Mars images rendered in 4K [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
Mars images rendered in 4K [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEyAs3NWH4A
117 comments
I downloaded it with youtube-dl because I cannot stand the excessive adverts on Youtube these days. During the download it grabbed this video file:
Input #0, matroska,webm, from 'New - Mars In 4K-ZEyAs3NWH4A.f313.webm.part':
Metadata:
encoder : google/video-file
Duration: 00:10:08.41, start: 0.000000, bitrate: 4436 kb/s
Stream #0:0(eng): Video: vp9 (Profile 0), yuv420p(tv, bt709), 3840x2160, SAR 1:1 DAR 16:9, 29.97 fps, 29.97 tbr, 1k tbn, 1k tbc (default)
> I downloaded it with youtube-dl because I cannot stand the excessive adverts on Youtube these days.
Can't you use an ad-blocker?
Can't you use an ad-blocker?
Or, you know, pay for the premium version
You're not really paying for the ads, you're really paying for an incredibly crappy music streaming service (Youtube Music).
The music service is different from ad-free youtube. As for YT music it's the same as all the other music service, they all have the same catalog.
Mine goes up to "2160p" but since the source photos are stitched together, I'm not sure what their total resolution would be (probably varies based on what/how many were stitched together).
It's basically some pans across high resolution composite images. Quite cool but not captured video. As they mention, there's not much moving there anyway but it will be cool when someday we can look at high def (or even stereoscopic) video from these remote locations.
It's basically some pans across high resolution composite images. Quite cool but not captured video. As they mention, there's not much moving there anyway but it will be cool when someday we can look at high def (or even stereoscopic) video from these remote locations.
You can get stereoscopic images from the Curiosity navigation cameras. You could do a much better job of correcting the lens distortion, but I made an example in 2012 (I decided to make the sky blue as a stylistic choice at the time, for which I was rightly criticized as Mars does not have a blue sky and people might think the images were from Earth): https://blog.mikebourgeous.com/2012/08/06/curiositys-view-of...
I was experiencing that on Safari, then switched to Chrome and it now shows 4K.
Confirmed. Once I switched to Chrome, I could see the 4K quality option.
2160p also shows up for me on Firefox & Brave.
Golden rule: don't use Safari for Youtube.
Golden rule: don't use Safari for Youtube.
Is this about VP9 support?
From Wikipedia regarding VP9[1]: "Parts of the format are covered by patents held by Google. The company grants free usage of its own related patents based on reciprocity, i.e. as long as the user does not engage in patent litigations."
Of course Apple refuses to add VP9; Google demands that Apple would never sue them over any patent. Any. It looks like Google/YouTube caved in, and has/will start encoding (the most recently uploaded) videos in AV1 codec, which will work on tvOS. Hopefully that will translate to Safari on macOS and iOS for those who use it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP9
Of course Apple refuses to add VP9; Google demands that Apple would never sue them over any patent. Any. It looks like Google/YouTube caved in, and has/will start encoding (the most recently uploaded) videos in AV1 codec, which will work on tvOS. Hopefully that will translate to Safari on macOS and iOS for those who use it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP9
In 9/10 cases you don't see the difference anyway unless you are actually on a very large screen and you don't mind wasting the extra computing power.
If you're talking about a beautifully mastered Blu-Ray, then that might be true.
But given how aggressively YouTube compresses videos, watching in 4K can provide a huge improvement over 1080p even if your screen only has, say, 1,600 lines like my MBP does, instead of the 2,160 lines that 4K actually produces. It's really about the clarity of textures and how lifelike they are -- it's very noticeable. Of course, this also assumes you have good vision.
I also don't think anyone's too worried about "wasting computing power" here for a short video.
But given how aggressively YouTube compresses videos, watching in 4K can provide a huge improvement over 1080p even if your screen only has, say, 1,600 lines like my MBP does, instead of the 2,160 lines that 4K actually produces. It's really about the clarity of textures and how lifelike they are -- it's very noticeable. Of course, this also assumes you have good vision.
I also don't think anyone's too worried about "wasting computing power" here for a short video.
