Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

[femr2]

A suggestion - femr2 could point readers to instances where "fps" is commonly used to discuss "fields per second," since that's how he has used it here.

I've used it for both fields and frames.

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/FPS

 

[fitzgibbon]

As I've said numerous times...a field is only a field whilst it is within the frame container.

A field is a moment in time. A frame is two sequential ones. Don't conflate the two.

It's such a small point that unless there is some reason to elaborate... I suggest everyone is clear.

It's a small point but central. If you can't stop yourself from using two terms interchangeably that aren't interchangeable, how can you expect to be taken seriously insofar as accuracy and clarity is concerned?

 

[femr2]

Posters, express your opinion about ae's suggestion that this post be moved.

If the majority vote is to move, I'll request that from the mods.


tom

I say nay. You created it here, and here it should stay.

(A rather pointless mechanism don't you think ? Majority ? Hmmm.)

If there's nothing to add, that's fine.

It's directly linked to other discussions in this sub-forum, such as the OOS and Physics Toolkit threads.

To move it because no-one is talking about space-beams and supernanothermiate is no cause to shuffle it aside.

There has been accusation after accusation directed towards me of being deliberately misleading, lying, etc etc etc, and this thread stands as a testiment not only to my eternal patience but also to how wrong those accusations are.

 

[femr2]

A field is a moment in time. A frame is two sequential ones. Don't conflate the two.

Only an interlaced frame contains two sequential moments in time (and even that depends upon the method of interlace, pulldown for example)

It's a small point but central.

Not at all. It is utterly clear that I deinterlace interlaced video and generate 59.94 sample per second trace data from 29.97 frame per second interlaced video data.

Everything else in the field/frame *debate* is irrelevant minutia and nit-picking about term usage, all of which, however confused others may get about it, is fine and dandy.

If you can't stop yourself from using two terms interchangeably that aren't interchangeable

They are interchangeable in many contexts.

 

[beachnut]

...
Everything else in the field/frame *debate* is irrelevant minutia and nit-picking about term usage, all of which, however confused others may get about it, is fine and dandy.


They are interchangeable in many contexts.

Good for you, make it up as you go. How does this dovetail to your CD delusion you keep pushing?

 

[fitzgibbon]

A field is a moment in time. A frame is two sequential ones. Don't conflate the two.

Only an interlaced frame contains two sequential moments in time...

And what's the origin of the video you're sourcing? Hmmmm? Yessss! That's right! It's interlaced NTSC video! All 59.94 fields/29.97 frames per second of it.

When in Rome....

(and even that depends upon the method of interlace, pulldown for example)

3:2 pulldown? Tell me you aren't talking telecine film transfer FFS. The signal origin in interlaced NTSC video which consists of two sequential fields of 1/59.94 of a second duration. That brackets, limits and applies certain inflexible meanings to words in this discussion and you don't get to play Humpty Dumpty.

It's a small point but central.

Not at all. It is utterly clear that I deinterlace interlaced video and generate 59.94 sample per second trace data from 29.97 frame per second interlaced video data.

Everything else is irrelevant minutia and nit-picking about term usage, all of which, however confused others may get about it, is fine and dandy.

The data of which you then turn around and refer to interchangeably as "fields" or "frames" as the mood seems to suit. And then you scoff when television professionals repeatedly point out your inclarity. Instead of you simply saying 'Oops! My bad!', you continue on your merry way making the self-same conflation again and again and again.

And you insist on being taken seriously concerning accuracy when you won't even address a simple error on your part. WTF are you gonna do when someone points out a whopper?

If you can't stop yourself from using two terms interchangeably that aren't interchangeable, how can you expect to be taken seriously insofar as accuracy and clarity is concerned?

They are interchangeable in many contexts.

This is not one of them. Deal with it.

 

[femr2]

And what's the origin of the video you're sourcing? Hmmmm? Yessss! That's right! It's interlaced NTSC video! All 59.94 fields/29.97 frames per second of it.

...which gets deinterlaced before I touch it. No interlaced frames, no fields, all frames.

Again, I've made it clear that context affects term applicability.

