Originally posted by FreakyKBHAre you really that dense? You don't recognize image overlays when you see them? Have you ever thought they just might have overlaid star images on the night scene of Earth for dramatic effect?
If it's not a software glitch, what is your explanation for what happens ~15:11-16:00 mark?
Are the stars merely reflecting off the surface of the planet, or does the planet suddenly become transparent?
25 Jun 17
Originally posted by sonhouseHa!
Are you really that dense? You don't recognize image overlays when you see them? Have you ever thought they just might have overlaid star images on the night scene of Earth for dramatic effect?
That's so precious!
Priceless, really.
Now NASA (or other space agency) is in the dramatic effect biz?
Positively cute!
Seriously, though: why the eff up?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think it is reflections (in glass near the camera, not the planet) but without more information about the source of the video I can't tell. I don't think it has anything to do with software though. I saw the shuttle in other parts of the video so it is presumably quite old footage.
If it's not a software glitch, what is your explanation for what happens ~15:11-16:00 mark?
Are the stars merely reflecting off the surface of the planet, or does the planet suddenly become transparent?
26 Jun 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe should also consider the possibility that the Earth is made of glass.
I think it is reflections (in glass near the camera, not the planet) but without more information about the source of the video I can't tell. I don't think it has anything to do with software though. I saw the shuttle in other parts of the video so it is presumably quite old footage.
Flat glass.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLooking at it closer I see stars moving but the dots of light not. What that is then is noise on the camera, points of light that are dots of the sensors putting out a point of light because of camera noise. If you look closely at the stars visible, they are moving but the dots of light are not so it is noise in the camera. If they wanted bad enough they could have run an algorithm to eliminate the dots of light. You notice at the beginning, the title said 'raw data'. That means un-processed to remove bits like the dots on the camera sensor. I first thought it was an overlay for effect but then I noticed the dots were not moving compared to the background with stars changing position but not the dots. There are a couple of dark dots at 14;48 and at the end the dots clearly move because they are specs on the camera so several artifacts may be happening where there was dust on the camera lens, noise in the electronics.
Ha!
That's so precious!
Priceless, really.
Now NASA (or other space agency) is in the dramatic effect biz?
Positively cute!
Seriously, though: why the eff up?
26 Jun 17
Originally posted by sonhouseThe stars are not moving.
Looking at it closer I see stars moving but the dots of light not. What that is then is noise on the camera, points of light that are dots of the sensors putting out a point of light because of camera noise. If you look closely at the stars visible, they are moving but the dots of light are not so it is noise in the camera. If they wanted bad enough they co ...[text shortened]... al artifacts may be happening where there was dust on the camera lens, noise in the electronics.
In the few seconds leading up to the 15:11 stretch, there's a shot of the shuttle to the right of the frame, earth covering 3/4's of the rest of the screen.
Unless my screen resolution is off, I see no stars at all, curiously.
Otherwise, the stars in both scenes are stationary.
And showing up through the earth.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLook closer. Around 15:43 and on a few seconds if you look close you can see ground effects moving but the dots are not, clearly either dust on the camera or noise in the image detector. I would go for noise in the image detector because the dots are too clearly visible, in 'focus' but if it was due to dust on the lens, they would most likely not be seen much at all because they would be way out of focus.
The stars are not moving.
In the few seconds leading up to the 15:11 stretch, there's a shot of the shuttle to the right of the frame, earth covering 3/4's of the rest of the screen.
Unless my screen resolution is off, I see no stars at all, curiously.
Otherwise, the stars in both scenes are stationary.
And showing up through the earth.
27 Jun 17
Originally posted by sonhouseAs I said, it's the star field projected, not dust, not noise, and def not a reflection.
Look closer. Around 15:43 and on a few seconds if you look close you can see ground effects moving but the dots are not, clearly either dust on the camera or noise in the image detector. I would go for noise in the image detector because the dots are too clearly visible, in 'focus' but if it was due to dust on the lens, they would most likely not be seen much at all because they would be way out of focus.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you knew what it was, then why come in here just to naysay people telling you what it is?
As I said, it's the star field projected, not dust, not noise, and def not a reflection.
Not enough people in Debates thinking you're a git?
At least maybe you now know why NASA processes their images.
Dust (or maybe micro-meteoroid pits) on the outside of the windows would be my wild guess, since that's really all we have to go on here, not knowing how old this footage is.
27 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneBesides that, it isn't even NASA footage. It is ESA stuff. I still think it is noise in the camera image sensor, it seems too much in focus to be dust on the lens but it still could be dust on a window and you don't have much image comprehension if you can't see the bits not moving in the frame and the stars moving in the background like I said just before the 15 minute point. Same thing with the Earth image, there are features moving in different ways there too but you cannot for some reason comprehend what is actually going on. I thought at first it was video overlay but I was wrong about that, it is in fact part of the footage however it happened but I think dust on a window or noise in the camera sensor is the answer. The fact you (Freak) cannot see the difference goes to your ability to comprehend in general.
If you knew what it was, then why come in here just to naysay people telling you what it is?
Not enough people in Debates thinking you're a git?
At least maybe you now know why NASA processes their images.
Dust (or maybe micro-meteoroid pits) on the outside of the windows would be my wild guess, since that's really all we have to go on here, not knowing how old this footage is.
All that aside, once you saw the image you thought were stars showing on the surface of Earth, what was you agenda to put that video here? Back to the flat Earth thing or what? What is your aim here?
27 Jun 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat do you mean by 'projected'? And how do you know its not a reflection? Have you been able to identify any constellations to prove that:
As I said, it's the star field projected, not dust, not noise, and def not a reflection.
a) it is stars and
b) they are not reflected.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's the same ole same ole, he sees what he want's to see and to hell with actual analysis and reason.
What do you mean by 'projected'? And how do you know its not a reflection? Have you been able to identify any constellations to prove that:
a) it is stars and
b) they are not reflected.