That's curious. My observation has been that most of the streaming services have really high compression ratios with 4k streams. With videos like this one, which are built from still images, I imagine you still get significant improvements in quality, but for content that isn't so easily compressible (e.g. action movies), I've seen significant effects from compression in 4k streams as compared to "regular" 4k source material.
As far as "wasting computing power"... I hear some people play video games while watching movies... on the same machine. So that's probably what that is about.
As far as "wasting computing power"... I hear some people play video games while watching movies... on the same machine. So that's probably what that is about.
That's exactly what I'm saying, though.
Because YouTube (like other streaming services) aggressively compresses both 1080p and 4K, but the 4K version still has a much higher bitrate, watching the 4K stream on a 1080p monitor will be significantly better quality than watching a 1080p stream on a 1080p monitor.
I'm not saying you won't see any compression artifacts at all, of course if it's an scene you will. But the 4K version is still noticeably way better than the 1080p one, even in an action scene. It's a higher bitrate so there's more detail no matter what.
Because YouTube (like other streaming services) aggressively compresses both 1080p and 4K, but the 4K version still has a much higher bitrate, watching the 4K stream on a 1080p monitor will be significantly better quality than watching a 1080p stream on a 1080p monitor.
I'm not saying you won't see any compression artifacts at all, of course if it's an scene you will. But the 4K version is still noticeably way better than the 1080p one, even in an action scene. It's a higher bitrate so there's more detail no matter what.
Yeah, what I'm saying is that because the 4k streams are trying to convey more entropy than the 1080p streams, I've observed that even though their bitrate is higher, the resultant compression effects are far more severe, to the point where the overall experience is better with 1080p, sometimes even if you have access to the full 4k resolution. I've seen similar effects with audio content (after a certain point, increasing sampling rate significantly more than bitrate has a deleterious effect).
From an information theory perspective, you are obviously correct that there is more information in the 4k streams and therefore you will get more detail from them. My observation however has often been the opposite.
My attempt to rationalize leans towards notions that the lossy compression techniques we use with video codecs still have significant impedance with the "compression" in our neuro-opthalmologic system.
From an information theory perspective, you are obviously correct that there is more information in the 4k streams and therefore you will get more detail from them. My observation however has often been the opposite.
My attempt to rationalize leans towards notions that the lossy compression techniques we use with video codecs still have significant impedance with the "compression" in our neuro-opthalmologic system.
Oh now I understand what you're saying -- that makes sense. It's not what I've observed, but I definitely can imagine how settings for the compression, or what the algorithm concentrates on, could make that happen. I'll have to pay close attention now! And your rationalization probably makes sense -- I read the h.266 codec is supposedly focusing specifically on perception improvements in 4K/8K, so it may be addressing what your'e perceiving specifically.
Funnily enough, this reminds me of what I did with JPEGs on websites when Retina first became a thing. Instead of serving up different assets depending on resolution, I discovered that serving up a 2x resolution JPEG to everyone, with really crappy quality, was superior to serving up 1x with high quality. For 1x screens, blockiness was inherently shrunken because of JPEG's fixed block sizes, and for 2x screens the low quality was harder to perceive because it was at a small scale anyways. How compression interacts with scale/resolution is not a necessarily intuitive thing.
Funnily enough, this reminds me of what I did with JPEGs on websites when Retina first became a thing. Instead of serving up different assets depending on resolution, I discovered that serving up a 2x resolution JPEG to everyone, with really crappy quality, was superior to serving up 1x with high quality. For 1x screens, blockiness was inherently shrunken because of JPEG's fixed block sizes, and for 2x screens the low quality was harder to perceive because it was at a small scale anyways. How compression interacts with scale/resolution is not a necessarily intuitive thing.
That's a brilliant conclusion on the JPEG hack, and yes, that's precisely what I've observed. You really notice it if you compare to even 1080i with high bitrates (OTA HD TV for example). It's weird.
I believe it's worth watching 4k even on a 1k monitor, because due to chroma sub-sampling there is actually information visible even at the lower resolution.
Do the video decoders take advantage of this? I was under the impression they did not.
For me, it lets me choose both 2160p(4K), 1440p(HD), and 1080p(HD).
I have a 4K option in the youtube menu.
