The larger, yellowish image is a still from the CGI demonstration. The smaller, pinkish, superimposed image is a still from the "real" landing footage, supposedly captured by a camera on the rover facing down looking at the surface of the planet.
I found this here. In russian, you'll have to use translate. A few pertinent passages:
If we superimpose one frame on top of another, we will notice that the frame of the "real footage" (real descent) is the same computer drawing, only rotated 135 degrees. The same shadows, the same direction of light, the same scale.
Two frames are completely identical - a frame from a cartoon (orange) and a frame from a real video footage "the real footage" (pink).
The descent to Mars itself, filmed with a supposedly real video camera, does not produce the feeling of a real descent, neither at the beginning nor at the end. We see at first, as it were, shooting off a protective heat shield (shield). But the fact that this is computer graphics is unambiguous.
I already foresee that in the morning paid trolls and foreign agents sitting on the salary of the State Department will come running to this topic, who will furiously prove that the computer scientists who made the animation knew exactly where the Perseverance rover would land, and therefore reproduced the landing site using satellite images very accurate. The computer scientists, who started working on this video six months ago, knew the landing site with an accuracy of ten meters and the landing time with an accuracy of a second, so they correctly depicted both the direction of light and the length of the shadows. And the work of the computer scientists coincided perfectly with the "real" filming from Mars!
This is on Earth, when the spacecraft returns from near space (from a height of 350 km), they organize tracking and search operations, because from the late 1960s to the 21st century, the landing accuracy of Soyuz during normal, nominal descent is ± 50-60 km from the calculated point. "And on Mars, American iPhones and iPads work, so with their help there are no problems to land a spacecraft on an unknown planet (200 million kilometers away from us) at a specified point with an accuracy of several meters. And even show it in advance using a computer. graphs of exactly what this place will look like!
The only plausible explanation in defense of NASA that I can think of for this is that NASA used actual imagery from Mars in their CGI landing procedure demonstration. However, given the many other times I've seen NASA use fake CGI images passed on to people, claiming it's real, I'm hesitant to believe NASA, especially in conjunction with ever believing a damn thing any mainstream person or organization says.
Uh oh. Am I wading out in the deep end again, lol? You're probably right. I assumed we'd feel some disturbance, but then again we're just floating in space. It's all very fascinating though!
Electricomagnetic waves do not use a physical medium. You can test this in a vacuum chamber if you like. Light is a good test method, as you can see it, and it is also a form of electromagnetic wave.
Video is transmitted via radio waves, and don’t need a “medium”. Earth is blasted by radio waves generated by all kinds of fun stuff in space like quasars and suns. Video encodes radio waves (similar to how a computer encodes electricity) and receivers decode and reassemble radio waves into audio and video.
Radio waves travel at roughly the speed of light, and therefore takes about 10 minutes to travel between Earth and Mars. Strangely if you google this question the answer supplied states 3-20 minutes, so perhaps electro magnetic interference may slow this signal? (Edit: I realized after posting that the variance is based on where Mars’ orbit is in relation to Earth... 3 minutes is possible considering this)
Sound is a vibration and thus requires a “medium” but vibrations and electromagnetics have nothing else in common.
I think what you are saying is that atmospheres and matter extend well beyond their source planets and can provide a medium to assist transmission of radio frequencies far out into space, and possibly throughout all space even though we can’t see it.
However mathematically (and therefore repeatable by both you and me) we can prove radio waves existed before matter. Given that, it means matter is not required to facilitate the transmission of radio waves and other electromagnetics.
I’ve been pretty polite so far with you, but it’s pretty clear that you are a complete ignoramus with no clue how basic radio frequencies work but decide to go online a spew your idiot logic that electricity needs “ medium” to transmit.
When I read your post I thought “what the fuck has this dude been taught?” and I really tried to help you understand that you are making a public fool of yourself, because even though you can test and repeat and prove to yourself what I and others have tried to explain to you, your default is to go to some kind of god option and freak out that I’m an atheist as if it somehow matters to the discussion.
Go make a few more prayers to Allah and maybe he can send you a message in some kind of medium.
They couldn't even bother to CGI a new damn landing? Lol
What do they spend their money on if not rovers and artist?
What does this mean?
means NASA has more diversity hires than useful people at this point
if you setup a scam, you don't waste money if you can help it
greed will be their downfall.
ironically they could have created that scene 10000x with all the money they have
The larger, yellowish image is a still from the CGI demonstration. The smaller, pinkish, superimposed image is a still from the "real" landing footage, supposedly captured by a camera on the rover facing down looking at the surface of the planet.
I found this here. In russian, you'll have to use translate. A few pertinent passages:
The only plausible explanation in defense of NASA that I can think of for this is that NASA used actual imagery from Mars in their CGI landing procedure demonstration. However, given the many other times I've seen NASA use fake CGI images passed on to people, claiming it's real, I'm hesitant to believe NASA, especially in conjunction with ever believing a damn thing any mainstream person or organization says.
Looks like some CG artist will be getting fired from Nasa :D
Why is it impossible to send a video feed over a long distance?
Nasa never claimed to remote control the rover in real-time. Quite the opposite actually
Something tells me we'd know if the sun vanished right away do to gravity issues, but if it quit shinning then yeah for sure.
Uh oh. Am I wading out in the deep end again, lol? You're probably right. I assumed we'd feel some disturbance, but then again we're just floating in space. It's all very fascinating though!
Electricomagnetic waves do not use a physical medium. You can test this in a vacuum chamber if you like. Light is a good test method, as you can see it, and it is also a form of electromagnetic wave.
Video is transmitted via radio waves, and don’t need a “medium”. Earth is blasted by radio waves generated by all kinds of fun stuff in space like quasars and suns. Video encodes radio waves (similar to how a computer encodes electricity) and receivers decode and reassemble radio waves into audio and video.
Radio waves travel at roughly the speed of light, and therefore takes about 10 minutes to travel between Earth and Mars. Strangely if you google this question the answer supplied states 3-20 minutes, so perhaps electro magnetic interference may slow this signal? (Edit: I realized after posting that the variance is based on where Mars’ orbit is in relation to Earth... 3 minutes is possible considering this)
Sound is a vibration and thus requires a “medium” but vibrations and electromagnetics have nothing else in common.
Wouldn't where each 'planet' is in their 'orbit' affect the time?
I think what you are saying is that atmospheres and matter extend well beyond their source planets and can provide a medium to assist transmission of radio frequencies far out into space, and possibly throughout all space even though we can’t see it.
However mathematically (and therefore repeatable by both you and me) we can prove radio waves existed before matter. Given that, it means matter is not required to facilitate the transmission of radio waves and other electromagnetics.
That’s the best you have? Seriously?
I’ve been pretty polite so far with you, but it’s pretty clear that you are a complete ignoramus with no clue how basic radio frequencies work but decide to go online a spew your idiot logic that electricity needs “ medium” to transmit.
When I read your post I thought “what the fuck has this dude been taught?” and I really tried to help you understand that you are making a public fool of yourself, because even though you can test and repeat and prove to yourself what I and others have tried to explain to you, your default is to go to some kind of god option and freak out that I’m an atheist as if it somehow matters to the discussion.
Go make a few more prayers to Allah and maybe he can send you a message in some kind of medium.
Lol.
Some, not all
By your definition or what?
Light to be specific
Sure you can. It's jus takes time given the low bandwidth.