8 ms·
Here are the pictures it has taken so far: https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireflyspace/albums/72177720313239766/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireflyspace/albu
by sfjailbird 2y ago
Here are the pictures it has taken so far:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireflyspace/albums/72177720313239766/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireflyspace/albums/7217772031...
There's also a cool lunar flyover video taken during final deorbit.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sva_ 2y agoFlickr? Moon landing? What year is it?
- sen 2y agoFlickr has had a resurgence of popularity among photographers since yahoo sold it. It’s easily the best “professional” photo hosting site currently.
- consumer451 2y agoThis is an interesting tangent. Is it Flickr's copyright rules that make it attractive? Or, something else? Lack of existing competitors? Not associated with a social media account?
- chefandy 2y agoIf you’re going to post albums of high-res photographs on the internet… why not Flickr?
- caycep 2y agoyea, flickr has always been reliable for this sort of thing
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- butlike 2y agoIt's a valid question about ToS, and one I'm not sure of.
- chefandy 2y agoYeah I did a brief scan and a brief search for opinions on their practices when I saw the comment I initially replied to and didn’t find anything concerning. Doesn’t mean there isn’t anything, but it either wasn’t serious enough to be surfaced, or nobody more knowledgeable than me has looked.
- velcrovan 2y agoBecause its continued existence has been in grave doubt for years? I was a heavy Flickr user, but when Yahoo sold it to SmugMug in 2018, I basically assumed it was going to be either merged out of distinct existence or shuttered. I downloaded an archive of all my stuff and stopped using it altogether. Because what’s the point of using a platform that’s so obviously no longer viable…was my thinking at the time. I would never have guessed it would remain alive this long but it’s still not anything I would want to invest time in or rely on anymore.
- duxup 2y agoThe videos are amazing https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireflyspace/54353240540/in/album-72177720313239766 https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireflyspace/54353240540/in/al...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Daub 2y agoThey are indeed, but the soundtrack could be better.
- mclau156 2y agoneed a sense of scale in that video
- hibernator149 2y agoThat was my favorite one too. Probably because it is basically Outer Wilds in real life.
- LastTrain 2y agoThere are already commenters claiming it is fake SMH
- stubish 2y agoIt looks fake. Turns out what looks real is shaped by experience in Earth atmosphere at Earth scale with Earth gravity. Those 70s and 80s sci-fi movies with close ups of plaster models turn out to have gotten it right. Even things like the earth panning behind the completely motionless ship looks like a bad composite job, because nothing is ever that motionless except a static image.
- frakkingcylons 2y agoCan't wait to see the VFX breakdown /s
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- samstave 2y agoYeah, CUDAs to the Team!
- decimalenough 2y agoIt's fascinating how the pictures have that "Apollo moon landing" look. I'd always assumed that a huge part of this was just 1960s technology (film not digital etc), but apparently it's actually coming from the literally unearthly lighting conditions of being on the Moon.
- gwarrr 2y agoI am no expert, but to my knowledge the space flight tech evolves very slowly, if at all. One reason for that is that modern tech is supposedly too sensitive to radiation. So you want to balance what's worthwhile to upgrade, and fancy videos are probably low on that list.
- decimalenough 2y agoThe Apollo astronauts used Hasselblads for still photography. I'm pretty sure Firefly is not sending back rolls of 6x6 film.
- gwarrr 2y agoWhat is the point? Are we comparing coconuts and apples?
- decimalenough 2y agoWell, you were the one telling me "space tech evolves slowly", when Apollo was taking their pictures with a film coconut, Firefly is using a digital apple, and yet the output still looks eerily similar.
- gwarrr 2y agoyou are talking about stills. still don't know what the actual tech difference is.
- 2y ago
- zingerlio 2y agoHow are the videos captured or processed? The solar lens flares are smoothly interpolated but the moon surface shows lower FPS, almost feels like the flares were on a separate layer.
- dguest 2y agoMy guess: they are the same update rate. The lens flares have blurrier edges and move less across the screen. This makes the jumps less obvious. CGI animations also add blurring, and even your eyes have an integration time that will make fast moving objects blurry. So your brain good at interpolating blurry edges.
- hello12343214 2y agothis is awesome, look at all those craters!
- alfanick 2y agoThese pictures are great - maybe it's time for me to get a new desktop background. Kinda related: some years ago NASA published all the Apollo missions pictures. I downloaded all of them (hundreds, maybe bit more), acting as a photo editor then I selected "good ones", cropped them to 16:10 format and made a background picture pack - I'm using it on all my devices since then. If someone is interested, they're published at [0] - feel free to use. [0]: https://share.icloud.com/photos/0577bWqlyiqqaz9zeI0cEcE7Q https://share.icloud.com/photos/0577bWqlyiqqaz9zeI0cEcE7Q
- nymiro 2y agoThank you for sharing this!
- alfanick 2y agoHere [0] is the original archive, 15k pictures. [0]: https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/with/51338568546 https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/with/5133...
- ddejohn 2y agoI did something similar with their lunar libration videos captures by the LRO [1], using the frames from the video with the Windows desktop background 'slideshow' functionality (desktop background changes once a minute). [1]: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5415 https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5415
- Daub 2y agoPity that the videos were accompanied by such cheesy music. A soundtrack derived from telemetry would have been killer. Example project here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbLdd1fdNg5ymNYshv2xWtJTTo0cA7_1H https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbLdd1fdNg5ymNYshv2xW...
- fgededigo 2y agoReturn to the basics like Pierre Henry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZPDrNAFo1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZPDrNAFo1U
- moffkalast 2y agoAbsolute cinema, Firefly showing how it's done.
- Aldipower 2y agoThey are definitely made in a studio! Having too much karma points... ;-)
- ge96 2y agoWhy does the moon looks soft/smooth in the videos? Is it because the material is soft? Or a scale thing. If you consider mountains on Earth they look jagged.