This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by brycewi19. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Perpetual-Ocean-Stunning-time-lapse-of-ocean-currents

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
This looks like it is right up your alley:
http://videosift.com/video/Light-Painting-HD-1-The-Time-Lapse-Guys

This looks like it is right up your alley:
http://videosift.com/video/Light-Painting-HD-1-The-Time-Lapse-Guys

>> ^artician:

<sigh>
If only they'd put as much work into the accuracy of the nighttime skies!


OOOOOHHH Astronomy burn!

I'm not "dismissing" it, I'm just calling it what it is. If someone tries to sell you a pile of dogshit by calling it cotton candy most likely you won't buy it. Because you know it's just a pile of dogshit, not cotton candy.Different representations of reality are called different names for a reason. Because they are different. Animation is animation, not time lapse. That's all I'm saying.>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Seems legit.
When I hear the term "time lapse", I think of something recorded in real time that is sped up because, in reality, the actual event is very slow. Not something generated by a computer. An animation of anything is just that, an animation. imo....>> ^Sagemind:
Now, that would depend if this animation was an approximation or based on stats taken from actual sensors placed in the water to record water flow speeds. So... An animation of a time lapse maybe...?
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Isn't this actually animation? Not "time lapse"?



Well, if you think about it, it's all just representations of reality, whether it's an CGI animation made up of calculated data or the actual snap shots played continuously as an animated sequence of stills. (Also, consider other "videos" or images of phenomena in outerspace: black holes or so-called dark matter. We have to recreate images and video based upon various different observations. So I think while, yes, it is animation, you're losing out on the grandeur of the video by dismissing it as "animation".

I would love to know how much time lapsed during the filming of this video.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

Seems legit.
When I hear the term "time lapse", I think of something recorded in real time that is sped up because, in reality, the actual event is very slow. Not something generated by a computer. An animation of anything is just that, an animation. imo....>> ^Sagemind:
Now, that would depend if this animation was an approximation or based on stats taken from actual sensors placed in the water to record water flow speeds. So... An animation of a time lapse maybe...?
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Isn't this actually animation? Not "time lapse"?




Well, if you think about it, it's all just representations of reality, whether it's an CGI animation made up of calculated data or the actual snap shots played continuously as an animated sequence of stills. (Also, consider other "videos" or images of phenomena in outerspace: black holes or so-called dark matter. We have to recreate images and video based upon various different observations. So I think while, yes, it is animation, you're losing out on the grandeur of the video by dismissing it as "animation".

Seems legit.
When I hear the term "time lapse", I think of something recorded in real time that is sped up because, in reality, the actual event is very slow. Not something generated by a computer. An animation of anything is just that, an animation. imo....>> ^Sagemind:

Now, that would depend if this animation was an approximation or based on stats taken from actual sensors placed in the water to record water flow speeds. So... An animation of a time lapse maybe...?
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Isn't this actually animation? Not "time lapse"?

>> ^dannym3141:

Sure they're some pretty pictures. But think of the volumes of water moving in this. Think of the energy needed to move it all. Bloody hell.


yep, the amount of power in tides and currents is staggering. The problem is harnessing it.

Now, that would depend if this animation was an approximation or based on stats taken from actual sensors placed in the water to record water flow speeds. So... An animation of a time lapse maybe...?
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

Isn't this actually animation? Not "time lapse"?

Isn't this actually animation? Not "time lapse"?

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

Not strictly perpetual: ocean currents are caused by winds, which are in turn caused by the earth's rotation. And the earth's rotation is slowing down, infinitesimally, all the time.
But your point is valid and there are many research programs to this effect: http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/documents/docs/OCS_EIS_WhitePaper_Current.pdf


No, winds are just currents in air that is 1000 times less dense than the surface water, and maybe only 10-100 times faster at best, their effect on currents small. The earth's rotation, the moon's gravity, the sun's heat, plus any underwater volcanoes and vents all supply energy into the system and the underwater topography funnels the effects of these to provide the startling display we have just witnessed.

>> ^Kalle:

makes you think...
Arent ocean currents a form of perpetual motion an endles stream of energy you can harvest only we prefer to burn coal and oil?


Not *strictly* perpetual: ocean currents are caused by winds, which are in turn caused by the earth's rotation. And the earth's rotation is slowing down, infinitesimally, all the time.

But your point is valid and there are many research programs to this effect: http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/documents/docs/OCS_EIS_WhitePaper_Current.pdf

this might be why they don't do that..

>> ^Yogi:

Why not Stack the freeway...make another freeway on top of the current one...so it'll stop being soo F'N Crowded all the damn time.