51–60 of 161 posts
> "will be used to beam 4K moon footage at up to 260 Mbps."
> "Data rates of 260 Mbps can be achieved..."
I wonder what size stream will be available to us. The largest I see in general is 70-90 Mbps for a 4k Bluray Remux and that includes lossless audio. I imagine they would want as much data as possible—significantly more than would be visible to the human eye.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don’t think budget cuts prevented the camera operator from panning up at the right time…
> panning up at the right time… I've watched hours of athlete parents try to track their athlete kid and it's marginally useful at best. Lots of shaky cam even at Pop Warner football speeds. So panning at the right time, with the muscle control to keep the object centered, is harder than you think. If they have a professional videographer on staff working that camera it almost certainly would have never happened. Elo…
NASA's rendering of the flyby: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a005500/a005536/a2_fly... Hope we get to see something like this in 4K !
Is that real-time or sped up? This video is about 1 minute. How much real time does it correspond to?
Hopefully, the footage is better than the missed pan up at lift-off, and showing spectators at the time of booster separation. I understand funding cuts and all, but this is a once-in-a-generation moment and it’s filmed with no apparent effort whatsoever.
The camera and simulation footage were a bit of a letdown and something SpaceX does much better. On the other hand NASA launches do evoke a feeling of substance over form where science takes precedence over presentation. For that money however I concur - I expected more. Especially the simulation footage where the lack of brightness made it hard to see the vehicle - they might as well have used KSP for it
Go look what the livestream was like for the Mars Curiosity rover, it was fantastic, and that was on a mission taking place 8 minutes away. Their simulation was mostly Demo data for some parts of the mission, but included such things as what part of the control program it was in! It was even a good rendering. I screenshotted it for a desktop background.
But the camera quality is so low and I don't get it.
It seems like the entire industry has just ignored the lessons of old: "Get someone who does this for a living". They should have connections and partnerships with movie companies who actually know how to run cameras. That shouldn't be expensive nowadays, as that knowledge seems to be cheap enough for Youtube creators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A more accurate claim would be: never-before-seen in real-time at that fidelity from lunar distance.
Real time has to be about the most useless factor here. I don’t care if it’s a year delayed, it’s not like I was going to head up there myself.
You're never going to be able to IPO your space startup with that attitude.
Hopefully, the footage is better than the missed pan up at lift-off, and showing spectators at the time of booster separation. I understand funding cuts and all, but this is a once-in-a-generation moment and it’s filmed with no apparent effort whatsoever.
Maybe that included the camera crews and equipment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a “you have one job” kind of thing for shooting liftoff (no matter what quality of equipment is on hand): rocket goes up, tilt camera up. Bonus: Try to match the speed of the tilt with the speed of the rocket in the frame.
They did that with the Apollo 17 LEM lift-off https://www.redsharknews.com/technology-computing/item/2742-...
/s but not really
How does laser communication work with a moving object with 9DoF?!
Apparently with a gimbal and some fast-moving mirrors. https://www.ll.mit.edu/news/lincoln-laboratory-laser-communi...