Post by BertL on Jul 3, 2007 18:11:11 GMT -4
Rocky, before I start, I will say that I have bolded the important parts, the ones you can't miss. The other stuff is there for more details. Remember that I have spent all this effort in trying to objectively determine whether your claim is right or wrong, and the least you could do is answer the question at the end of this post. The rest would also be interesting to the discussion, if it actually had results. Now follows my report
To the others: This might not be interesting to you at all, both because this post is pointed directly to rocky, and because of the results. Nevertheless feel free to read and comment.
Alright rocky, let's see about your claim about the thing being brought down to 70% of the speed. I'm going to do some serious research here, but I'll go over it very slowly and detailed. In fact, so slowly and detailed you can easily do this with me. You will need to download two programs for this, though: VideoMach, and (more importantly) the RAD Video Tools program you can find on here. I will try to objectively determine whether your claims are right.
Before I start I will note that I assume you are going to do this together with me, that is you will perform the same steps and see for yourself that I didn't cheat. You don't want to accuse me later for doing things I shouldn't have done, when I hadn't done them in the first place, do you? It's also a test of objectivity. You know, that word you like to throw in occasionally.
I'm going to speed up the footage to what you think it originally was, and with that footage try to objectively determine whether or not the gravity can be Earth's gravity. What will follow is a detailed description of how I did it, so you can easily do it with me.
First, We're going to take the file, and convert it to something we can work with. QuickTime is really unhandy to actually work with; it's more of a tool for watching stuff. For the conversion we'll use the RAD Video Tools software program you can find here. Before we shall convert, here's some information on the original file.
Information: original file a17v_1193156.mov
Frames: 2347
Framerate: 15FPS
Length: 2347 / 15 = 156 + 2/3 seconds
QuickTime player says: 2 minutes 36 seconds
I checked this information with the RAD Video Tools "File Info" function. Check if it matches up with your stuff. Now, we'll convert it to an AVI with the same software. To convert, select the file and click "Convert a file". In the new video, click "Output type" and select "AVI file". Do not fill in anything, but make sure only "Convert Video" is checked. You can change the file name if you want; I kept it the same. Next, click "Convert". As compression, you could use anything you want. If you're unsure, use "Full frames (uncompressed)", however this will give you a file with a huge filesize. (I myself used XviD at highest quality to convert the file, but I think they don't have that installed in most internet cafes.) Now, click OK.
After the conversion process, open up the RAD Video Tools program again, and check on the File info of your newly created file. Here's what I got. Again, please check for yourself if everything is right.
Information: converted file a17v_1193156.avi
Frames: 2347
Framerate: 15FPS
Length: 2347 / 15 = 156 + 2/3 seconds
Windows Media Player says: 2 36 seconds
Well, whaddaya know, the two files have the same frame usage! Good, this is supposed to happen. This means that whatever we do with the converted file, it also counts for the original file. It's like exchanging a ten dollar bill for two five dollar bills. Now let's see what you claimed Right here, you said the following, and I quote (this time, literally quote):
Bring out your calculator, rocky, we'll do this together!
I'm unsure if you're familiar with how film works. If you're not, here's a short synopsis. Basically, film is a bunch of seperate frames taken right after each other. The taking of the frames right after each other is done with a certain number of frames per second, the so-called Framerate (Framerate is usually expressed in FPS, Frames Per Second). You record something at a certain framerate, and you play something at a certain framerate too. If you want stuff to match up, you play it at the same framerate. If you don't, you change the framerate.
Well, that's enough theory for now. As you have seen before, the original framerate of the clip is 15FPS. Which means, it takes fifteen frames for every second of film. No more, no less.
So, how does your claim about it being played to 70% of the original speed fit in? Well, that would mean that if we want to see the "original" speed, we need to speed it up. But exactly to how much frames per second do we need to speed it up to see the "original" speed?
