MOOP Map Live 2012 Edition

[trilobyte]

You kids play nice.

The entire point of publishing the MOOP map is not so people can be jerks to each other or any kind of public shaming. It's there so that each camp can get feedback on how they did. To that end, uber high resolution maps just don't matter - you know approximately where on the dial you were camped (whether it was a registered theme camp or not).

[Zhust]

I've never seen so much butthurt over a picture on the internet.

No kidding. And I've seen the Internet naked.

[EspressoDude]

I've never seen so much butthurt over a picture on the internet.

No kidding. And I've seen the Internet naked.

Do Not even google image that word at work or while eating....

[fresh]

Anyone have the map in Poloroid? I am having problems viewing in AOL and prefer instant gratification...

[Nipple]

I'll mail you one.

Please send a S.A.S.E. to

Moop Map
Pueblo, CO 81009

[Bob]

You kids play nice.

The entire point of publishing the MOOP map is not so people can be jerks to each other or any kind of public shaming. It's there so that each camp can get feedback on how they did. To that end, uber high resolution maps just don't matter - you know approximately where on the dial you were camped (whether it was a registered theme camp or not).

That, and for those actually reading the source documents, the DPWer who's been pushing the current low-res moop maps out w/ his blogs has mentioned a few times that the currently available maps, including the "final", are still preliminary, and it will take the org a few weeks to publish what they consider "final" final moop maps... ...ie, it's rather a waste of people's time & bandwidth to publish huge faux moop maps, even if they're labeled "unofficial". IMHFO.

[Zhust]

Speaking of wasting bandwidth, you know that movie Citizen Kane? Well I never noticed this about the introduction:

[skyhawkecks]

Don't tell us how to waste our bandwidth!

[Fiver]

That, and for those actually reading the source documents, the DPWer who's been pushing the current low-res moop maps out w/ his blogs has mentioned a few times that the currently available maps, including the "final", are still preliminary, and it will take the org a few weeks to publish what they consider "final" final moop maps... ...ie, it's rather a waste of people's time & bandwidth to publish huge faux moop maps, even if they're labeled "unofficial". IMHFO.

I've been asking about this actually and no one has yet to respond. Where are the final official high res maps from 2011? I'm guessing it's just a .gif similar to the ones posted on the blog. But I've never seen anything higher then the final one from the blog that said "Not the final one, etc etc"
So where are the final ones issued by the borg?

[trilobyte]

My understanding is that high resolution final maps are not published online, for the reasons I outlined earlier. You are, of course, welcome to go reach out to the playa restoration team for more info.

[Bob]

Speaking of wasting bandwidth, you know that movie Citizen Kane? Well I never noticed this about the introduction:

Shirley, that flick could have used some John Facenda instead of that pencilneck Joseph Cotton on the voice-over.

[trilobyte]

Blog post with details forthcoming, but we passed the BLM inspection!

Psst ... Time to start weldin' on that art car for @BurningMan 2013. We PASSED the BLM inspection! More info to follow, stay tuned.

[BoyScoutGirl]

FANTASTIC!

Thank you, everyone who MOOPed and was MOOP-conscious. BIG HUGS to the playa restoration team!

[JStep]

I don't even feel bad about not understanding the argument...

BBadger is correct.

Fiver knows and doesn't care.

Ramble on...

[theCryptofishist]

I don't even feel bad about not understanding the argument...

BBadger is correct.

Fiver knows and doesn't care.

Ramble on...

That was kinda my gut reaction, but ... I may have been handicapping in favor of the one I know better.

[Canoe]

My understanding is that high resolution final maps are not published online, ...

Too bad.
I particularly find the overlay maps very interesting to see where the MOOP problems are, as in,
- common-areas/court-yards of congregations of structures within a camp (or a very small camp)
- the foot paths/trails into a camp from the roads
- shower areas
- kitchen areas
- etc.

With some camps having such correlations and others not.

The better the detail of these maps allow us to see the types of areas that may need extra attention, thereby providing clues as to what to look for, and along with the day-by-day MOOPing reports, rather informative (as opposed to: our camp wasn't green, but we thought it was good...).

I found the 2011 maps/overlays and the cleanup reports very informative.

I particularly find lossless formats much easier to look at.
If you want it, download. If you don't, then don't.

[Zhust]

I don't even feel bad about not understanding the argument...

BBadger is correct.

Fiver knows and doesn't care.

Ramble on...

