ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: dwight on March 05, 2014, 06:18:50 AM
-
Turns out a certain Australian troofer has discovered anomilies in the frame rates on the Apollo 11 TV feed. Not 30 fps as long claimed by NASA, but 24 as his in depth analytical research uncovered. "Eureka!" one might claim until they delve a little further and discover that the DVD purchased is actually a PAL converted version of an NTSC video.
Congratulations. A stunning piece of detective work there.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Im sure that the next step will be another "in-depth" YT video ranting about how the DVD distributors and producers are all in on the "act" and are nothing more than paid shills.
-
"Eureka!" one might claim until they delve a little further and discover that the DVD purchased is actually a PAL converted version of an NTSC video.
Can you explain this a little more, and how it debunks said twoofer's analysis. Film conversion and video rates is really not my forte, and I'd be interested to know.
-
It's my impression that most of the Apollo TV footage was archived on film rather than videotape, and that's why it appears to be 24 fps vs the 30 fps (or 29.97 fps) of the US-standard NTSC cameras used.
I live in a (former) NTSC country and have done TV broadcast engineering so I'm very familiar with 3:2 pulldown. I've never worked with PAL, but my understanding is that it's 25 fps, not 24, and because those numbers have no common factors the usual practice is to simply ignore the small difference when converting film to video. Is that true?
-
True, PAL is 25 fps. The restored A11 TV feed is sourced from NTSC videotape held in CBS and the VHS of Sydney video (also video sourced). The 24 is from said genius' counting. Given GOP and all the other inherent MPEG2 encoding paramaters, using that transport stream as a robust method to calculate analgue video framerates isn't exactly the smartest thing to do, especially in the presence of people who actually use such files professionally. It is similar to claiming jpeg artifacts constitute alien structures on the moon. These days it is possible to encode in 24p, but the PAL DVDs are stock standard 576i encoded. I bet our mate doesn't even know the said DVDs were converted using Atlantis DV film which clearly states on it's website that "NTSC to PAL works by first converting the NTSC to film motion (24P), same as with DVFilm Maker, then speeding that up slightly to 25P." And there, my friends, is where the 24 frames come from.
The whipper-snapper seems to have adopted the tried and true "If I can't baffle them with brains, I'll baffle them with b.s." motto. His video analysis of Apollo TV lacks any sort of proper research, nor any great understanding of TV technology in general - as usual.
-
His video analysis of Apollo TV lacks any sort of proper research, nor any great understanding of TV technology in general - as usual.
Thanks. So basically he's forgot to account for conversion between various formats and made the erroneous conclusion that the film rate observed in the archived version does not match the equipment NASA claimed they used to film the footage on the moon. It's a bit like the underpants gnomes in Southpark.
- Dodgy film rate
- ??
- NASA conspiracy
Face palm again! I think this sums up another hoax argument. Find evidence that meets one's preconceived ideas and then present evidence for a hoax without really trying to find alternative explanations first.
If some of the hoax believers actually spent the same time investigating the 'reported' version of events as the people unraveling their claims... sigh, I give up venting my spleen.
-
Exactly. Before I go around telling everyone "the butler did it" I tend to make damn sure there was actually a butler present.
-
So I was correct in my understanding that PAL simply punts on the slight difference between 24 fps and 25 fps?
Speaking of "a. I don't understand something, therefore b. NASA hoax!", this seems to be the argument of those who've found the "smoking gun": the Adobe Photoshop signature in the readily available scans of Apollo photography. Sheesh.
-
Are there some who actually argue Adobe Photoshop was used to fake the photos decades before it was written? I've always assumed talking about Photoshop was just a generic expression for using a tool to manipulate images.
-
Who is the "genius"? I'm a little bored right now.
-
Jarrah White. Look him up on youtube.
-
It's my impression that most of the Apollo TV footage was archived on film rather than videotape, and that's why it appears to be 24 fps vs the 30 fps (or 29.97 fps) of the US-standard NTSC cameras used.
I live in a (former) NTSC country and have done TV broadcast engineering so I'm very familiar with 3:2 pulldown. I've never worked with PAL, but my understanding is that it's 25 fps, not 24, and because those numbers have no common factors the usual practice is to simply ignore the small difference when converting film to video. Is that true?
This brings back a memory for me. Do NTSC and PAL not have the same Hscan frequency, 15625 KHz?
PAL uses 625 lines/frame which yields a frame rate of 15625/625 = 25 fps
NTSC uses 525 lines/frame which yields a frame rate of 15625/525 = 29.7 fps
-
How do you get a fractional frame per second? :-\
-
Easy: 100 frames per minute is fractional per second...
-
So it's the average then, because how do you display a fraction of a frame?
That's really what I was asking.
-
You don't; your camera just doesn't worry about seconds.
-
So it's the average then, because how do you display a fraction of a frame?
That's really what I was asking.
You don't. Its a close approximation
25 frames per second is really 40 milliseconds per frame
29.7 frames per second is really 33.67 milliseconds per frame
-
Derp, silly brain. Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. :-[
-
Something else I have noticed about these hoax theorists ist that they dont understand the proper TV terminology. For example, they will argue to the bitter end that "Live" cannot possibly be live if a camera is pointing at a screen. They also cant grasp the fact that every third frame of the sstv tv camera was indeed live, while the other 2 were buffered. So Apollo 11 TV was live when it was telecast.
No different to racecam footage which is run through a frame store and strangely no claims the buffered feed isnt live.
-
This brings back a memory for me. Do NTSC and PAL not have the same Hscan frequency, 15625 KHz?
PAL uses 625 lines/frame which yields a frame rate of 15625/625 = 25 fps
NTSC uses 525 lines/frame which yields a frame rate of 15625/525 = 29.7 fps
No, but they're close. NTSC's horizontal sweep rate is 15 750/1.001 = 15 734.26 Hz and its frame rate is 30/1.001 = 29.97 Hz. PAL's horizontal sweep rate is 15 625 Hz, and its frame rate is 25 Hz.
The Wikipedia articles on both are pretty complete.
During my first summer in TV broadcasting, the 15 kHz squeal from the monitors really bugged me. The next summer, it didn't. Maybe too many loud concerts?
-
So it's the average then, because how do you display a fraction of a frame?
That's really what I was asking.
You don't display fractions of frames; yes, it's an artifact of the way the rate is expressed. You just get one (whole) frame after the other, in sequence. How that relates to some arbitrary yardstick like "seconds" or "minutes" may be a fractional ratio.
-
During my first summer in TV broadcasting, the 15 kHz squeal from the monitors really bugged me. The next summer, it didn't. Maybe too many loud concerts?
Or you got older and it was above your threshold...... ;)
I heard an interesting anecdote, when they were testing humans for MP3 compression, the frequency checks on audio engineers hearing showed they tended to blank out 1K. Standard test tone so its there but you learn to ignore it. Be nice if that were a true observation but it fits.
-
I heard a very similar claim about 15 kHz from the other TV engineers, that many develop a "notch" at that frequency. But it probably wouldn't take long until you lose everything above 15 kHz anyway. Sigh.
400 Hz was our standard audio test tone. 1 kHz was also used but much less often. I can still hear both quite well, and on airplanes I often wish I couldn't.
-
You learn how to "tune out" certain sounds. My parent have a grandfather clock, which goes tick-tock quite loudly, and when my brother-in-law visits, he always sneaks over and stop it. I, myself simply cannot hear it, unless I focus on hearing that sound. And I have excellent hearing - even though the 15.000 Hz and above is long gone.
-
For me, 1khz tone is like the angels themselves singing.
-
I actually had a nurse friend of mine measure my heart rate higher when hearing 440 Hz -- the pitch orchestras tune to. For me as a musician, that signals the start of a concert and the occasional onset of performance anxiety.
