38 replies to this topic

[Sky Scanner]

MedicTJ, on 19 March 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:

Oh good lord.  Yes, we ARE on my turf.  I've got my own home recording studio complete with a Tascam 24 track, Pro Tools complete, $2500 electronic drum kit, and over twenty different types of microphones.....anything from condensers to uni-directionals like SM-57's.

No offence but listing your kit list doesn't make this your turf at all. It's a average mixer, nice enough, but certainly not worth bragging about, Pro Tools anyone can get a copy of for next to nothing, and a $2500 electronic drum kit has about as much relevance to this discussion as me saying I have £3000 worth of pioneer CDJ's and 3 technics 1210 mk5's worth £4000 - i.e NO relevance whatsoever as this isn't my turf either on the grounds of who has got whatever kit. I don't know what they used, how they attached it, or processed the sound....and neither do you I suspect.

Quote

And then you say an underwater mic (It's spelled mic....NOT Mike...and WOW on that one...Mr. Pro)....you say an underwater mic can't record a human voice?  YES, it CAN.  

That isn't what he said, you might want to go back and read it again.

[Chrlzs]

Largely offtopic..

MedicTJ, on 19 March 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:

Oh good lord.

Why do you invoke religion?

Quote

I've got my own home recording studio complete with a Tascam 24 track, Pro Tools complete, $2500 electronic drum kit, and over twenty different types of microphones.....anything from condensers to uni-directionals like SM-57's.

You would not believe how impressed I am with that stuff - it being so relevant.  

Quote

And the professional I talked to.....(yes, I did talk to one)....can be found at {link}   Skot Reed is the one who runs that band and has worked with...

I've sent a very polite message to 'Skot' pointing him at the thread, quoting you, and inviting him over.  If he doesn't reply to that email or turn up here, I will simply make no further comment - can't be fairer than that.

Quote

And then you say an underwater mic (It's spelled mic....NOT Mike...and WOW on that one...Mr. Pro)....you say an underwater mic can't record a human voice?  YES, it CAN.

This is just a silly attempt at pointscoring.  First up, READ MY POST, as Sky Scanner kindly suggests.  I said that an underwater mike (or mic) DOES work, as an example showing that with just a tiny bit of effort you can design a microphone for different environments.  So OF COURSE it can record underwater, just as a microphone mounted on that booster will record the sound waves and vibrations that the booster is experiencing even if it ever reached a total vacuum (which it doesn't).

At no time did I say or suggest that it could not record a human voice. In future do NOT misrepresent me and USE QUOTES, as your memory clearly can't be trusted.

In regard to the spelling trivia - save me...  If you lic, I'll get on my bic and pedal off.. or perhaps you could look up some dictionary sites and see how many of them DON'T say 'mike' is an accepted and common abbreviation.  Me, I prefer the abbreviation that is fonetic (geddit?) and that aligns properly with its extended forms, namely miked, miking, mikes ... instead of miced, micing and mic's.  Apostrophe's look silly when you use them for plural's, don't you's think?

Quote

But if you wanna keep this up, I'm ready.

Whatever.  Do you see any support for your position and claims above?  I'm happy to wait.  Anyone?

Edited by Chrlzs, 19 March 2012 - 12:35 PM.

[mushymopman]

Chrlzs, on 18 March 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

Please remember that the audience here ranges from competent and well-informed to...  er, well, anyway, please use smilies when joking.

no need for smiles, i wasn`t joking, their are no stars visible on this video, as for the audience on this thread, they appear to be mostly blind and ignorent.

[Czero 101]

mushymopman, on 19 March 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

no need for smiles, i wasn`t joking, their are no stars visible on this video, as for the audience on this thread, they appear to be mostly blind and ignorent.

Why should there be visible stars in the video...?


ETA...

Actually, the better question is why are you expecting there to be visible stars...?





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 20 March 2012 - 12:06 AM.

[Chrlzs]

mushymopman, on 19 March 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

no need for smiles, i wasn`t joking, their{sic} are no stars visible on this video, as for the audience on this thread, they appear to be mostly blind and ignorent{sic}.

