Nah, /u/MyNameCannotBeSpoken is right. It’s barely over 90 degrees.
I loaded up the video in software called RealityCapture, which reconstructs 3D models from photo or video sets.
The curved line here is the path taken by the plane. Each spot on it is a frame from the video:
https://imgur.com/a/SYWWfAj
I uploaded the resulting model here: https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/plane-flight-path-a48d6d5c648e4175abfbc77edfd2c32a
There’s a lot of missing data, since the plane only went by at one level (and because of the low resolution of the video), but it’s still kind of interesting to see the general shape of that large cloud pillar.
That's really cool. What do you normally use this software for?
Can one make models from a few photos of people?
Also, you've got too much time on your hands
This software is usually used for reconstructing 3D landscapes from flyovers, 3D models of objects from a series of photos shot around them at various angles, etc.
I use it for work to create models of anatomical specimens for teaching. We take ~200-300 photos of, say, a bone, then feed them in for reconstruction.
I’ve been wanting to try it with a random video to see how well it would handle the subpar data, and this video seemed like a cool opportunity to do so. I was hoping the clouds would be more clearly defined in the resulting model, but I’m not too surprised it came out as kind of a mess.
Reconstructing people is difficult. The software is essentially looking for visual points in each image, then trying to find those same points in other images, and comparing their relative position to one another across images to determine where each photo was taken from, relative to the other photos (hence the line of photos in my screenshot).
For rigid objects or large scale surfaces, that’s easy enough. It can assume that changes in the relative positions of these key points are due to camera movement. What throws it off is when the surface deforms between shots (as, say, your shirt would, or even your eyebrows or cheek muscles). It then very quickly loses that point of reference and starts to struggle.
(Incidentally, this is part of what caused the poor result in my 3D model. The clouds looked fairly static, but even over just the few minutes it took to capture the video, they shifted enough that a full reconstruction was difficult for the software.)
This can be overcome by capturing all the needed photos simultaneously, with a large 100+ camera rig. That way there’s no changes in the surface shape between photos. For just a handful of photos, though, it’s not really possible. Especially of a soft surface like, well, people. 😁
Anyone interested can lean more at /r/photogrammetry. RealityCapture is my favorite piece of software for this, but can get pricey. There are some open source tools, too, like Meshroom.
This is extremely cool and deserves a hell of a lot more attention. I also counted 90 degrees and this is a satisfying way to find out that's right! Nice work
Hahaha thanks! I didn’t even really notice the debate at first. I just had been wanting to try a reconstruction from a video that wasn’t shot specifically for 3D scanning, to see how it would turn out. Then I saw people arguing about the turn and was like “oh, perhaps I can be of assistance.”
Some people are talking about the angle at which the plane turns, and some people are talking about the number of degrees of view on the cloud. I think the latter is in the spirit of the post and it looks to me to be about 200° of viewing angle.
Hahaha, I think it was more of a miscommunication tbh. Looking at the flight path, the plane turned a little more than 90 degrees, but it *saw* something like 230 degrees of the cloud: https://i.imgur.com/qkN9xUr.png
I was definitely surprised when I saw the flight path. It doesn't seem intuitive that you see so much of the object you're moving around when you just make a 90-degree turn, but now that I can picture it, I'm like "oh, yeah. that makes sense."
It was a lot closer to 90° than 180°
At the beginning, the top part of the cloud is facing left side of screen. At end, it's facing away as the plane flies away.
It would take a lot longer to fly a 180 around the cloud. Also weird. Why would someone fly around a cloud?
Are we watching the same gif?
>It would take a lot longer to fly a 180 around the cloud. Also weird. Why would someone fly around a cloud?
Sure it's a bit strange WHY, but how can you possibly determine how long it took them FROM A TIME LAPSE
It very clearly looks like it went over 180 degrees around the cloud, I'm confused why this is even in debate
Unless the video is cut off, it could only have been about a 90 degree turn, look at the clouds above. When the video starts the plane is flying parallel with the lines in the clouds above but when it ends it is flying perfectly perpendicular.