-
I think I'm tone deaf :(
-
I think I'm tone deaf :(
What makes you say that?
-
Used to work in a rather noisy equipment room, electro mechanical switches, all motors and relays and pawls and racthets and so on. In that cacophoney of audio audible assault on your ear 'oles you could pick out a switch mis stepping or a motor on its last legs. Funny how sounds works.
-
Funny how sounds works.
Exactly. It's more proof of a hoax. There is no air on the moon, but you can still hear the astronauts talk. Yes, I've heard that argument. ::)
-
I heard a very similar claim about 15 kHz from the other TV engineers, that many develop a "notch" at that frequency. But it probably wouldn't take long until you lose everything above 15 kHz anyway. Sigh.
Ah, I know it well. The Curse of the LOPT!
400 Hz was our standard audio test tone. 1 kHz was also used but much less often. I can still hear both quite well, and on airplanes I often wish I couldn't.
400Hz? Really? Our standard was 440 Hz. We even had a tuning fork labelled "A above middle C"
-
I think I'm tone deaf :(
What makes you say that?
Most music sounds the same to me, I struggle to pick out tunes from music and if you played two notes at me I would probably not be able to tell you which was higher unless they were really far apart. If you played half a dozen notes from a little tune, I'd be completely unable to tell you if the pitches went higher-higher-lower-higher etc.
-
I think I'm tone deaf :(
What makes you say that?
Most music sounds the same to me, I struggle to pick out tunes from music and if you played two notes at me I would probably not be able to tell you which was higher unless they were really far apart. If you played half a dozen notes from a little tune, I'd be completely unable to tell you if the pitches went higher-higher-lower-higher etc.
It's an odd, individual thing. I am probably about average. Abaddonette #1 can hear a tune once and proceed to play it on the piano. Abaddonette #2 may as well be peering into a shrub.
-
I think I'm tone deaf :(
What makes you say that?
Most music sounds the same to me, I struggle to pick out tunes from music and if you played two notes at me I would probably not be able to tell you which was higher unless they were really far apart. If you played half a dozen notes from a little tune, I'd be completely unable to tell you if the pitches went higher-higher-lower-higher etc.
No one is completely tone deaf. I've never met a person who could not tell the difference between a low C vs a high C on a piano.
While every person has different inherent aptitudes, after 20 years as a professional musician, I'm pretty convinced just about everyone can be taught basic theory & rhythm to at least enjoy playing or to have a better general understanding of the mechanics of what they are hearing in music.
It takes thousands of hours of practice to get all of that information to become second nature as music is equal parts math & athleticism.
Some might get there quicker than others, but everyone has to put in the work.
-
Some might get there quicker than others, but everyone has to put in the work.
That's really condescending.
-
Some might get there quicker than others, but everyone has to put in the work.
That's really condescending.
How so? There was no disrespect intended.
What I was referring to is that here are some people out there who are prodigies that achieve high levels of playing sooner than others. I've seen that in person. It can be humbling to see an 11 year old play Bach at a high level.
-
Yes. Whereas my mother, no matter how much she practices, will never be able to sing well, because her voice is monotone. You responded to someone with what sounds like a legitimate issue with her brain/ears with "you just need to work at it." Bear in mind that several others on the board are musicians, too, and we're willing to accept that Andromeda is just wired differently. I have known people who couldn't "just work at it."
-
Yes. Whereas my mother, no matter how much she practices, will never be able to sing well, because her voice is monotone. You responded to someone with what sounds like a legitimate issue with her brain/ears with "you just need to work at it." Bear in mind that several others on the board are musicians, too, and we're willing to accept that Andromeda is just wired differently. I have known people who couldn't "just work at it."
I wasn't talking about someone becoming a professional level performer or even competent amateur. I think you misunderstood my use of the word "work." I simply mentioned learning some basic music fundamentals to enhance playing or at least being a little more aware of the basic mechanics of music which require some work. I also mentioned the long hours that are required because a lot of people seem to think that music just simply magically comes out of people and when someone tries to learn, they can get flustered without realizing there is a lot of that "work" involved. Thousands of hours.
Music is also as much about the process as it is the end result. I know plenty of people that can't play a lick but love to play.
As much as I like baseball, I'm not going to be pitching for the Dodgers anytime soon but I'll still play a pickup game with friends and have a great time even with my terrible arm.....music can be that same kind of enjoyment for anyone if they wish.
-
Thank you, Eastsider, for completely dismissing my experience and telling me you know more about myself than I do :-\
-
Eastsider, why are you entirely dismissing Andromeda's reports of her own experience? She's not talking about an ability to play but an ability to recognise sounds and music. I think it's a safe bet that she is the expert in her own experience of how sounds and music are perceived by her. Do you honestly think she hasn't actually put in any 'work'? Do you say the same thing about colourblind people and their ability to perceive colour?
Andromeda is tone deaf, and her own experience bears that out. There is no more discussion to be had on that subject.
-
It may or may not apply here, but there are such things as self-fulfilling prophecies.
-
I wasn't talking about someone becoming a professional level performer or even competent amateur.
Neither was I. My mother will never be able to produce two notes that are distinguishable from one another when she sings. Now, to my dismay, she sings anyway. She's seventy years old and has been singing all her life, and her voice just does that thing. Why are you so convinced that Andromeda would be capable of hearing notes as distinguishable if she just worked at it?
-
Eastsider, why are you entirely dismissing Andromeda's reports of her own experience? She's not talking about an ability to play but an ability to recognise sounds and music. I think it's a safe bet that she is the expert in her own experience of how sounds and music are perceived by her. Do you honestly think she hasn't actually put in any 'work'? Do you say the same thing about colourblind people and their ability to perceive colour?
Andromeda is tone deaf, and her own experience bears that out. There is no more discussion to be had on that subject.
No one is completely tone deaf.
I have yet to meet anyone who can't tell the difference between the lowest C# on a piano vs the highest C#.
Those are identifiable tones. If a person can hear that, they can be taught to hear more. To what level? That depends on the person. Some people hear to greater or lesser levels naturally, but unless totally deaf every one can hear tones & notes.
I do this for a living and also occasionally teach...I just find these reactions odd, because when I meet people who claim to be tone deaf and I show them that they can actually hear notes, they are usually pretty encouraged.
I am not dismissing anyone's experience, quite the opposite. I know how frustrating & daunting it can sometimes be and try to encourage people to learn more and enjoy music without feeling intimidation.
I didn't say anyone hasn't put in the work, all I said is that it takes work.
It also takes THE RIGHT work. You would not believe how many people I have met that do not know how to practice.
I also said some people progress faster than others.
BTW, I am colorblind.
-
I wasn't talking about someone becoming a professional level performer or even competent amateur.
Neither was I. My mother will never be able to produce two notes that are distinguishable from one another when she sings. Now, to my dismay, she sings anyway. She's seventy years old and has been singing all her life, and her voice just does that thing. Why are you so convinced that Andromeda would be capable of hearing notes as distinguishable if she just worked at it?
I'm convinced because I have yet to meet someone that can't tell the difference between the lowest note on a piano vs the highest. If they can hear that, they can learn to hear more. People should give themselves more credit.
-
Used to work in a rather noisy equipment room, electro mechanical switches, all motors and relays and pawls and racthets and so on. In that cacophoney of audio audible assault on your ear 'oles you could pick out a switch mis stepping or a motor on its last legs. Funny how sounds works.
