Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject: TV Fakery or Technical Ignorance in Action?
The TV fakery claimers are attempting to have the layman viewer accept digital video as if it were optical film and a good representation of what we would see with our eyes. It isn't. Digital video uses resolutions that are way below the standard of images shot on film stock.
A 35mm film frame is approximately 24mm x 36 mm, giving a resolution of between approx. 3.1 and 22.1 megapixels per frame. depending on the fineness of grain of the film. This equates to a file size of between 9 and 63 MB per frame.
http://www.vrphotography.com/data/pages/askexperts/pano/filmvdigpanos. html
A movie is usually filmed at a rate of 24 frames per second. This means that every second, there are 24 complete images displayed on the movie screen.
American and Japanese television uses a format called National Television Standards Committee (NTSC). NTSC displays a total of 30 frames per second; but it does this in a sequence of 60 fields, each of which contains alternating lines of the picture.
From these figures it can be calculated that for an optical quality film we're looking at a data rate of between 270MB and 1.8GB per second,
or to put this into perspective, for a 2 hour film you'd need 35 DVD's at the lower resolution or over 200 DVD's at the higher resolution.
Bear these figures in mind when viewing the 5-10 MB of a web video.
Plainly this is ridiculously unmanageable figure, so digital video uses a process of compression and decompression (a codec to reduce the file size of the light passing through the lens onto the CCD sensor to approx 4 GB per 2 hour film or a single DVD.
A movie is a sequence of still images played back at a constant rate, creating the illusion of movement. With that in mind, it’s not hard to see that each frame or still will be much the same as the previous and the next, with minor differences where objects have moved. Why compress each frame individually, when most of them are essentially the same?
This is where field or temporal codecs come into play. A temporal codec watches how much a video stream changes over time. When a temporal codec compresses a stream, it stores the first frame in its entirety. The next frame is compared to this full frame, and any changes between the two are isolated. Next, the codec compresses only the changes between the first full frame and the next. Because this first frame is essential and holds info needed to decompress the subsequent frames, it’s known as a keyframe. When the codec spots a major difference such as when a movie changes to a different scene, it grabs and compresses another full keyframe.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question596.htm
This is called 'lossy' compression - because a lot of data is lost having been thrown away after being classed as irrelevant. From the figures above, we can determine the huge amount of information that gets discarded.
Frame jitter and frozen fireballs (during a zoom sequence) are video artefact illusions caused by the processes described above.
Now the question is are the TV fakery makers and their supporters aware of these effects (they like to describe themselves as 'film makers' after all, so they certainly should be) and trying to pull the wool over our eyes deliberately in an organised campaign of disinformation, or are they just technically ignorant bozos making wild claims in error?
I'll leave that up to the reader to decide. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 1:59 pm Post subject:
Dogsmilk wrote:
Pack it in with the boring technical facts will you - you're ruining the magic.
Sorry about that DM, but the thing is I might have shortened it too much in the attempt to not be overly technical. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 8:13 am Post subject: Re: TV Fakery or Technical Ignorance in Action?
chek wrote:
From these figures it can be calculated that for an optical quality film we're looking at a data rate of between 270MB and 1.8GB per second,
or to put this into perspective, for a 2 hour film you'd need 35 DVD's at the lower resolution or over 200 DVD's at the higher resolution.
Wouldn't then the higher res version be 24 DVD per minute (based upon 4.7GB per DVD) x 120 minutes for a two hour movie = 2880?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 11:04 am Post subject: Re: TV Fakery or Technical Ignorance in Action?
telecasterisation wrote:
chek wrote:
From these figures it can be calculated that for an optical quality film we're looking at a data rate of between 270MB and 1.8GB per second,
or to put this into perspective, for a 2 hour film you'd need 35 DVD's at the lower resolution or over 200 DVD's at the higher resolution.
Wouldn't then the higher res version be 24 DVD per minute (based upon 4.7GB per DVD) x 120 minutes for a two hour movie = 2880?
Having rechecked my calcs (I knew I should have taken my shoes off) you're absolutely correct TC.
Still, what's a power of 10 error between debaters?
Either way it's beyond my shelf space. Thank you for pointing it out.
Rather than confusing (even myself) with figures, the point I was trying to communicate is that even by lo-resolution optical film standards, the
1600 MB a minute data rate illustrates how much picture information is discarded to reduce it to DVD quality - a rate of approx 40 MB per minute which we generally consider to be very acceptable when viewed under normal operating conditions.