At one point in the video, there is a 1.8 million pixel image where they discuss and show zooming into the image while preserving detail.
At one point in the video, there is a 1.8 million pixel image where they discuss and show zooming into the image while preserving detail.
If you are trying to watch this on a phone then the YouTube app is limiting the maximum resolution to the resolution of your phone.
For me, YouTube is doing 2160p.
Goes up to 4K for me, are you on mobile?
MacBookPro with Safari.
Safari hasn't supported >1080p in years (because it blocks VP9 and Youtube has stopped offering higher resolutions in H264 that Safari supports)
Blocks VP9? Maybe it doesn't support it but blocking would imply it is built-in but forcibly disabled.
It does look like they're testing it since it's in tech preview [1] so once it's relatively-bug free they'll probably release it.
[1] https://developer.apple.com/safari/technology-preview/releas...
It does look like they're testing it since it's in tech preview [1] so once it's relatively-bug free they'll probably release it.
[1] https://developer.apple.com/safari/technology-preview/releas...
Yup. Golden rule: don't use Safari for YouTube (or really for video content in general).
I don’t know if it was a specific mission requirement to give the rover a camera that conveniently functions as a selfie stick, it’s pretty damn genius and gives the photos a lot of context and character.
I'm not sure if panning through static photos Ken Burns-style from Mars qualifies as "Mars in 4K [video]". But I appreciate that it makes these stunning images more accessible to more people.
Does this video make them more accessible? It seems to make them less accessible. It's a video composed of readily-available images from https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/images
At least they're panning at 60fps, decreasing tearing/seizures
The narrator explains why getting HD video would be impractical, but I disagree that we get the same experience from panning stills.
imagine seeing the swirling dust, shifting sands, the bumps and parallax from a moving rover. that would be so cool!
imagine seeing the swirling dust, shifting sands, the bumps and parallax from a moving rover. that would be so cool!
Would be great to add a quality binaural microphone and listen to the sound of Mars.
Apparently the Mars 2020 Rover (https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/spacecraft/rover/microphones) will have that capacity when it lands in February 2021 but the microphones may break after landing: "Engineers are optimizing this microphone for space from easily available, store-bought hardware. It is unlikely it will work beyond landing. If it does survive, we may be able to hear the sounds of the Martian winds and sounds of the working rover, such as the wheels turning, or the motors that turn its head, and the heat pumps that keep it warm."
Apparently the Mars 2020 Rover (https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/spacecraft/rover/microphones) will have that capacity when it lands in February 2021 but the microphones may break after landing: "Engineers are optimizing this microphone for space from easily available, store-bought hardware. It is unlikely it will work beyond landing. If it does survive, we may be able to hear the sounds of the Martian winds and sounds of the working rover, such as the wheels turning, or the motors that turn its head, and the heat pumps that keep it warm."
Very little shifting sands.
Winds in Mars have almost no strength. Air pressure in the Mars surface is very low, something like 1% of Earths. Dust devils and storms are made of extremely fine powder.
Winds in Mars have almost no strength. Air pressure in the Mars surface is very low, something like 1% of Earths. Dust devils and storms are made of extremely fine powder.
The movement shown in this video[0] happened over the span of a martian day. Do not dismiss the winds of Mars, as they have also killed[1] a couple of rovers already.
[0] https://youtu.be/k7pfdFMVj-o
[1] They have also breathed new life on one of those (before killing it, yes) by cleaning the solar panels. I'm referring to the MER Rovers Spirit & Opportunity.
[0] https://youtu.be/k7pfdFMVj-o
[1] They have also breathed new life on one of those (before killing it, yes) by cleaning the solar panels. I'm referring to the MER Rovers Spirit & Opportunity.
As you said, that movement of was over a day and the camera was pointing downwards towards very tiny details of fine grained powder next to a wheel.
You wouldn't notice anything in real time video.
The problem with Mars dust is that it's electrostatic and sticks to surfaces like solar panels.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/the-fact-and-fiction-of...
>It is unlikely that even these dust storms could strand an astronaut on Mars, however. Even the wind in the largest dust storms likely could not tip or rip apart major mechanical equipment. The winds in the strongest Martian storms top out at about 60 miles per hour, less than half the speed of some hurricane-force winds on Earth.