It's called the Cocktail Party effect, and it's fascinating. The name derives from your ability to carry on a conversation in a crowded room and pay attention only to the people you're talking to and perceive their voices as predominant, when an objective measurement of relative sound levels reveals no physical reason why you should perceive it that way. We've discovered this perceptual ability to focus (not just in hearing but also with other senses), and conversely, to weed out "background" stimulus is (1) extremely important to the brain, and (2) agonizing for us engineers who have to design human-machine interfaces -- specifically instrumentation that doesn't lull operators into complacency.
-
Most music sounds the same to me, I struggle to pick out tunes from music and if you played two notes at me I would probably not be able to tell you which was higher unless they were really far apart. If you played half a dozen notes from a little tune, I'd be completely unable to tell you if the pitches went higher-higher-lower-higher etc.
That's not at all uncommon. In contrast, I can hear the difference between the two Quindar tones -- those beeps on Apollo recordings that are the key-in key-out signals for the radio equipment. They differ only by a fraction of a musical step. But that's not common, but in any case -- as has been explained -- can be improved with training and practice.
Where I was going with that question is the notion that "tone deafness" when applied to singing has two components -- hearing and matching pitches, and the physiological act of controlling one's vocal apparatus. Most people have difficulty hearing very fine differences in pitch, amounting to a handful of Hertzen (a word I just made up). Surprisingly, even some people who are otherwise successful at performing music have a hard time discerning direction in close pitches. That is, they can tell that two pitches aren't exactly the same, even to a very fine difference such as the Quindar tones, but they can't tell you whether their pitch is higher or lower than a reference pitch. This is simply ordinary tone-deafness judged according to expert standards. Even for musicians this takes training and practice.
The other side is physiological. You may be an expert violinist but have a lousy singing voice because you haven't yet trained your vocal apparatus to control its pitch. This too takes training, the same way violin-playing was at first clumsy but became adept through kinesthetic rehearsal. It's akin to steering with a loose steering wheel: you can see the road and you know where you have to steer the car in order to get back in the lane, but the machinery isn't cooperating.
I was just curious what might be the case in your situation.
-
Used to work in a rather noisy equipment room, electro mechanical switches, all motors and relays and pawls and racthets and so on. In that cacophoney of audio audible assault on your ear 'oles you could pick out a switch mis stepping or a motor on its last legs. Funny how sounds works.
It's called the Cocktail Party effect, and it's fascinating. The name derives from your ability to carry on a conversation in a crowded room and pay attention only to the people you're talking to and perceive their voices as predominant, when an objective measurement of relative sound levels reveals no physical reason why you should perceive it that way. We've discovered this perceptual ability to focus (not just in hearing but also with other senses), and conversely, to weed out "background" stimulus is (1) extremely important to the brain, and (2) agonizing for us engineers who have to design human-machine interfaces -- specifically instrumentation that doesn't lull operators into complacency.
I experience that almost every day which is why, given my line of work, people are surprised when they find out that I don't listen to music in the car and listen to very little at home. Silence is sometimes very underrated.
I actually have custom molded ear plugs with filters that remove decibels but not frequencies so I can hear more clearly in cacophonous situations; nightclubs, theaters, rehearsals....I even sometimes use them at parties if they are of the louder variety.
-
So in response to being called out on your patronising, condescending post... you just repeated yourself, Eastsider.
I'm not remotely interested in arguing with you about whether you are or I am a better witness to my own experience. It's ridiculous.
I'm aware that I miss out on a lot of stuff because of this, and I feel a bit sad about it. I've spent years with patient and not-so-patient music teachers. Several members of my family are musicians, who teach as well as play for pleasure and perform. I really don't like people dismissing all that and telling me just to "work on it".
-
Used to work in a rather noisy equipment room, electro mechanical switches, all motors and relays and pawls and racthets and so on. In that cacophoney of audio audible assault on your ear 'oles you could pick out a switch mis stepping or a motor on its last legs. Funny how sounds works.
It's called the Cocktail Party effect, and it's fascinating. The name derives from your ability to carry on a conversation in a crowded room and pay attention only to the people you're talking to and perceive their voices as predominant, when an objective measurement of relative sound levels reveals no physical reason why you should perceive it that way.
That ability pretty much eludes me, too.
-
So in response to being called out on your patronising, condescending post... you just repeated yourself, Eastsider.
I'm not not remotely interested in arguing with you about whether you are or I am a better witness to my own experience. It's ridiculous.
I'm aware that I miss out on a lot of stuff because of this, and I feel a bit sad about it. I've spent years with patient and not-so-patient music teachers. Several members of my family are musicians, who teach as well as play for pleasure and perform. I really don't need people dismissing all that.
I'm not dismissing your experiences nor do I feel was I at anytime condescending. If I came across that way, that was not my intent.
I have had several of those experiences in my own life. If anything, I can relate.
But in my experience, if you think you can't, you won't be able to, no matter how much encouragement anyone gives.
I went through several suspect teachers early on until I found good ones. Not all methods and approaches are effective for everyone. I had one teacher back in NYC that would try every possible permutation of explaining or demonstrating a musical problem in my development until I understood it. He knew from his then 40 years of experience that while one student would understand explanation A, another would better understand explanation B..... or explanations C, D or F. That changed my life.
This is why I respectfully disagree. Can you tell the difference between a low note and a high note? If yes, then you can be taught. Give yourself more credit. I don't expect anyone to be able to immediately pick out individual 64th notes in a Coltrane solo or detect key modulations in a Stravinsky piece. I'm talking do re mi here. Also, as Jay previously mentioned, hearing notes and producing notes are two different things. I can hear notes but need an instrument to produce them. I would not subject anyone to my singing!
But ultimately, music, regardless of desired proficiency, is about enjoyment of the process as much as it is the end result.
-
I have enough self-awareness to know whether my limitations are physical or mental, thank you, and where they lie. By telling me you disagree with that, and insisting you know better than I do what to I should do about it, you are dismissing my knowledge of my own experience.
-
No one is completely tone deaf.
If you define 'completely tone deaf' as being unable to distinguish between the upper and lower notes on a piano then quite possibly you are correct. However, since Andromeda clearly described her range of abilities with music, that hardly seems relevant.
If a person can hear that, they can be taught to hear more. To what level? That depends on the person.
So you pretty much agree that it is possible that Andromeda actually does have the difficulties described.
Some people hear to greater or lesser levels naturally, but unless totally deaf every one can hear tones & notes.
Not in dispute. The ability in question is the range and definition. Since there is ultimately a physiological root to perception of notes, why do you dismiss the possibility that some people actually do have these limits that may not be correctable?
I am not dismissing anyone's experience, quite the opposite.
With respect, responding to someone's description of themselves with what amounts to 'no you're not' is exactly that.
I didn't say anyone hasn't put in the work, all I said is that it takes work.
It also takes THE RIGHT work. You would not believe how many people I have met that do not know how to practice.
I also said some people progress faster than others.
All of which is essentially saying someone who may have a physiological or neurological disorder (for want of a better word) just has to work at it to overcome it. That is simply rubbish.
BTW, I am colorblind.
So if you work at it, surely you can overcome that? No? Why is hearing so different from sight? I can distinguish a greater range of shades and hues than a lot of people I know. I would not presume to tell someone who can tell the difference between red and blue (the visible spectrum equivalent of high and low notes) that they can be taught to pick out every intermediate wavelength if they just work at it.
-
I can hear the difference between the two Quindar tones -- those beeps on Apollo recordings that are the key-in key-out signals for the radio equipment. They differ only by a fraction of a musical step.
Ooh, I can too! Didn't realise that was uncommon.
-
Talking of being able to hear music, has anyone seen the Arduino floppy drive music.
Imperial Death March (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_Q6jMUdfYc)
With some digging you can find some incredible stuff, and some not so good stuff.
-
In contrast, I can hear the difference between the two Quindar tones -- those beeps on Apollo recordings that are the key-in key-out signals for the radio equipment.