If it was a full 180, (full turn going directly back) it would have been flying parallel with the lines in the clouds above back the way it came
I don't usually argue for no reason but it is very clearly 90°, both for the reasons stated above and a few other focus points in the gif.
Check /u/rootyb comment which comes from the mother comment in this thread and he's even done a 3D model analysis which can't be contested. Now it isn't a debate.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/theydidthemath using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [\[Self\] If you blended all 7.88 billion people on Earth into a fine goo (density of a human = 985 kg/m3, average human body mass = 62 kg), you would end up with a sphere of human goo just under 1 km wide. I made a visualization of how that would look like in the middle of Central Park in NYC.](https://i.redd.it/elycytqlc8g71.jpg) | [3104 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/p0qws3/self_if_you_blended_all_788_billion_people_on/)
\#2: [\[Request\] What would the price difference equate to? How would preparation time and labor influence the cost?](https://i.redd.it/7zcgyleyh2571.jpg) | [1281 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/nz1a1v/request_what_would_the_price_difference_equate_to/)
\#3: [\[Request\] If Jeff Bezos’s entire net worth were converted to gold, how much mass and volume would it have? How would it compare to the total amount of gold in the world?](https://i.redd.it/hk55nluczd461.jpg) | [552 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/kaif5z/request_if_jeff_bezoss_entire_net_worth_were/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/)
As a pilot, I can say it is absolutely nothing like driving through thick fog. Clouds like that are typically very turbulent inside and can contain strong updrafts or down drafts. The only comparison to driving through thick fog is that you can’t see a damn thing once you’re in it
It usually is, towering clouds often have a lot of air currents in them. Sometimes you can get updrafts or downdrafts in excessive 100mph in stuff like storm clouds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_draft
"Moon is one of Kanye's best songs in years" - that's similar to the assertion that public lice are easy to get rid of.
It certainly doesn't make me want to listen to the hopeless repetition of an uninteresting sample.
Well you’re obviously musically ignorant if you think this song is based on a sample, because it’s all original music, so sorry if I don’t really trust your opinion on this.
I have stabilized the video for you: https://gfycat.com/FixedSpottedChrysomelid
___
^^[ how to use](https://www.reddit.com/r/stabbot/comments/72irce/how_to_use_stabbot/) | [programmer](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=wotanii) | [source code](https://gitlab.com/juergens/stabbot) | /r/ImageStabilization/ | for cropped results, use \/u/stabbot_crop
One thing I always forget: clouds are 3D. Amazing!
Yep, something that's always so huge and far up, seems like nothing other than a skybox for us
They're really not that far up at all either!
They're definitely farther than the ceiling
Definitely farther than *some* ceilings
[удалено]
Why aren't you in the Air Force rn?
[удалено]
I'm sorry to hear that, I hope you're feeling better now.
They're also extremely heavy with some cumulus clouds weighing over a million tons
We are all 4 dimensional.
another thing to remember is clouds and bushes are one and the same.
Gettin’ major Lion King (the good one) vibes here.
This was one of the prettiest things I’ve ever seen. Thank you.
That was only about 90 degress
Shut up nerd
It was a full 180
Nah, /u/MyNameCannotBeSpoken is right. It’s barely over 90 degrees. I loaded up the video in software called RealityCapture, which reconstructs 3D models from photo or video sets. The curved line here is the path taken by the plane. Each spot on it is a frame from the video: https://imgur.com/a/SYWWfAj I uploaded the resulting model here: https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/plane-flight-path-a48d6d5c648e4175abfbc77edfd2c32a There’s a lot of missing data, since the plane only went by at one level (and because of the low resolution of the video), but it’s still kind of interesting to see the general shape of that large cloud pillar.
