Join 3,497 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggglllllllllle
April 24, 2009 11:11 AM   Subscribe

This is what cheerleaders and jello look like at 1000 frames per second. (For comparison, standard film is shot at 24 fps, and animation at 30 fps.)
posted by ocherdraco (122 comments total) 80 users marked this as a favorite

 
The fire breather was pretty awesome to see.
posted by Dr-Baa at 11:16 AM on April 24, 2009


...and it's also what half-naked nicely built men (without iPhones, I note) look like in very slow motion. One of the most beautiful videos I've seen in a long time (even without the naked mens), and WOW, do I really want one of those cameras!

I could NEVER afford one, but still...
posted by hippybear at 11:17 AM on April 24, 2009


See, you should have specified that it wasn't cheerleaders and jello TOGETHER.

So, while this is pretty cool, it could never be as cool as I thought it was going to be.
posted by fusinski at 11:18 AM on April 24, 2009 [21 favorites]


Incredible. That jello hung in the air forever.
posted by hifiparasol at 11:18 AM on April 24, 2009 [7 favorites]


Wait, animation is shot at 30fps? I don't know about CGI, but I'm pretty sure most hand-drawn animation is shot at 24fps.

Great video!
posted by archagon at 11:19 AM on April 24, 2009


It's been a few weeks since there was a FPP I wanted to hate, but actually loved. This rocks. Thanks. (It also reminds me that I ought to start recording Time Warp sometime.)
posted by uncleozzy at 11:21 AM on April 24, 2009


30 fps was how I learned to do stop motion. A quick goog shows that frame rates vary.

Variety, spice of life, &c.
posted by ocherdraco at 11:21 AM on April 24, 2009


Is this the camera (or frame per second) that they use for the NBA commercials?
posted by spec80 at 11:21 AM on April 24, 2009


Also, Metallica are, apparently, super-creepy at 2000 frames per second.
posted by uncleozzy at 11:23 AM on April 24, 2009


So this is 1000 fps played back at...what? 1fps? Or something else?
posted by jourman2 at 11:24 AM on April 24, 2009


You do know that there are certain rules about mentioning cheerleaders and jello in the same sentence, right...?
posted by twine42 at 11:24 AM on April 24, 2009


This is what I love about comics, the ability to break down and control time to into controlled slices, while still keeping illusion of motion.

And the spandex.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:25 AM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


The long flowing hair was mesmerizing, as was the fire.
posted by Mick at 11:25 AM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


jourman2: this is 1000fps played back at 24fps, I believe...
posted by hippybear at 11:26 AM on April 24, 2009


And the jello is f-n awesome.
posted by jourman2 at 11:26 AM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


What are groups of cheerleaders called? A bounce of cheerleaders? A jiggle? A very very slooooooow spin of cheerleaders?

Pretty neat in any case.
posted by elendil71 at 11:26 AM on April 24, 2009


As an American, I am now more confused about what the hell rugby is than ever.
posted by Juliet Banana at 11:28 AM on April 24, 2009 [15 favorites]


From Wikipedia: "Moving characters are often shot "on twos", that is to say, one drawing is shown for every two frames of film (which usually runs at 24 frames per second), meaning there are only 12 drawings per second."
posted by archagon at 11:28 AM on April 24, 2009


It'd be interesting to see this at a normal frame rate, to compare what you'd notice in real time and what you can pick up in super slow motion.

Here's a quick display of stop-motion at 15 fps. It looks artificial, but you'd assume as much from legos, so you can let it go.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:28 AM on April 24, 2009


See also
posted by DU at 11:29 AM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


See, you should have specified that it wasn't cheerleaders and jello TOGETHER.

I think that would have been 1000 faps per second.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 11:29 AM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


for clarification on the confusion above : 30fps is the frame rate of NTSC television, and 24fps is the frame rate of film. Animation for NTSC television *might* be made at 30fps, but it rarely actually is - usually even high quality hand animation is shot "on doubles" - ie.15fps except for high speed or action sequences which might go to 30fps. Most modern hand animation for TV is considerably lower frame rates to save money. CGI is usually rendered at the full 30fps for NTSC (or 25fps for PAL) because it doesn't really require any more work (just more processing time).
posted by silence at 11:30 AM on April 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


Clarification: hand-drawn and stop-motion animation is usually shot "on twos" - computer animation changes everything, because there isn't the same value on each individual frame.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:30 AM on April 24, 2009


I could NEVER afford one, but still...

if it's just electronics, I don't see why not, eventually.

The functionality of today's PS3 would set you back maybe tens of millions of dollars to build in the early 90s.

Though looking at the beast I see the camera is pretty big so I wouldn't expect it in a cameraphone this decade, but maybe next!
posted by mrt at 11:30 AM on April 24, 2009


You know how digital cameras got cheap enough everyone could get one and the first thing they did was run around taking really close up shots of everything?