>Focusing on wind speed may be a little misleading, as well. The atmosphere on Mars is about 1 percent as dense as Earth’s atmosphere. That means to fly a kite on Mars, the wind would need to blow much faster than on Earth to get the kite in the air.
The problem with Mars dust is that it's electrostatic and sticks to surfaces like solar panels.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/the-fact-and-fiction-of...
>It is unlikely that even these dust storms could strand an astronaut on Mars, however. Even the wind in the largest dust storms likely could not tip or rip apart major mechanical equipment. The winds in the strongest Martian storms top out at about 60 miles per hour, less than half the speed of some hurricane-force winds on Earth.
>Focusing on wind speed may be a little misleading, as well. The atmosphere on Mars is about 1 percent as dense as Earth’s atmosphere. That means to fly a kite on Mars, the wind would need to blow much faster than on Earth to get the kite in the air.
Totally agree that "The Martian" would never happen in real life. Still, as other have pointed out, there are dust devils and "strong" winds.
"strong" is called a breeze.
Strongest martian storm can have wind speeds up to 100 km/h. Because low air density, the force of the wind would be equal to "Fresh breeze" in Beaufort Wind Scale. (8.5-10.5 m/s) "Small trees sway, waves break on inland waters."
Strongest martian storm can have wind speeds up to 100 km/h. Because low air density, the force of the wind would be equal to "Fresh breeze" in Beaufort Wind Scale. (8.5-10.5 m/s) "Small trees sway, waves break on inland waters."
Parallax, maybe, but no wind = no swirling dust or shifting sands, no?
There is in fact wind. Only ~1% as much air as Earth, but it's sufficient to support phenomena like dust devils.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/1...
Of course, it's very weak, so it couldn't push over a spacecraft or building like in "The Martian", but I suspect sands shifts on a very slow timescale. I'm not sure.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/1...
Of course, it's very weak, so it couldn't push over a spacecraft or building like in "The Martian", but I suspect sands shifts on a very slow timescale. I'm not sure.
There are "dust devils" on Mars: http://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2018/04/Dust_devil_....
You just linked to the ESA version of my NASA link :)
I think I meant to reply to the person above you.
In the images of the post, you can see these effects of wind-driven sand and dust, such as rippled dunes.
But there is wind, and storms.
Isn't there wind on Mars?
> The narrator
It's a machine.
It's a machine.
My first video post and didn’t add the required [video] suffix to the title.
Just realized about it, apologies.
This is a really cool video and I don't mean to detract from it, but seeing how its 10 minutes and 8 seconds long annoyed me so much (and not for the reason you think).
"10 minutes" is an ad milestone for videos on youtube. I systematically click away and hide videos that are between 10:00 and 10:20 minutes long: They'll almost certainly have been artificially slowed down to match the ad requirements.
It's infuriating, and once you know about it, you see it everywhere. Anyway, in this instance it matters a lot less as the audio is completely unimportant…
"10 minutes" is an ad milestone for videos on youtube. I systematically click away and hide videos that are between 10:00 and 10:20 minutes long: They'll almost certainly have been artificially slowed down to match the ad requirements.
It's infuriating, and once you know about it, you see it everywhere. Anyway, in this instance it matters a lot less as the audio is completely unimportant…
YouTube just changed the ad milestone to 8 minutes, and this was posted after this change.
I am guessing many uploaders just don't realize that yet.
On the same topic, who determines the '10 minute' and '8 minute' time scale perfect for engagement and how did they end up with these numbers?
It's the minimum length of time a video must be in order to enable mid-roll ads.
The 10 minutes one seems pretty arbitrary, but to arrive at 8 mins I suspect that Google studies how much time there needs to be so that mid-roll ads don't negatively affect engagement.
(Shout-out to all the wonderful, brilliant engineers working on figuring out how to minimize the user's reaction to cramming AS MANY ADS as possible down their brain)
The 10 minutes one seems pretty arbitrary, but to arrive at 8 mins I suspect that Google studies how much time there needs to be so that mid-roll ads don't negatively affect engagement.
