MOOP Map Live 2012 Edition

[CornMan]

My post had the link to the map.

[tamarakay]

ok, as a point of pride. On the SF map at decompression Barbie death camp is almost solid green, NOT cut in 1/2 by a large strip of yellow. We mooped, we had line sweeps, we had 20 people stay until Tuesday working to get green. I don't care that yellow is almost green, it's NOT GREEN. So, which is the more accurate map?

[knowmad]

From the Blog

MOOP Map Live 2012: BLM Inspection Postponed
Posted by The Hun
October 3rd, 2012 | Filed under News
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on pinterest_shareShare on google_plusone_shareShare on emailHello out there MOOP maniacs! Just a brief post to let you know that, due to a scheduling conflict, the Bureau of Land Management has postponed Burning Man’s site inspection (originally scheduled for today). It has been rescheduled for two weeks from now, on October 17.

The DPW Playa Restoration team has nonetheless finished their job and cleared the playing field, and the Black Rock Desert has been successfully restored to a pristine and featureless (and MOOP-free) state.

I’ll be back tomorrow with more results from how the Restoration season played out, and it will be my honor to share with you the results of the BLM inspection as soon as it happens. Barring any inclement weather or other force majeure, that ought to be two weeks from now.

Thanks for staying tuned! We’ll be serving up more MOOP Map results shortly.

[trilobyte]

Final Results are in! Interesting post too, talks a bit about art installations…

Here's the completed map

[felony]

Trilo- Thats not the map that was at SF DeCom on the 6th. Why are they different? BDV was all green except a little red and a little yrllow spot. Can you find out why they different?

[Fiver]

I'll whip up the HD moop map, but the image provided this time for the blog is even lower res then normal, so it won't be very pretty.

On that note. Where is the "Ultra High Res" version of last years map? I don't remember ever seeing it, although I did see the final one posted on the blog at the end of the moop map live series of posts...


HD Moop map will be posted tonight.

[BoyScoutGirl]

EDIT: We actually had two small red spots, some of the only red in Center Camp. From the position of one red spot, it might have been a modified playa surface condition from a very minor tent wall fire that, fortunately, was quickly caught and dealt with. Unfortunately, the dealing with involved dumping a lot of fluid, which probably didn't help either. The other red spot looks to be the kitchen area. From what I gather, we had a new kitchen set-up this year so clearly we've got some work to do with that.

What a rollercoaster. I see now why everyone is so eager for the map.

[trilobyte]

Felony - perhaps you should ask that of the playa restoration team. That is funny though - if something has spots of different colors, then it's not all anything, is it?

[knowmad]

from the Article.

In 2012, we had a pleasant surprise: Crew members from The Pier and Burn Wall Street came back out to the desert to do some follow-up mooping. Both those sites saw a lot of construction and tons of traffic

Yeah!

[Fiver]

I've got a treat coming for all of you, but in the mean time, here is the final, complete, 100% unofficial, 2012 Moop Map in HD*.

*(Extra large to piss off BBadger)



Thumbnail the size BBadger wants.



Bonus, Here's is a combined HD comparison of 2011 and 2012. Again it says 0x0pix but I test D/L'd it and it opened up fine.

[Fiver]

OK, one last time to refresh everyone. These are user generated, they are not official maps. I just whipped them up in this neat program called Photoshop® (You might have heard of it). These come from me, not the BORG, and are in no way sanctioned by them, so accept the fact that the moop overlay may not be 100% correct. I just like super high res pics that you can zoom way in on and see how your camp (possibly) fared.

Here's all the links....

Combination 2011 and 2012 Final Moop Maps for comparison
Usual large size pic I post using the Aug 30th image (Same link as my post directly above this one)
UltraHD version using the 1GB Satellite pic taken August 31st. Sorry, this one has the cloud in it, but it's a little higher res then the Aug 30th one.


I'll ask again if anyone has the link to the official 2011 final moop map that the BORG supposedly put out. Or is it just the final moop map from the blog?

[Pippi]

Day 5 Map our camp is Green and Day 6 Map our camp is partially yellow..... We racked and mooped for hours before leaving the playa! I don't see how we could be partially yellow.

Also, weren't there only 3 open blocks between 4:00-3:30 C, D and E? These moop maps make it seem like there were 4 open blocks.

Somethings fishy....

