Slashdot Mirror
Amateurs Beat Space Agencies To Titan Pictures
loconet writes "Nature.com is reporting that a group of enthusiastic amateurs managed to process raw images of Titan from the Huygens probe faster that any of the giant space agencies in charge of the mission. Terragen, a freeware program that converts the basic brightness data in aerial pictures into a topographical map, to generate the ground-level vista was used."
Without quality control it's usually possible to beat a company, or organization to the punch.
(And doesn't mean it is necessarily inferior in quality either).
But it is a little unfair.
I'm impressed with them..., but it's not a surprise really. With the raw data images being released as soon as they were made available, anyone who was interested enough could begin processing them immediately. I doubt NASA/ESA thought it was a race. But still, great job for them! They probably did it for a fraction of the cost that the big agencies needed to process the images ;-) So much beaurocracy..
I store my recipes online (the way nature intended)
From the article:
Liekens does caution that not all of the pictures will be scientifically reliable, something that ESA and NASA obviously have to take care over.
"We're impressed with their ability and enthusiasm, and looked at their images with great interest," says Bashar Rizk, part of the Huygens imaging team from the University of Arizona, Tucson.
A key paragraph. Does fater always means better? Before we jump on the NASA/ESA bashing bandwagon, we should remember that both are renowned scientific institutions that gain reputation not by doing everything as fast as possible, but as accurately and precisely as possible.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Why is this a good thing? They created some fake images in a terrain generator, and that is supposedly beating ESA? ESA released the ACTUAL images, not fake ones.
TheHustler
http://www.elmarko.org/ - Useless bilge
http://www.asylum-games.co.uk/ - Co-Founder
If we only wanted pretty pictures, nobody would have need to sends a probe. you could have paid an illustrator.
Terragen renders hightfields with fractal detail algorithms and textures them algorthmical.
So they somewhow photoshoped a more or less high field out of the raw and rendered it with some "grey rocks" or so texture setting, because the standart white snow peaks isnt fitting...
I certainly dont mind science taking its time. This thing was lauchned YEARS ago. one week or two more for correct, final images doesnt hurt much. Even if those random idiots are crying havoc because they dont seem to have anything better to do...
Better waiting than having quick crap tossed out.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Is there nothing that can't be open-sourced?
How about making a living?
...but bear in mind that if NASA and ESA hadn't sent this probe there, there would not have been any raw data to process.
:-)
Thumbs up to the folks doing the processing, and thumbs up to Terragen for the great software, but big, big points to the folks who SEND THE PROBE.
If there's a castle floating upside down in the sky, then there's a castle floating upside down in the sky.
Amazing how the texture/wave pattern stays consistent right up to the land.
Hmm...
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
'Distributed contributions' are turning many industries on their heads; think of music and more lately the creep into entertainment at large, for example, Napster on.
Science, even space science, has not been exempt from these sweeping changes even as those guarding the capitalistic infrastructure are, frankly, more intelligent and capable than those guarding 'entertainment' have been. It ought not to be that I need pay US$thousands to simply read scientific articles in the Journal of _______. The Internet exists because scientists pushed ahead (in the military's wake) in the name of information sharing. In protecting their overpaid publishers' investors, fat Universities and other players minting on controlled access to knowledge, the scientists have to some extent let us all down.
I'd very well expect more significant contributions from 'amateurs' and including the crowd here, were the general quest for knowledge less constrained by capitalism. We have all the tools at our fingertips, literally, to undo more of the corporatism we can refer to roughly as 'closed source'. It's up to the real players though, the scientists themselves, to do as they have done here. Way to go, ESA. Viva la revolucion.
BG
When you're willing to work all night through because of your love for hacking, you'll likely beat those who treat this as a daytime job -- and have a life otherwise.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If am amauteur goofs and gets the wrong color, or maybe points out something that is really noise, no one is going to really notice. If NASA goofs, on the other hand, everyone notices. Besides, the NASA people were also probably trying to find signs of fluid motion and stuff, the amauteur's were going for "cool" views. :-).
But I must say to the amauteurs, GO FOR IT
[RANT]
/. id's under 3000 be allowed to say something first and not to expect any good posts in the future from important folks? Something to think about... ;^) ;^b
Sometimes I don't understand the academic types in their desire to "own" an area of knowledge. Knowledge that is discovered using public moneies cannot be "owned", and nobody has a "right" to publish something before someone-else, just because they were breathing air near their first.
I'm certain they "want" to publish first, and quite possibly they "own" their techniques to process the discovered information in their proprietary way, but that's a far cry from having the "right" to publish first.
This arguement was advanced during the human genome project. Somehow academics felt they had a right to publish it before the industrial folks (like celera which developed different and faster techniques to analyse the "public" discovery of DNA). I'm sure a few academics had their careers represented by the HG project and the fact that someone stepped on their turf was probably very infuriating, but that is life.
We've come a long way from the time when a few "priests" owned knowledge and kept it from the unwashed masses because they were the only ones "trained" to interpret it (conveniently by writing it in latin). Somehow some academics can't leave that era behind. "Big" science is funded today by public money and it's really hard to make the argument that raw images of important discoveries funded with public money aren't available to the public.
I tire of the high priest/priestess arguements made by the academic community. Why don't they just come up with something better and faster to make it worth waiting for, rather than complain that someone is doing it better and faster than them and they have some inherent "right" because they dabbled thier toes in that turf first?
Anyhow, how different is that than a "first post"? Normally, nobody reads them because they are often not interesting, but what if someone said something interesting and it just happened to be from an anonymous coward and first in the list? Should we be complaining that it was an anonymous coward and only people with
[/RANT]
These guys are amateurs. They admit that they're not trying to compete for scientific accuracy with the major space organizations, and that they have taken creative licence with the coloring of these images, and that the details may be inaccurate. If they were trying to do a professional job of processing these images, with an emphasis on accuracy, then they would be doing a professional job, and you would refer to them as professionals. Since they are taking creative licence with the images, and admit to the distinct possiblity of inaccuracies, they are considered amateurs.
The NASA scientists would be fools to release these images in a raw format as soon as they're available and then try to beat amateurs, who aren't responsible for the rest of the mission. Once the information is obtained years can be spent analysing it. In other words, when the mission is in progress the teams are focused on the mission, not post mission analysis.
All these guys did was use software to make 3d models of the terrain and then pictures from those models. If you want to try something really fun, and have a mathematical inclination and a lot of time on your hands try downloading pictures from hubble, or from one of the large radio telescopes and doing some data reduction. The software's freely available on the web and runs on Linux. To get anything meaningful from the data you'll have to spend a lot of time learning about the data, instruments used to capture it, and the astro sources you're looking at though.
This is the sort of thing that should be encouraged in highschools and unis around the planet.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
These independent image analysis efforts are laudable and interesting but seem to lack the psychological aspects. I think what many lay-people want most from these images is a sense of what it would look like to them if they were there themselves standing on the titanscape. This is much more complex than just stiching the images together and has a lot to do with how the brain processes visual information. For example, although the colors in the images are all pretty orange, the way the brain perceives color relies in part on subtracting out the background and seeing the _relative_ color of objects in the field of view. Also, the total level of illumination has not been defined (there was some speculation that daylight on titan would be like full moonlight on Earth), and this will influence both the spatial resolution and color perception that a human (even with dark-adapted eyes) would see. Has anyone tried to take these psychological/neurological factors into account when generating these processed images?