The Saturn Fly-By 83
Jamie noted that today's Astronomy Picture of the Day is actually a video of Saturn built by compiling actual photographs taken by Cassini in 2004. Unlike most videos of this type, this isn't actually 3D animation, these are the actual photos (albeit "digitally tweaked, cropped"). Great views of the planet, as well as Titan, Mimas and Enceladus.
Wouldn't play (Score:3)
I couldn't get the video to play at the link in TFA. But this one did: http://vimeo.com/11386048 [vimeo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have FlashBlock extension? If so, then it is doing that. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have FlashBlock extension? If so, then it is doing that. :(
I do, but FlashBlock doesn't keep you from playing Flash, it just makes you start it by clicking on it first. This is what happened at the link I gave as well, except the video played. The link in TFA just kept saying it was loading.
Re: (Score:2)
Weird. For me, I can click but no video starts. Not even buffer. :( It only happens with embedded vimeo.com videos and this is a known issue.
Re: (Score:2)
I find this as well - Flash Block for Chrome prevents me from playing embedded Vimeo videos until I "Always allow flash on this site", then it plays fine.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.mozdev.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23213 [mozdev.org] was my report. Only vimeo.com does this.
Re: (Score:2)
Same for me. The vimeo link worked. Using Chrome 10.0.648.133 on Mac OS X 10.6.6.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the most goddamned beautiful things I've ever seen.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, I'm in awe. To think that we can send a probe that far away, have it perform gravitational swings by all these moons, take measurements and images, assemble them into a thing of such beauty, and convey the scale of the Saturn system to be viewed here at home in comfort ... well, it makes me glad to be alive to have seen such a thing!
I, for one, would like to offer my congratulations and my thanks to everyone who has had a hand in making any aspect of this whole thing possible.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm with you. Just breathtaking. Nice music, too.
That's no moon... (Score:2)
Re:That's no moon... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Are you out of your Gort" would have been funnier.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a minute... that's no moon! No wait! Yes it is!
Re: (Score:2)
It's a space station!
Or was I the only one who noticed? @~1:34
Duh! What did you think happened to the planet between Mars and Jupiter? Too bad they miscalculated the energy needs of the main gun and then got stuck in Saturn's orbit, a long time ago... Lucas changed the location (supposedly to protect "the innocent"). But as you know, he's prone to doing things like that. Mostly the changing, not so much protecting.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. It's even been noted in Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
The ring (Score:1)
It always surprises me how thin the ring is. BTW, Saturn, the Lord of the Ring? Saturday, I wonder if that had a special meaning to Tolkien. So, how is Peter's Hobbit going on? These movie delays always surprise me.
Re: (Score:2)
I read through their other comments - apparently that's their thing.
Re: (Score:2)
what a string of babbling bullshit. you strike me as the sort of person who thinks if they talk for long enough, they will turn into something more than a fucking idiot.
You, sir, obviously do not understand the beauty and gravitas of fine, mind altering chemicals.
Re: (Score:1)
Woah.
And you know. They are rings but they dont ring. Heavy.
I mean they are rings but they are not ringing. This is some deep stuff.
I'm hungry.
So, what is it? (Score:2)
I'm not sure I understand what's happened here. It certainly looks like a computer animation!
Is each frame a separate photo? Just cropped to line up with the previous one, cleaned up and colour-treated to match?
Or is there a lot more artifice going on?
Re:So, what is it? (Score:5, Informative)
It's a bit more. Each original picture was used as the base of a very short sequence (basically, anywhere from a dozen to a hundred frames), with all the work being done in linking each still into the entire sequence.
The magic is that it appears seamless.
It's as fake as the Moon landing! (Score:1, Funny)
They didn't even get the disc in 3D while flying through them - this is AT BEST a 3D rendering with TEXTURES taken from the Cassini flyby - though frankly its so bad and yet marketed otherwise in a fashion that makes me call in question whether or not "Cassini" was real or just a ploy to disguise a nuclear satellite. And I (before seeing this) thought the Moon landing was real!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So, what is it? (Score:5, Informative)
ftfa,
Do note that several thousand layers of many Cassini photographs were animated to make the fly-through work without any 3D CGI. The saturation is off due to lack of Flash Player ICM support.
The initial article makes a similar statement. These are photos that have been taken by Cassini over the course of its tour of Saturn. The artist has made the effort to color match, light match, image match the thousands of shots to create the final product. From what I read (and yes, I did read both the articles) this has not been an easy process.
