The New Calibration Movies

[DustSabre]

I have to say, I'm impressed by the new calibration movies. OK, so they might not be perfect, but I have to say that they have put some real effort into making them much more challenging. I'm finding a lot of calibration movies that have tiny little specks in them, which are a lot more realistic than the huge blots in the old calibration movies. So far, I haven't been burnt by any of the calibration movies, but that's only because I was used to looking for all those little specks, and clicked on them even though at first, I didn't know that they were actually calibration movies. I was actually pretty happy that my search method was vindicated so well by the new calibration movies, since I seemed to be able to pick up on them quickly, and the movies reflected exactly the sort of 'tracks' I had been clicking on in phase I.

[elainekeefe]

Well, just my two-cents worth. I'm not impressed at all. (I'm the one vote in the bottom category.) Although some seem realistic and somewhat hard to spot, there are many CM's that are surrounded by boxes or are totally stationary when the rest of the slide is moving. Others are included among other "spots" that look almost exactly the same. I've been zinged a couple of times by that type!

Like the old CM's, these seem to have numerous clues. I also think they look an awful lot like those inclusions we were told to ignore. Also, as evidenced by the various posts, there seem to be a lot of CM errors. I myself was penalized with an incorrect postive CM when I clicked on a dot in a box. I have also found a real movie with a box but no dot. (I was not penalized for clicking "no track".)

Since we now pretty much have to click on everything, I can only imagine how many clicked movies the team will have to weed through. My Events List is already huge!

Don't get me wrong...I am enjoying the second phase. It's different enough that I feel like I'm doing something new. I just hope the team finds it was worth their effort.

At any rate, I don't feel these CM's are really representative of what we are looking for...are we supposed to be seeking boxes and stationary objects?

[fjgiie]

I'll just vote and not say anything (else)

[DustSabre]

Thanks, 'elainekeefe' for the input. While I'm not sure if I'd agree with that on the whole, it does lay out the opposite view very well, and people can see both sides of the argument now and make an educated vote.

[Pupper]

I have to agree with elainkeefe's comments. I agree that there are several CM's have more than one spot that could be test track. I can not see any difference between the multiple spots.

[DustSabre]

Well, it sure seems like the opinion is about 2/3 that the new calibration movies are worse, and about 1/3 that they are better. I have to say that everybody agrees that they are harder, it's just a case of whether we agree that harder is better or not.

[the moon]

Agree with elainekeefe, inclusions don't make good CMs unless they want us clicking on every other real movie.

[laserphil]

Good Evening/morning All

I would say that the calibration movies are OK but it seems that on the 8 that I have been pinged on a number have been deliberately designed for dusters to miss.
Two movies in particular come to mind (i didn't record id) one with many inclusions at various focus depths and another where the track only appeared and focussed in the last frame. It took quite a long time to find this last track as it was covered totally by a broken wedge of aerogel. There was no prior indication at higher focus of this track.
I am using a 32" LCD monitor to view the movies and have found at this screen size that not all the CM tracks are in focus!
Just a word of caution for others using Firefox - do not use full screen mode - it changes the coordinates of your click so you will be scored wrong!

[marcia]

I agree with you, Elaine.

And I specially get a bad feeling when I am in a way forced to click on things that are IMHO 'inclusions' or no tracks at all. And I'm still not convinced that I can learn from the CM's what a track could be, I only learn what the team wants from me to get a high score.

Marcella

[stardust1]

Since the most 'cute, funny or interesting etc. movies' are Calibration Movies these days I was uncertain where to post those two.
Have fun with the ultimate trickster and the tiniest 2px-3D-dot.
I got them both 'correctly' but this was more due to 'advanced training' as Marcella said than due to conviction. Thus I have to agree to the previous posts. The new CMs may be good to keep the dusters concentrated and to teach them to tag only features that keep in focus but there is a great incentive to click on almost every dot on Real Movies.
<edit>
If the new CMs are better than the old ones depends on what the scientists intend. If they were satisfied with the phase I candidates there would be enough stuff to puzzle. If none of them is really 'worth cutting out' (my guess) phase II process might help to find more potentials. </edit>

[elainekeefe]

Marcia and Stardust1, I agree with you both about the conviction vs. training issue. At this point, I am totally confused about what the team wants. It's like starting all over again. Unlike in Phase 1, I do find myself looking more for CM's than tracks, which is obviously not what we're here to do. This is way too stressful! Let me get my tranquilizers.....

[DiamondGirl]

At this point, I am totally confused about what the team wants. It's like starting all over again.

I have to say I agree. Seems to be a consensus. I think the focus movies are better - they do make me work harder than those in Phase 1 - but they are still pretty problematic. Having to click on things I would normally think were obvious inclusions (like the ones where 9 different specks come up at once with no tracks) makes me wonder if I've been missing a bunch of stuff right along that I avoided because I thought it would be better not to click when I was fairly certain they were not dust. Now I find that I'm paying more attention, but also more unsure of what to click on. YIKES. Calgon, take me away.

[marymouse]

Please Stardust1 I don't see the tracks on the movies you referred to. I was doing pretty well in Phase I but I don't see them, but I feel at a loss now. I did the tutorial but...

Also, are they supposed to move - I see that in the forum people are talking about moving dots.

Also, are tracks supposed to disappear at the bottom of the focus? I thought the hole was supposed to persist.

Thanks.

[fjgiie]

First movie rt edge middle, second movie left edge middle. Easy to see if you know where they are!

[jsmaje]

Please Stardust1 I don't see the tracks on the movies you referred to. I was doing pretty well in Phase I but I don't see them, but I feel at a loss now. I did the tutorial but...
Also, are they supposed to move - I see that in the forum people are talking about moving dots.
Also, are tracks supposed to disappear at the bottom of the focus? I thought the hole was supposed to persist.

I reckon fjgiie's right: Stardust1's 'tiniest' is at 49/190, and the 'ultimate trickster' (though it doesn't look that tricky to me) is at 457/165.

I don't know what people mean by 'moving dots' either, unless they're talking about HATs (previously LATs - see here). All the old and new calibration tracks I've seen are stationary compared to the surroundings during focussing up & down.

Having deliberately waited a couple of weeks before diving into Phase 2, I've benefited greatly by learning from you brave pioneers, and the team's alacrity in sorting out at least some of the teething problems as a result. I'd recommend calibration movies 3642469V1 and 1581053V1 to see the subtle but real difference between inclusions and inclusion-like (possible) tracks, the latter having at least some evidence of a disturbance leading from the surface. And I read somewhere today (sorry can't find the reference) that interstellar particle tracks, against initial expectation, may not penetrate to or go beyond the bottom of the aerogel level imaged, itself only 1 or 2% of the tile thickness as far as I can recall. Some new CM tracks I've seen do in fact tend to peter out or become 'splodgy' toward bottom focus, or show just a partial circular edge.

OK, these are still unconfirmed as interstellar particle tracks, but I vote with those (so far a minority it seems) saying that the new movies are in fact an improvement, and that they are certainly keeping us on our toes.

John