((please forgive me if this was already noted earlier in this post))

[BBadger]

I've got a treat coming for all of you, but in the mean time, here is the final, complete, 100% unofficial, 2012 Moop Map in HD*.

*(Extra large to piss off BBadger)

Thumbnail the size BBadger wants.

I have no problem with photos being high-res, and even the superimposed MOOP map on the satellite photo is useful--but leaving that photo as a giant, uncompressed image? That is just ridiculous. All you're doing is wasting peoples' time and bandwidth. Ooo, a 1GB photo of BRC with a blurry MOOP map on it! Then it's revealed that it's just 2x the resolving power of the Aug 30th image (so you'd expect 4x the bytes) and that most of the image is the surrounding countryside. Still, that's okay. It's a nice 330MP image. What's idiotic, however, is that most of the bytes are merely an artifact of the poster's moronic infatuation with leaving photos as uncompressed (even losslessly) TIFs.

There's zero justification for such a stupid act, not even if you were zoomed to the pixel level. Even at a high-quality JPEG setting, the filesize reduces to 1/10th the size (97MB) without any noticeable JPEG noise even on high contrast edges. Hell, even LZW lossless compression would about halve the size. So what is the point of the uncompressed TIF? A big boner for bytes? The ability to claim a "1GB image" like file-size matters? An amateur designer who is disconnected from reality? What?

[junglesmacks]

Badg.. I think I have a man crush on you.

[AdamOfTheRedEarth]

I've got a treat coming for all of you, but in the mean time, here is the final, complete, 100% unofficial, 2012 Moop Map in HD*.

*(Extra large to piss off BBadger)

Thumbnail the size BBadger wants.

I have no problem with photos being high-res, and even the superimposed MOOP map on the satellite photo is useful--but leaving that photo as a giant, uncompressed image? That is just ridiculous. All you're doing is wasting peoples' time and bandwidth. Ooo, a 1GB photo of BRC with a blurry MOOP map on it! Then it's revealed that it's just 2x the resolving power of the Aug 30th image (so you'd expect 4x the bytes) and that most of the image is the surrounding countryside. Still, that's okay. It's a nice 330MP image. What's idiotic, however, is that most of the bytes are merely an artifact of the poster's moronic infatuation with leaving photos as uncompressed (even losslessly) TIFs.

There's zero justification for such a stupid act, not even if you were zoomed to the pixel level. Even at a high-quality JPEG setting, the filesize reduces to 1/10th the size (97MB) without any noticeable JPEG noise even on high contrast edges. Hell, even LZW lossless compression would about halve the size. So what is the point of the uncompressed TIF? A big boner for bytes? The ability to claim a "1GB image" like file-size matters? An amateur designer who is disconnected from reality? What?

The file is only 139 megabytes you might want to actually click the link next time, would save you a bit of typing.

Edit: I thought you were referring to the "big" file. The file that you are complaining about is even smaller at 51 megabytes

[BBadger]

The file is only 139 megabytes you might want to actually click the link next time, would save you a bit of typing.

Edit: I thought you were referring to the "big" file. The file that you are complaining about is even smaller at 51 megabytes

The point still stands, and is in reference to the other "1GB HD" stupidity that has been posted around on this forum.

[Fiver]

Awww! There's the BBadger I know and love so! I missed ya.
Anyway, I know you have no problems with Netflix "HD" streaming, and can't see the difference between it and a blu-ray on your 2O" Sony Trinitron tube TV, but some of us can.
Some of us have giant 27" or 30" 2560x1600 monitors, and we like to see HIGH resolution images. I'm sorry on it takes so long to download the image on your dialup connection, maybe you could go to the library? I hear the internet is faster there. If everyone settled for low res, we'd still have SD TV and would use computers with VGA monitors. Someone needs to step up, and say "I'm tired of low quality, I want it better." I did, and that's why I post the highest quality I can. If you want lower, feel free to make it your self, and share with others, much like I did. It's super awesome and rewarding to make something for others to enjoy for free, and then get all the positive feedback like "This sucks, why is it so huge?" and "WTF are you using rapidshare? Can't you pick a better host?"

Can't wait 'til 2013!


(Also I never said it was a 1GB image, I just said I used the 1GB image. Cut down to just the city it's around 100MB. Last year my maps were bigger (average size, 330MB), you should be happy I scaled them down!)

