(meteorobs) OT -Question to the UFOCaptureV2. -PAUL PUGH et.al.,

Larry ycsentinel at att.net
Fri Aug 28 13:32:32 EDT 2009


Interesting topic coupled with your personal observations Dave.

Sounds like it would justify a closer scrutiny..... Intrinsic light 
diffraction of dense shock waves could (IMHO), illuminate shock waves under 
the right conditions of ambient background light scatter I think.

Polarized filtering might enhance something like this with a common 0.1 Lux 
narrow field camera using a longer focal length lens for detail?

If Chris is listening in maybe he or others might have some good ideas and 
speculation founded in optical physics and dynamics.

YCSentinel

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <prospector at znet.com>
To: "Global Meteor Observing Forum" <meteorobs at meteorobs.org>
Sent: 2009/08/28 08:05
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) OT -Question to the UFOCaptureV2. -PAUL PUGH 
et.al.,


Larry,

   I understand why you want to mask dark line objects but this could be an
area of important observation. For about five years starting in 1997, I
observed the night skys SLOWLY scanning with my 10X50 binoculars. I saw
many dim objects which i gave different classifications to. One I called
Dark Line objects, of three types, one was like waves of some sort like
shock waves but without apparent cause, except for two, another we later
called Dark Meteors, very fast dark line objects of various sizes (some
would be birds and insects but not all) and the third catigory were
observations of objects in the atmosphere, either above or below the
ablation zone, they looked like this <===== a shock front followed by a
sidewall. They were long or short, depending on their direction of travel
to the observer. I saw one very short in Taurus  <==  and several one night
that were almost coming directly at me in a group (  (   (  just the edge of
the shock front visible. One of my most important observations was a very
clear dark Meteor that terminated in a dim perfectly round moon sized
flash. I saw a second one another time, but it was much further away and
smaller. I believe there's real science to be learned by recording dark
objects of all types as I have found some of them to have substance and not
known to the scientific community. I have made the rounds over the years and
no one seems to know or understand my observations, you have the ability to
study them and break new ground and back up your findings with recorded
data. I didn't have that so it was just the word of an observer.

                                   Dave English
                               Oceanside, California

Quoting Larry <ycsentinel at att.net>:

