by Chris Peterson » Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:13 pm
skyhound wrote:I tried this as well by making a screen capture and placing a circle and then an ellipse over the image and got an even stronger correlation with the circle than you did. Unfortunately It depends on the size of the circle you choose so I'd have to say it is inconclusive.
I agree. It depends very much on where you assume the invisible edges actually are. However, looking at other images posted on the JHUAPL site, made around the same time, it does look like the animated sequence has had its aspect ratio altered. I don't know why, since the still images themselves are not altered, and other images associated with press releases are unaltered as well. It is clear that they normally leave the aspect ratio correct in their published images.
I might speculate that the alteration was inadvertent- associated with with the video software used to construct the image. Video software tends to try very hard to force things into a 3:4 (or sometimes 9:16) ratio, which causes all sorts of problems when the source material doesn't start with that aspect ratio. In this case, the images had to be individually rotated and aligned, then appropriately cropped and possibly resized. Plenty of places for things to go wrong.
[quote="skyhound"]I tried this as well by making a screen capture and placing a circle and then an ellipse over the image and got an even stronger correlation with the circle than you did. Unfortunately It depends on the size of the circle you choose so I'd have to say it is inconclusive.[/quote]
I agree. It depends very much on where you assume the invisible edges actually are. However, looking at other images posted on the JHUAPL site, made around the same time, it does look like the animated sequence has had its aspect ratio altered. I don't know why, since the still images themselves are not altered, and other images associated with press releases are unaltered as well. It is clear that they normally leave the aspect ratio correct in their published images.
I might speculate that the alteration was inadvertent- associated with with the video software used to construct the image. Video software tends to try very hard to force things into a 3:4 (or sometimes 9:16) ratio, which causes all sorts of problems when the source material doesn't start with that aspect ratio. In this case, the images had to be individually rotated and aligned, then appropriately cropped and possibly resized. Plenty of places for things to go wrong.