I don't really follow the hoax theory very closely, at least the more detailed claims and various nuances. I have always tended to stick with the stock arguments, and pick up what I can as I go along when the heavy engineering aspects are discussed. Am I correct to think that the quindar tones were presented as evidence for the hoax? I'm sure they formed the basis of some convoluted argument by David Percy or Jack White, and Straydog02 brought it up in debate. At the time I didn't give the argument much time as I was more intrigued by Ralph Rene's alternative science theories and reading into the radiation claims. My memory might be playing games.
{Edit: Typo}
-
If you define 'completely tone deaf' as being unable to distinguish between the upper and lower notes on a piano then quite possibly you are correct. However, since Andromeda clearly described her range of abilities with music, that hardly seems relevant.
It's very relevant. If one was completely tone deaf, they would not be able to even distinguish the difference between a xylophone and a trumpet. All sound is made of a tone or groupings of tones.
So you pretty much agree that it is possible that Andromeda actually does have the difficulties described.
Difficulties yes, not impossibilities in my opinion. That being said, I used a sports analogy earlier to describe my love of playing baseball vs the reality of me never playing for the Dodgers. That doesn't stop me from playing for fun and working on my bad arm. I know I have a limit but that also doesn't stop me. And as much as I try, I'm never going to throw 90mph.
But again, despite my arm, I can still throw the ball and as long as one hears, they can hear music.
Not in dispute. The ability in question is the range and definition. Since there is ultimately a physiological root to perception of notes, why do you dismiss the possibility that some people actually do have these limits that may not be correctable?
Yes. But that remains on a case by case basis. In some cases I have found it's more frustration coupled with poor teaching methods. Or not understanding that one is not going to play immediately like Pablo Casals after a month or study.
I already mentioned that some people hear differently and some more precise than others. My disagreement as mentioned earlier lies in one completely disregarding themselves as "tone deaf."
All of which is essentially saying someone who may have a physiological or neurological disorder (for want of a better word) just has to work at it to overcome it. That is simply rubbish.
Of which no disorder or medical condition was mentioned. I never mentioned medical or physical conditions. Neither did the previous posters. I actually do have one such problem called "tinnitus" which is the result of years and years of exposure to sound via music and environment. It creates ringing in the years which can interfere with sound perception. I have no belief that I can overcome it "just through work." I had to adapt. I never said that one could overcome it all through work.
So if you work at it, surely you can overcome that? No? Why is hearing so different from sight?
Two completely different senses. Though I do agree that some people see & hear differently. Despite my color blindness, it doesn't stop me from enjoying painting or photography.
I can distinguish a greater range of shades and hues than a lot of people I know. I would not presume to tell someone who can tell the difference between red and blue (the visible spectrum equivalent of high and low notes) that they can be taught to pick out every intermediate wavelength if they just work at it.
I am aware of limitations. I have mine just as every else does. I had to learn that the way I saw reds and greens was a lot different than others and learned to adapt. Again, there was no previous mention of any kind of disorder in relation to hearing so I find the color blindness comparison to be a little out of place here. If there was/is any kind of disorder, then I would be wrong. But I still stand by that if one can hear the difference between a low C# and a high C# on a Bosendorfer, then they can be taught to hear.....but to what degrees of intricacy & accuracy of, is another thing. I am not very good at computations but have a musician friend who basically has the "Rain Man" ability with numbers & sequences, he's like a walking calculator. No matter how hard I "work at it," I'm probably never going to have his ability at his level, but I can still count, add & subtract.
But because I don't have that ability, does that mean I should give up math?
I did not want to offend anyone and offer my apologies if I did, but I stand by my opinions.
Play music because you love it and it brings you joy.
I have to go review some music for a show I have to play tomorrow night. 'till the next time.
-
If you can't hear the difference between tones (and "if you can hear the difference between the highest and lowest notes on a piano, you can learn to hear the differences between all the others" is nonsense), why would you even bother to learn how to play music? In fact, I would put it to you that it is quite impossible to learn how to play if you can't hear the difference. And physiology makes it quite clear that some people literally cannot hear the difference between certain pitches. Continuing to insist otherwise is both rude and ignorant.
-
Of which no disorder or medical condition was mentioned. I never mentioned medical or physical conditions. Neither did the previous posters. I actually do have one such problem called "tinnitus" which is the result of years and years of exposure to sound via music and environment. It creates ringing in the years which can interfere with sound perception. I have no belief that I can overcome it "just through work." I had to adapt. I never said that one could overcome it all through work.
I've only cut this bit out because it is the only bit where you are not repeating yourself.
I have horrendous tinnitus, not as a result of exposure to loud environments, I've had it since I was a small child. So you can now admit I have a physiological problem with sound perception. It's a shame that you are demanding some kind of proof from me of what I say about my experience rather than just accepting it.
Just drop it, Eastsider, you aren't listening to what we are saying as evidenced by your going on about playing music. You seem to have got it into your head that I expect to pick up and instrument and play it well immediately, which is not at all what I've been saying and is actually quite insulting to me. This is about hearing tones, not making them. I know what hard work is, I've done plenty of it.
I'm baffled that you keep telling me I'm wrong about my own experience and abilities. Just stop.
-
It's very relevant. If one was completely tone deaf, they would not be able to even distinguish the difference between a xylophone and a trumpet.
According to what definition? Any inability to distinguish relative pitch is considered being tone deaf, just as there are many different types of colourblindness. Red/green is the most common, but if I followed your definitions then you wouldn't be 'colourblind' unless you were entirely unable to distingusih colour at all and saw the world in greyscale. There are such people, but they are very rare.
Yes. But that remains on a case by case basis.
And is it not just possible that Andromeda and myself have a lot more familiarity with this particular case than you do? Please stop trying to tell us we are wrong about something we have far more detailed knowledge of than you do.
Two completely different senses.
But both have a physiological (and by extension genetic) root. If the physiological apparatus is different so is the perception. That goes for sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch and any of the other myriad senses we have.
Despite my color blindness, it doesn't stop me from enjoying painting or photography.
And Andromeda's hearing doesn't stop her enjoying listening to music, just in a different way than I do, for example.
Again, there was no previous mention of any kind of disorder in relation to hearing so I find the color blindness comparison to be a little out of place here.
There was no mention, but you simply assumed it was not the case and jumped in with a complete disregard for Andromeda's own experience of herself.
But because I don't have that ability, does that mean I should give up math?
No, but does it also mean you should sit quietly by while someone tells you that you can have that ability if you work at it rather than accepting that you know your own limitations? This is the whole crux of this disagreement. Andromeda knows her own limitations. They qualify as a form of tone deafness. You don't know her well enough to just dismiss them.
-
It's called the Cocktail Party effect, and it's fascinating. The name derives from your ability to carry on a conversation in a crowded room and pay attention only to the people you're talking to and perceive their voices as predominant, when an objective measurement of relative sound levels reveals no physical reason why you should perceive it that way.
[/quote]
That ability pretty much eludes me, too.
[/quote]
I have to go with Andromeda here. I, too can`t distinguish tones and my wife, who is a trained singer would back that up. At parties I can`t take part in conversations once the music starts as it drowns out the conversations.
Sloop
-
One of the drawbacks of the current state of the art in hearing aids is that they remove most of the localization cues (formed by fine changes in relative frequency content and phase by tiny reflections among the pinna of the external ear). This means that the Cocktail Party Effect is much diminished.
A similar experience comes when you attempt to record sound on location; since most setups lack those fine localization cues, again, environmental noise and the long tail of natural reverberation makes the recording seem much more "muddy" and "indistinct" than the sounds felt when listened to in person.
