False frame rates and a genius down under

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

[Luke Pemberton]

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

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.

[Abaddon]

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

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

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

[bknight]

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

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

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!

[Abaddon]

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.

[bknight]

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.

[dwight]

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.

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

[smartcooky]

...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.

[BazBear]

...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.

[bknight]

...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.

[smartcooky]

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!

[bknight]

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!

[molesworth]

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.

[Obviousman]

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.