The NIST data suffers from the following (non-exhaustive) series of technical issues, each of which reduce the quality, validity and relevance of the data in various measures...
- NIST did not deinterlace their source video. This has two main detrimental effects: 1) Each image they look at is actually a composite of two separate points in time, and 2) Instant halving of the number of frames available...half the available video data information. Tracing features using interlaced video is a really bad idea, especially for features changing vertical position. I have gone into detail on issues related to tracing of features using interlaced video data previously.
- NIST did not sample every frame, reducing the sampling rate considerably and reducing available data redundancy for the purposes of noise reduction and derivation of velocity and acceleration profile data.
- NIST used an inconsistent inter-sample time-step, skipping roughly every 56 out of 60 available unique images. They ignored over 90% of the available positional data.
- NIST likely used a manual (by hand-eye) tracking process using two single pixel columns, rather than a tried and tested feature tracking method such as those provided in systems such as SynthEyes. Manual tracking introduces a raft of accuracy issues. Feature tracking systems such as SynthEyes employ an automated region-based system which entails upscaling of the target region, application of LancZos3 filtering and pattern matching (with FOM) to provide a sub-pixel accurate relative location of initial feature pattern in subsequent frames in video.
- NIST tracked the *roofline* using a pixel column, rather than an actual feature of the building. This means that the trace is not actually of a point of the building, as the building does not descend completely vertically. This means the tracked pixel column is actually a rather meaningless point on the roofline which wanders left and right as the building moves East and West.
- NIST chose an initial trace location which precluded starting the trace before the East Penthouse had already descended (as the East Penthouse obscured their trace location). Consequently they no way of gathering early motion data, or quantifying long term noise levels.
- NIST used the Cam#3 viewpoint which includes significant perspective effects (such as early motion being north-south rather than up-down and yet appearing to be vertical motion). It also means that each horizontal position across the facade requires calculation of a unique scaling metric, which NIST did not bother to do.
- NIST did not perform perspective correction upon the resultant trace data.
- NIST did not recognise that the initial movement at their chosen pixel column was primarily north-south movement resulting from twisting of the building before the release point of the north facade.
- NIST did not perform static point extraction (H, V). Even when the camera appears static, there is still (at least) fine movement. Subtraction of static point movement from trace data significantly reduces camera shake noise, and so reduces track data noise.
- NIST did not choose a track point which could actually be identified from the beginning to the end of the trace, and so they needed to splice together information from separate points. Without perspective correction the scaling metrics for these two points resulted in data skewing, especially of the early motion.
- NIST performed only a linear approximation for acceleration, choosing not to further derive their chosen displacement function.
- NISTs displacement function, if derived to obtain acceleration/time contains a ~1s period of over-g acceleration. Whilst that in itself is fine, it's at the wrong time, and in their conclusions they ignore it.
- NISTs displacement function, if derived to obtain acceleration/time does not suggest a 2.25s period of roughly gravitational acceleration.
- The displacement data appears to have been extracted initially from the T0 pixel column, but using the scaling factor determined for a point above Region B, further skewing the displacement data.
I'll dig you out a similar raft of issues with the Chandler data, many of which I have personally discussed with him. He's not bothered to resolve any, though of course he cannot reject any of the criticism, as it's all 100% valid.
Suggest you "get a grip" young man.
Last edited:
