Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Bug Media Space Graphics

SpaceX Landing Video Cleanup Making Progress 54

Posted by timothy from the from-worse-to-bad dept.
Maddog Batty (112434) writes 'The fine people at the NASA Space Flight Forum are making good progress on restoring the corrupted landing video reported earlier. It worth looking at the original video to see how bad it was and then at the latest restored video. It is now possible to see the legs being deployed, the sea coming closer and a big flame ball as the rocket plume hits the water. An impressive improvement so far and it is still being actively worked on so further refinements are likely.' Like Maddog Batty, I'd suggest watching the restored version first (note: the video is lower on the page), to see just what a big improvement's been made so far.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpaceX Landing Video Cleanup Making Progress More

SpaceX Landing Video Cleanup Making Progress

Comments Filter:

  • Special edition (Score:2, Funny)

    by abies ( 607076 )

    Will they add small robots and funny looking animals in background later? I don't think that even cleaned version represents artistic vision of landing they had in mind.

  • To heck with fixing up the video, just launch another rocket already and try again.

    • Re:Just do it again (Score:5, Interesting)

      by arse maker ( 1058608 ) on Thursday June 05, 2014 @08:43AM (#47171327)

      They will shortly, there was a planned launch last month but it has been pushed back for various reasons. http://www.space.com/25822-spa... [space.com]

      The fact they have this thing vertical at well below terminal velocity and apparently not spinning means the rest is just details. Controlling it down from supersonic is the hard part. They have made many successful landings with grasshopper from a vertical, low speed non spinning state.

      • Re:Just do it again (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 05, 2014 @09:00AM (#47171423)

        This landing in particular holds some interesting extra data though, as this landing was during a storm strong enough to keep ships out of the area. So seeing how well the rocket performs in such extreme circumstances, where you can have considerable lateral wind loading, in as much detail as possible could be quite useful for later engineering work.

        • This is true - in the repaired video, the rocket can be seen adjusting its course significantly as it descends towards the sea. The control software seems to be able to cope with it well, which is good!

    • Re:Just do it again (Score:5, Funny)

      by StripedCow ( 776465 ) on Thursday June 05, 2014 @09:04AM (#47171449)

      Or they could just pay the license fee to unlock the DRM.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        They should use the same software that's used on those CSI shows. Those police can enhance a cheap security camera image into a full color HD quality image that can zoom in and read a newspaper article from 3 blocks away.

  • cheap webcam (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cheeze ( 12756 ) on Thursday June 05, 2014 @08:39AM (#47171297) Homepage

    looks like they tried to use video conference software over a dialup modem with a webcam from 2001.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geogob ( 569250 )

      The technical challenges of running a telemetry link with something falling through the sky from a moving aircraft has little to do with that of plugging two televisions together over a wired network. I'd expect the bandwidth for the video to be, in fact, comparable to that of a dial modem, especially considering that the bandwidth is shared with a lot of other housekeeping data which are probably much more important and useful than the video feed.

      • Re:cheap webcam (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kaiser423 ( 828989 ) on Thursday June 05, 2014 @09:53AM (#47171841)
        Video feeds are typically their own streams. They're typically in the couple of Mbit range, but really can be anything. We've had 10+Mbps video links, but they're typically high frame rate versus high resolution. The thing to remember here is that you can't do any real fancy compression or modulations schemes typically, so every a couple of Mb/s really isn't that high of resolution. This is because you know that you're dropping bits, you're signal is fading unpredictably, the signal propagation path is changing wildly, etc so things like QAM don't work, and compression actually hurts because you're often getting errors in the blocks, etc really throws a wrench in the whole thing. So you almost have to ship the video raw over some fairly inefficient modulation scheme like FM or SOQPSK (more efficient, but more likely to burst-lose lots of data).

        I took a quick look at the embedded video stream, and it looks like there would have been a better way to pack it (looks like some asynchronous frames inside, with multiple sync words inside needing to be correct to get a good frame, made it harder than it had to be. But still, this isn't easy stuff. I expect them to come out shooting next time though. They really didn't have much in the area to grab the video with good fidelity because they had other things to focus on, but this time I expect a bit more.

        I do telemetry chase form aircraft, boats, etc for exactly this type of thing for a living. Fun job :)

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mvpel ( 18165 )

          The story we heard from SpaceX is that due to the weather, they couldn't get a boat out in the 15-foot seas, and the NASA chase plane they usually use wasn't available, so they went up in Elon's private jet equipped with an antenna jerry-rigged from a pizza pan stuck in the window. Maybe next time they'll use a Pringles can instead. :D

          One of the mpeg experts was lamenting the encoding - there was no error correction enabled in the MPEG encoding, and the images were interlaced from an NTSC 29.97 down to a 15

          • I typically supply the NASA chase plane for downrange TM :) We could have supported, just weren't asked to (likely a cost thing and potential safety thing).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Well considering HOW they actually got the video, I guess it's not too shabby. Here's a quote from Musk from the recent Dragon v2 unveiling:

      "As far as the soft landing of the boost phase, it was interesting, when we got the corrupted video back, because we really actually had a real difficult time getting the telemetry. In fact, I'll tell you a funny thing. We actually had to - because normally we get the bulk of the telemetry from a boat. We also have a backup, an AP3 that was going to go up, and the P3 go

  • Digital vs analog (Score:3)

    by Hamsterdan ( 815291 ) on Thursday June 05, 2014 @08:44AM (#47171331)

    Old debate, but analog video would at least be watchable (like analog vs DTV reception). Digital is nice and all, but it's all or nothing. Or they could have added error correction (what was the codec BTW?)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geogob ( 569250 )

      But you wouldn't get it through the telemetry data feed. You'd have to have an separate analog transmitter just for the video feed. I'd say that it would be worth it if the video feed was critical. I doubt it is... it's most likely only a nice to have feature.

