more or less stationary on the screen regardless of optical context, inevitably resulting in such nonsensical movies.

I was served another one of those; 733085V1, it's at (71,156). Anticipating another fake-cm, this time i clicked it.

[pluk]

6756447V1

Another one missed I guess the track I thought I spotted at coords(165,242) is another inclusion then? The intended cm-track in retrospect is at (362,43). Immediately focussing on the one I thought I saw, I completely missed that one.

Btw, jsmaje, your demo doesn't appear to work in my firefox browser. so I haven't been able to view it.

[pluk]

Another poorly pasted fake-cm I think: 6230336V1

Coords: (201,41)

At this rate I fear I may be developing more of an eye for fake cm's than for real tracks... Why can't they just stick to confirmed real ones to use for calibration-movies?

[the moon]

Why can't they just stick to confirmed real ones to use for calibration-movies?

Because then there would be no calibration-movies.

[pluk]

Why can't they just stick to confirmed real ones to use for calibration-movies?

Because then there would be no calibration-movies.

Ok, and suspected real-ones?

[jsmaje]

Ok, and suspected real-ones?

My understanding is that some of the new CMs are derived from one or two suspected tracks from phase 1. Unfortunately it hasn't prevented a lot of them being pasted inappropriately again: too high, too low, surrounded by Photoshop artefacts, etc.
According to Bryan, "afterall, the CMs are generated by an automated program". Well, what can you expect ....

P.S. sorry the demos aren't accessible via Firefox (I did mention that in the posting; it's due to my being too lazy to double-up the size of my code and find work-arounds to cope with all the pointless vagaries of different browser functionalities - unless someone pays me! I'm no defender of Microsoft's hegemony; it's just a fact of life for the present).

[pluk]

According to Bryan, "afterall, the CMs are generated by an automated program". Well, what can you expect ....

I can understand that I just hope they're not doing more harm than good.

[pluk]

5601418V1

A c.m. with track at coord (130,219), minutes before this post. I did click that location, yet I was penalized for missing it

[pluk]

2297302V1

I clicked at coords (471,181) out of three candidates spotted (others at (449,115) and (50,240).) Again it said I missed one!! Don't tell me this was another inclusion....

I wish I had saved the ID, but another cm had the exact same foxus-signature of the track I clicked on here and there I was rewarded.