Full Motion Video?

soulseekerusa · Jul 1, 2008

<span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:Verdana">Why is it that we don't see any video from probes?  I have heard that its because of bandwidth but to be honest with all the new technology of todays day and age, that just sounds silly.  I would love to see a REAL fly by of any of the planets.  Or video of a probe landing on mars.  So what’s the deal with this, not some lame bandwidth excuse.</span> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Jul 1, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why is it that we don't see any video from probes?  I have heard that its because of bandwidth but to be honest with all the new technology of todays day and age, that just sounds silly.  I would love to see a REAL fly by of any of the planets.  Or video of a probe landing on mars.  So what’s the deal with this, not some lame bandwidth excuse. <br />Posted by <strong>soulseekerusa</strong></DIV><br /><br />OK, how about mass and $$s.  While video from the recent Phoenix lander might have been cool and perhaps of some engineering value, there's penalties incurred by having such a camera. First there's the cost to design and produce and test the system. Then there it's added mass which incurs more $$ or means reducing the mass of other components.  In the end it's a question of benefits vs cost. How many more frames per second do you want above what's been done ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Jul 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK, how about mass and $$s.  While video from the recent Phoenix lander might have been cool and perhaps of some engineering value, there's penalties incurred by having such a camera. First there's the cost to design and produce and test the system. Then there it's added mass which incurs more $$ or means reducing the mass of other components.  In the end it's a question of benefits vs cost. How many more frames per second do you want above what's be done ? <br />Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV></p><p>Bandwidth also requires power, which comes back to your recognition of the effect on mass and $$$.  And as you recognize there is a limited supply of both, primarily mass, for a mission like Phoenix.  I doubt many would trade the scoop or chemical analyzers for a movie camera.  If you are looking for signs of life you are more likely to find water or organic molecules than to photograph a passing turtle.</p><p>Except for possible blowing dust, a movie from Mars is likely to look a lot like a still photo.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

soulseekerusa · Jul 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>OK, how about mass and $$s.  While video from the recent Phoenix lander might have been cool and perhaps of some engineering value, there's penalties incurred by having such a camera. First there's the cost to design and produce and test the system. Then there it's added mass which incurs more $$ or means reducing the mass of other components.  In the end it's a question of benefits vs cost. How many more frames per second do you want above what's be done ? <br />Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV></p><p style="margin:0in0in10pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'">Come on, a video camera is light and compact. I just see the missions anymore as just boring and repetitive.<span>  </span>Don’t get me wrong it is fantastic that we can be on other planets and see some very extraordinary things.<span>  </span>But don’t you think we should be doing more by now?<span>  </span>My wife is a good example of how the general public thinks of things of this nature.<span>  </span>She says its neat but then asks "didn’t they do that already?"<span>  </span>I mean come on you can only look at so many rocks before they all start looking the same.</span></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Jul 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Come on, a video camera is light and compact. I just see the missions anymore as just boring and repetitive.  Don’t get me wrong it is fantastic that we can be on other planets and see some very extraordinary things.  But don’t you think we should be doing more by now?  My wife is a good example of how the general public thinks of things of this nature.  She says its neat but then asks "didn’t they do that already?"  I mean come on you can only look at so many rocks before they all start looking the same.  <br />Posted by soulseekerusa</DIV><br /><br />Well it's too bad that the general public looks at these missions and finds them boring but I guess that's to be expected. They are after all science missions done to collect information for scientists.  Were they to add in some frills to amuse the public I wonder just how successful that would be, what with all the CGI action the public is used to in todays movies.  As DrR said above, there's not a lot of motion going on.  Perhaps someday a more sightseeing mission could be done (like the "Flying over XYZ" shows) but right now it wouldn't be cheap. I can imagine what Congress would say when they saw the bill .... "<em>You paid how many millions of $$$ for that ?!?</em>"</p><p>FWIW the MarPhoenix lander did (does) have something of a movie camera, the MARDI. It was only to be used during the descent to Mars and the frame rate (1 frame every 0.75 secs) isn't exactly movie quality but follow the links to see what it took back then to make a small, light camera that could handle the rigors of spaceflight. MARDI wasn't used because they became worried it would interfere with mission critical operations so we didn't get to see that 10 second "movie".</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