3:2 pulldown? Tell me you aren't talking telecine film transfer FFS. The signal origin in interlaced NTSC video which consists of two sequential fields of 1/59.94 of a second duration. That brackets, limits and applies certain inflexible meanings to words in this discussion and you don't get to play Humpty Dumpty.

I was informing you that even an interlaced frame can contain two identical points in time, and that includes certain NTSC encodings. But yes, 3:2 pulldown is a specific example. Numeours *911* video in interlace form suffers from field-doubling, frame-doubling, ...all manner of problems, especially when sourced in mpeg-2 containers which encoders are very lazy about correct flag usage.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I was informing you that even an interlaced frame can contain two identical points in time,

Not a real-time recording/playback of an event, it can't. Each field is separated in its capture by 1/59.94th of a second. Hence, your judder between field 1 & field 2 of that frame you thought you were being oh-so-tricky with. There may be a spatial separation between the same object as seen in two different fames (and to a certain degree, two different fields) but there's always a temporal separation. Always.

 

[femr2]

Not a real-time recording/playback of an event, it can't.

Correct. (with any decent camera)

there's always a temporal separation. Always.

Real-time original recording, correct. Video file that has passed through unknown number of recodes in unknown number of formats, potentially incorrect, not always. Even encoding the video in something like Sony Vegas with a framerate which doesn't match the original will result in all manner of frame content issues in relation to the original (including a field itself containing image data from any number of separate points in time).

Again, all of this is utterly irrelevant.

I use video in deinterlaced form. No interlaced frames, no fields, all frames. Dan Rather...59.94 images per second video...59.94 sample per second trace data was released.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Video file that has passed through unknown number of recodes in unknown number of formats, potentially incorrect,

Giving rise to that wonderful computer acronym: GIGO.

Pretty succinct summation of the thread thus far I'd posit.

 

[femr2]

Giving rise to that wonderful computer acronym: GIGO.

Containing enough detail to match the NIST moire method in detection of +/- 1 inch movement...

Pretty succinct summation of the thread thus far I'd posit.

No-one is forcing your continued participation.

 

[fitzgibbon]

No-one is forcing your continued participation.

Just keep calling 1/59.94th of an NTSC second a field and I couldn't be bothered with you,

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[femr2]

Just keep calling 1/59.94th of an NTSC second a field and I couldn't be bothered with you,

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to modded post.

I'd hazard a guess that's not quite what you mean't to say, but no worries

As I said, no-one is forcing your continued participation.

 

[carlitos]

I've used it for both fields and frames.

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/FPS

Yes, you have. Given that (my limited knowledge of video is a given) my understanding of the acronym has always been "frames per second," perhaps you could re-read my comment:

femr2 could point readers to instances where "fps" is commonly used to discuss "fields per second," since that's how he has used it here.

For clarity's sake, since I know that's something you strive for, I mean "hey dude, why don't you link to some video chat board or other video nerd type of source where a bunch of dudes are using "fps" to mean "fields per second."

 

[femr2]

For clarity's sake, since I know that's something you strive for, I mean "hey dude, why don't you link to some video chat board or other video nerd type of source where a bunch of dudes are using "fps" to mean "fields per second."

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/46726_framesimages-per-second
http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-822662.html
http://www.drastictech.com/wp_compression.html
http://tangentsoft.net/video/glossary.html
http://everything2.com/title/FPS
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?t=49777
etc...

 

[carlitos]

Thanks femr2. Again, my experience with video has been hiring someone to make one, so I have only touched on these concepts in passing. That said, from your last source:

fps - Frames or (less commonly) fields per second. If context doesn't provide a clue, you can usually assume that "fps" means frames per second.

This viewed in contrast with the following gives me pause as to whether you really seek clarity.

You've said this.
Now prove it.

It was recorded by a US camera, broadcast on US TV, per NTSC standards.
Standards which use 30 frames/sec.
Not 60 frames/sec.

Only one definition of "frame" to a customer ...

Yawn. Already have, numerous times. Re-read the thread.

If you still don't understand, given the ridiculous amount of detail already provided to you, there is no hope for you.