Incidentally, I have a friend who describes himself as tone deaf. He can actually carry a tune (if the bucket is large enough) but to him a flute sounds identical to a clarinet. He would, however, have no trouble telling a trumpet from a xylophone, because the attack and evolution of those sounds are so distinct.
(I suspect, also, that in a trumpet most of the energy is in harmonics of the fundamental after the starting transient, but in a xylophone multiple modes exist -- longitudinal versus transverse to the bars, for instance -- which are harmonically unrelated. And die out during the sustain, simplifying the timbre over time).
-
Most music sounds the same to me, I struggle to pick out tunes from music and if you played two notes at me I would probably not be able to tell you which was higher unless they were really far apart. If you played half a dozen notes from a little tune, I'd be completely unable to tell you if the pitches went higher-higher-lower-higher etc.
That's not at all uncommon. In contrast, I can hear the difference between the two Quindar tones -- those beeps on Apollo recordings that are the key-in key-out signals for the radio equipment. They differ only by a fraction of a musical step. But that's not common, but in any case -- as has been explained -- can be improved with training and practice.
I didn't know it was uncommon. I thought everyone could hear the difference between the tones, since I could.
Interesting regarding the cocktail party effect: when I'm flying with students, I can be talking to them while listening to air traffic control in very busy airspace, and somehow filter out everything but what is pertinent to our plane. That is, not just calls to us, but calls to other aircraft that may be affecting us. I have no clue how I do it...
-
...I can hear the difference between the two Quindar tones -- those beeps on Apollo recordings that are the key-in key-out signals for the radio equipment. They differ only by a fraction of a musical step. But that's not common, but in any case -- as has been explained -- can be improved with training and practice.
I didn't know it was uncommon. I thought everyone could hear the difference between the tones, since I could.
Same for me. I wonder that my advantage was having two professional musicians for parents and growing up in a house full of music.
Interesting regarding the cocktail party effect: when I'm flying with students, I can be talking to them while listening to air traffic control in very busy airspace, and somehow filter out everything but what is pertinent to our plane. That is, not just calls to us, but calls to other aircraft that may be affecting us. I have no clue how I do it...
I'm not sure it's related to the cocktail effect, but my oldest son has problems with this. He's profoundly deaf and has worn bilateral cochlear implants since he was one. He's now six, and we're dealing with the issues of extraneous noise in classrooms (he attends the local primary school). Initially we got him an FM receiver - his teacher wears a lapel mic which is transmitted into one of his implants in addition to what he hears through the implants. Now we also have a hand-held cordless microphone which can be handed around the class to make it easier for him to hear his classmates as well.
Of course, things don't always take expected paths. A couple of days ago we took him to the Implant Centre so they could return his implants with new software. While the upgrade was being done he wore a pair of loaner implants. Then, as we drove him back to school, he announced that while he'd been wearing the loaner implants my voice sounded like a pirate... *sigh* We think he means the loaners made my voice sound deeper and rougher, but it's hard to be sure. But it's hard to get coherent information about subtle acoustic effects from a six year old...
(But we are grateful he can hear.)
-
Interesting regarding the cocktail party effect: when I'm flying with students, I can be talking to them while listening to air traffic control in very busy airspace, and somehow filter out everything but what is pertinent to our plane. That is, not just calls to us, but calls to other aircraft that may be affecting us. I have no clue how I do it...
I think it's just something your brain learns to do. I had much the same experience in emergency services. You can be riding along, gabbing with your partner or whatever, while there's a more-or-less constant stream of chatter from the radio; even if you're not paying attention, if your unit number is called or your specific alert tones go off, you hear it right away.
-
Yes, and the quiet beeping of the box alarm pre-alert tones can cause a bunk room full of guys and gals (who have been snoring peacefully through the radio chatter over the PA) to sit bolt upright listening for the dispatch area...
-
Yes, and the quiet beeping of the box alarm pre-alert tones can cause a bunk room full of guys and gals (who have been snoring peacefully through the radio chatter over the PA) to sit bolt upright listening for the dispatch area...
Yup. You'll wake up to your own alert tones even before the relays have time to set off the loud alarm.
-
A mum will hear her own baby's cry over noses *very* well, and most of us have probably heard our own names at times when everything else was an aural blur.
-
A mum will hear her own baby's cry over noses *very* well, and most of us have probably heard our own names at times when everything else was an aural blur.
Well, truthfully, noses aren't usually very loud, although there are exceptions.
**I'm really, really sorry. I just couldn't stop myself.**
On a side note, that's why my Mom taught me at a young age to call her name if we ever got separated in a crowd - there's always some kid yelling "Mom!" so she figured she would hear me better and sooner.
-
That's another struggle for me - it's almost impossible to get my attention without waving or jumping up and down in front of me. It's embarrassing, especially when other people realise this person is trying to get my attention long before I do.
-
A mum will hear her own baby's cry over noses *very* well, and most of us have probably heard our own names at times when everything else was an aural blur.
I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't have to be cries, either. I can hear his Happy Noises at a distance, too.
Andromeda, I promise you that if I'm ever trying to get your attention, I will walk up to you and do it directly. You know, for all those times we get together.
-
A mum will hear her own baby's cry over noses *very* well, and most of us have probably heard our own names at times when everything else was an aural blur.
I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't have to be cries, either. I can hear his Happy Noises at a distance, too.
I haven't shown myself at the board until recently, it has been a while. Just before my breaking from the Internet world you announced the impending arrival.
I hope you are both doing well.
-
A mum will hear her own baby's cry over noses *very* well, and most of us have probably heard our own names at times when everything else was an aural blur.
I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't have to be cries, either. I can hear his Happy Noises at a distance, too.
Andromeda, I promise you that if I'm ever trying to get your attention, I will walk up to you and do it directly. You know, for all those times we get together.
:)
-
I hope you are both doing well.
He's got a bit of a cold right now, but he's doing fine other than that. Eight months this week, and he's simply huge. He's starting to make attempts at walking unsupported, having mastered standing and pulling himself along things.
-
Aw, I remember when you two were telling us he was about to be born.
Already eight months, wow. :)
-
Last night, we started seriously putting him in his crib for the night. (Graham doesn't have class for two weeks, so one of us can sleep on the futon in his room without having to get up in the morning--and it won't always be me.) He's adorable to snuggle with, but not when you're trying to actually sleep.
-
Thread necromancy alert:
Jarrah it seems has seen this thread, he was particularly unimpressed by it and Dwight's responses, and said so to user Truegroup in replies to the latter's comments in replies to his 'Flat Earth' video discussed in another thread.
It seemed only right to bring it up here so that there can be a right to reply.
In summary, our colonial friend denies that his Spacecraft Films DVD source is PAL, and that the DVD source is:
"obviously and specifically taken from the videotape masters, not the kinescope archives."
He also seems a little unimpressed by Dwight's book.
Anyone care to comment - either here or on his youtube? I'm afraid the technicalities of it are beyond me, but it strikes me that the issue here is treatment of the source on the ground being used as proof that the camera was not on the moon!
-
It's called the Cocktail Party effect, and it's fascinating. The name derives from your ability to carry on a conversation in a crowded room and pay attention only to the people you're talking to and perceive their voices as predominant, when an objective measurement of relative sound levels reveals no physical reason why you should perceive it that way. We've discovered this perceptual ability to focus (not just in hearing but also with other senses), and conversely, to weed out "background" stimulus is (1) extremely important to the brain, and (2) agonizing for us engineers who have to design human-machine interfaces -- specifically instrumentation that doesn't lull operators into complacency.
I myself due to my ADD can not have a conversation wih multiple persons, the voices go in, but the understanding doesn't connect each conversation to an individual. I have many times IRL, told those subordinates around me to shut up and speak in turns, that I may make sense of all the people.