To then throw away 90% of that data again to produce a Youtube video (at approx 4 MB per minute), and it should be plain that we're kidding ourselves that very low resolution video can be analysed frame by frame as if it was optical film. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
I agree... but there's one thing that makes your calculations on data size dubious.
It's unlikely that most cameras there were film cameras, most would have been analogue or digital video. Even those which were film would have been 16mm, not 35mm.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 2:50 pm Post subject:
nomore wrote:
I agree... but there's one thing that makes your calculations on data size dubious.
It's unlikely that most cameras there were film cameras, most would have been analogue or digital video. Even those which were film would have been 16mm, not 35mm.
That's true and a good point. I didn't consider analogue video, because the source files are today most likely available on DVD or Youtube as digital video files (adding another layer of re-compression).
However the principal behind digital video compression (and I used MPEG2 as used in the DVD format to illustrate as a recognisable standard) is the same.
What remains is that DV doesn't necessarily progress sequentially as exposed optical film frames most definitely do, but rather as a time dependent cumulative imaging system which when viewed at the designed frame rate produces a (more or less) acceptable result.
That unexpected image elements would become apparent when examined on a frame by frame basis could almost be predicted. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
I agree... but there's one thing that makes your calculations on data size dubious.
It's unlikely that most cameras there were film cameras, most would have been analogue or digital video. Even those which were film would have been 16mm, not 35mm.
That's true and a good point. I didn't consider analogue video, because the source files are today most likely available on DVD or Youtube as digital video files (adding another layer of re-compression).
However the principal behind digital video compression (and I used MPEG2 as used in the DVD format to illustrate as a recognisable standard) is the same.
What remains is that DV doesn't necessarily progress sequentially as exposed optical film frames most definitely do, but rather as a time dependent cumulative imaging system which when viewed at the designed frame rate produces a (more or less) acceptable result.
That unexpected image elements would become apparent when examined on a frame by frame basis could almost be predicted.
This Chek bloke bangs on and on about all these video cameras being nonsense. They were filming 'planes' not f***ing butterflies! This guy is too much, is he for real?
Anything you throw at him, it's the film. Even The Naudet Brother's stuff, oh blame it on the film, just blame it on the film. _________________ Steven Elvis Jones leads the way
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject:
Just checked that thread from last November nomore; your explanation was simply explained with much less obscuring detail than my attempt.
And yet - whoosh, it apparently went straight over their heads like an airliner at the Pentagon, almost as if they don't want to know. For self proclaimed "researchers" that doesn't quite ring true to me.
On the other hand, it fits the M.O. of a cult like a glove.
But then we knew that already.
One day in the hopefully not too distant future when sanity returns to the world and the papers are released, the history and purpose of NPT will make interesting reading. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
http://911logic.blogspot.com is made by a technically skilled person. If I'm not mistaken, Andrew Lowe Watson is Cambridge-educated and is also musically trained. He has satisfactorily demonstrated fake audio and video tracks used on 9/11.
The shills on this forum the ones trying to persuade people who don't know any better that fake videos are real.
You can even see the equipment they used to create the bad special effects in their own footage. Notice the monitor with the bluescreened background footage.
Professional video and audio engineers agree that the videos are fake. It's the same dedicated shill posse that desperately defends the mainstream media who are trying to mislead the non-technical. I encourage everyone to actually look at the videos. Chek pretends to be some kind of expert.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 8:28 am Post subject:
Fred wrote:
http://911logic.blogspot.com is made by a technically skilled person. If I'm not mistaken, Andrew Lowe Watson is Cambridge-educated and is also musically trained. He has satisfactorily demonstrated fake audio and video tracks used on 9/11.
The shills on this forum the ones trying to persuade people who don't know any better that fake videos are real.
You can even see the equipment they used to create the bad special effects in their own footage. Notice the monitor with the bluescreened background footage.
Professional video and audio engineers agree that the videos are fake. It's the same dedicated shill posse that desperately defends the mainstream media who are trying to mislead the non-technical. I encourage everyone to actually look at the videos. Chek pretends to be some kind of expert.
Professional AV engineer made this one:
[
Many of the "special effects" used on 9/11 are so outrageously bad that only someone like Chek would try to defend the videos.