docm · Jul 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why is it that we don't see any video from probes?  I have heard that its because of bandwidth but to be honest with all the new technology of todays day and age, that just sounds silly.  I would love to see a REAL fly by of any of the planets.  Or video of a probe landing on mars.  So what’s the deal with this, not some lame bandwidth excuse. <br />Posted by soulseekerusa</DIV></p><p>High resoljtion 25-30 fps industrial video cameras aren't a problem; you can get one that's capable of 4:3, 720p or 1080p that's the size of a medium sized camcorder.  Power utilization also shouldn't be a problem as they run on 5 - 24 volts DC.</p><p>The real rub <strong><em>IS</em></strong> the video bitrate. Even using wavelet or MPEG-4 compression it takes a lot of bandwidth to transmit those signals in real time. Example: a 4:3 video frame like those on a conventional TV compressed with MPEG-4 would have to stream at about 15-20 megabits, or 1.875 - 2.5 megabytes, per second to deliver high quality.  </p><p>Not $1,200 video camera quality, but truely high quality.</p><p>Multiply that several times for HD, perhaps as high as 100 megabits - 12.5 megabytes - per second.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jul 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>High resoljtion 25-30 fps industrial video cameras aren't a problem; you can get one that's capable of 4:3, 720p or 1080p that's the size of a medium sized camcorder.  Power utilization also shouldn't be a problem as they run on 5 - 24 volts DC.The real rub IS the video bitrate. Even using wavelet or MPEG-4 compression it takes a lot of bandwidth to transmit those signals in real time. Example: a 4:3 video frame like those on a conventional TV compressed with MPEG-4 would have to stream at about 15-20 megabits, or 1.875 - 2.5 megabytes, per second to deliver high quality.  Not $1,200 video camera quality, but truely high quality.Multiply that several times for HD, perhaps as high as 100 megabits - 12.5 megabytes - per second. <br />Posted by docm</DIV><br /><br />Somewhere early in the Phoenix thread the bandwith is listed, I'll check my scribblenotes. It's VERY low.</p><p>Found it:</p><p>"New task sequence has been uploaded through Odyssey, now at <strong>max data rate</strong> (another milestone) of <strong>128 kb/sec."</strong></p><p>The thing to remember is this was a mission already cancelled once because it cost too much. An extra 10 or 20 million for the flight ready camera and the money to lanch it would have sunk the mission.</p><p>Oh sure, we'll skip the TEGA and the MECA instruments....and get no science.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Jul 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... Power utilization also shouldn't be a problem as they run on 5 - 24 volts DC...Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>What is one supposed to conclude about the effect on power consumption of transmitting a high bandwidth signal from the fact that a camera has a 5-24 volt battery ?  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

aphh · Jul 2, 2008

<p>Kagya/Selene carries a HDTV camera and some nice sceneries have been transmitted from the moon. Getting 720p footage from a probe landing would be dramatic.</p><p>DivX corporation had a experiemntal website called Stage6, that distributed HD content. On a 8 mbit ADSL I was able to view 720p material in real time or near real time in very high quality.</p><p>It's a challenge for a space probe, but not impossible. </p>

silylene old · Jul 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why is it that we don't see any video from probes?  I have heard that its because of bandwidth but to be honest with all the new technology of todays day and age, that just sounds silly.  I would love to see a REAL fly by of any of the planets.  Or video of a probe landing on mars.  So what’s the deal with this, not some lame bandwidth excuse. <br />Posted by soulseekerusa</DIV><br /><br />Hmmm, watching a video of dice-sized cubes of ice sublime in the martian sun is about as exciting as watching paint dry.</p><p>That statement somehow doesn't sound right....  A lot of us got very excited seeing those ice mini-cubes disappear over four days!  (Maybe because we didn't have to watch the video, we only had before and after pictures.)</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