(Shout-out to all the wonderful, brilliant engineers working on figuring out how to minimize the user's reaction to cramming AS MANY ADS as possible down their brain)
extremely recently, like a week ago or so, and this video was from 3 days ago; for the next few weeks I'm still going to look at the 10 min timestamp as more telling than an 8 min one (though I'm sure youtubers will "migrate").
Looking at the channel, 3 of its videos are between 10:04 and 10:09 long. Of course, that's nothing compared to a lot of other long-form youtubers I've seen with like 80% of their videos around that timestamp.
Looking at the channel, 3 of its videos are between 10:04 and 10:09 long. Of course, that's nothing compared to a lot of other long-form youtubers I've seen with like 80% of their videos around that timestamp.
10 minutes is the the milestone for "mid-roll" ads. As far as I can tell, this video has no ads in the middle.
I saw about 4 full-replacement of video ads. It might be because I selected 4K video. I wonder if they push more ads when you select a higher quality.
"As far as I can tell" by your comment, you did not watch the video. I didn't even finish half the video, and I stopped it just before the 2nd ad break started.
maybe they have an ad blocker? I too watched the entire video and didn't see a single ad. Beginning, middle or end. I'm using adblock plus
don't hate the player hate the game
So they put in effort to make this, you consume it for free and then you complain that they can monetize it?
OK.
OK.
Yes, people should be able to complain about things that are annoying and damage their experience. In this case, 10 minutes is an arbitrary time and the OP is arguing that this arbitrary number for monetization results in poorer quality videos.
Just in this case I'd complain that it's not 30 minute Mars imagery I 4k :)
If you read closely or at all, you'll note that your comment is incorrect.
stephbu(1)
A lot of people bashing on this, but I think overall it's pretty impressive just showcasing to more people what Mars looks like. I for one was impressed and enjoyed the panoramic effect.
Crazy to think Earth might eventually look like Mars.
Crazy to think Earth might eventually look like Mars.
Anyone bashing on this has absolutely no concept of the scales or engineering that went into this. When I look at these images, even though I've known we had them for a long time, I'm filled with a tiny bit of hope for the future, something I haven't had in all of 2020.
Some of the bashing is because of the over-the-top narration, and the script saying things that are borderline lies. It's not the first time this images have been seen. It's not the first time someone has rendered them in 4K video (I'm pretty sure Astrum and Scott Manley have used some of these images before).
When looking at the title at first I thought they had used an SR-GAN (or modern variant) to upscale the images. And no, they just took the images and pan over them. I wouldn't have liked the SR-GAN approach either, I'm not a fan of it (to me it trades accuracy for good looks, and it introduces some artifacts which, while harder to spot on video, are probably not really there).
Also others have pointed out that it seems like basically monetizing public domain images without putting some effort into it. Like another crows has pointed out, they do work into writing a script, the narrator, and editing the material, so that's not a take I like (and I'm also "in the same business" as them).
When looking at the title at first I thought they had used an SR-GAN (or modern variant) to upscale the images. And no, they just took the images and pan over them. I wouldn't have liked the SR-GAN approach either, I'm not a fan of it (to me it trades accuracy for good looks, and it introduces some artifacts which, while harder to spot on video, are probably not really there).
Also others have pointed out that it seems like basically monetizing public domain images without putting some effort into it. Like another crows has pointed out, they do work into writing a script, the narrator, and editing the material, so that's not a take I like (and I'm also "in the same business" as them).
Erm... is that a puddle of liquid @ 1:53 or am I seeing things?
https://youtu.be/ZEyAs3NWH4A?t=113
https://youtu.be/ZEyAs3NWH4A?t=113
It does look there's ripples in it, but I suspect that it's a pattern made from the winds and the angle of the light causing the smooth effect
Interesting facts that I didn't know before seeing this video:
- The opportunity rover captured a barren scene which was named Rub Al Khali (Yes! On Mars!), named after the Rub Al Khali desert area which touches UAE, Saudi, Oman and Yemen. (1) (2)
- The video says that Mars rovers send back images (not videos) and then those images are stitched together to create videos, because "nothing ever moves on Mars". But I wonder how a Mars video will look. Maybe it will surprise us (movements due to winds).