Calculations
Fmoon = 0.7Forig
Fmoon / 0.7 = Forig
Fmoon = 15
15 / 0.7 = Forig
Forig = 21.428571 FPS (the underlined part keeps repeating itself, one of the advantages of a rational number is that it either end or repeats itself to infinity-ish)
Tah-dah! There's the framerate to make this clip look like the "original" speed. Note that I put "original" in quotes because I myself do not think that is the original speed at all. Also, by "original speed" I mean the speed it was (again according to you) taken on Earth. So the "original speed" is the speed according to you. Your claim. Yours.
You still with me, rocky? Yes? Good. So, what are we going to do next?
We're going to load up the converted file into VideoMach, and change the framerate from 15FPS to 21.4285blahblah FPS. The way I did it: First I opened the .avi file (File --> Open...), then I went to "File --> Define Output". I set the file name as "changed.avi", and Output Mode to Video Only (we don't care about the audio, remember?). Under the Video tab, uncheck "Automatic" under "Frame Rate". Also uncheck "Keep Original Duration". Now fill in the new framerate we just calculated, 21.42blahblah FPS.
Now click Format Options and select the codec you want. I again used XviD on highest quality, but you can choose whatever you want as long as it works! Now, the last step for VideoMach: click OK, and click on "File --> Start Processing".
After the processing is done, we will (again with the RAD Video Tools Program) check the thing. The number of frames should be the same, but the framerate should be that what we have calculated. Are they? Let's see! (Check time, rocky, bring out the RAD!)
Information: converted and sped up film changed.avi
Frames: 2347
Framerate: 21.42
Length: 2347/21.42 = 109.57 seconds
Windows Media Player Says: 1 minute 49 seconds
Excellent, things went great so far on my side. How did things go over there, rocky? Let me know.
Now, it's judgement time. Let's watch it. Just in case things didn't work for you (I wouldn't be surprised, especially compression can be an a rock to bump on if you convert files for the first time), I've uploaded the file to YouTube here.
Now, my original plan was to calculate the apparent distance with a given time (easily calculatable with a measurable number of frames and known framerate) and given gravity (Earth's gravity, as you claim). Unfortunately, there seems to be nothing gravitational to check whether you're right or wrong. The only actions where gravity can be measured I could find that happen are (1) A little hop that seems to happen just out of screen at 0:11, (2) The grabbing of the cloth at 0:30 in the sped up clip and (3) The throwing away of the cloth at 0:32. We cannot use 1 and 3 because they happen out of screen, and we cannot use 1 and 2 because the astronaut makes the cloth behave differently. This is getting harder than I thought. Of course, there is still the possibility of calculating with some of the falling dust near the astronaut's boots, but I think both you and I have had enough experience with following dust particle trajectories that it is quite near to impossible to do at a resolution of 256x192 pixels.
So, I could start judging it subjectively. I could say something among the lines like "Watch the video, does the astronaut walking look like it's on earth? Look at how he throws away the cloth so easily! That doesn't look like it's on earth at all! Look at the dust falling down! It looks far too slow to be on earth!". But then I would stray off the path of objectivity, and I know how much you hate that. I myself hate it too.
It was at this point where I smacked my forehead and got itchy of frustration. Why didn't I look for things I could use before I did all this effort? Why didn't I analyze that clip a bit more? Why did I assume that this clip can objectively prove something? I've just returned to my keyboard writing this new paragraph, and my head still hurts from frustrations. I could've spend all this time on my hobby, animating. Meh.
So, in the end you could say that with the clip you used it is impossible to either prove or disprove your 70% claim. But just now I got the thought, "Hey! That rocky always pleads for objectivity! I wonder how he objectively determined that the clip was Earth's gravity on 70% speed. So that's why I assumed it could be done objectively!" So here it comes, rocky. Prepare yourself to it.
Rocky, how did you objectively determine it was Earth's gravity played at 70% speed? I, with all my fancy pancy software, couldn't get it done objectively (as you have seen), how could you do it with a internet cafe's computer?