-
Thread necromancy alert:
Jarrah it seems has seen this thread, he was particularly unimpressed by it and Dwight's responses, and said so to user Truegroup in replies to the latter's comments in replies to his 'Flat Earth' video discussed in another thread.
It seemed only right to bring it up here so that there can be a right to reply.
In summary, our colonial friend denies that his Spacecraft Films DVD source is PAL, and that the DVD source is:
"obviously and specifically taken from the videotape masters, not the kinescope archives."
He also seems a little unimpressed by Dwight's book.
Anyone care to comment - either here or on his youtube? I'm afraid the technicalities of it are beyond me, but it strikes me that the issue here is treatment of the source on the ground being used as proof that the camera was not on the moon!
After reading the whole thread, I also don't understand the technicalities of the camera rates etc.
-
If Jarrah wants people's responses, he can talk to them. I have never watched any of his videos, because I find video is usually a lousy way of making scientific points, and it sounds like he doesn't say anything interesting in them anyway. I am also frankly of the opinion that the worst thing we can do is make him feel important in any way!
-
Thread necromancy alert:
Jarrah it seems has seen this thread, he was particularly unimpressed by it and Dwight's responses, and said so to user Truegroup in replies to the latter's comments in replies to his 'Flat Earth' video discussed in another thread.
It seemed only right to bring it up here so that there can be a right to reply.
In summary, our colonial friend denies that his Spacecraft Films DVD source is PAL, and that the DVD source is:
"obviously and specifically taken from the videotape masters, not the kinescope archives."
He also seems a little unimpressed by Dwight's book.
Anyone care to comment - either here or on his youtube? I'm afraid the technicalities of it are beyond me, but it strikes me that the issue here is treatment of the source on the ground being used as proof that the camera was not on the moon!
Somebody called 'Hadley Rille' has pointed out something quite interesting on TrueGroup's thread. What interested him about Jarrah's analysis of the Apollo 11 TV EVA frame-rate was Jarrah's choice of clip to use. He chose a clip of one of the astronauts turning around but staying essentially static within the image frame. When you look at the TV picture you can see the whole frame swaying and shimmying. Jarrah slows the clip down and basically says "Wow, I can detect movement a lot more than ten times per second therefore this was not originally recorded at 10fps." As Hadley pointed out, the converted 30fps video is not of sufficient quality to confidently draw that conclusion, and the apparent small change in the image of the astronaut could be due to a number of other factors. What Jarrah should have done was use a clip of an astronaut moving at substantial speed across the field. Interestingly, Jarrah does show a clip of an astronaut jumping down the ladder at the start of his "false frame rates" video. If you slow that clip down, it's clear that the astronaut is moving at only 10fps. I've tried it a number of times with other portions of the TV coverage. It's always 10fps.
-
It is always a good thing when someone dislikes something so strongly, especially when they clearly state they have no interest in it. I just wish he hadn't held himself back in his opinion.
-
It is always a good thing when someone dislikes something so strongly, especially when they clearly state they have no interest in it. I just wish he hadn't held himself back in his opinion.
Perhaps post to the video and fulfill that wish? :)
-
Most of the frame-rate accusations suffer from the artifacts found in their convenience versions of the video.
-
Most of the frame-rate accusations suffer from the artifacts found in their convenience versions of the video.
Very much so.
What are the best reference versions? I see a lot of the later mission EVAs were transferred to film (hence many of the "support wire" claims) probably because in those days it was much cheaper and more compact than videotape. Did any tape copies survive? How were the film transfers made?
-
Most of the frame-rate accusations suffer from the artifacts found in their convenience versions of the video.
Very much so.
What are the best reference versions? I see a lot of the later mission EVAs were transferred to film (hence many of the "support wire" claims) probably because in those days it was much cheaper and more compact than videotape. Did any tape copies survive? How were the film transfers made?
I don't know the transfer method but most of the videos exist in ALSJ with Quick Time media format, as you probably know.
-
I would assume the film copies were made by ordinary kinescope until someone shows me differently.
-
The Spacecraftfilms A11 Fox dvds are derived from kinescope. Only their remastered special dvd which came with Live from the Moon bluray is derived from 2" CBS tv, sydney video vhs and ed von renuards 8mm. However, that is -not- what started this thread. But dont let that convince the protagonist otherwise.
-
However, that is -not- what started this thread. But dont let that convince the protagonist otherwise.
So what exactly is Jarrah's claim? How does any alleged mystery about conversion frame-rate cast any doubt on the original 10fps source?
-
The Spacecraftfilms A11 Fox dvds are derived from kinescope. Only their remastered special dvd which came with Live from the Moon bluray is derived from 2" CBS tv, sydney video vhs and ed von renuards 8mm. However, that is -not- what started this thread. But dont let that convince the protagonist otherwise.
Do you think that the transfer "created" all the "supporting wires" theories?
-
Do you think that the transfer "created" all the "supporting wires" theories?
I've seen some Youtube videos claiming to spot "wires" that were obviously vertical scratches on the film. The "wires" were all over the place, not just above the astronauts.
-
The Spacecraftfilms A11 Fox dvds are derived from kinescope.
I wonder about the details. Was the kinescope run on the live signal, or was there a generation (or two) of videotape playback in there? Did the kinescope film run at 30 fps (yeah, 29.97) or at 24 with 3-2 pulldown? Inquiring minds (and geeks) want to know...
-
Do you think that the transfer "created" all the "supporting wires" theories?
I've seen some Youtube videos claiming to spot "wires" that were obviously vertical scratches on the film. The "wires" were all over the place, not just above the astronauts.
And Rocet Scientist David Percy. That's what I was getting at.
-
The video film transfer was a requirement of the national archives, which IIRC stipulated that all holdings were required on celluloid. The conversions were handled by Lowry and Image Transform, and their logo is seen on alot of Skylab kinescopes I own.
-
Ok, like obm, what was the Blunder concerned about?
-
Ok, like obm, what was the Blunder concerned about?
As I understand it, his claim was that if the transmission from Apollo 11 occurred at no finer than 10 frames per second, then there should be no movement of any kind visible at a time slice finer than 1/10 second in any derived record. He claims he sees movement at a finer interval, therefore a finer interval must have been employed to produce the Apollo 11 video -- inconsistent with the published claims.
-
Ok, like obm, what was the Blunder concerned about?
As I understand it, his claim was that if the transmission from Apollo 11 occurred at no finer than 10 frames per second, then there should be no movement of any kind visible at a time slice finer than 1/10 second in any derived record. He claims he sees movement at a finer interval, therefore a finer interval must have been employed to produce the Apollo 11 video -- inconsistent with the published claims.
Like the 30 fps in the following missions?
-
Ok, like obm, what was the Blunder concerned about?
As I understand it, his claim was that if the transmission from Apollo 11 occurred at no finer than 10 frames per second, then there should be no movement of any kind visible at a time slice finer than 1/10 second in any derived record. He claims he sees movement at a finer interval, therefore a finer interval must have been employed to produce the Apollo 11 video -- inconsistent with the published claims.
His claim, as stated a couple of days ago on TrueGroup's thread on Jarrah's new Flat earth video, is:
"NASA says they converted the 10fps feed by pointing an NTSC (30fps) camera at a screen displaying the 10fps feed. That means the camera pointed to the screen would record the same image three times. If one was to look at the resulting 10fps to 30fps conversion video, they'd find the image would remain the same for three frames. There will probably be more frequent changes in conversion artifacts and the like, but nonetheless the image should only update once every three frames. What we see instead however is that the images update four out of every five frames. The odd one out is an overlay of the frames before and after. Clearly the playback of the unfiltered video was not 10fps, but 24fps. Meaning that is had to have been shot with a camera that the Apollo 11 crew reportedly did not take to the Moon. That alone should be all the evidence you need that it was a hoax."