    • I believe the codec was FFMPEG - they've got one of the codec's authors helping out on the recovery effort.

    • Sure but they weren't making a TV show. They have the telemetry (from what I can tell), its just the video that is so poor. Getting high bandwidth data from below the horizon of a fast moving object is hardly easy.

      They will have nice enough videos when they bring the first stage back to land :)

    • FEC is a standard feature of any digital video broadcast

      problem is they only have TS file from the receiver with badly interpreted FEC, not a raw stream of I/Q samples that can be worked on more extensively, so only way to recover anything now is to try and guess what went wrong in the receiver and what got shifted/xored.

      It would be prudent in the future for SpaceX to have SDR as a backup receiver.

  • Summary of techniques used? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Whip ( 4737 ) on Thursday June 05, 2014 @08:51AM (#47171373)

    I would *love* to see a summary of the types of problems the video stream has, and the techniques used to recover them. Anyone feel like sorting through the ~70 pages of thread and cataloging them? :)

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sorry- the people who could/would do this for you are.. you know.. actually helping with the restoration.

    • Re:Summary of techniques used? (Score:5, Informative)

      by werepants ( 1912634 ) on Thursday June 05, 2014 @09:34AM (#47171661)
      I've been following the thread, but I don't know shit about video codecs or recovery so my understanding is limited at best. That said, it seems like FFMPEG (the codec used, I think) gains a lot of its compression by containing occasional keyframes that contain the full image, and then calculating deltas for providing subsequent frames. So, if you miss a few keyframes, you get huge swaths of video that are totally unintelligible. And, I think errors can cascade down into many subsequent frames because of the way the original image is modified and modified again.

      As well, I get the impression that blocks within images can have the same sorts of issues, where an early bit or two in error can corrupt the entire thing. So, the effort has seemed to focus on trying to go through and fix keyframes first, and sometimes human pattern recognition can pick out the errors quickly, sometimes it looks like it has been a frame-by-frame trial and error where someone flips a bit and sees what comes out.

      Given ~20 seconds of video, ~30 FPS, and probably several hundred blocks per frame, that's on the order of 100,000 pieces that are being repaired by human trial-and-error. It's a pretty herculean effort led by some extremely capable people.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's actually ~15fps - the camera itself is apparently running NTSC 29.97 fps and interlacing two frames to produce one frame to hand off to a non-interlaced MPEG encoding for transmission over the radio. "FFMPEG" is the open-source video software tool - see http://www.ffmpeg.org/

        The cascading corruption occurs because each "macroblock" - an 8x8 square block of pixels - which makes up the video image can depend on the block above it or the block to its left, and for pframes, the corresponding block in the p

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by adisakp ( 705706 )
        FFMPEG is a program that supports hundreds of Codecs. It's likely they used a H264 or a compatible variant as the actual codec because a) its currently the most commonly used advanced video compression algorithm, b) there is plentiful hardware and software support for encoding / decoding, and c) it has a very good tradeoff for quality, bitrate, and processing horsepower required.

        There is no guarantee you will get keyframes using H264 if you are compressing video without detectable screen cuts. Some H264
        • Ya, I realized that shortly after posting this. A more knowledgeable poster said it was MPEG4 in an MPEG-TS transport stream.

    • Re:Summary of techniques used? (Score:5, Informative)

      by dinfinity ( 2300094 ) on Thursday June 05, 2014 @09:42AM (#47171729)

      There's a wiki here: http://spacexlanding.wikispace... [wikispaces.com]

    • Re:Summary of techniques used? (Score:5, Informative)

      by VideoPrincess ( 3683567 ) on Thursday June 05, 2014 @11:34AM (#47172671)
      Hi, I'm the user "Princess" on the NSF site and I've mainly been involved with cleaning up the file at the TS level. I can answer any questions you like. The best summary for the Slashdot audience would be this one [nasaspaceflight.com] by Lourens, it explains things simply without dumbing things down. The types of problems we have are basically that bits have been either flipped or (rarely) omitted. The flips tend to clump together, i.e. you'll get an area that's good and then an area that's awful. The work is approximately divided into two parts: fixing up the file, and fixing up the video that results. I work on fixing the file, and from that I can find extra frames and pieces of MPEG4 data for the video people. Fixing the video is done by using a modified version of ffmpeg that can change macroblock pointers, ordering, luma and chroma. This work is not done on the file directly and can't easily be mapped back to the file, so it's not just a question of flipping bits once you get to the video level. Other technical info: The video itself is a broadcast (fixed bandwidth) MPEG-TS stream containing one video stream, a 704x480 MPEG4 stream at approx. 15 fps (technically half the NTSC framerate which is 15000 / 1001 fps).

  • I WANT TO BELIEVE (Score:3)

    by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Thursday June 05, 2014 @08:51AM (#47171379) Homepage Journal
    It still looks like it was filmed with a Logitech potato.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Unfortunately the hight quality cameras are specified for 0-70 degrees Celsius and indoors use only.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by mvpel ( 18165 )

        Not to mention melting due to aerodynamic heating:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cvYIHIgH-s

    • Somebody needs to throw together one of those X-Files "I WANT TO BELIEVE" parody posters with a fuzzy Falcon 9 1st stage coming down for a fiery landing exactly as described by Ezekiel.
  • they just did a conversion in VLC and bamn! clear video!

  • For those of you carping (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Keep in mind that this was transmitting in a storm. As such, they were losing data. All in all, what they have cleaned up, has been impressive.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close