Shane Warne - Revolutions Per Second

[adharcric]

I had it first, he copied.

He had the idea first.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Was principally referring to Swervy and DB's comments about the FPS ratios of TV cameras - which were incorrectly quoted here and also fail to note the fact that such cameras are no longer exclusive entities.

The actual number of revolutions or frames per second I suggested may be wrong (guess what, I'm not that much of a nerd nor insecure enough to have to look it up), but the fact remains that you were claiming to have done something that was, by definition, impossible.

Of course there are cameras that now shoot something like 1000 frames per second, but that's beside the point. I don't know the name of the thread itself, but as you state what Swerves & I have said is incorrectly quoted here I'm guessing you do. If you provide a link we can all see what you were arguing.

 

[adharcric]

Oh dear, three regular members with the same avatar?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Oh dear, three regular members with the same avatar?

Blame Richard...

 

[Richard]

Oh dear, three regular members with the same avatar?

As I say - may be 4 if Tait lets Cameron down. Otherwise, look forward to 2 weeks sans my multi-coloured

CW.n!

 

[Richard]

The actual number of revolutions or frames per second I suggested may be wrong (guess what, I'm not that much of a nerd nor insecure enough to have to look it up), but the fact remains that you were claiming to have done something that was, by definition, impossible.

Of course there are cameras that now shoot something like 1000 frames per second, but that's beside the point. I don't know the name of the thread itself, but as you state what Swerves & I have said is incorrectly quoted here I'm guessing you do. If you provide a link we can all see what you were arguing.

The thread is this one, and I quite clearly showed how what I was doing was not impossible.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The thread is this one, and I quite clearly showed how what I was doing was not impossible.

Nah. There must've been another. That wasn't it.

 

[Richard]

I assure you, that's the only thread where such discussions were made.

 

[Swervy]

The thread is this one, and I quite clearly showed how what I was doing was not impossible.

heheh..sorry, you didnt show in anyway that what you did was in anyway accurate. It was a laughable debate, because you didnt have a clue about what you were talking about

 

[Richard]

No, you didn't have a clue what I was talking about.

As I said - I'm not completely ignorant of this World of physics.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, your D at 'A' level was clearly much better grounding than Swervy's degree course...

 

[Richard]

It's quite something that you even remember my grade, but it's enough to be able to understand simple things like filmed footage.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, but I can also understand that you cannot say a ball has more revolutions per second than the camera can show.

 

[Richard]

Obviously. It's a shame I made such claims, really. Still doesn't change the measurements I genuinely did make, though.

 

[Swervy]

Obviously. It's a shame I made such claims, really. Still doesn't change the measurements I genuinely did make, though.

haha..it might not change the measurements you made but surely you can see that those measurements you made are about as valid as people claming the world is the centre of the universe, its both arrogant and ignorant to state there is any validity in your measurements...but you know best I guess

 

[cpr]

in fairness, i havent read through ALL the relevant thread, but from the parts i did read (think it pretty much covered the debate) i didnt seem to get the impression that Richard was claiming his research was the be all and end all. He just said that he watched it on a camera with 78fps (cant remember the exact number) and made a calculation, and defended himself for doing it.

Now i think the figures are a bit high personally (mind you, my A level physics is an E, so i'm even worse off). But i have to defend him here, you could measure 80revs/sec on a 78fps camera. If you have a clear mark on the ball that you use to measure from, and you notice the balls doing 1.1 rotations per frame, every frame, then thats 85.8 rev/sec. However, you'd need 2 marks on opposite sides of the ball, because the uneven number of turns a frame would mean for a while the markers on the wrong side of the ball to see. I doubt Richard did this, hence why i'm slightly doubting his results, but the theories there people!

Got to say though, all those slating his measurements.... Lets see your oh so more accurate ones then! He did this for his own sake, put up his results, never claimed they were definate undisputable figures, and everyones slated him without trying to do it better. Again, i'll reiterate, i dont agree with those results, i think there a bit on the high side, but untill i can prove them wrong, i'm not going to slate them, i'll raise my objections in a polite way

 

[Richard]

haha..it might not change the measurements you made but surely you can see that those measurements you made are about as valid as people claming the world is the centre of the universe, its both arrogant and ignorant to state there is any validity in your measurements...but you know best I guess

There's validity in those I did - the Giles and Croft ones. Obviously I can't actually measure revs which are greater than the f-p-s ratio of the footage. But so long as the measurement is less than half the frequency (in this case the f-p-s) it can be a valid one.

And once the hi-motion cameras come into more regular effect, I've genuine hope that revs-per-second will become as much of a standard part of the coverage as the speed of the ball.

 

[Swervy]

in fairness, i havent read through ALL the relevant thread, but from the parts i did read (think it pretty much covered the debate) i didnt seem to get the impression that Richard was claiming his research was the be all and end all. He just said that he watched it on a camera with 78fps (cant remember the exact number) and made a calculation, and defended himself for doing it.

Now i think the figures are a bit high personally (mind you, my A level physics is an E, so i'm even worse off). But i have to defend him here, you could measure 80revs/sec on a 78fps camera. If you have a clear mark on the ball that you use to measure from, and you notice the balls doing 1.1 rotations per frame, every frame, then thats 85.8 rev/sec. However, you'd need 2 marks on opposite sides of the ball, because the uneven number of turns a frame would mean for a while the markers on the wrong side of the ball to see. I doubt Richard did this, hence why i'm slightly doubting his results, but the theories there people!

Got to say though, all those slating his measurements.... Lets see your oh so more accurate ones then! He did this for his own sake, put up his results, never claimed they were definate undisputable figures, and everyones slated him without trying to do it better. Again, i'll reiterate, i dont agree with those results, i think there a bit on the high side, but untill i can prove them wrong, i'm not going to slate them, i'll raise my objections in a polite way

maybe you should read it then...he was making statements about players in a way that made out it was based on fact, when really there was no fact about it.

It is perefctly reasonable to question how he came up with these figures. Instead of completely dismissing the idea of it, he was given a chance to tell us how he did it.

It is therefore completely reasonable for people then to tell him why it was not a valid way of coming to the conclusions he did.

It would appear that Richard has now acknowledged that given the fps etc that the claims he made werent right. If only he had realised that when people who pretty obviously knew that what he had done was a waste of time tried telling him that.

I am glad to see Richard has developed a slight taste for humble pie (to go along with his keyboard) and slightly (ever so slightly mind) back down on that one

In answer to this though: I have no inclination to waste my time doing it because it simply cannot be done accurately by videoing it off TV and then slowing it down etc

 

[Swervy]

And once the hi-motion cameras come into more regular effect, I've genuine hope that revs-per-second will become as much of a standard part of the coverage as the speed of the ball.

Thats fair do's, yeah maybe it will, despite a number of inherent problems involved with it, but yes I can see some validity in it

 

[Richard]

maybe you should read it then...he was making statements about players in a way that made out it was based on fact, when really there was no fact about it.

It is perefctly reasonable to question how he came up with these figures. Instead of completely dismissing the idea of it, he was given a chance to tell us how he did it.

It is therefore completely reasonable for people then to tell him why it was not a valid way of coming to the conclusions he did.

It would appear that Richard has now acknowledged that given the fps etc that the claims he made werent right. If only he had realised that when people who pretty obviously knew that what he had done was a waste of time tried telling him that.

I am glad to see Richard has developed a slight taste for humble pie (to go along with his keyboard) and slightly (ever so slightly mind) back down on that one

'S'not really humble-pie, it's just admitting one's mistakes, and it's certainly not a case of developing it, it's just a case of having the chance to display it.