-
Ok, like obm, what was the Blunder concerned about?
As I understand it, his claim was that if the transmission from Apollo 11 occurred at no finer than 10 frames per second, then there should be no movement of any kind visible at a time slice finer than 1/10 second in any derived record. He claims he sees movement at a finer interval, therefore a finer interval must have been employed to produce the Apollo 11 video -- inconsistent with the published claims.
His claim, as stated a couple of days ago on TrueGroup's thread on Jarrah's new Flat earth video, is:
"NASA says they converted the 10fps feed by pointing an NTSC (30fps) camera at a screen displaying the 10fps feed. That means the camera pointed to the screen would record the same image three times. If one was to look at the resulting 10fps to 30fps conversion video, they'd find the image would remain the same for three frames. There will probably be more frequent changes in conversion artifacts and the like, but nonetheless the image should only update once every three frames. What we see instead however is that the images update four out of every five frames. The odd one out is an overlay of the frames before and after. Clearly the playback of the unfiltered video was not 10fps, but 24fps. Meaning that is had to have been shot with a camera that the Apollo 11 crew reportedly did not take to the Moon. That alone should be all the evidence you need that it was a hoax."
This is beyond my expertise, but it seems that there may be an "averaging" of the original capture rate and some small movement might be expected.
Is this a correct evaluation or way off base?
-
Isn't it so he is using the DVD's so there is also some mpeg compression factor in play with this?
-
He also seems a little unimpressed by Dwight's book.
Dwight, I hope you are not losing sleep over this. If you need to talk then PM me. I'm happy to listen before you descend into a state of melancholy and utter despair at the thought that Jarrah is unimpressed by your book.
-
He also seems a little unimpressed by Dwight's book.
Dwight, I hope you are not losing sleep over this. If you need to talk then PM me. I'm happy to listen before you descend into a state of melancholy and utter despair at the thought that Jarrah is unimpressed by your book.
Dr. Pemberton advertising for slow business during the holiday lull. :)
Don't wait up tonight for a PM.
-
His claim, as stated a couple of days ago on TrueGroup's thread on Jarrah's new Flat earth video, is:
"NASA says they converted the 10fps feed by pointing an NTSC (30fps) camera at a screen displaying the 10fps feed. That means the camera pointed to the screen would record the same image three times. If one was to look at the resulting 10fps to 30fps conversion video, they'd find the image would remain the same for three frames. There will probably be more frequent changes in conversion artifacts and the like, but nonetheless the image should only update once every three frames. What we see instead however is that the images update four out of every five frames. The odd one out is an overlay of the frames before and after. Clearly the playback of the unfiltered video was not 10fps, but 24fps. Meaning that is had to have been shot with a camera that the Apollo 11 crew reportedly did not take to the Moon. That alone should be all the evidence you need that it was a hoax."
This would only be true if the 10 fps screen and 30 fps camera were synchronised precisely and they clearly are not. Consequently, some of the camera frames will contain partially blended mixes of two frames from the screen. Slowed down, this will look like movement but isn't.
-
It sounds like his copy involved a film transfer. Standard 16mm movie film has a frame rate of 24 fps, though I understand that special 30 fps film cameras were used in a lot of US TV production until digital took over.
When 24 fps film is converted to NTSC 30 fps video, the difference in frame rates is handled with a method called "3:2 pulldown". NTSC TV actually consists of 60 "fields" per second, with two fields forming the odd and even numbered scan lines of each frame. (This is called "interlacing". It's obsolete with modern digital cameras and displays but due to past history it persists in digital TV, causing many headaches.) A given 16 mm frame is scanned for three fields (1.5 frames), then the next frame is scanned for 2 fields (1 frame), and so on. Since 5/60 = 2/24, the two rates are now matched. This creates significant artifacts when still-framing the resulting video, as some of the frames consist of fields from two different film frames exposed at different times. Anything that's moving will appear to rapidly "vibrate" when the still frame is displayed.
All this is unique to countries (like the US, Canada, Mexico and Japan) that use 30 fps video, this number being one half of the local power line frequency. Australia, like most of Europe, uses 50 Hz power so they settled on a 25 fps TV frame rate for both PAL and SECAM. 3:2 pulldown is not done in those countries; I understand they simply show 24 fps film at 25 fps and hope nobody will notice. So it's entirely possible that the Blunder, despite his supposed expertise with video, has never really seen 3:2 pulldown artifacts before.
-
From what I can make of the Blunder's position his expectation seems to be, for a given sequence of frames at 10fps, say A, B, C, D the result should be, when filmed at 30fps, should be the sequence A, A, A, B, B, B, C, C, C, D, D, D precisely.
FWIW, I really like the visualisation on wiki.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/32pulldown.svg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/32pulldown.svg)
Explains what the Blunder is seeing at a glance.
-
Even though I don't understand all the nuances of the conversion, I agree with those that presented ideas concerning what he "sees". Now go and try to convince him of that, impossible IMO, as he can't admit his errors. I don't think he ever admitted to errors, expect those that he refers to as "errors in calculations", not in content.
-
I don't think he ever admitted to errors, expect those that he refers to as "errors in calculations", not in content.
...and then he wiggles out of those errors in calculations by either shifting the goalposts or just ignoring them.
-
From what I can make of the Blunder's position his expectation seems to be, for a given sequence of frames at 10fps, say A, B, C, D the result should be, when filmed at 30fps, should be the sequence A, A, A, B, B, B, C, C, C, D, D, D precisely.
FWIW, I really like the visualisation on wiki.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/32pulldown.svg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/32pulldown.svg)
Explains what the Blunder is seeing at a glance.
That is a really good visualisation. Thanks, it helped me understand the problem a little more.
-
From what I can make of the Blunder's position his expectation seems to be, for a given sequence of frames at 10fps, say A, B, C, D the result should be, when filmed at 30fps, should be the sequence A, A, A, B, B, B, C, C, C, D, D, D precisely.
FWIW, I really like the visualisation on wiki.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/32pulldown.svg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/32pulldown.svg)
Explains what the Blunder is seeing at a glance.
That is a really good visualisation. Thanks, it helped me understand the problem a little more.
Your most welcome. I learned all this stuff back in my college day a long time ago and I could waffle on, but this really IS a case where a picture is worth many more than a thousand words.. It also demonstrates the interlaced nature of the image as drawn on your traditional TV. Literally, the electron beam in your old TV draws the odd rows, then the even rows continuously, one after another. The phosphor at the front of the CRT has a persistence. It glows for a time, short I grant you, Still it is sufficient to fool the human eye into seeing a continuously moving image.
The question naturally arises from all this...where is the limit? At what framerate can the human eye detect that there even are frames at all. There are whole flame wars about that, but it seems to be a subjective thing. 24 fps is generally put about as the limit. I can visually detect anything below 25fps because you are getting borderline. some people claim to be able to detect anything below 30fps.
In any event the wiki from which I filched that graphic has a pretty good explanation. And more explanatory graphics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down)
Now if you move on into the modern digital era, it all gets a lot more complex and that is why provenance of any video is critically important to any claim one might make
-
From what I can make of the Blunder's position his expectation seems to be, for a given sequence of frames at 10fps, say A, B, C, D the result should be, when filmed at 30fps, should be the sequence A, A, A, B, B, B, C, C, C, D, D, D precisely.
FWIW, I really like the visualisation on wiki.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/32pulldown.svg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/32pulldown.svg)
Explains what the Blunder is seeing at a glance.
