[dylan604]

Clearly, you've never worked with a live video crew. If they have no practice, it's amazing how bad you can appear with a lack of appreciation of how fast things move. You also have to remember the camera/operator are really far away with a very large zoom. Things leave your field a view much faster than anticipated. After that, any correction becomes over corrections again because of the zoom factor. Also, I would not be surprised if people were watching IRL as much as their screens/viewfinders.

I've seen it in sports where someone just not up to speed is always behind the play and the center of action is just out of frame. At that point, you zoom out some to recenter and then zoom back in. Or the director cuts away and lets you catch up. But that's assuming competency up the chain.

[grvbck]

> Things leave your field a view much faster than anticipated.

Not sure about that. NASA has been using Kineto Tracking Mounts and ROTI (radar-assisted and optical tracking) since 1981. Those systems were developed for the Columbia launch. I find it hard to believe that today's computer-guided cameras would let anything slip out of frame unintentionally.

[dylan604]

Those cameras are for official NASA archives and study of the launch. Those are not for some webcast live stream. Maybe they can piggy back a live stream camera to it for the next one, but they are not going to dedicate one of those mounts for a live stream camera, and I doubt they'd allow for a tap out of the feed.

[spookie]

Hell, you can see it too in the latest F1 movie.

Shots in which the base plate was taken from live footage (crews trained in filming the sport) are stable and show all the action. Shots from Hollywood camera crews can barely keep up.

One may say this is a bad comparison point, and that it was an artistic choice, but I call bullshit on that. So much of the movie was based upon live footage that the ones that didn't just look amateurish.

And yet, both crews are professionals. It is difficult to film these things well.

[dylan604]

Unless you have a really cheap production budget, there are multiple races with each race day being preceded by practice times and qualifiers. There's plenty of time to point a lens and get a feel for the tracking speed. It's not like there's a NASA launch weekly/monthly/annually. So yeah, I'm leaning on just an out of sync crew way more than this "anticipating a bad thing happening" theory

[randomNumber7]

The probability that they accidentially missed the booster separation is very low. There is also a clear incentive to cut away in case it fails.

[dylan604]

I don't understand the logic people are using to keep repeating this. It's just yet another example of how ideas fester and spread on the internet.

[randomNumber7]

No problem. I can explain it to you.

> The probability that they accidentially missed the booster separation is very low. > There is also a clear incentive to cut away in case it fails.

This is called the "premise" in logic.

"It follows that it is very likely the cut was intentional"

This is the conclusion.

All logical sound arguments are structured like this (otherwise you can come up with any conclusion).

> It's just yet another example of how ideas fester and spread on the internet.

And this is a conclusion without premise.

[dylan604]

You're proposing a conspiratorial level intent instead of the much easier and more likely operators not as good at their job as hoped. Occam's razor would suggest you are wrong.

Your premise is no better than Qanon premises that a pizza place had a torture chamber dungeon. Your premise is no better than an interstellar hung of rock floating through the solar system was an spaceship. Your premise is just made up out of thin air with no proof whatsoever.

[randomNumber7]

They spend 2 billion $ on a rocket and can't get a proper camera team? Which then accidentially cuts away the most critical part?

Occam's razor checks out...