You weren't joking????  So, you honestly think stars should be visible in a video that is very obviously set for daylight exposure, as it must be for all the sunlit objects?

Do take any decent camera out at night, leaving it manually set for daylight exposures (say 1/125, f8, ISO100), and come back and show us all the stars you capture.

Seriously, that silliness has been raised in the past (do you not do any research before posting twice?), but only by those completely (or wilfully) ignorant of photography.  No shame in being ignorant (I am ignorant on many topics) unless you post that ignorance confidently/repeatedly in a setting like this.


Your last comment is .. rather ironic.

[Czero 101]

Chrlzs, on 20 March 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

Do take any decent camera out at night, leaving it manually set for daylight exposures (say 1/125, f8, ISO100), and come back and show us all the stars you capture.

An even simpler experiment is to just go out on any clear night, stand under or near enough to a street light so that when you look up to the sky, the light is in your field of view, then count how many stars you can see with your naked eye.

Not everyone has a camera, or one that can be manually set these days, but virtually everyone has at least one Eyeball Mk. I installed as original equipment from the manufacturer...




Cz

[psyche101]

BiffSplitkins, on 16 March 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

Well at least Saru liked it enough to feature it on the front page of UM this morning.

Well deserved too, it is nothing short of awesome. What a trip!

[Czero 101]

@MedicTJ...

You may want to have a look at the post on the Google+ page for Michael Interbartolo, the person who originally posted the clip (and the first place this video was posted). There are comments there where he confirms that the audio is authentic and from the cameras mounted on the SRB's, and that the "enhancements" done by Skywalker Sound were to clean up the ambient noise so that the sounds from the SRB's themselves was clearer.

Quote

michael interbartolo  -  +Ross Taylor the cameras have mics, all the sound is from the ELVIS system the guys just enhanced and brought it out more than how we usually here it in the SE&I Ascent video Highlights.

Michael Interbartolo's Google+ Post

You can also have a look at the DiscoverMagazine.com blog page where the video was subsequently posted. There are comments along the same lines there, as well as this one which describes in general terms the cameras used:

Quote

10.   Rex Ridenoure Says:
March 15th, 2012 at 12:19 pm

Note to all: All of the cameras used in these views are (were) standard broadcast-quality NTSC video cameras, not HD. (My firm supplies the two aft-looking SRB cameras; United Space Alliance, SRB integrating contractor, provided the forward- and inward-looking views.)

The video looks HD-like because it was recorded/stored onboard each SRB and recovered post-splashdown after the SRBs had been retrieved and towed back to port. The video is low-noise because it was not broadcast across an RF link like most NTSC we’re used to viewing.

The ambient sounds comes from the inward-looking cameras, which are basically ruggedized camcorders — with a microphone.

Enjoy over 125 more RocketCam video clips at our YouTube channel: RocketCambyEcliptic.

Keep in mind, too, that the video you're seeing is a compilation of footage from two separate launches - STS-117 and STS-127 so there would have to be some modification / enhancing / remixing of the audio.





Cz

[Chrlzs]

Czero, I thank you for the other example you gave of being under a street light..  We can also add looking out of a brightly lit kitchen window while the surroundings are still in your field of view, or looking up while at a brightly lit night event..

And what is even more damning to mushymopmans silly 'observation', is that all of these examples are using artificial lighting, which is many magnitudes dimmer than anything lit by sunlight.

Anyway, mushymopman, feel free to come back and discuss, although this really belongs on the 'did we go' thread.  If you wish to (sensibly) dispute what is being said here and are unable to drag yourself outside at night or have no access to a camera, would you like me to do the experiment for you?  I'll even do it step by step, so you can SEE for yourself the difference between daylight exposures and those capable of showing stars.  But that would be over on the other thread.

To be fair, I guess this comes from the simplistic failure to realise that a blackish sky does not equal night or low light levels, despite what earthly experience may tell you.. such failures of understanding and the lamentable inability to think beyond earthly environments, are what hoax promoters prey on.

Mushymopman, I trust you are not just .. prey?