That is a really good visualisation. Thanks, it helped me understand the problem a little more.
Your most welcome. I learned all this stuff back in my college day a long time ago and I could waffle on, but this really IS a case where a picture is worth many more than a thousand words.. It also demonstrates the interlaced nature of the image as drawn on your traditional TV. Literally, the electron beam in your old TV draws the odd rows, then the even rows continuously, one after another. The phosphor at the front of the CRT has a persistence. It glows for a time, short I grant you, Still it is sufficient to fool the human eye into seeing a continuously moving image.
The question naturally arises from all this...where is the limit? At what framerate can the human eye detect that there even are frames at all. There are whole flame wars about that, but it seems to be a subjective thing. 24 fps is generally put about as the limit. I can visually detect anything below 25fps because you are getting borderline. some people claim to be able to detect anything below 30fps.
In any event the wiki from which I filched that graphic has a pretty good explanation. And more explanatory graphics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down)
Now if you move on into the modern digital era, it all gets a lot more complex and that is why provenance of any video is critically important to any claim one might make
Why not call him out in the YT thread and post the links? Might be worth a grin!
-
History. The Blunder is immune to facts and evidence. I or anyone here can give copious evidence.
It is ultimately a fruitless task engaging the Blunder.
I suppose one might propose it for amusement value, but the Blunder is not even vaguely amusing any more, just irritating.
Adrian and BM flailing about are far more amusing.
-
History. The Blunder is immune to facts and evidence. I or anyone here can give copious evidence.
It is ultimately a fruitless task engaging the Blunder.
I suppose one might propose it for amusement value, but the Blunder is not even vaguely amusing any more, just irritating.
Adrian and BM flailing about are far more amusing.
I suspected as much, but I was suggesting for the amusement if any.
-
Our protgonist has failed to 1. establish that I indeed am talking about someone called Jarrah White, for all he knows I could be talking about my brother. 2. establish that I am referring to a Spacecraftfilms Apollo 11 DVD. i -do- know to what I am referring, as DVFilm Atlantis clearly relates to a source I know was produced and I know by whom.
Jarrah has failed to establish anything and yet has the hide to tell everyone I failed miserably at research, and has the nerve to claim the SCF dvd is 2" derived videotape, when this is nowhere stated on the DVD packaging. It is clearly and definitely kinescope derived material.
-
Our protgonist has failed to 1. establish that I indeed am talking about someone called Jarrah White, for all he knows I could be talking about my brother. 2. establish that I am referring to a Spacecraftfilms Apollo 11 DVD. i -do- know to what I am referring, as DVFilm Atlantis clearly relates to a source I know was produced and I know by whom.
Jarrah has failed to establish anything and yet has the hide to tell everyone I failed miserably at research, and has the nerve to claim the SCF dvd is 2" derived videotape, when this is nowhere stated on the DVD packaging. It is clearly and definitely kinescope derived material.
...but what we have clearly established is that he makes stuff up. His bellicose tub-thumping claims to have mastery of physics because he can rearrange Newton's universal law of gravitation to compute g are amusing (recent video). That's high school physics, it's taught to A-level students in the UK. I despise his claim to expertise when he's barely out of his physics nappies, while he simultaneously discredits anyone that has proven expertise. It's some ego, that's for sure.
-
...but what we have clearly established is that he makes stuff up. His bellicose tub-thumping claims to have mastery of physics because he can rearrange Newton's universal law of gravitation to compute g are amusing (recent video). That's high school physics, it's taught to A-level students in the UK. I despise his claim to expertise when he's barely out of his physics nappies, while he simultaneously discredits anyone that has proven expertise. It's some ego, that's for sure.
Yep, The Blunder from Down Under should be renamed the Bluster from Down Under. He definitely operates on the principle Taurum stercore confundit mentem. To the ignorant and uneducated, the clever use of a buzzword generator can make you sound like you know what you are talking about.
-
...but what we have clearly established is that he makes stuff up. His bellicose tub-thumping claims to have mastery of physics because he can rearrange Newton's universal law of gravitation to compute g are amusing (recent video). That's high school physics, it's taught to A-level students in the UK. I despise his claim to expertise when he's barely out of his physics nappies, while he simultaneously discredits anyone that has proven expertise. It's some ego, that's for sure.
Yep, The Blunder from Down Under should be renamed the Bluster from Down Under. He definitely operates on the principle Taurum stercore confundit mentem. To the ignorant and uneducated, the clever use of a buzzword generator can make you sound like you know what you are talking about.
Taurum stercore confundit mentem is a Latin phrase I'd never seen before! It's a good one, and fits the Blunda's MO perfectly. :)
-
...but what we have clearly established is that he makes stuff up. His bellicose tub-thumping claims to have mastery of physics because he can rearrange Newton's universal law of gravitation to compute g are amusing (recent video). That's high school physics, it's taught to A-level students in the UK. I despise his claim to expertise when he's barely out of his physics nappies, while he simultaneously discredits anyone that has proven expertise. It's some ego, that's for sure.
Yep, The Blunder from Down Under should be renamed the Bluster from Down Under. He definitely operates on the principle Taurum stercore confundit mentem. To the ignorant and uneducated, the clever use of a buzzword generator can make you sound like you know what you are talking a
bout.
Taurum stercore confundit mentem is a Latin phrase I'd never seen before! It's a good one, and fits the Blunda's MO perfectly. :)
I have never heard of that either, but Latin was not my favorite study.
-
There are a few versions of it floating around the interwebz...for example, "Merda taurorum animas conturbit", and a few "Dog Latin" ones like "Taurus excreta cerebrum vincit"
Essentially they all mean the same thing.... Bullshit Baffles Brains!
-
There are a few versions of it floating around the interwebz...for example, "Merda taurorum animas conturbit", and a few "Dog Latin" ones like "Taurus excreta cerebrum vincit"
Essentially they all mean the same thing.... Bullshit Baffles Brains!
That suits the Blunder to a T! :)
-
The question naturally arises from all this...where is the limit? At what framerate can the human eye detect that there even are frames at all. There are whole flame wars about that, but it seems to be a subjective thing. 24 fps is generally put about as the limit. I can visually detect anything below 25fps because you are getting borderline. some people claim to be able to detect anything below 30fps.
I used to work in computer graphics and, quite a few years ago, we ran some tests on perception of frame rates. For most people, the "break-even" point was somewhere between 25 Hz and 50 Hz, but there were a few individuals who needed over 70 Hz to perceive really smooth motion.
It wasn't a very scientific experiment, and it was never really documented, but it did show, to us at least, how variable human sensory abilities are.
-
Used to work in a rather noisy equipment room, electro mechanical switches, all motors and relays and pawls and racthets and so on. In that cacophoney of audio audible assault on your ear 'oles you could pick out a switch mis stepping or a motor on its last legs. Funny how sounds works.
It's called the Cocktail Party effect, and it's fascinating. The name derives from your ability to carry on a conversation in a crowded room and pay attention only to the people you're talking to and perceive their voices as predominant, when an objective measurement of relative sound levels reveals no physical reason why you should perceive it that way. We've discovered this perceptual ability to focus (not just in hearing but also with other senses), and conversely, to weed out "background" stimulus is (1) extremely important to the brain, and (2) agonizing for us engineers who have to design human-machine interfaces -- specifically instrumentation that doesn't lull operators into complacency.
To stray off topic, I have lost that ability. A quarter century of being around turbine engines in one form or another has given me "industrial deafness", a deafness in specific frequencies. On a morning standing around an airfield I can still hear an aircraft approaching way before anyone else; in the office I hear the base alarm system when no-one else can... yet put me in a room with a number of people talking and I can't hear what the person next to me is saying. I know they are saying something but I can't tell what.