Jump to content

Artman Inspires Hv4864 Video


bicknell
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I drive by HV4864 every day on the way home, or so I thought. You can't miss the monument by the side of the road, and it was clearly a benchmark of some sort. When I saw several people logged it as a find, but then ArtMan logged it as a not found, I had to go look for myself. I took the video camera to show how you almost trip over it, intending to make a comedy for ArtMan.

 

However, I found ArtMan was more correct than not. The mark that is so easy to see by the side of the road is a reference mark. Looking closely at all the pictures in the log, I think everyone has been logging the reference mark. Sadly, we did not find the mark. Recent construction has either destroyed it, or buried it, or possibly removed the surface mark leaving the underground mark.

 

Check the log for HV4864 for the usual pictures and description. However, to take benchmarking to the next level, I also present a video. It's 23M, so keep that in mind before you click on it. It's Windows Media, since that's all I know how to create right now. Perhaps attaching video clips to mark logs is the next phase of benchmarking. It's still slow enough I wouldn't do this but for an unsual mark, but Video technology is getting cheaper and easier.

 

Anyway, here's the movie for your viewing pleasure. Post your comments, and tell me what you think.

Link to comment

Nice video. Since the datasheet describes the RM as 'about the same elevation as the station' have you considered probing the suspected area or using a metal detector? I wouldn't dig without express permission, but a target hit in the proper area might push me to inquire with the proper folks to attempt a recovery.

 

I'll admit that it certainly looks like this one was destroyed, but when Matt and I took a shot at KW3025, we were pretty sure we'd strike out with the main station. With some patience and carefull measuring we were able to reveal the station and both RMs, despite obvious recent regrading of the area.

Link to comment
Nice video. Since the datasheet describes the RM as 'about the same elevation as the station' have you considered probing the suspected area or using a metal detector? I wouldn't dig without express permission, but a target hit in the proper area might push me to inquire with the proper folks to attempt a recovery.

I drive by this area every day on my way home, so I've noticed the work they did. I don't think there was significant digging where the mark should be located. That area was used for storage of some building materials, and then recently they "raked" the whole area and planted the grass.

 

I think it's most likely the mark is simply buried. Between having adjusted coordinates, and a reference mark it should be easy to find with a metal detector or probe. We had neither today, as I expected the mark to be where the reference mark was located. We just grabbed three marks today for fun, this wasn't one of our more serious planned trips.

 

Even if the surface mark was destroyed, I highly suspect the underground mark to still be there, as there was limited digging in this area. The property is supposed to be long to the Falls Church water authority, so I might try calling them and see if they knew the benchmark was on their property. We also forgot to search for RM 5, so I don't know if it is there or not.

Link to comment

I enjoyed the video. Thanks!

 

Use of this media to document successful finds could open up a whole new can of worms: if I watch a video of a successful find do I get to log the benchmark? :)

 

(Just kidding. I have every intention of heading out today and finding some benchmarks myself.)

 

Colleen

Link to comment

Leo,

 

It's not everyday a humble benchmarker gets to inspire a video. I am awed and grateful.

 

And, of course, I am pleased that you agree with my conclusion that the this station is properly unfound (pending excavation).

 

I also like the idea of video documentation, though at least in this case 23 MB seems a a lot of bandwidth for a 99-second clip. I've never played with computer video, so I don't really what tricks are out there to slim down the final file. Still, I think there are certainly cases where video will be a very useful addition to the text and photo documentation. Kudos for being first, going where no benchmarker has gone before!

 

-ArtMan-

Link to comment
I also like the idea of video documentation, though at least in this case 23 MB seems a a lot of bandwidth for a 99-second clip. I've never played with computer video, so I don't really what tricks are out there to slim down the final file. Still, I think there are certainly cases where video will be a very useful addition to the text and photo documentation. Kudos for being first, going where no benchmarker has gone before!

I'm sure we can get it smaller. I basically imported the video, edited it, and then saved it as a full screen WMA. Even making it 1/2 size would reduce the total size to 25% of what it is now, or around 5.5M. I'm sure with some extra compression more could be done.

 

I'm just starting to figure out what I can do with the video camera, hopefully more cool stuff will come in the future.

Link to comment

I played around today with the video software and figured out how to "down convert" the video. This version is set to "broadband", which is basically 512kbits/sec. This make the file much smaller, intending for it to be streamed over a broadband connection (which I have to figure out how to do). I believe this version also corrects some aspect ratio mistakes in the previous run.

 

Anyway, total file size for this one is now just under 6 Megs, which should be a bit more manageable. If a few of you who've seen the video could download it and confirm it's good enough quality that would be helpful.

 

You can click here to see the smaller video.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...