[BBadger]

Awww! There's the BBadger I know and love so! I missed ya.
Anyway, I know you have no problems with Netflix "HD" streaming, and can't see the difference between it and a blu-ray on your 2O" Sony Trinitron tube TV, but some of us can.
Some of us have giant 27" or 30" 2560x1600 monitors, and we like to see HIGH resolution images. I'm sorry on it takes so long to download the image on your dialup connection, maybe you could go to the library? I hear the internet is faster there. If everyone settled for low res, we'd still have SD TV and would use computers with VGA monitors. Someone needs to step up, and say "I'm tired of low quality, I want it better." I did, and that's why I post the highest quality I can. If you want lower, feel free to make it your self, and share with others, much like I did. It's super awesome and rewarding to make something for others to enjoy for free, and then get all the positive feedback like "This sucks, why is it so huge?" and "WTF are you using rapidshare? Can't you pick a better host?"

Oh how cute, Fiver is bringing out an e-penis metric: computer hardware. Then he demonstrates his lack of reading comprehension by thinking that this is an issue of image resolution, rather than compressing images so that we're not passing around photos that are really only appropriate for transferring on a LAN (and not even then).

Don't believe you're "stepping up" dude. You're not. Sending images around the internet as uncompressed TIFs is something a moron does. Someone who thinks that bytes connotes quality (hint: they don't). Someone who likes to "show off" meaningless metrics (like bytes) to feel important. No, that "giant" monitor you're so proud of doesn't make the individual pixels look better. If anything, it makes the pixels look smaller so that image artifacts like JPEG noise become even less apparent--if it were apparent at all.

Your Netflix argument also falls flat--and only reinforces my point--as neither Netflix or Blu-ray videos are stored are as a series uncompressed video frames. That would be utterly stupid, because that would be a huge waste of bandwidth and/or storage space (and therefore money) in any context--kind of like sending uncompressed TIFs around the internet.

Nor should you believe it's a function of bandwidth. It's a function of time. Why waste time downloading three bytes per pixel when 1/10th that number will do? Most people are not even interested in such levels of quality, so much as just seeing where in their camp that blurry red spot from the low-res MOOP map may have landed.

After they're done, your magnum opus gets deleted from the hard drive, or just sits there wasting space like it did bandwidth.

Right? Who honestly cares if the 5x10 box of pixels representing a trailer has encoding artifacts (as if one could even tell)? Who can even see encoding artifacts on an already blurry and filtered GeoEye photo (see below)? So what are you accomplishing with this self-described "stepping up"? Save your personal passion for bytes for your own computer and stop wasting time on "quality" that even you wouldn't be able to pick out.

One of these is TIF-sourced, and the other is JPEG-sourced. Who the fuck can tell?

[Eric]

note to self: make out with BBadger next year.

[Zhust]

note to self: make out with BBadger next year.

Be careful, though, I hear he bytes. Fortunately, they're compressed.

[tamarakay]

note to self: make out with BBadger next year.

Be careful, though, I hear he bytes. Fortunately, they're compressed.

Post of the month!

[Bob]

Well I, for one, applaud the increasingly elaborate ways you people manage to obfuscate.

[Fiver]

All you guys are awesome, and fighting with BBadger really does make my day. He totally won that round huh!? I'm actually glad he did, because now he can continue to tromp around wearing his "I'm right" necklace, and I can go back to making super duper high resolution images that I upload on my nice fast internet connection for the world to see! So happy I don't need to worry if I'm doing it right anymore, now I know I'm not! That's a load off my chest. Now I can focus on making the images as high quality as possible, with as little "compression" as possible. Ugh! I hate that word... Makes me think of 128kbps MP3's and pixelated streaming porn video's from the late 1990's.
And for the record, I only call out BBadger because he was the first person to complain last year about the HD Moop Maps. It really could have been anyone, but he stepped right up and said (paraphrasing here:) "I hate your high quality moop maps! You didn't make it the way I would have! I didn't make one at all, so I'm going to complain about yours instead!"


In related news, BBadger and I might be camping with each other next year. His gifts will be vague complaints about your costumes, mine will be detailed descriptions about how your costume is awesome. Stop by!

[Bob]

GIGO.

[knowmad]

...super duper high resolution images that I upload on my nice fast internet connection for the world to see! ...

In related news, BBadger and I might be camping with each other next year. His gifts will be vague complaints about your costumes, mine will be detailed descriptions about how your costume is awesome. Stop by!

