DanZ wrote:By the way, 5 other people have clicked on this movie so far, and no one else has gotten it right yet either.
4476661V1 is a bit off. People say they have tried both the left end of the track and the blob and both give wrong answers.
The track appears to be this one identified in this thread
and I think the target is the deflected particle at the end of the track.
Here is the relevant portion of 4476661V1 at deepest focus and same magnification as A & B:
I agree with Vacuity that 4476661V1
is a "bit off", i.e. poorly focussed. Not only is the putative track never fully focussed, the surface of the aerogel in fact never appears throughout the whole depth of the movie (we seem to be sub-surface all the way the down). For that reason, when I first came across the same movie I nearly clicked on 'Bad Focus' without further thought, but on noticing the top-right feature and its resemblance to the track in A & B (having now found it to be ubiquitous), took a closer look. Whilst this feature is blurrier, larger and more extended (whether having been artificially manipulated or being a different sample), I eventually decided to click on the vague small, highest blob right on the very edge of the frame (arrowed), being the closest equivalent to that which I've found is deemed 'correct' for A/B (the top-left in B), and conceivably the end of the track. And I was
scored correct! Only later did I find DanZ had hinted
How come then that greuti
has has found clicking on the most prominent blob(s) in A & B is acceptable; would this in fact be true in the case of the more extended 4476661V1?
Regarding zioriga's other similar-looking movie, 1552881V1
, from the reasoning above I'd have clicked on the small(er) blob at coordinates 480,214 (470,220 seems to lie lower than and between both visible blobs, but hardly a long way away. Can we be told the 'correct' coordinates?)
It's for all these reasons that I've asked
what radius of tolerance in pixels the team take to be acceptable (and around what exactly).
Meanwhile, as Vacuity points out, there seems to be no evidence in 4476661V1 that the supposed track has extended from the surface, (a) because it peters out quite quickly into featureless areogel at all levels, (b) has been pasted so low as to be legitimately considered artefactual, and (c) because we never in fact see