If you think your TV displays 30fps...lol

Really, though. Would you consider posting what the point of all of this is? Do you really expect people to believe that you are analyzing video for the sake of analyzing video more accurately? Really, there is no goal at all?

 

[femr2]

from your last source:

fps - Frames or (less commonly) fields per second. If context doesn't provide a clue, you can usually assume that "fps" means frames per second.

And from the others...

FPS in the video sense is actually Fields Per Second - there are two fields per frame. So your frames per second is actually half of your FPS. This applies to standard NTSC video. When you move into the territory of PC games and such things become quite a bit more convuluted. But if you ever see a game featured as running at 60 fps, but are confused as to how this can be when video only runs at about 30 frames per second, this is why.

so there's no standard, it could be 24 30 50 60 FPS.

Be very very careful when you use the term FPS. It's ambiguous.

At 24, 29.97 or 30, it generally means frames per second.

At 48, 50 or 60, it generally means fields per second

Am I *very very careful* with the acronym ? Not especially. I use it far too often to worry about it. I find the entire frame/field subject pretty trivial.

This viewed in contrast with the following gives me pause as to whether you really seek clarity.

If you think your TV displays 30fps

(Trimmed your post down)

From the above, 30fps generally refers to frames, 60fps generally refers to fields (unless we go off tangent and throw progressive in the pot. Nah.)

I've repeatedly said there's a lot of interchange between the terms, and you can see that it's not something I'm inventing. It's fairly common practice.

August I think it was that I made it clear that I'd switch between them depending upon context.

I've explained it many a time, but do object to folk saying repeatedly *you're wrong*, when I know I'm not

Mix and match minefield. Call 'em images or pictures.

The whole frame/field context depends upon *when* you refer to each image, or your prior knowledge of their original container. Such a waste of time arguing about it when folk want a one-liner *this is an orange* end result.

Would you consider posting what the point of all of this is?

Posted (and reposted) not long ago...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6449078&postcount=559

 

[tsig]

Thanks femr2. Again, my experience with video has been hiring someone to make one, so I have only touched on these concepts in passing. That said, from your last source:


This viewed in contrast with the following gives me pause as to whether you really seek clarity.


Really, though. Would you consider posting what the point of all of this is? Do you really expect people to believe that you are analyzing video for the sake of analyzing video more accurately? Really, there is no goal at all?

What goes up must come down
spinning wheel got to go round
Talking about your troubles it's a crying sin
Ride a painted pony
Let the spinning wheel spin

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric....-sweat-tears/4c9706c48c2ceb8a48256dc7002e11b1


Seems to sum it up.

 

[tsig]

And from the others...


Am I *very very careful* with the acronym ? Not especially. I use it far too often to worry about it. I find the entire frame/field subject pretty trivial.


(Trimmed your post down)

From the above, 30fps generally refers to frames, 60fps generally refers to fields (unless we go off tangent and throw progressive in the pot. Nah.)

I've repeatedly said there's a lot of interchange between the terms, and you can see that it's not something I'm inventing. It's fairly common practice.

August I think it was that I made it clear that I'd switch between them depending upon context.

I've explained it many a time, but do object to folk saying repeatedly *you're wrong*, when I know I'm not

Mix and match minefield. Call 'em images or pictures.

The whole frame/field context depends upon *when* you refer to each image, or your prior knowledge of their original container. Such a waste of time arguing about it when folk want a one-liner *this is an orange* end result.


Posted (and reposted) not long ago...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6449078&postcount=559

So some people do crosswords you analyze this video.

 

[tsig]

Thanks femr2. Again, my experience with video has been hiring someone to make one, so I have only touched on these concepts in passing. That said, from your last source:


This viewed in contrast with the following gives me pause as to whether you really seek clarity.


Really, though. Would you consider posting what the point of all of this is? Do you really expect people to believe that you are analyzing video for the sake of analyzing video more accurately? Really, there is no goal at all?

Well, there's this:


By understanding the effect of these parameters upon the collapse time and energetics, and experimenting with multiple options, the user should be able to reach an informed personal opinion as to whether the events witnessed on that tragic day point to a gravity driven collapse, or a controlled demolition.


http://femr2.ucoz.com/