- Mars has a lot of clay (i.e. it was once a watery planet)
- Some videos took 1,000 images to make
- There is a beautiful selfie at timestamp 6:41
- There is dune named "Namib" on Mars, shown at timestamp 9:10, named after Namib desert in Africa. (3) (4)
- The opportunity rover captured a barren scene which was named Rub Al Khali (Yes! On Mars!), named after the Rub Al Khali desert area which touches UAE, Saudi, Oman and Yemen. (1) (2)
- The video says that Mars rovers send back images (not videos) and then those images are stitched together to create videos, because "nothing ever moves on Mars". But I wonder how a Mars video will look. Maybe it will surprise us (movements due to winds).
- Mars has a lot of clay (i.e. it was once a watery planet)
- Some videos took 1,000 images to make
- There is a beautiful selfie at timestamp 6:41
- There is dune named "Namib" on Mars, shown at timestamp 9:10, named after Namib desert in Africa. (3) (4)
Mars is constantly moving. There are wind storms, dust devils, ice melting, all kinds of things.
Here's a dust devil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8lfJ0c7WQ8 (again, it's still images to make a video) but not because "nothing ever moves on Mars"!
Mars is constantly shifting and changing with its weather and seasons. Ice caps freeze more, and ice caps melt more, water or other liquid flows down hills when it gets warm.
More often than dust storms, a new robot comes down to land on Mars in firey rocket-landing-fueled or bouncing-ball style. Movement.
Mars is constantly hit by rocks from space that create craters and push dust up into the atmosphere.
I've never heard someone say "Nothing ever moves on Mars" because it's really not true and a total lack of imagination. Maybe people think nothing moves because we haven't sent video cameras yet? But...Mars is constantly in motion.
Here's a dust devil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8lfJ0c7WQ8 (again, it's still images to make a video) but not because "nothing ever moves on Mars"!
Mars is constantly shifting and changing with its weather and seasons. Ice caps freeze more, and ice caps melt more, water or other liquid flows down hills when it gets warm.
More often than dust storms, a new robot comes down to land on Mars in firey rocket-landing-fueled or bouncing-ball style. Movement.
Mars is constantly hit by rocks from space that create craters and push dust up into the atmosphere.
I've never heard someone say "Nothing ever moves on Mars" because it's really not true and a total lack of imagination. Maybe people think nothing moves because we haven't sent video cameras yet? But...Mars is constantly in motion.
When something is quoted like that it usually means it's a reference to something, not a literal statement. In this case I'm guessing it's a play on "Nothing ever happens on Mars" by the Spinal Tap guy.
Earlier this year I made a video[0] where I took two images which are frequently posted on reddit that show the movement of martian sand over a day and interpolated (with python and opencv) the movement into a smooth video. I'm currently working on restoring some Apollo footage, but one of the pending projects is taking the Curiosity descent sequence (at 4 frames per second) and give it a shot at some nice quality, XXI century interpolation (we have some very good algorithms now, or at least better workarounds the artifacts).
[0] https://youtu.be/k7pfdFMVj-o
[0] https://youtu.be/k7pfdFMVj-o
>give it a shot at some nice quality, XXI century interpolation
I think it has been done? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMntZ6_R78Q
I think it has been done? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMntZ6_R78Q
The creator on that channel simply uses a DAIN application without pre or post processing the images (either the base images or the optical flow maps).
I take a different approach and I can't say I haven't found issues (I have, many, I'm working on them).
My goal is to reach a level where there are almost none artifacts (there are a couple in that video at the start, when the shield is released and when there are many large movements of the camera due to Curiosity dangling off the parachute). As I said, I'm still working on it, and in between my other side projects, work and quarantine I've been on a less-than-ideal situation.
In time, if I pull it off, I'll post it and I guess you'll see it.
I take a different approach and I can't say I haven't found issues (I have, many, I'm working on them).
My goal is to reach a level where there are almost none artifacts (there are a couple in that video at the start, when the shield is released and when there are many large movements of the camera due to Curiosity dangling off the parachute). As I said, I'm still working on it, and in between my other side projects, work and quarantine I've been on a less-than-ideal situation.