I guess the compression thing can be made into circular logic: if you don't have the computing power to download 1GB of data, you won't have the computing power to open the image even if it was compressed. If you do have the computing power, then you've also the computing power to enhance specific areas to figure out the difference between a pick-up truck and an evaporation pond, so even the most minor compression artifacts (e.g. JPEG) will cause problems. So lossless compression was an option, but who cares?

[Nipple]

I made a smaller file for the folks that can't download the larger image due to file size.



This one is around 3,100 kilobytes. Here is your expected download time.

[theCryptofishist]

So if I have a fast enough internet speed, I can be finished downloading before I even start.

[Nipple]

I feel we're on a precipice of a society changing breakthrough.

1) Faster Bandwidth
2) ?
3) Time travel.

I gotta go call the phone company and order some more internet.

[Fiver]

I don't even feel bad about not understanding the argument...

BBadger is correct.

Fiver knows and doesn't care.

Ramble on...

It's basically that we have two different opinions on the subject of compression.
He is in the camp that as long as there is no discernible visual difference, you might as well compress an image to save storage/download time and computing horsepower to display it.
I believe we live in a time with ample bandwidth, computing horsepower, and cheap storage, so why not use the highest possible quality.
I have a ton of pictures that looked fine in 2001 at 1024x768 but now I wish I'd held onto the larger sized ones (vs resizing smaller to save space) as monitor sizes have only gotten higher res and storage is getting cheaper and larger.
So I'm trying to think ahead here, that's all.
No one is right or wrong, it's more what you personally want. I personally want the highest possible quality for not just now, but the future.
Final example. I'm super stoked that H.265 is on the horizon. To fit it into this conversation. BBadger will be able to get the same quality video image using half the bandwidth/bitrate, meanwhile I'm excited because I will be able to get double the visual quality at the same bandwidth/bitrate as what's available today (H.264).

[BBadger]

I guess the compression thing can be made into circular logic: if you don't have the computing power to download 1GB of data, you won't have the computing power to open the image even if it was compressed. If you do have the computing power, then you've also the computing power to enhance specific areas to figure out the difference between a pick-up truck and an evaporation pond, so even the most minor compression artifacts (e.g. JPEG) will cause problems. So lossless compression was an option, but who cares?

Not even.

On bandwidth and computing power, you're talking about two unrelated concepts. Computing power has little effect on the ability to download (image) data, or even your ability to view it. By simply restricting your viewing area on an image (i.e. the process of windowing), you can theoretically view images of infinite proportions.

Your image viewer can just load up the region of interest you've observing. No need to load all that extra data into memory, except maybe to cache it for when you're scrolling. That's essentially what Google Maps is doing right? They're not sending you ALL the satellite data of the world for you to process--just what you need. Hell, that's what happens in videos too: you're only viewing one frame at a time, not all of them at once.

Minor compression artifacts are not going to make any difference when you can't pick them out. You could use IBM's Watson supercomputer to analyze the image, but if there is no perceptual difference, what good is that to you? The only thing more computing power would be good for is hardcore digital forensics and who is doing that? Scroll up to the two images I posted above, showing center-camp--an object that is detailed enough to reveal compression artifacts. One is losslessly compressed, the other is JPEG-encoded (both stored as PNG files). Can you tell the difference? Can anyone? Even running a pixel-difference algorithm on them in Photoshop fails to reveal anything meaningful.

It's basically that we have two different opinions on the subject of compression.
He is in the camp that as long as there is no discernible visual difference, you might as well compress an image to save storage/download time and computing horsepower to display it.
I believe we live in a time with ample bandwidth, computing horsepower, and cheap storage, so why not use the highest possible quality.

So you acknowledge above that there is no discernible visual difference -- implying that for a visual medium this "quality" you're touting carries zero meaning to its intended audience (i.e. human beings). Then, because resources happen to be available--to you--you choose to deliver this media in a pointlessly resource-wasting form that carries no additional value... just because you can?

This is your approach? To be needlessly wasteful? To devote resources to self-admitted useless quality?

Can you imagine if Google took this same approach with Google Maps? How useless that service would be? I guess they were considering their target audience, not just their chums on their LAN.

I have a ton of pictures that looked fine in 2001 at 1024x768 but now I wish I'd held onto the larger sized ones (vs resizing smaller to save space) as monitor sizes have only gotten higher res and storage is getting cheaper and larger.

Here you're repeating the mistake of equating tangible with intangible measures of quality. In this case, you're talking about decreased resolution. The reduced size can indeed reflect less quality (assuming the spot size of the camera's aperture was small enough). Resolution, however, is not the same thing as compression quality--especially at indiscernible levels of quality. There are cases where it matters, but in the case of something like the satellite photos, it is virtually imperceptible, and therefore does not matter.