Whatever Fred - you're complete lack of technical understanding of perspective and what digital video is actually depicting - indeed anything about what you profess to do, shines through regardless of what I or Cambridge educated Andrew Lowe Watson say. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Whatever, indeed. Your text-based campaign of lies is getting you nowhere at all. Meanwhile the technically-skilled people are spreading the word. Why don't you go do us a favor and walk around with a sandwich-board or go work on Tony Blair's campaign to get appointed to the EU or something like that?
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 8:49 am Post subject:
Fred wrote:
Whatever, indeed. Your text-based campaign of lies is getting you nowhere at all. Meanwhile the technically-skilled people are spreading the word. Why don't you go do us a favor and walk around with a sandwich-board or go work on Tony Blair's campaign to get appointed to the EU or something like that?
On the contrary Fred - your video spamming campaign is getting you nowhere at all.
In fact it looks to me like the whole NPT gig is self destructing.
Maybe the spooks pulled the plug - who knows? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
This person that Fred referrs to is certainly not an expert in anything. He's making assumptions based on a low resolution video still, and then using those assumptions as a basis for his argument, and then presenting that as fact. ABSOLUTE RUBBISH!
Example: he says that the plane reflection cannot be there on what looks like a white van.
Well, to me, it looks a lot more like a slanted windsheild on a car, and the man is leaning on the bonet (hood).
And here's a diagram of how that reflection could be made:
1.
Appologies for the crudity. It is not to scale but should help with explaining this. The angle at which something is reflected is equal.
The red line represents light. See how is can reflect off the windshield.
Now look at this:
2
Imagine the black lines are glass or a mirror. The red lines are light. This shows an example of how the relfection angle is the same an entry and exit.
Because the camera in the photo is low and pointing upwards, would it not be just as, if not more probable that this is a windscreen and the reflection was caused by a situation as shown on the right of the second diagram, and not by dodgy video effects.
Also, if the government or whoever went to such a huge amount of effort to fake every single video, wouldn't they make sure that there were not glitches?
Nice try defending the 9/11 perps. They did a poor job on the videos, which is why they need a small army of people like you to defend them. Fortunately people can see right through your crude attempts to defend the mass murder of 3,000 innocent civilians.
Nice try defending the 9/11 perps. They did a poor job on the videos, which is why they need a small army of people like you to defend them. Fortunately people can see right through your crude attempts to defend the mass murder of 3,000 innocent civilians.
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 11:19 am Post subject:
Nomore, don't even waste your time. these guys arguments have been pulled apart time and time again. Simply mock them for being the gullible fools they are. I've lost my rag with all this misinformation _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1025 Location: SW London
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 11:28 am Post subject:
You just posted that on another thread. That is what is called spamming or trolling. I will be putting in a polite request for you to be banned as you have been warned before. fool _________________ "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King
This person that Fred referrs to is certainly not an expert in anything. He's making assumptions based on a low resolution video still, and then using those assumptions as a basis for his argument, and then presenting that as fact. ABSOLUTE RUBBISH!
Example: he says that the plane reflection cannot be there on what looks like a white van.
Well, to me, it looks a lot more like a slanted windsheild on a car, and the man is leaning on the bonet (hood).
Firstly I am not siding with Fred - just making that clear, but;
This is neither a windscreen nor a monitor.
Looking at the top image, yes it could be a windscreen reflection at that point, but the FBI agent then moves back and you can clearly see the shape matches no windscreen configuration.
A monitor? Clearly not as the image goes virtually to the top of 'screen' (last image). No monitor exists that matches this (5.5 years ago) - not to mention, would the 'perps' be doing this in plain sight in a main thoroughfare? The shape is also vastly wrong to be a monitor.
This person that Fred referrs to is certainly not an expert in anything. He's making assumptions based on a low resolution video still, and then using those assumptions as a basis for his argument, and then presenting that as fact. ABSOLUTE RUBBISH!
Example: he says that the plane reflection cannot be there on what looks like a white van.
Well, to me, it looks a lot more like a slanted windsheild on a car, and the man is leaning on the bonet (hood).
Firstly I am not siding with Fred - just making that clear, but;
This is neither a windscreen nor a monitor.
Looking at the top image, yes it could be a windscreen reflection at that point, but the FBI agent then moves back and you can clearly see the shape matches no windscreen configuration.
A monitor? Clearly not as the image goes virtually to the top of 'screen' (last image). No monitor exists that matches this (5.5 years ago) - not to mention, would the 'perps' be doing this in plain sight in a main thoroughfare? The shape is also vastly wrong to be a monitor.
In both of those images, in my opinion, it looks like a windscreen.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