In time, if I pull it off, I'll post it and I guess you'll see it.
"There is a beautiful selfie at timestamp 6:41"
Where's the camera in that selfie? Perhaps edited out of the mosiac?
Where's the camera in that selfie? Perhaps edited out of the mosiac?
There's an explanation and video[1]; I remember thinking the same a few years ago.
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasas-curiosity-mars-rover-...
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasas-curiosity-mars-rover-...
Thank you.
That's probably a great example of one of the benefits of these rovers running for so long. They'd never have scheduled something so non-science-oriented if they only got the few weeks they expected, but when your mission exceeds expectations by several thousand percent, you have time for such things.
That's probably a great example of one of the benefits of these rovers running for so long. They'd never have scheduled something so non-science-oriented if they only got the few weeks they expected, but when your mission exceeds expectations by several thousand percent, you have time for such things.
> named after the Rub Al Khali desert area
> named after Namib desert in Africa
In a few hundred years, maybe these won't be deserts anymore. It will make for an interesting fact!
> named after Namib desert in Africa
In a few hundred years, maybe these won't be deserts anymore. It will make for an interesting fact!
The music overlay really gives the video a nostalgic feel...even though I've never been to Mars.
For those who had the same question I had about whether these are actual colors, the narrator talks about the change in color between images and the color correction done in post-processing around 5:45.
For those who had the same question I had about whether these are actual colors, the narrator talks about the change in color between images and the color correction done in post-processing around 5:45.
Are those true colors?
I think some of them are using the filters to show different minerals. But I'd need to check.
Here's an example on the NASA site: https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/revealing-what-lies-benea...
Here's an example on the NASA site: https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/revealing-what-lies-benea...
I wonder if it would lower the resolution if they would remove fake colors....
[deleted]
I appreciate the accompanying geologic info on various sediment and structural explanations which is too often missing.
Would love to see some video from there, even if it's not hd or 4k.
Being able to see the geology this way is really interesting. Something made the channels you see, something ground the rocks down to a fine dust and even made that huge sand dune, something tossed all those rocks around. I always wonder if you drilled down 100 meters you'd find life of some kind.
Would like to see this as an Apple TV screensaver on my 4K oled
Fascinating photos. I hope, sometime in my life, humans will be able to go.
If the rover can stream to the orbiter at 2mb/s, would it be possible stream video to the orbiter and have it save in its buffer? Then it'd transfer to Earth later on?
If the rover can stream to the orbiter at 2mb/s, would it be possible stream video to the orbiter and have it save in its buffer? Then it'd transfer to Earth later on?
But only for 8 minutes according to the voice over. Which would come down to 960MB in an ideal scenario (2 MB/s * 8 * 60s).
Is that megabits or megabytes? Usually lowercase denotes bits, so I think you'd divide that total data size by eight to get 120MB. With a good codec 2mbit/s is probably enough for low-motion SD or 720p video.
Wow! Looks exactly like the desert of Paracas in Peru. Amazing!
I can't find a comment asking this yet, so I'll do it: where can I get the actual images, not in a video? I'm assuming these images are in the public domain?
Spirit and Opportunity: https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/multimedia/images/ (raw: https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/multimedia/raw/ )
Curiosity: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/images (raw: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw-images )
Curiosity: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/images (raw: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw-images )
There's a bird-shaped rock at 7:57 [0]
0: https://youtu.be/ZEyAs3NWH4A?t=477
0: https://youtu.be/ZEyAs3NWH4A?t=477
Looks awesome! I love this images. There is a documentary on NetGeo that narrates this journey to Mars.
can't wait until they find a trilobyte or horseshoe crab looking fossil
What was that blue sand made of? The rover left orange tracks so i guess it was use a dusting of something. Ice?
Maybe I’m missing something, but isn’t this just the Ken Burns effect? [0]
Calling it “video” may be technically true, but lees interesting than Google Street View (which is not video, but more interactive).
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Burns_effect
Calling it “video” may be technically true, but lees interesting than Google Street View (which is not video, but more interactive).
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Burns_effect
Anybody else getting 8k?
Is this really 4K?