I'll Stop by and take a picture of you! I'm hopping by next year I'll have a Gopro 3d HERO camera set up to go with my super awesome desktop that connects with Mega Band width plenty of TeraBytes storage and a AMD HD3D Monitor. all in anticipation of being able to Show my friends what The Playa really looks like. I think I have an old school vga cool pix around here some where; Should be good enough to take a picture of Badger.

Indeed Bob. GIGO; it's a PEBCAK issue, the sourgrapes patch doesn't seem to fix . naja

[BBadger]

All you guys are awesome, and fighting with BBadger really does make my day. He totally won that round huh!? I'm actually glad he did, because now he can continue to tromp around wearing his "I'm right" necklace, and I can go back to making super duper high resolution images that I upload on my nice fast internet connection for the world to see!

Who's tromping around here Fiver? While I appreciate the support, I'm not high-fiving people on the side-lines because I won a "round". Nor am I qualifying my statements based on popular support.

So happy I don't need to worry if I'm doing it right anymore, now I know I'm not! That's a load off my chest. Now I can focus on making the images as high quality as possible, with as little "compression" as possible. Ugh! I hate that word... Makes me think of 128kbps MP3's and pixelated streaming porn video's from the late 1990's.

But we're not talking about such straw men. Your examples describe noticeable compromises in quality, which is not the case here. We see appropriate compromises in quality all the time. After all, do you believe your Blu-ray porn videos are not compressed--even if you can see every last zit? Even audio sampling rates cut off "detail" to a specific level because of the way we hear, or the frequency range being recorded. We do this because additional detail is a waste of resources.

Here you've taken things even further: not even using lossless compression.

The key factor here is that media should be delivered in a manner appropriate to its intended audience. You're not making these images for printing for a wall-ad (if you are, make another version). You're providing these as a visual aid--a tool--for people over the internet to see where blurry MOOP map blobs may have landed within their camp. For the latter, the images do not need to be lossless--let alone uncompressed. It's this detachment from reality that makes the choice of uncompressed TIFs so incredibly ridiculous.

And for the record, I only call out BBadger because he was the first person to complain last year about the HD Moop Maps. It really could have been anyone, but he stepped right up and said (paraphrasing here:) "I hate your high quality moop maps! You didn't make it the way I would have! I didn't make one at all, so I'm going to complain about yours instead!"

This is your call-out? That I'm calling you out on wasting time and bandwidth for some image that nobody needs to have lossless (uncompressed)? By all means proceed.

Also, your paraphrasing is wrong--an example of detectable lossy compression. For reference, here is the lossless version for all to read.* My beef then, as now, was that you were distributing these images as lossless TIF files. I even commented that the overlay was useful--but the delivery was entirely inappropriate.

Still, then--as now--you failed to understand that your maps are only useful because they aid in being able to locate where within a camp the blurry blobs of a the low-res MOOP map may have landed. They're tools, not works of art. Having imperceptible compression artifacts doesn't affect the inherent utility of such images, but does affect the time needed to obtain and use the tool. Using the image as a MOOP tool, people aren't "appreciating" the fact that you're distributing uncompressed versions of the map like you were working on some high-res print ad for a billboard. Instead, they're just wasting their time downloading an image with superfluous bytes (no, not detail) because of some delusions of its creator.

In related news, BBadger and I might be camping with each other next year. His gifts will be vague complaints about your costumes, mine will be detailed descriptions about how your costume is awesome. Stop by!

Here you go again equating detail with size. No, it's not about that. Your images, despite their file size and lack of compression, reveal no additional detail. Not even you would be able to detect meaningful difference. Maybe for some the larger file size psychologically affects things?

To use your costume description analogy, the uncompressed TIF equivalent of costume compliments would be full of redundant adjectives and superfluous description that bore and waste the time of the listener. "Uh thanks... I think... but I need to go..." SPIT IT OUT DUDE. It'd be like reading some terrible piece from a 19th century publication where they were paid-by-the-page.

Quantity, not greater quality. Don't equate the two.


* (Don't worry, it's not a screenshot of the thread, stored as an uncompressed TIF to see it exactly as I have seen it.)

[Sham]

Soooo, will there be a hi-res image of the finished moop map that's suitable for framing?

[skyhawkecks]

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

[Fiver]

I know, my ass is killing me!

[theCryptofishist]

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