Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Grounded Russian Nuclear Sub Photographed With Sonar

Posted by kdawson on from the running-very-silent dept.

Lanxon sends in an intriguing piece from Wired: "This eerie wreck image is not computer-generated. It's the sonar image of Russian nuclear submarine B-159 (called K-159 before decommissioning), which has been lying 248m down in the Barents Sea, between Norway and Russia, since 2003. The Russian Federation hired Adus, a Scottish company that specializes in high-resolution sonar surveying, to evaluate if it would be possible to recover the wreck. 'The operation was complicated as the submarine was very deep, so we had to use the sonar equipment mounted on a remotely operated vehicle' [also pictured in the article], says Martin Dean, the managing director of Adus and a forensic-wreck archaeologist. 'We also had a problem with the surveying due to the density of North Atlantic cod attracted to the sound of the sonar and the light of the cameras.'"

8 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Pardon my pedanticism... by Spykk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This eerie wreck image is not computer generated.

    You don't have to use 3d studio max to generate an image with a computer. I would suggest that this image is in fact generated by a computer. It's just generated from sonar data instead of an artists interpretation.

    1. Re:Pardon my pedanticism... by Droideka-TheGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd say most webcam photos are generated from boredom actually. Or stupidity, if one looks too long on facebook.

    2. Re:Pardon my pedanticism... by SheeEttin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's your only problem? What about using the term "photograph" with sonar? Shouldn't it be a sonograph?
      (Also, the term "computer-generated" doesn't apply to the image itself, but the content. By your definition, even your digital camera takes computer-generated pictures. ;) )

    3. Re:Pardon my pedanticism... by forkazoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't have to use 3d studio max to generate an image with a computer. I would suggest that this image is in fact generated by a computer. It's just generated from sonar data instead of an artists interpretation.

      Yeah, that's kind of a canonical example of a computer generated image. They had a bunch of sonar data which was put through an algorithm which resulted in a picture. People don't really seem to care what words mean anymore. It's a shame. Or, maybe it's a pancake. Doesn't make any difference to most people.

    4. Re:Pardon my pedanticism... by mforbes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree. The image is computer interpreted. To imply that it's computer generated is to imply that there is no physical analog of the object the image represents.

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    5. Re:Pardon my pedanticism... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. The image is computer interpreted. To imply that it's computer generated is to imply that there is no physical analog of the object the image represents.

      I disagree some more. I would argue that a computer generated image is one made by a computer from non-visual data. This fits that description perfectly. CG involves images invented from geometry and textures. Sonar images obviously processed by computer, as these are, are generated from sonar data. Either way there's no image that the image is based upon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Re:Fishies! by lazy_playboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't understand your logic. Hot lightbulbs are bad for moths but they're still attracted to them.

  3. Re:People never cared, really by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a difference between making up new words and pronouncing old ones in a different way, and making up new words because your vocabulary sucks (anybody who says "defensed", I'm looking at you). One is evolution, the other is ignorance. Yes, both will always occur, but that doesn't mean we have to embrace both.

    There's value in having a consistent way of referring to things: people will actually be able to understand each other. This discussion is a nice example of how diverging meanings can hurt understanding.

    As for your example of the proper pronunciation of knight, do you mean to imply that we all should speak German? ;)

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.