Please, learn the difference.

So I'm trying to think ahead here, that's all.

But you're not thinking ahead here. If you were, you would realize that a MOOP map has a very short lifetime of usability. That it is a tool, not a work of art. Nobody is saving that thing to print on their wall. Even that satellite photo: lossless encoding doesn't preserve meaningful detail--not even to you (except maybe psychologically). Again, point out the differences in that screenshot before. I promise, they're not the same, and I even tried selecting an object that could reveal artifacts.

This is yet another flight of stairs in your ivory tower: this idea that this media is some treasure to be preserved beyond that of a tool. These maps aren't photos of loved ones long-deceased that you want to retain every last detail for all eternity. These are satellite photos with low-res colored MOOP maps superimposed on them, that people use to see what spot in their camp might've had the the yellow blob. There's no point in a lossless version of such a map. What is useful is the ability to quickly see what may have been the source of MOOP in the camp. Time is the valuable commodity here, not pixels preserved for posterity.

No one is right or wrong, it's more what you personally want. I personally want the highest possible quality for not just now, but the future.

If it's just a personal ambition, why are you posting it for everyone else? To force others to view it the way only you want to view it, not what others would more than likely want or need?

I think you really did and do want to provide something useful to others, not just post something that's a mere personal project to satisfy yourself. The problem is that you were and are so caught up with your own standards that you fail to consider your target audience, or the practical value and lifetime of what you create or deliver.

This is like making indestructible space-hardened hard drives for consumer computers. Great, they're high quality and space-worthy, but the extra cost just isn't worth it to the target market, and those hard drives will be replaced shortly anyway.

Final example. I'm super stoked that H.265 is on the horizon. To fit it into this conversation. BBadger will be able to get the same quality video image using half the bandwidth/bitrate, meanwhile I'm excited because I will be able to get double the visual quality at the same bandwidth/bitrate as what's available today (H.264).

And another flawed example with respect to the above. Again you're talking about possibly perceptible quality differences versus imperceptible quality differences. There's a major difference: the former has actual meaning, the latter doesn't. The above is an example of the former, uncompressed TIF images of satellite photos instead of JPEGs (or even losslessly compressed TIFs for that matter), the latter. Glad I could clarify this point of confusion.

Still, what I'm more surprised by is that you not lamenting that the frames are being delivered to you using a lossy compression format. You know, for the future.

Oh yes, that would be just silly.

[theCryptofishist]

It's basically that we have two different opinions on the subject of compression.

See, I got that far and stopped. I don't need to have it explained me. I consider it a side issue. One that continues, and is a little annoying because it seems like endless rehash...

If it makes you feel better, I get caught in arguments and side discussions that other people aren't interested in all the time.

[Fiver]

Minor compression artifacts are not going to make any difference when you can't pick them out. You could use IBM's Watson supercomputer to analyze the image, but if there is no perceptual difference, what good is that to you? The only thing more computing power would be good for is hardcore digital forensics and who is doing that? Scroll up to the two images I posted above, showing center-camp--an object that is detailed enough to reveal compression artifacts. One is losslessly compressed, the other is JPEG-encoded (both stored as PNG files). Can you tell the difference? Can anyone? Even running a pixel-difference algorithm on them in Photoshop fails to reveal anything meaningful.

It's basically that we have two different opinions on the subject of compression.
He is in the camp that as long as there is no discernible visual difference, you might as well compress an image to save storage/download time and computing horsepower to display it.
I believe we live in a time with ample bandwidth, computing horsepower, and cheap storage, so why not use the highest possible quality.

So you acknowledge above that there is no discernible visual difference -- implying that for a visual medium this "quality" you're touting carries zero meaning to its intended audience (i.e. human beings). Then, because resources happen to be available--to you--you choose to deliver this media in a pointlessly resource-wasting form that carries no additional value... just because you can?
This is your approach? To be needlessly wasteful? To devote resources to self-admitted useless quality?

I can still see a difference, and A difference is all is takes, as then it's not original. You can take your images and blow them up, and there's a difference. I don't see anything when viewing images at 100%, but when you start zooming in (which, with these maps, you want to do) you notice compression quickly. The fact is you can spout out all you want, and in many cases you are correct, but I seriously don't give a f**k. . I'm going to continue to make these as awesome as possible for my target audience, which is me. Then I'll share them with others who will down res, resize, do whatever, but the starting point is going to be the max I'm capable of putting out.
Next year, feel free to grab the image, and immediately repost a version that is more in line with what you want to see. The time you spent talking in this thread could have been used for that.
Instead it's been a month and not one person has posted the image sizes you are asking for. This leads me to conclude that
A: People are lazy and don't want to make one.
or
B: People don't care that my image is huge and are fine with it.

