X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |
|
rychan Member Profile  Member Since: 2007-06-20 Last Power Points used: never • Available: now Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now Comments |
Subscribe Navigation
Member Stats Rank: 438 Rating: 
25 star pointsTop 15 Videos: 1 Votes Received: 555 Average Votes Per Video: 29.21 Votes Cast: 1427 Comments Posted: 907 • browse Comments Applauded: 16 Sifted Videos: 19 Dead Pool Fixes: 6 Profile Views: 7734 Highest Ranked Comments Member's Highest Rated Videos |
Add comment
Mystery Videos Submitted by rychan
http://videosift.com/video/Jay-Leno-Interview-and-Lap-on-Top-Gear
In reply to this comment by rychan:
I'd love to see more Americans going on Top Gear. That was great.
In reply to this comment by rychan:
And another expert says it's NOT Bryozoan:
"Dr. Timothy S. Wood who is an expert on freshwater bryozoa and an officer with the International Bryozoology Association. I sent along the video and this was his reponse…
Thanks for the video – I had not see it before. No, these are not bryozoans! They are clumps of annelid worms, almost certainly tubificids (Naididae, probably genus Tubifex). Normally these occur in soil and sediment, especially at the bottom and edges of polluted streams. In the photo they have apparently entered a pipeline somehow, and in the absence of soil they are coiling around each other. The contractions you see are the result of a single worm contracting and then stimulating all the others to do the same almost simultaneously, so it looks like a single big muscle contracting. Interesting video."
This video makes it a little more believable that it could be a clump of these worms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn9kh7MaFQQ&
if you imagine that they would look deflated and slimy when the water in the pipe is drained.
In reply to this comment by rychan:
Not to be a curmudgeon, but this is just slowed-down broadcast footage (the Youtube description says as much). There's no information here that you don't get from watching it in real time. I was hoping this was shot with a 1000fps camera or something.
the fact remains one day it could be possible somehow with a different approach... and the links i gave on sensor and recording technology are to that end.
that's the only approach i see besides some other really wacky nonsense idea about metadata/gps/cctv i have... but ive said too much!
In reply to this comment by rychan:
vairetube: Yes, there's a lot of cool research in computer vision, computer graphics, and computational photography. But it's pretty simple to say, in an information theoretical sense, that this CSI stuff is impossible.
Yes you could hallucinate plausible image content (super-resolution), but clearly that's not appropriate for a forensic setting.
But in this case we have a quantized, noisy, low resolution signal and the reflection in the eye could have been generated by any number of incident signals and it wouldn't make a difference in the recorded video signal. The information just isn't there.
Prequels? What are you smoking; Lucas died in '83.
In reply to this comment by rychan:
The acting was indeed terrible, but I still think all three of these movies were 90% of the way to being really excellent, if someone could have just told George Lucas which of his ideas were terrible. And obviously someone else should have directed.
The terrible acting and dialogue from that kid, from Jar-Jar, and even from Natalie Portman just cancel out all of the "wow cool" stuff that is legitimately there.