False frame rates and a genius down under

[ka9q]

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...

[bknight]

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.

[dwight]

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.

[bknight]

Ok, like obm, what was the Blunder concerned about?

[JayUtah]

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.

[bknight]

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?

[BertieSlack]

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."

[bknight]

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?

[Miss Vocalcord]

Isn't it so he is using the DVD's so there is also some mpeg compression factor in play with this?

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

[bknight]

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.

[Abaddon]

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.

[ka9q]

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.
 

[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.

[bknight]

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.