To the others: This might not be interesting to you at all, both because this post is pointed directly to rocky, and because of the results. Nevertheless feel free to read and comment.
Alright rocky, let's see about your claim about the thing being brought down to 70% of the speed. I'm going to do some serious research here, but I'll go over it very slowly and detailed. In fact, so slowly and detailed you can easily do this with me. You will need to download two programs for this, though: VideoMach, and (more importantly) the RAD Video Tools program you can find on here. I will try to objectively determine whether your claims are right.
Before I start I will note that I assume you are going to do this together with me, that is you will perform the same steps and see for yourself that I didn't cheat. You don't want to accuse me later for doing things I shouldn't have done, when I hadn't done them in the first place, do you? It's also a test of objectivity. You know, that word you like to throw in occasionally.
I'm going to speed up the footage to what you think it originally was, and with that footage try to objectively determine whether or not the gravity can be Earth's gravity. What will follow is a detailed description of how I did it, so you can easily do it with me.
First, We're going to take the file, and convert it to something we can work with. QuickTime is really unhandy to actually work with; it's more of a tool for watching stuff. For the conversion we'll use the RAD Video Tools software program you can find here. Before we shall convert, here's some information on the original file.
Information: original file a17v_1193156.mov
Frames: 2347
Framerate: 15FPS
Length: 2347 / 15 = 156 + 2/3 seconds
QuickTime player says: 2 minutes 36 seconds
I checked this information with the RAD Video Tools "File Info" function. Check if it matches up with your stuff. Now, we'll convert it to an AVI with the same software. To convert, select the file and click "Convert a file". In the new video, click "Output type" and select "AVI file". Do not fill in anything, but make sure only "Convert Video" is checked. You can change the file name if you want; I kept it the same. Next, click "Convert". As compression, you could use anything you want. If you're unsure, use "Full frames (uncompressed)", however this will give you a file with a huge filesize. (I myself used XviD at highest quality to convert the file, but I think they don't have that installed in most internet cafes.) Now, click OK.
After the conversion process, open up the RAD Video Tools program again, and check on the File info of your newly created file. Here's what I got. Again, please check for yourself if everything is right.
Information: converted file a17v_1193156.avi
Frames: 2347
Framerate: 15FPS
Length: 2347 / 15 = 156 + 2/3 seconds
Windows Media Player says: 2 36 seconds
Well, whaddaya know, the two files have the same frame usage! Good, this is supposed to happen. This means that whatever we do with the converted file, it also counts for the original file. It's like exchanging a ten dollar bill for two five dollar bills. Now let's see what you claimed Right here, you said the following, and I quote (this time, literally quote):
I found this though.
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v_1193156.mov
This looks like it was shot in earth gravity and played back at about seventy percent speed; the object he threw would have gone further than that on the moon.
www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v_1193156.mov
This looks like it was shot in earth gravity and played back at about seventy percent speed; the object he threw would have gone further than that on the moon.
Bring out your calculator, rocky, we'll do this together!
I'm unsure if you're familiar with how film works. If you're not, here's a short synopsis. Basically, film is a bunch of seperate frames taken right after each other. The taking of the frames right after each other is done with a certain number of frames per second, the so-called Framerate (Framerate is usually expressed in FPS, Frames Per Second). You record something at a certain framerate, and you play something at a certain framerate too. If you want stuff to match up, you play it at the same framerate. If you don't, you change the framerate.
Well, that's enough theory for now. As you have seen before, the original framerate of the clip is 15FPS. Which means, it takes fifteen frames for every second of film. No more, no less.
So, how does your claim about it being played to 70% of the original speed fit in? Well, that would mean that if we want to see the "original" speed, we need to speed it up. But exactly to how much frames per second do we need to speed it up to see the "original" speed?