For myself, I am blow away by the beauty of the universe ,and the minds that not only put Cassini there to take these images, but the mind who could seen them pieced together. The only thing better would have been to be in a spacecraft that could fly around Saturn and show me even more. Simply beautiful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is each frame a separate photo? Just cropped to line up with the previous one, cleaned up and colour-treated to match?
Yep. That's exactly what's going on.
Article made me hungry (Score:1)
Great views of the planet, as well as Titan, Mimas and Enceladus.
Wonderful. Mama makes excellent titanic enchiladas.
no cgi my ass (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So it's crossing a 30m thick ring at 10000 km/s, what were you expecting to see?
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Saturn [wikipedia.org]
You have a spacecraft flying through the rings at a minimum of several thousand miles per hour taking relatively low resolution photos (they don't have a Canon 1DS mk III or Nikon D3X with macro lens on board and can't stop the probe to take a perfect edge-on shot of the rings). Besides, I suspect that when you actually approach the rings up close enough to use a macro lens it would be very disperse, nebulous, much like when you walk up to a dense cloud bank on
Re: (Score:1)
The best proof that this is fake is probably at 0:30, where 7 moons are within their angular diameters of each other. What was the date of this extraordinary alignment, so I can confirm it in Celestia?
Re:no cgi my ass (Score:4, Interesting)
Death star? (Score:1)
Anyone else see the death star at 01:33?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even better is the thermal map [nasa.gov]...
Oblig Star Wars (Score:1, Redundant)
Right there at 1:30. No getting around it.
i am humbled (Score:3)
by how beautiful that was.
Confusing Trajectory (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't quite understand the trajectory of the probe. For example in the last shot, it swoops past Mimas zooming straight toward the Saturnian surface, then appears to change direction curving vertically, passing through the rings (why no hail of ice damage?), then swoops back around and turns around heading toward Encledatus at top speed. How is this even possible?
Yeah, that was what I was wondering. If that's only from pictures, it wasn't from a sequence of pictures that are in order.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be very interested in knowing why.
Also, how come it isn't dangerous for the probe to cross the rings at very high speed?
Re: (Score:3)
Keep in mind that the attitude of the spacecraft is independent of the trajectory (well, mostly), so what you're seeing are the combinations of attitude changes and and position changes. Without your inner ear telling you which way you're pointing, its difficult to keep your bearings straight.
It seems like on approach its focused on Mimas, which is mostly in the velocity direction, while as it goes through the close flyby it moves to observe Saturn and is pointed in radial direction, and then repoints itse
Typo (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Doing 3D has made me too cynical (Score:2)
I keep thinking "What is that, a sphere with a lambert shader? Some kind of procedural ring texture on a plane? Might want to add some rocks while passing through the ring so it doesn't just pop. Those shadows are way too sharp, might want to turn on raytracing for those."
It sucks that I can't appreciate this properly and my brain just keeps interpreting it all as fake because my only other reference for something like this are 3D renders.
Also, I've loved Agnus Dei ever since hearing it in Homeworld.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
From Wikipedia entry for Adagio for Strings:
A choral version â" Agnus Dei â" can be heard in the soundtrack to the PC video game Homeworld
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I knew I'd heard that music before. Now I need to find my old Homeworld CDs.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, the ring pops but doesn't look half bad; the pixelated stars are another matter though... linky [youtube.com]
Cassini passed through the rings? (Score:2)
The video makes it look like it does. Or is this a consequence of the zoom factor used, and did Cassini pass the equator outside of the rings?
Re:Cassini passed through the rings? (Score:5, Informative)
Space lighting looks unrealistic (Score:3)
I think the majority of the problem is that we are accustomed to seeing atmospheric effects in lighting. Space doesn't have that, so your light genuinely is a single point-source. The images thus look like what you would get from simplistic point-source renderers, with sharp shadows, no diffusion and no ambient light, which causes our minds to classify them as fake.
Run for your lives! (Score:1)
Call Luke Skywalker! You can see the death star at 1:30!
Since no one else bothered (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The images are not rendered CG, however the movie is intended to be a visual poetry piece a` la Baraka. I imagine they cut the images and lined them up for dramatic effect. No real conspiracy there.
Its a FAKE! (Score:1)
The summaries are very misleading. They misrepresent this film as if its actual motion video taken from the probe's perspective. Even the video itself claims no CGI was used, but CGI WAS used! The website even tells us how it was made: "Using hundreds of thousands of still images manipulated to create full motion, using “2.75D” photographic fly-through technology." That's why there are so many errors in perspective and the probe's velocity and position don't make sense. This is a neat FANTASY fl
Re: (Score:2)