Help! 24 Hours of All Sky Camera Footage

[p000m0000]

Hello Everyone

I am an artist and I could really do with some help with a project: I am looking for 24 hours of all-sky camera footage.
• Would you have access to any such footage?
• Would you be able to put me in touch with someone with access to such footage?
• Can you point me in the direction of any online communities that may be able to help?

Although any footage would be a fantastic help, my task is to find simultaneous footage from 2 opposite points on the planet.

Any help at all would be greatly appreciated. Apologies if I am wasting your time, or if this request is inappropriate to this space.

Best Wishes

Paul Magee
paul@p000m0000.com

PS. Here are the details of the project: The idea behind "Planet Elsewhere" is to look in all directions out into the universe at once. Two all-sky cameras at antipodes point directly up towards the stars at precisely the same time. In its simplest form the video feeds would be presented together on a single screen. There may also be an object: I was thinking of back-projecting the video feeds onto the two separate hemispheres of a globe, effectively turning the rest of the universe into an object. There are images of the proposal at the following address: http://www.p000m0000.com/planet_elsewhere.html.

[rstevenson]

I don't think an "all sky" camera view is possible with just two cameras -- you'll get a very imprecise and distorted image at the edges of their fish-eye views. Better would be four cameras, mounted at the points of an Earth-sized tetrahedron. (But one of them would be floating in the south Pacific, I think.) Even better would be four orbiting cameras!

Rob

[p000m0000]

Hi Rob

Thanks for your reply. Originally - 10 years ago - I was thinking of 6 cameras (that tetrahedron is more elegant). However, an astrophysics/engineer friend of mine convinced me that just 2 cameras would be sufficient. He argued that across the universe the height of the planet would be so insignificant as to be non-existent. Hated the idea at the time, now the thought that this hairline crack extends across the width of the universe - undermining the ambition of the whole thing - really appeals to me, and actually this is probably what makes it an artwork.

Very Best

Paul

PS Part of me would still prefer 4 cameras in orbit.

[Chris Peterson]

I don't think an "all sky" camera view is possible with just two cameras -- you'll get a very imprecise and distorted image at the edges of their fish-eye views. Better would be four cameras, mounted at the points of an Earth-sized tetrahedron. (But one of them would be floating in the south Pacific, I think.) Even better would be four orbiting cameras!

The thing to consider is that there is a massive asymmetry between the daytime and nighttime allsky views. Assuming it is clear, the night view essentially shows half of the visible Universe. There's a little distortion if you have a true horizon, but that effect is small. But the daytime imagery shows only a tiny fraction of the Universe, since in the daytime you are only seeing a hemisphere around you extending perhaps 50 miles in radius and 10 miles high. The Sun and Moon are the only celestial objects you can see beyond this.

But as long as you recognize this, and your goal is to portray things as they would appear from a single spot, two cameras on opposite sides of the Earth should really do a pretty good job. And since two cameras on opposite sides of the Earth are actually seeing two completely different skies, in a way that would be impossible for an observer even if the Earth were transparent, I think a better strategy would be to use a single camera and stitch together the daytime and nighttime parts onto the projection globe. That would be a truer representation than you'd get from cameras on opposite sides of the Earth.

[rstevenson]

...However, an astrophysics/engineer friend of mine convinced me that just 2 cameras would be sufficient. He argued that across the universe the height of the planet would be so insignificant as to be non-existent. Hated the idea at the time, now the thought that this hairline crack extends across the width of the universe - undermining the ambition of the whole thing - really appeals to me, and actually this is probably what makes it an artwork.

I love that thought -- a crack across the universe.

Rob

[p000m0000]

Hi Chris

With the video I am trying to look in all directions at the same time. Direction is the thing, looking up at everything else, that's the reasoning behind using antipodes. I hadn't considered the massive asymmetry that you talk about, but that really works for me: Over the 24 hour period one eye would gradually be occluded as the other cleared. It does change what the globe would do though.. I shall have to think about that.

Thank you

Paul

[p000m0000]

...However, an astrophysics/engineer friend of mine convinced me that just 2 cameras would be sufficient. He argued that across the universe the height of the planet would be so insignificant as to be non-existent. Hated the idea at the time, now the thought that this hairline crack extends across the width of the universe - undermining the ambition of the whole thing - really appeals to me, and actually this is probably what makes it an artwork.

I love that thought -- a crack across the universe.

Unfortunately season 5 of Dr.Who might have got there before me

[rstevenson]

I love that thought -- a crack across the universe.

Unfortunately season 5 of Dr.Who might have got there before me

Well ... he is a Time Lord, after all. He can get there before anyone, even if he wasn't already there. Um, ... sort of.

Rob

[p000m0000]

I love that thought -- a crack across the universe.

Unfortunately season 5 of Dr.Who might have got there before me

Well ... he is a Time Lord, after all. He can get there before anyone, even if he wasn't already there. Um, ... sort of.

HA! But wait.. is? Or was / will be? This gets messy pretty damn sharpish.

Paul