Calculations
Fmoon = 0.7Forig
Fmoon / 0.7 = Forig
Fmoon = 15
15 / 0.7 = Forig
Forig = 21.428571 FPS (the underlined part keeps repeating itself, one of the advantages of a rational number is that it either end or repeats itself to infinity-ish)
Tah-dah! There's the framerate to make this clip look like the "original" speed. Note that I put "original" in quotes because I myself do not think that is the original speed at all. Also, by "original speed" I mean the speed it was (again according to you) taken on Earth. So the "original speed" is the speed according to you. Your claim. Yours.
You still with me, rocky? Yes? Good. So, what are we going to do next?
We're going to load up the converted file into VideoMach, and change the framerate from 15FPS to 21.4285blahblah FPS. The way I did it: First I opened the .avi file (File --> Open...), then I went to "File --> Define Output". I set the file name as "changed.avi", and Output Mode to Video Only (we don't care about the audio, remember?). Under the Video tab, uncheck "Automatic" under "Frame Rate". Also uncheck "Keep Original Duration". Now fill in the new framerate we just calculated, 21.42blahblah FPS.
Now click Format Options and select the codec you want. I again used XviD on highest quality, but you can choose whatever you want as long as it works!
Now, the last step for VideoMach: click OK, and click on "File --> Start Processing".After the processing is done, we will (again with the RAD Video Tools Program) check the thing. The number of frames should be the same, but the framerate should be that what we have calculated. Are they? Let's see! (Check time, rocky, bring out the RAD!)
Information: converted and sped up film changed.avi
Frames: 2347
Framerate: 21.42
Length: 2347/21.42 = 109.57 seconds
Windows Media Player Says: 1 minute 49 seconds
Excellent, things went great so far on my side. How did things go over there, rocky? Let me know.
Now, it's judgement time. Let's watch it. Just in case things didn't work for you (I wouldn't be surprised, especially compression can be an a rock to bump on if you convert files for the first time), I've uploaded the file to YouTube here.
Now, my original plan was to calculate the apparent distance with a given time (easily calculatable with a measurable number of frames and known framerate) and given gravity (Earth's gravity, as you claim). Unfortunately, there seems to be nothing gravitational to check whether you're right or wrong. The only actions where gravity can be measured I could find that happen are (1) A little hop that seems to happen just out of screen at 0:11, (2) The grabbing of the cloth at 0:30 in the sped up clip and (3) The throwing away of the cloth at 0:32. We cannot use 1 and 3 because they happen out of screen, and we cannot use 1 and 2 because the astronaut makes the cloth behave differently. This is getting harder than I thought. Of course, there is still the possibility of calculating with some of the falling dust near the astronaut's boots, but I think both you and I have had enough experience with following dust particle trajectories that it is quite near to impossible to do at a resolution of 256x192 pixels.
So, I could start judging it subjectively. I could say something among the lines like "Watch the video, does the astronaut walking look like it's on earth? Look at how he throws away the cloth so easily! That doesn't look like it's on earth at all! Look at the dust falling down! It looks far too slow to be on earth!". But then I would stray off the path of objectivity, and I know how much you hate that. I myself hate it too.
It was at this point where I smacked my forehead and got itchy of frustration. Why didn't I look for things I could use before I did all this effort? Why didn't I analyze that clip a bit more? Why did I assume that this clip can objectively prove something? I've just returned to my keyboard writing this new paragraph, and my head still hurts from frustrations. I could've spend all this time on my hobby, animating. Meh.
So, in the end you could say that with the clip you used it is impossible to either prove or disprove your 70% claim. But just now I got the thought, "Hey! That rocky always pleads for objectivity! I wonder how he objectively determined that the clip was Earth's gravity on 70% speed. So that's why I assumed it could be done objectively!" So here it comes, rocky. Prepare yourself to it.
Rocky, how did you objectively determine it was Earth's gravity played at 70% speed? I, with all my fancy pancy software, couldn't get it done objectively (as you have seen), how could you do it with a internet cafe's computer?
;D 
