Author Topic: False frame rates and a genius down under  (Read 61599 times)

Offline dwight

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 685
    • Live Tv From the Moon
False frame rates and a genius down under
« 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.
"Honeysuckle TV on line!"

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1603
Re: False frame rates and a genius down under
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2014, 07:50:03 AM »
 ;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.

"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: False frame rates and a genius down under
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2014, 01:54:25 PM »
"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.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: False frame rates and a genius down under
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2014, 03:32:54 PM »
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?

Offline dwight

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 685
    • Live Tv From the Moon
Re: False frame rates and a genius down under
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2014, 05:00:38 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 05:03:37 PM by dwight »
"Honeysuckle TV on line!"

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: False frame rates and a genius down under
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2014, 05:25:59 PM »
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.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline dwight

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 685
    • Live Tv From the Moon
Re: False frame rates and a genius down under
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2014, 05:29:23 PM »
Exactly. Before I go around telling everyone "the butler did it" I tend to make damn sure there was actually a butler present.
"Honeysuckle TV on line!"

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: False frame rates and a genius down under
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2014, 11:02:06 PM »
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.

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: False frame rates and a genius down under
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2014, 11:23:33 PM »
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.

Offline Obviousman

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 743
Re: False frame rates and a genius down under
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2014, 05:00:12 AM »
Who is the "genius"? I'm a little bored right now.

Offline Allan F

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
Re: False frame rates and a genius down under
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2014, 05:11:19 AM »
Jarrah White. Look him up on youtube.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1968
Re: False frame rates and a genius down under
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2014, 06:26:12 AM »
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

« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 06:33:27 AM by smartcooky »
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1651
Re: False frame rates and a genius down under
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2014, 08:23:49 AM »
How do you get a fractional frame per second?  :-\

Offline Al Johnston

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: False frame rates and a genius down under
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2014, 11:24:12 AM »
Easy: 100 frames per minute is fractional per second...
"Cheer up!" they said. "It could be worse!" they said.
So I did.
And it was.

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1651
Re: False frame rates and a genius down under
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2014, 11:48:48 AM »
So it's the average then, because how do you display a fraction of a frame?
That's really what I was asking.