In just a few years video recorders like this are going to get dirt cheap and the net is going to get flooded with videos of people dropping stuff in slow motion to watch them shatter. (That and faces jiggling about like mad.) You mark my words.
posted by aspo at 11:31 AM on April 24, 2009 [4 favorites]


My God, the jello looked more alive than the cheerleaders.
posted by yhbc at 11:34 AM on April 24, 2009 [7 favorites]


What are groups of cheerleaders called?

I like your suggestions, but the actual term is "squad of cheerleaders."
posted by hippybear at 11:34 AM on April 24, 2009


Interesting that they seem to be using natural lighting. Usually slow-motion requires very bright direct lighting, so the subjects are clearly THE subject, and the backgrounds are either close-in or end up blacked out. It tends to give it a distinctive look.
posted by smackfu at 11:35 AM on April 24, 2009


mrt: Yes, I think I meant, at this juncture, no matter how hard I tried, I could not possibly raise the funds to afford one of these cameras. Sort of a short-term "never". Not the Eternal Never.
posted by hippybear at 11:36 AM on April 24, 2009


Wait -- MEN play field hockey? I'm amazed.
posted by maudlin at 11:39 AM on April 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


smackfu: this is new technology, basically a broadcast-quality HD television camera... only with huge framerate capabilities.
posted by hippybear at 11:40 AM on April 24, 2009


Nice post, thanks....
posted by HuronBob at 11:42 AM on April 24, 2009


They look like a broken website, apparently.
posted by jquinby at 11:43 AM on April 24, 2009


I came in to say what maudlin said. Men... playing field hockey? WTF?
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 11:44 AM on April 24, 2009


My favourite post title of the year so far anyway.
posted by fire&wings at 11:44 AM on April 24, 2009


jquinby, try again. It's working fine for me.
posted by ocherdraco at 11:47 AM on April 24, 2009


> Wait, animation is shot at 30fps?

Depends on the destination: I'd assume most For TV animation was done at 30FPS since SD tv is 30fps (60fps interlaced), while film is 24fps (actually, 72 fps, but each frame is printed 3 times).

Now with HD, there isn't really much difference. And if you have a 120hz set, you can do everything without any crazy pull downs.
posted by mrzarquon at 11:49 AM on April 24, 2009


The video gave me a contact high.
posted by The Whelk at 11:49 AM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


Metallica: Super-creepy at any speed.

---

Also, that jello was awesome - both the hang time and HOLY CATS, JELLO HAS SHADOWS!
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:50 AM on April 24, 2009 [3 favorites]


There are more example shots at the camera's home page. And you can pick one up for about $9,000 for your OB unit.

PS: I thought that there were already some 1,000fps HD cameras at the domestic end of the product range. Would be interested to know how they compare.
posted by rongorongo at 11:51 AM on April 24, 2009


Beautiful... thanks for posting!
posted by kimdog at 11:51 AM on April 24, 2009


On the consumer end of this, there's the Casio FH20, which is supposed to do 1000 FPS too. Not sure how well it compares to this; obviously you won't get the superclean images and creamy background blur we're seeing here.
posted by echo target at 11:51 AM on April 24, 2009


Most animation pros work around 24fps; all our timing lore comes down like that because almost all our great work was done after the cinemas standardized on that. As is mentioned above, we shoot "on twos" a lot, in even the most lavish big-budget theatrical works - it saves a TON of work. Eastern animation stretches the drawings out a lot further, often going for threes or fours.

Animation for television used to be shot on film then telecined for video, same as any other reel of film. These days it's still timed out as if it were being done for that process, even though it's being inked, painted, composited, and possibly even all drawn on a computer. Those six extra frames a second don't make a difference to the untrained eye, and they add up to a LOT more work over the course of a picture.

If you're doing stop-motion with your consumer-grade video camera working at 30fps may be easier, but all the pros are gonna be working at 24.
posted by egypturnash at 11:53 AM on April 24, 2009 [3 favorites]


Field Hockey: Unsafe at any speed.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:55 AM on April 24, 2009


Ron English Cowgirl SloMo (NSFW)
posted by The Whelk at 11:57 AM on April 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


Also, wow, thanks Ochredraco, that was gorgeous.
posted by egypturnash at 12:00 PM on April 24, 2009


I played rugby during the year I spent in England as a boy. I didn't understand it, so I just kicked other kids in the shins, and everybody seemed okay with that. I also found cricket bewildering, and shin-kicking didn't seem appreciated there. Feeling were mixed when I played soccer.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:03 PM on April 24, 2009 [12 favorites]


Evidently, Discovery channel is going to have (does? I don't have cable) a show dedicated to slo-mo:
Time Warp, lots of clips on their web site.
posted by 445supermag at 12:05 PM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


