These juveniles are lucky to not be in a place where the ice melts before they have their water-resistant feathers. This possibility is becoming an existential threat to some penguin colonies.
Two dimensions to this question: first, drone noise; second, audio track.
On the noise:
> "Given this video is taken by a drone, and drones are very noisy..."
Here's from National Geographic's press release on this video:
“Through the harnessing of new technology and pushing the boundaries of polar filming, Bertie utilized a newly released camera drone equipped with a telephoto lens allowing him to capture animal behavior from the air like never before without disrupting or impacting the penguins.”
So they were aware of the noise and other disturbance to the penguins, and were far enough away its unlikely these sounds are recorded from the drone itself.
On the audio track:
Mics and recorders could have been placed in advance. Given the level of preparation described, this is a possibility.
Audio of a given action or situation could have been captured separately elsewhere and dubbed. This seems most likely, and if natural sounds were captured on location from the same flocks, wouldn't generally carry a disclaimer.
In either of these cases, the drone doesn't need a mic, or can carry one just for sound sync purposes, but the sound is done in foley with or without a field recording.
To use drone audio without it audible to the viewer, shotgun mics with a sound pattern that picks up far point noise (imagine a teleaudio mic to go with the telephoto lens) could be used.
One way is to point the shotguns at silence, record drone noise alone, then invert it, something like "speech transparency" mode in noise cancelling headphones.
Today's audio processing is relatively magical when it doesn't have to fit in an earbud.
I haven't researched this case, but it sounded like foley.
That makes sense. I'd never thought about it. You've saved me the disappointment of visiting Antarctica to realize that David Attenborough's voice doesn't just chime in whenever you look at something.
Its interesting how unskilled nature can be and still get away with it (here I guess to the thick fur/skin/fat below).
If humans would jump from such height so badly, many injuries and possibly few deaths would be happening. I've done my fair of jumps in Swiss swimming pools / beaches where 10m jumping board is standard equipment, and even slightly incorrect landing can be quite brutal on the body. Falling ie on the back badly orientated could easily move vertebrae with corresponding consequences.
“You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away, provided that the ground is fairly soft. A rat is killed, a man is broken, a horse splashes. For the resistance presented to movement by the air is proportional to the surface of the moving object. Divide an animal’s length, breadth, and height each by ten; its weight is reduced to a thousandth, but its surface only to a hundredth. So the resistance to falling in the case of the small animal is relatively ten times greater than the driving force”
I'd imagine that jumping so far into such cold water, even if your form is perfect, would also be quite shocking to your system and probably dangerous in and of itself. I say this as someone who went swimming with penguins in Antarctica this January. No way I would enter that cold water so deeply and quickly.
Indeed. Not to mention, aside from a few "jumps", most of the falls in the video seem unwanted/slips due to pushing. Uncoordinated, and hitting the water pretty much randomly.
Years ago I heard a possibly apocryphal story -- that's at least halfway consistent with what's seen in this video -- about how a mass of penguins decide if they're in a safe place to go for a swim:
They gather near the edge of the ice and jostle each other until one bird falls in. Then they watch to see if it gets eaten by a predator. If not, the rest of them dive in and go for a swim...
If you consider how adept they are at fishing for example, it doesn't seem like a leap that they've have the spatial awareness and wherewithal to recognize that falling onto something far below is scary.
I suspect the human understanding of these types of dangers becomes cerebral, but it originate in much more instinctual parts of us which we share with countless other animals. The part where it becomes cerebral might trick us into thinking it's entirely based upon knowledge, intricate abstractions of the world around us, and the intelligence required to use those properly. I'm not sure of course, it's all conjecture. It doesn't surprise me that penguins know not to fall far onto hard things though.
Something tells me it's just bird genes trying to fly from high. Swimming is a different type of traversal so might even kind of work as a reward mechanic
>Every January, when the chicks are around five months old, they undergo a process known as fledging. During this process, the chicks lose their baby feathers and leave their colony for the first time — jumping from an enormous cliff into the ocean to take their first swim.
It was their first swim. Maybe the cliff was the closest shore
First, the heading wording feels like intentional clickbait to make at least a portion of people think they might be jumping to their death, they don't!
They build something up like there is something coming, some actual reason WHY they do it from that high. But they totally failed on delivering any reveal, at least in the video, did not read the entire article.
They made up to be some giant mystery, and I was expecting there is some kind of great reveal thing that has some kind of benefit, something evolutionary or whatever something, - nothing - absolutely nothing. Basically because they did not want to walk down a long way I guess, if there even was a way to an easier jump.
Perplexity.ai:
calculate the terminal velocity of an average sized penguin falling head first
-
Sources
omnicalculator.com favicon
wikihow.com favicon
View 2 more
Answer
The terminal velocity of an average-sized penguin falling head-first can be calculated as follows: Assuming an average penguin weight of 5 kg and a cross-sectional area of 0.1 m^2, with a drag coefficient of 0.8 for a streamlined, head-first orientation: Terminal velocity, v_t = √((2 × m × g) / (ρ × A × C_d))
Where:
m = mass of penguin = 5 kg
g = acceleration due to gravity = 9.8 m/s^2
ρ = density of air = 1.225 kg/m^3
A = cross-sectional area = 0.1 m^2
C_d = drag coefficient = 0.8
Plugging in the values:
v_t = √((2 × 5 kg × 9.8 m/s^2) / (1.225 kg/m^3 × 0.1 m^2 × 0.8))
v_t = √(98 / 0.98)
v_t = √100
v_t = 10 m/s Therefore, the terminal velocity of an average-sized penguin falling head-first is approximately 10 m/s or 36 km/h.1345
To calculate the terminal velocity of an average-sized penguin falling head first, we need to consider the balance between the force of gravity and the air resistance acting on the penguin. The terminal velocity is reached when these two forces are equal.