Finally just to shut him up, here's a very very small (just over 1MB) version of the final moop map, it should look just as good as the original when viewed at 100%.

The end. It's winter, I'm going snowboarding. I'll see you all next summer!

[H.G.Crosby]

GEEK FIGHT!

[Rice]

a 1024x768 image that is stored as uncompressed tiff is not going to be as clear as a 20480x20480 JPG... trying to compare the two is pointless.

How about offering two options. The image in uncompressed TIFF form and the identical image in JPG?? That way ppl can download their preferred option (ie: if I want to see "everything" I can). . .

Or not.

when I think about it, I don't really care either way!

[BBadger]

I can still see a difference, and A difference is all is takes, as then it's not original.

I find that hard to believe. Come on, do a real test. Compress that satellite image using JPEG compression (use something like quality 10/12 for a ~1/10 size reduction), do a double-blind test. See for yourself.

Don't want to bother? Try the center camp shots above (or below). Pick out the encoding artifacts. That shot wasn't chosen as a degenerate example either, but features objects that should reveal artifacts.

You can take your images and blow them up, and there's a difference. I don't see anything when viewing images at 100%, but when you start zooming in (which, with these maps, you want to do) you notice compression quickly.

No, not even then. Do you also use digital zoom on your camera to achieve more "resolution"?

Put your money where your mouth is. Try it out in the center camp crop. Here they are 200% the size:

Which one is the degraded version of the other?

Blow it up to 10x the size if you're not convinced and determine which one is the degraded version of the other. See that those pixel edges don't reveal detail either.

The fact is you can spout out all you want, and in many cases you are correct, but I seriously don't give a f**k. . I'm going to continue to make these as awesome as possible for my target audience, which is me.

Oh, so this whole thing is just masturbatory! I gotcha: a pixel fetish.

But I think you're just lying here. You're not just making them for yourself, you're making them for everyone else. It's a way to demonstrate to others standard that you think reflect highly upon yourself. Let's face it, stating that a "1GB HD satellite photo" (despite only 2x the resolving power) has been posted just sounds awesome even though 90% of those bytes are wasted.

Your MOOP maps are useful. They're just delivered in a defective manner.

Then I'll share them with others who will down res, resize, do whatever, but the starting point is going to be the max I'm capable of putting out.
Next year, feel free to grab the image, and immediately repost a version that is more in line with what you want to see. The time you spent talking in this thread could have been used for that.
Instead it's been a month and not one person has posted the image sizes you are asking for. This leads me to conclude that
A: People are lazy and don't want to make one.
or
B: People don't care that my image is huge and are fine with it.

Or C: People decided that downloading an extraordinary amount of data for the content really was not worth seeing where in their camp some blurry yellow spot landed. You know, the "not worth my time" segment.

That still doesn't imply that they wouldn't mind seeing or using your MOOP maps, but it's that whole balance of effort versus reward. "Five minutes to see that? Do I really care? What's this TIF thing? Do I need a special player? This is a waste of my phone's data." When a potentially useful tool becomes a chore to use or access, the value of that tool is diminished. Nobody would touch Google Maps if Google insisted that people download only uncompressed satellite feeds. Likewise, a potentially useful MOOP map overlay becomes a chore to access because its author thinks it is a work of art that must be preserved should it ever wind up in the Library of Congress (for the future).

The effort vs. reward balance also has to do with targeting the image file size problem at its source rather than releasing band-aids to compensate. It's too late now of course; the MOOP maps are old news. Still, maybe you'll apply what I've proven to your MOOP maps next year--even if you still make cute little jabs like you did in mid-October that started this mess.

The seed has been planted, just as the previous year. We see a little bit of progress below. Better late than never, right?

Finally just to shut him up, here's a very very small (just over 1MB) version of the final moop map, it should look just as good as the original when viewed at 100%.

The end. It's winter, I'm going snowboarding. I'll see you all next summer!

Great! Learn to do it next year when it's still relevant.

[Bob]

...The end. It's winter, I'm going snowboarding...

QED.

[trilobyte]

The Hun wrote another (and probably the final) MOOP Map Live 2012 post - check it out here. In it she answered a lot of questions and as usual provided some great information about the process. Many thanks to the playa restoration team, and The Hun for all her efforts with the Burning Blog.

[skyhawkecks]

I can't believe they're still sperging out over pixels. Can't we go back to finger pointing about the MOOP map like the good ol' days?