> Yes Paco, the minimum processor & memory requirements for UFO Ver.2.22 is
> formidable.
>
> The settings I outlined previously was to make UFO extremely sensitive to
> EVERY tiny apparent light motion in the sky. It is a good starting point
> to
> assess the effects of changing any other UFO parameter one at a time.
> This
> starting position is excellent for meteor radiants and total meteor
> counts
> using the "T" image....but not magnitude. The .avi's are flawless.
>
> Since I seek only a reliable backup for Sentinel in case it misses a
> fireball during its number crunching reset time, It will work better(but
> not
> easier) than HandyAvi. These starting setups mentioned will NOT be what I
> will use for the actual Sentinel back-up operation.
>
> (I believe) great care must be excersized on Scintillation Mask and Frame
> shift settings. Both can cause clipping on leading edges & trailing edges
> of
> a meteors weaker ablation. I understand that frame shift value determines
> how far back in the frames UFO looks in determining a trigger or ending a
> triggered .avi.... (IF) Head & Tail are short values. I will continue to
> use
> 30 (1 second) on both and examine that function more closely later.
>
> I will NEVER use Slow Object masking. I need the plane trails and also
> will
> not risk losing any part of slower fireballs. Another area of further
> investigation....
>
> Dark Object masking could be (VERY) useful for Spiders & Bugs on the
> dome,
> Birds, etc., during the hours of subdued light. I get many of these
> irritations.
>
> On captures to date: Numerous short meteors etc., down to 1/10 inch on
> screen and smaller. A lot of fireballs under 1/2 inch lately. About 4
> fireballs 3/4 inch and of course (LOTS) of "highly desired" plane traces
> superimposed as a composite which certifies everything is running well.
> :-)
>
> On HandyAvi..... I am about to put it to bed. "Early-on" 3 or so years
> ago
> the frame skipping was measured here with a 1 second Oscilloscope trace
> and
> 1 or more frames were dropping at what appeared to be regular intervals
> in
> every 1 second .avi.  I dismissed it as being caused by a slower computer
> with marginal Ram or the characteristics of the AverMedia capture card I
> had. Since then, I have ran HandyAvi on the 2.4Ghz. / 2Gb. Ram computer
> with
> the same frame skipping playback and jerky motion of moving objects. UFO
> uses the same model card without these defects.
>
> HandyAvi was fine for a cheap, easy, back-up capture
> solution..........."back then". Here is a URL to a defective HandyAvi
> recording of an important Bolide. See insert of a correct composite image
> after .avi frames were re-arranged using the pre- and post- frame
> content.
> http://cams.seti.org/sentinel/page2.html  HandyAvi pictures are difficult
> to
> enlarge.  :-/
>
> Long post. Unavoidable if others are interested.
>
> YCSentinel
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Francisco Ocaña" <albireo3000 at yahoo.es>
> To: "Global Meteor Observing Forum" <meteorobs at meteorobs.org>
> Sent: 2009/08/27 14:07
> Subject: Re: (meteorobs) OT -Question to the UFOCaptureV2. -PAUL PUGH
> et.al.,
>
>
> Well, I forgot to metion that UFOC needs a fast processor, at least
> 2Ghz. I tried a 1Ghz one, and the software runs only with half
> resolution AVI. Not sure what HandyAvi needs, but Metrec beats them all.
> And not everybody has a fast computer to use just for fireball recording
> ( I use one borrowed, hehe). Metrec option should be considered too.
>
> Not sure why not using Scintillation Mask is the best solution for you.
> I can´t detect faint meteors without it because starlight variations
> would cause a trigger (but remember that the Scintillation Mask uses a
> lot of your processor).
>
> I find the Detect Level Noise Tracking really useful as the conditions
> vary a lot during the night, maybe 10 or 20 "units" (far more than the 7
> I use as a threshold value). And I use 3 as Detect Size as it works when
> I was working with the settings.
>
> The Frame Shift Diff. number I have always used '1'. I can not imagine
> what a difference other value could make. Tell us your results. For the
> planes I would recommend you to try the Slow Object Mask. The Dark
> Object Mask works also quite fine during the twilight.
>
> Do you have already recorded any fireball? Best,
>
> Paco
>
> Larry escribió:
> > It is getting very interesting now.
> >
> > My settings are probably radical and I will list them shortly after I
> > mention that the worst computer running UFO is 800mhz & 384mb memory.
> It
> > is
> > still really flakey but does detect weak meteors even tho' it does not
> > produce .avi's good or long enough to see all the full flight path.
> Same
> > on
> > airplanes, jerky .avi motions. Settings are the the same as on a faster
> > computer running UFO also. I plan on changing motherboards to 900mhz &
> > 512mb
> > ram if it will fit the case on the slower one to see if that is the
> > problem
> > with it.
> >
> > Meanwhile.... the bigger computer running UFO is 2392mhz with 2.048Gb
> ram.
> > It has been capturing short and fast meteors and tonight captured a 13
> > second aircraft and played it back perfectly as an .avi. (I am
> > experimenting
> > on the Frame Shift Diff. number). It was at 5 when the plane was
> recorded
> > and I am reducing it to 3 to see if bright planes drop out too soon.
> Long
> > Plane flights are a good way of making sure UFO is working.
> >
> > Anyway to the settings.....
> >
> > Checking Detect level Noise & Scintillation Mask killed me. Even after
> > reducing their effects with numerical adjustments. I used MaskW (with
> the
> > Scintillation checked) to see how much reduction to try. It got better.
> As
> > it turns out, not using Scintillation Mask (at all) was best for me.
> > Detect
> > Level Noise also is not good because it is self adjusting and can make
> > weak
> > meteors disappear altogether by ramping up the Detect Level.
> >
> > One of the key adjustments is to make Detect Size....really small! I
> use 3
> > even with the detect level bouncing around 50. A small meteor will go
> > easily
> > over these two adjustments and cause a trigger.
> >
> > Nothing else is checked except Superimpose date/time on the Input Tab.
> >
> > On the Operation Tab... leave everything alone on Still Image Capture
> box.
> > Check the start-stop box and set the hours.
> >
> > I do not check any other box and leave everything else I would not use
> > there
> > alone....the way it was. Then I save my settings.
> >
> > So for now..... I am trying to decide on what the Frame Shift Diff.
> number
> > should be by observing its effect on both planes and short fast
> meteors.
> > The
> > final number will be between 1 and 5 I think.....for tonight it is 3.
> >
> > UFOV2.22 is working (quite well at this point) on the faster
> > computer....better than HandyAvi ever did. (IMHO)
> >
> > YCSentinel

_______________________________________________
Mailing list meteorobs: meteorobs at meteorobs.org
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email: owner-meteorobs at meteorobs.org
http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs 




More information about the Meteorobs mailing list