docm · Jul 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>DivX corporation had a experiemntal website called Stage6, that distributed HD content. On a 8 mbit ADSL I was able to view 720p material in real time or near real time in very high quality.It's a challenge for a space probe, but not impossible.  <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br />The DivX codec is quite an achievement when it comes to low bitrate 'net transmission, but its <strong><em>perceived</em></strong> quality is largely illusion.  Try processing (editing) that bitstream and you'll soon find yourself in posession of a pixellized nightmare.</p><p>Take that from someone who betatests video encoders.</p><p>To be useful on a mission the compression scheme must not be as "lossy" as DivX etc., meaning either uncompressed or compressed with an "edit-able" compression. Such a video stream can be image enhanced without turning into mush.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jul 2, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The DivX codec is quite an achievement when it comes to low bitrate 'net transmission, but its perceived quality is largely illusion.  Try processing (editing) that bitstream and you'll soon find yourself in posession of a pixellized nightmare.Take that from someone who betatests video encoders.To be useful on a mission the compression scheme must not be as "lossy" as DivX etc., meaning either uncompressed or compressed with an "edit-able" compression. Such a video stream can be image enhanced without turning into mush. <br />Posted by docm</DIV><br /><br />Very similar to the "alleged" HD that is broadcast over cable or satellite. It's been so compressed (with extra SD channels crammed in the channel bandwith) that it's not HD any more. May be better than SD, but HD it ain't. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

aphh · Jul 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The DivX codec is quite an achievement when it comes to low bitrate 'net transmission, but its perceived quality is largely illusion.  Try processing (editing) that bitstream and you'll soon find yourself in posession of a pixellized nightmare.Take that from someone who betatests video encoders.To be useful on a mission the compression scheme must not be as "lossy" as DivX etc., meaning either uncompressed or compressed with an "edit-able" compression. Such a video stream can be image enhanced without turning into mush. <br /> Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>2 years ago I would have agreed, but not today.</p><p>I viewed this clip on Stage6 in real time: http://neokoo.net/28-hours-in-jyvaskyla/ <br /><br />The link to the actual DivX HD version is right under the preview window, so if you're interested in the final quality I recommend downloading the actual clip. Freely available VLC Media Player can view it without installing additional codecs.</p><p>I've tried processing it and the detail is still there. Sure some scenes look better than others, but overall it starts to look very much like HD in my opinion. Certainly has more detail than uncompressed SD.</p><p>The length of the clip is 8 minutes 18 seconds (12450 frames) and the file size without audio is 344 megabytes. That allows roughly 226 kilobits per frame. So if you used the whole bandwidth of 128 kb/s for transmission of this movie it would take roughly 366 minutes to transmit. </p><p>Probably not feasible to transmit this from the Moon or Mars at this moment.</p><p>One other thing is that good quality compressed HD material can be shrunk for more resolution per pixel. This is because color channels only have 1/4th of the information compared to luminance channel. For 1280 luma samples per line there are only 320 chroma samples. Pretty coarse for the color.</p><p>But if you shrink the compressed 1280 x 720 progressive material into SD resolution, you'll have 720 luma samples but didn't lose any chroma samples. Your shrunk material almost meets studio criteria for standard definition, which is 720 luma samples and 360 chroma samples per channel per line (YUV 4:2:2) for SD video.</p><p>All this from 226 kilobits per frame. Well, the quantization per pixel is still 8 bits compared to 10 bits in studio quality, but you get the idea. Compressed HD is no longer necessarily as bad as it might sound. Even "Internet HD". <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> </p>

aphh · Jul 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Very similar to the "alleged" HD that is broadcast over cable or satellite. It's been so compressed (with extra SD channels crammed in the channel bandwith) that it's not HD any more. May be better than SD, but HD it ain't. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Only selected shows and programs have been produced properly all the way in HD. A lot of the material is simply upconverted from old SD originals.</p><p>I tested the clip linked above using VLC Media Player. If I choose Video > Zoom > Half-Size, the program down-scales the video on the fly, and I can no longer see compression artefacts at all. There is some aliasing caused by real-time scaling (no anti-aliasing is calculated), but the DivX Mpeg4 compression is not the limiting factor for the picture quality.</p><p>Hence using DivX it is possible to transmit quality practically equivalent to uncompressed 8-bit SD 4:2:2 video using only 6 megabits per second instead of the 160 megabits per second required 10 years ago. That's how good the compression really is. I'm sure if a comparison was made, on a large screen some difference could be noticed. But for the casual viewer they would look just as good.</p><p> </p>