Given:
- The average mass of an adult penguin is around 5 kg.
- The average height of an adult penguin is about 70 cm.
- The penguin is falling head first, so we will assume a streamlined shape with a low drag coefficient (Cd) of around 0.05.
- The density of air at sea level is approximately 1.225 kg/m³.
- The acceleration due to gravity (g) is 9.81 m/s².
Step 1: Determine the cross-sectional area (A) of the penguin.
Assuming the penguin has a circular cross-section when falling head first, we can estimate the area using the average height.
Diameter (d) ≈ 70 cm ÷ 5 = 0.14 m
A = π × (d/2)² ≈ 0.0154 m²
Step 2: Use the terminal velocity formula.
v_terminal = √((2 × m × g) ÷ (ρ × Cd × A))
Where:
- v_terminal = terminal velocity (m/s)
- m = mass of the penguin (kg)
- g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s²)
- ρ = density of air (kg/m³)
- Cd = drag coefficient
- A = cross-sectional area (m²)
Plugging in the values:
v_terminal = √((2 × 5 kg × 9.81 m/s²) ÷ (1.225 kg/m³ × 0.05 × 0.0154 m²))
v_terminal ≈ 55.8 m/s or 201 km/h
Therefore, the estimated terminal velocity of an average-sized penguin falling head first is approximately 56 m/s or 201 km/h. Keep in mind that this is a simplified calculation based on several assumptions about the penguin's shape and the environmental conditions.
Those penguins are almost certainly smaller and less dense than those numbers. It seems to be solving for an adult in some medium-sized species (what makes a lot of sense).
First drone footage of x is becoming a little rarefied, not to say boring and predictable for some values of x.
So I expect this to be the peak of consumers buying little mavics to film their trips to Mont Blanc or the Amalfi Coast. Honestly, their friends are not interested. It was sad and ridiculous while it lasted, and now I hope it's over.
I think you may be speaking from an affluent bubble. None of my friends ever approached me with their drone footage. And my grandma would absolutely be stoked if I did show her something like this from myself. Yes, drone video have become a bit too much of a thing in any kind of documentary (and it can be a tad boring for at least 5-10 years now). But that is just how it is, colored video (or HD etc) is also not novel anymore, yet we keep doing it.
Seems like a stupid take to me. The fact that it is drone footage is not why it’s interesting. It’s merely indicating that it’s drone footage because that implies a novel ability to film something interesting from a good angle.
If it was really enjoyable, you will remember it. The human memory is designed to fix emotional experiences. No need for celluloid or pixels. If you were with a loved one, your future conversations about that time will keep the memory alive.
There is a certain value and excitement in showing personal photos or videos to grand-children. But their children will not even know your name.
The vanity and self-importance of youthful experiences will wane with age, reflection, wisdom, and a certain acceptance of our transient existence.
Yes, I left many meaningless 35mm negatives, in a long forgotten attic, of a distant house, which I used to inhabit. Nobody will miss them. Not even me. If they are, perchance, discovered by a future owner of the house, they will be excited, for about 10 minutes, then throw them away.
> If it was really enjoyable, you will remember it. The human memory is designed to fix emotional experiences. No need for celluloid or pixels. If you were with a loved one, your future conversations about that time will keep the memory alive.
Words to live by.
My point is this: the act of capturing photo and/or video is itself the draw for some people. It's an art form - beauty isn't just captured in a photograph, it's created through composition. A great photo is never just a photo of a great thing.
Why should the transience of my art deter me, if I myself am also transient?
I think the value of photography is in teaching how to really see and appreciate the world, not in any artifact you may have created (at least not very often, unless you are a genius).
It is similar to the way learning a musical skill (instrument, composition, production) teaches you to really hear music, which is probably more valuable than any particular sounds you created (again, geniuses excepted).
There is a similar formula for other artistic and professional practices. No graphic designer just reads a web page. No cabinetmaker walks into a room and sees it the way you do. No architect or town planner ever just walks down an anonymous street in a strange city...
First written account of x is becoming a little rarefied, not to say boring and predictable for some values of x.
So I expect this to be the peak of consumers buying little bics to write about their trips to Mont Blanc or the Amalfi Coast. Honestly, their friends are not interested. It was sad and ridiculous while it lasted, and now I hope it's over.
Assumed to be obvious before it was observed (how else?).
Seen and filmed many many times for adults leaping into the water.
Already documented: 'witnessed by scientists'.
Published by a site called petapixel with breathless words like 'astonishing', 'unprecedented', 'enormous cliff', 'huge jumps', 'rare and heart-stopping', 'extraordinary footage', 'huge ice cliff', 'brave chick' ... in an effort to create buzz for their sponsor National Geographic.
The only mildly interesting phrase is: 'Scientists who monitor penguins from satellites'. Sounds like a fun job and I'm sure AI can help. I didn't know that (although I once helped the BAS effort to monitor elephant seals diving deep in the S.Atlantic, using radio transponders glued to their backs, with burst-transmit-on-surfacing via satellite, so I should not have been surprised, had I thought for a second). But then they spoil it by adding 'satellites...in space'.
If the chicks were drawing lots to see who had to jump first, then I might be interested.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-08-24/record-...