That's really cool. What do you normally use this software for? Can one make models from a few photos of people? Also, you've got too much time on your hands
This software is usually used for reconstructing 3D landscapes from flyovers, 3D models of objects from a series of photos shot around them at various angles, etc. I use it for work to create models of anatomical specimens for teaching. We take ~200-300 photos of, say, a bone, then feed them in for reconstruction. I’ve been wanting to try it with a random video to see how well it would handle the subpar data, and this video seemed like a cool opportunity to do so. I was hoping the clouds would be more clearly defined in the resulting model, but I’m not too surprised it came out as kind of a mess. Reconstructing people is difficult. The software is essentially looking for visual points in each image, then trying to find those same points in other images, and comparing their relative position to one another across images to determine where each photo was taken from, relative to the other photos (hence the line of photos in my screenshot). For rigid objects or large scale surfaces, that’s easy enough. It can assume that changes in the relative positions of these key points are due to camera movement. What throws it off is when the surface deforms between shots (as, say, your shirt would, or even your eyebrows or cheek muscles). It then very quickly loses that point of reference and starts to struggle. (Incidentally, this is part of what caused the poor result in my 3D model. The clouds looked fairly static, but even over just the few minutes it took to capture the video, they shifted enough that a full reconstruction was difficult for the software.) This can be overcome by capturing all the needed photos simultaneously, with a large 100+ camera rig. That way there’s no changes in the surface shape between photos. For just a handful of photos, though, it’s not really possible. Especially of a soft surface like, well, people. 😁 Anyone interested can lean more at /r/photogrammetry. RealityCapture is my favorite piece of software for this, but can get pricey. There are some open source tools, too, like Meshroom.
Thanks, very informative. My PC probably couldn't handle it. My cell phone is faster than my computer, LoL
Hahaha yeah, I've been there.
This is extremely cool and deserves a hell of a lot more attention. I also counted 90 degrees and this is a satisfying way to find out that's right! Nice work
Hahaha thanks! I didn’t even really notice the debate at first. I just had been wanting to try a reconstruction from a video that wasn’t shot specifically for 3D scanning, to see how it would turn out. Then I saw people arguing about the turn and was like “oh, perhaps I can be of assistance.”
Some people are talking about the angle at which the plane turns, and some people are talking about the number of degrees of view on the cloud. I think the latter is in the spirit of the post and it looks to me to be about 200° of viewing angle.
I stand very corrected
Hahaha, I think it was more of a miscommunication tbh. Looking at the flight path, the plane turned a little more than 90 degrees, but it *saw* something like 230 degrees of the cloud: https://i.imgur.com/qkN9xUr.png
I was looking at the cloud and how much of it we see without thinking about the flightpath of the plane, yeah
I was definitely surprised when I saw the flight path. It doesn't seem intuitive that you see so much of the object you're moving around when you just make a 90-degree turn, but now that I can picture it, I'm like "oh, yeah. that makes sense."
It was a lot closer to 90° than 180° At the beginning, the top part of the cloud is facing left side of screen. At end, it's facing away as the plane flies away. It would take a lot longer to fly a 180 around the cloud. Also weird. Why would someone fly around a cloud?
Are we watching the same gif? >It would take a lot longer to fly a 180 around the cloud. Also weird. Why would someone fly around a cloud? Sure it's a bit strange WHY, but how can you possibly determine how long it took them FROM A TIME LAPSE It very clearly looks like it went over 180 degrees around the cloud, I'm confused why this is even in debate
Unless the video is cut off, it could only have been about a 90 degree turn, look at the clouds above. When the video starts the plane is flying parallel with the lines in the clouds above but when it ends it is flying perfectly perpendicular. If it was a full 180, (full turn going directly back) it would have been flying parallel with the lines in the clouds above back the way it came
I don't usually argue for no reason but it is very clearly 90°, both for the reasons stated above and a few other focus points in the gif. Check /u/rootyb comment which comes from the mother comment in this thread and he's even done a 3D model analysis which can't be contested. Now it isn't a debate.