docm · Jul 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>practically equivalent to uncompressed 8-bit SD 4:2:2 video using only 6 megabits per second instead of the 160 megabits per second required 10 years ago. That's how good the compression really is. I'm sure if a comparison was made, on a large screen some difference could be noticed. But for the casual viewer they would look just as good.  <br />Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>Actually uncompressed SD is 240 megabit/30 megabyte per second 8 bit 4:2:2, which can be taken down to 80 megabit/10 megabyte with Huffman encoding - essentially lossless. </p><p>Use an Intra-frame codec and <em><strong>every frame is a bitmap</strong></em> that is individually compressed.  As such it can be made smaller while retaining excellent editing & post-processing capabilities. Example: MJPeg, H.264/AVC Intra-frame etc.</p><p>Inter-frame encoding like that used in DivX, MPEG-1/2/4 etc. is <strong><em>temporally based</em></strong>, meaning that on average only 6th - 18th frame is "real" (a bitmap) with the rest being mathematical constructs based on the data that changes between the bracketing bitmaps. This makes files very small and fine on casual inspection, but hell for editing or other post-processing.</p><p>I make my comparisons in the studio both on the panel and 14" production monitors, but even JohnQ could see the deficiencies once told where to look.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

aphh · Jul 3, 2008

<p>Bitrate for uncompressed 8-bit Y-channel: 720 x 480 x 8 bits x 29.97 = 82861056 bits per second<br />Bitrate for uncompressed 8-bit U-channel (4:2:2): 360 x 480 x 8 bits x 29.97 = 41430528<br />Bitrate for uncompressed 8-bit V-channel (4:2:2): 360 x 480 x 8 bits x 29.97 = 41430528</p><p>Hence uncompressed 8-bit YUV 4:2:2 bandwidth requirement in standard definition at NTSC frame rate is 166 mbit/s. </p>

MeteorWayne · Jul 3, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Bitrate for uncompressed 8-bit Y-channel: 720 x 480 x 8 bits x 29.97 = 82861056 bits per secondBitrate for uncompressed 8-bit U-channel (4:2:2): 360 x 480 x 8 bits x 29.97 = 41430528Bitrate for uncompressed 8-bit V-channel (4:2:2): 360 x 480 x 8 bits x 29.97 = 41430528Hence uncompressed 8-bit YUV 4:2:2 bandwidth requirement in standard definition at NTSC frame rate is 166 mbit/s. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />Which is 1000 times the bandwidth available for Phoenix <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

aphh · Jul 3, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Which is 1000 times the bandwidth available for Phoenix <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Well, you don't have to believe me, but nowadays you could transmit ~90% of the information with 6 mbit/s, which is only 3.6% of the uncompressed bandwidth.</p><p>That would be 36 times the bandwidth used by Phoenix. </p>

BrianSlee · Jul 3, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, you don't have to believe me, but nowadays you could transmit ~90% of the information with 6 mbit/s, which is only 3.6% of the uncompressed bandwidth.That would be 36 times the bandwidth used by Phoenix.  <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />aphh sounds like you are well on your way to a profession here.  Designing new data link systems for deep space applications maybe???</p><p> BTW have you tried to send an e-mail from the link yet?  I have not seen anything from you?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

aphh · Jul 3, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>aphh sounds like you are well on your way to a profession here.  Designing new data link systems for deep space applications maybe??? BTW have you tried to send an e-mail from the link yet?  I have not seen anything from you? <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Thanks! I didn't send the email yet, but as soon as I get a small project off my hands, I'll contact you by email. </p>

docm · Jul 3, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Bitrate for uncompressed 8-bit Y-channel: 720 x 480 x 8 bits x 29.97 = 82861056 bits per second</p><p>></p><p>Hence uncompressed 8-bit YUV 4:2:2 bandwidth requirement in standard definition at NTSC frame rate is 166 mbit/s. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>82,861,056 bits (basically the 80 megabits I quoted) /8 = 10,357,632 bytes = ~10 megabytes/second, which is for Huffman encoded full framed at 29.970 (NTSC).  Huffman coding is step #1 for the vast majority of video compression schemes.</p><p>Pardon me for rounding <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></p><p>I did do a typo though: I quoted the 240 megabit/30 megabyte as 4:2:2 but it's 4:4:4 RGB that is often used for effects/enhancement  processing. Many hardware editing boards revert loaded video to this format on the editors timeline to maintain image quality. Some use RGBA, with the A being an added alpha channel used for graphical overlays.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Full Motion Video?

soulseekerusa

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

soulseekerusa

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

docm

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

aphh

Guest

silylene old

Guest

docm

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

aphh

Guest

aphh

Guest

docm

Guest

aphh

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

aphh

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

aphh

Guest

docm

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page