Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BiffSplitkins

Mindblowing video shot

39 posts in this topic

as wonderful as this video is, i still cant see any stars.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why bring up some obscure Boston tracks? And did you not read the question? You made the claim, so WHEN on the video do you claim to hear synthesized sounds? It's NOT a difficult question, and there are only ~14 seconds of pre-launch footage.

???

Wrong - you need any MEDIUM to transmit sound. Air works, and so does METAL and other construction materials. What is the booster made of, and the microphone attached to?

There is no miracle, just very basic physics and common sense.

O rly? Please invite him over to discuss. I am currently nearly falling out of my chair considering the notion that you think anyone believes you did any such thing.

More correctly, it just takes someone with a smattering of education on sound waves to realise that you didn't quite think this through...

There is NO TECHNOLOGY that we or anyone else possesses that can record a launch via ambient microphone with THAT KIND OF SOUND QUALITY from a rocket booster....without destroying the diaphragm of the microphone....which would be destroyed less than a second after launch.

Now you can throw in all the physics lessons you want. But now you're on MY turf. I deal with recording sound on an every day basis.

The video is one thing....but if you're trying to convince anyone that the sound is coming from a microphone attached to that camera....or ANYWHERE on board that booster.....you're insane. It is NOT technologically possible. There is simply way too much compression.

Now, I'm NOT saying the sound couldn't be recorded. What I am saying is that there is no way that the sound that you hear on the video is authentically live. It just simply wouldn't sound like that. It wouldn't even sound close to it. The signal at the very least would have to be processed several times over....and....well....that's not authentically live. That's adding to the sound on the video...which is exactly what I'm saying they did.

And as far as sound waves produced through metal and no air? It doesn't work that way....and it most certainly wouldn't produce the sound that's on the video.

On top of that, you talk about silliness?

Anybody in their RIGHT MINDS can listen to that and tell that it isn't authentic!

GOOD FRIGGIN GRIEF!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh one more thing.......

I found the video on youtube itself.....and it says right at the top, "With enhanced sound".

Do we need to go through the definition of enhanced now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is NO TECHNOLOGY that we or anyone else possesses that can record a launch via ambient microphone with THAT KIND OF SOUND QUALITY from a rocket booster....without destroying the diaphragm of the microphone....which would be destroyed less than a second after launch.

That's just silly. There are literally thousands of tiny delicate components on the boosters, in the shuttle itself, and it simply means you have to use appropriate mountings and shielding as necessary. The sort of vibrations and stresses are very well known and can easily be dealt with by REAL sound engineers. Your experience with your guitar is irrelevant.

now you're on MY turf. I deal with recording sound on an every day basis.

Umm, no, that most certainly isn't your turf. This isn't an every day situation, and you've already proved your lack of knowledge with the ridiculous sound-only-travels-in-air comment..

It is NOT technologically possible. There is simply way too much compression.

Compression? What the heck are you talking about? Mikes can be mounted in heavy duty casings with damping functions, sealed against the elements, etc. I have a $230 underwater camera that has a mike that works just fine. No, your voice mike won't work underwater, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

Now, I'm NOT saying the sound couldn't be recorded.

But that's EXACTLY what you said earlier, and now you are just making it worse.

BTW, any recorded sound is 'enhanced', if only by the characteristics of the microphone/sensor, then of course it is amplified, equalised, adjusted.. The important thing in this case is to make the sound as authentic as possible. I guess medictj thinks a 'direct-to-disc' recording or similar is 100% accurate... Good grief indeed.

Anyway, medictj has used the old "I spoke to an expert and he said.." line WAY too many times here - he has clearly done no such thing and is just not worth spending more time on.

Anyone else here convinced by his assertions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

And the professional I talked to.....(yes, I did talk to one)....can be found at www.endofstory.com

Skot Reed is the one who runs that band and has worked with Ty Tabor from Kings X on MULTIPLE projects. He also produces and engineers several other projects.

I produce and engineer my own stuff at home as well, and have done so for well over 20 years, although only professionally for the past 10 or so.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Largely offtopic..

Oh good lord.

Why do you invoke religion?

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.