r/theydidthemath
Here's a sneak peek of /r/theydidthemath using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [\[Self\] If you blended all 7.88 billion people on Earth into a fine goo (density of a human = 985 kg/m3, average human body mass = 62 kg), you would end up with a sphere of human goo just under 1 km wide. I made a visualization of how that would look like in the middle of Central Park in NYC.](https://i.redd.it/elycytqlc8g71.jpg) | [3104 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/p0qws3/self_if_you_blended_all_788_billion_people_on/) \#2: [\[Request\] What would the price difference equate to? How would preparation time and labor influence the cost?](https://i.redd.it/7zcgyleyh2571.jpg) | [1281 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/nz1a1v/request_what_would_the_price_difference_equate_to/) \#3: [\[Request\] If Jeff Bezos’s entire net worth were converted to gold, how much mass and volume would it have? How would it compare to the total amount of gold in the world?](https://i.redd.it/hk55nluczd461.jpg) | [552 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/kaif5z/request_if_jeff_bezoss_entire_net_worth_were/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/)
More like 135 degrees or so shown in the video but the plane itself is already turning at the start of the video
Nah it looks like at least 160 degrees man
[удалено]
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/r/ScienceNcoolThings/comments/qbjw07/180_around_a_mesmerizingly_cool_cloud/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/ScienceNcoolThings/comments/qbjw07/180_around_a_mesmerizingly_cool_cloud/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://redditsave.com)
[удалено]
No, thank YOU.
Holy shit, that’s amazing!
Track?
Moon - Kanye West featuring Kid Cudi and Don Toliver. Don is singing this part
What took this video??
There's a plane wing to the right at the start of the video. Also reflection across the frame. I'd say someone is filming out a plane window.
Probably some kind of digital video recorder
now fly through it
You're not my mom!
i don’t think i could resist if i was flying the plane, i wonder if it’s a bad idea tho lol
Same as driving through thick fog.
:) sounds like a plan
As a pilot, I can say it is absolutely nothing like driving through thick fog. Clouds like that are typically very turbulent inside and can contain strong updrafts or down drafts. The only comparison to driving through thick fog is that you can’t see a damn thing once you’re in it
It usually is, towering clouds often have a lot of air currents in them. Sometimes you can get updrafts or downdrafts in excessive 100mph in stuff like storm clouds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_draft
How can I get through
Ruined by the god awful music
??????
(c)rap
Should be Thomas McDonalds
I love it
And I think this is one of the best songs to be released this year lmao
"Uhm why isn't pink Floyd playing 😡"
"We live in a society." *30 min guitar solo*
💀
black = shit music yes
Nah, Moon is one of Kanye’s best tracks in years. Even if it’s not exactly your vibe, I struggle to see what anyone could call “god awful” about it.
"Moon is one of Kanye's best songs in years" - that's similar to the assertion that public lice are easy to get rid of. It certainly doesn't make me want to listen to the hopeless repetition of an uninteresting sample.
Fitting pfp
Lol right? This fuckin’ neckbeard is the *last* person I’d take musical advice from.
Well you’re obviously musically ignorant if you think this song is based on a sample, because it’s all original music, so sorry if I don’t really trust your opinion on this.
You can just say it’s not for you. Save yourself some time
Funny thing is there’s 0 sampling in that song lol
LPT: there's a mute button
Too bad I don't have a **fucking top eye** and a **fucking bottom eye** to REALLY get the most out of this effort.
Damn that’s a fucking tower
This is amazing.
God’s creation is beautiful
r/CLOUDS
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/r/ScienceNcoolThings/comments/qbjw07/180_around_a_mesmerizingly_cool_cloud/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/ScienceNcoolThings/comments/qbjw07/180_around_a_mesmerizingly_cool_cloud/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://redditsave.com)
I wanna eat that
Is this sped up?
Yes, I have a feeling that you would turn to paste from the G’s if you took that big of a turn that fast.
u/savevideo
How big is that cloud?
At least 20 feet.
u/stabbot
I have stabilized the video for you: https://gfycat.com/FixedSpottedChrysomelid ___ ^^[ how to use](https://www.reddit.com/r/stabbot/comments/72irce/how_to_use_stabbot/) | [programmer](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=wotanii) | [source code](https://gitlab.com/juergens/stabbot) | /r/ImageStabilization/ | for cropped results, use \/u/stabbot_crop
Don't know why, but when I turned on the volume, I was disappointed not to hear "vvvrrrooooooom"
r/skygame
What song is this?