On re-load: Holy mackeral.
posted by jquinby at 12:06 PM on April 24, 2009


Men's Field Hockey -- Olymic Teams (since 1908)
posted by ericb at 12:08 PM on April 24, 2009


All I know about rugby is that dudes beat each other about and occasionally throw a teammate 20 feet into the air, and that's good enough for me.
posted by echo target at 12:08 PM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


My phone (LG Viewty) does a similar thing - shoots at 120fps and plays back at 24fps. Pretty cool to play around with, even if the quality isn't great.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 12:08 PM on April 24, 2009


That jello is awesome. What ray tracer did they use?
posted by Laen at 12:08 PM on April 24, 2009


That was worth it for the fire breather and the jello.
posted by graventy at 12:09 PM on April 24, 2009


How many seconds in the video correspond to 1 second real time (i.e. how long does it take for them to show 1000 frames)? Cool video!! I liked the Koosh ball the best.
posted by bluefly at 12:12 PM on April 24, 2009


Going by a 24:1000 ratio, 1 second realtime on this camera takes just under 42 seconds to play back.
posted by echo target at 12:15 PM on April 24, 2009


creamy background blur

Could I have that served over strawberries, maybe on a nice bed of poundcake?
posted by hippybear at 12:17 PM on April 24, 2009


Seconding The Whelk. I had subtle sensations of tripping. Thanks for sharing this, ochredraco.
posted by barrett caulk at 12:18 PM on April 24, 2009


I never knew jello could levitate. Do its internal jigglings somehow counteract gravity? This is technology we could stand to utilize.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 12:20 PM on April 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


this just looked like regular speed video to me.

I think I need a faster computer.
posted by Lucinda at 12:23 PM on April 24, 2009


I came for the cheerleaders, but jello stole the show! Never knew it could bounce like that.
posted by Kevin Street at 12:24 PM on April 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


Pretty cool, the jello really seemed reluctant to give in to gravity.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:31 PM on April 24, 2009 [4 favorites]


And all to a cool cover of a Frank Zappa tune!
posted by Saxon Kane at 12:33 PM on April 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


All I know about rugby is that dudes beat each other about and occasionally throw a teammate 20 feet into the air, and that's good enough for me.

Add that the ball has to go backwards when passed out of hand and you're pretty much there.

I think it's kind of awesome that Stades' away shirts are pink.

The jelly is just plain amazing.
posted by Ramo at 12:33 PM on April 24, 2009


I was disappointed to see the post title applied to the jello, not the cheerleaders.
posted by spamguy at 12:38 PM on April 24, 2009


> Evidently, Discovery channel is going to have (does? I don't have cable) a show dedicated to slo-mo:

Yup, I haven't seen it air yet, but it looks interesting.

Also, I have to say, probably the cheapest show ever to produce for the Discovery channel. I imagine the show pitch went like this:

Guy: So, I have I idea for a tv show.
Exec: Go on
Guy: Well, it will feature me being punched in the face, stomach, and other ridiculous stunts..
Exec: Wait? We are the Discover Channel, not MTV. Isn't this just Asshole?
Guy: Well, it will also features dogs and cats doing backflips.
Exec: uhh
Guy: Oh, yeah, it will all be shot using Slow Motion cameras. Usually at 1/40th speed, so really we just need to shoot a minute of video to make around a 40 minute show, with some exposition dialog. And a highspeed camera. And some jello.
Exec: Sold!
Guy: Great, I'll go get my cat!
posted by mrzarquon at 12:40 PM on April 24, 2009 [10 favorites]


30fps is the frame rate of NTSC television

29.97. This is Metafilter, dammit. There's no fucking excuse for error as big as 0.1%.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:41 PM on April 24, 2009 [9 favorites]


Yup, I haven't seen it air yet, but it looks interesting.

It's awesome, but really only in HD. I've watched it on-demand in standard def, and it's just not the same. In HD, though, it's spectacular. Really, really spectacular.
posted by uncleozzy at 12:44 PM on April 24, 2009


Wow, the jello was so crazy. Weird how slowing it down like that totally messes with your intuition about how it should be responding to gravity. I feel like if it were just slowed down a little I would be able to do the math and understand when it should fall back down again, but watching this clip I was totally off.
posted by yarrow at 12:54 PM on April 24, 2009


Amen to the cool Zappa cover... not bad.
(Oh, yeah, the video was OK too :)
posted by Drasher at 1:02 PM on April 24, 2009


So Jello has a limited hovering capability, is the takeaway from that.
posted by anazgnos at 1:03 PM on April 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


Interestingly, the discovery channel show also seems to feature fire breathing, cheerleaders and shirtless guys...
posted by 445supermag at 1:05 PM on April 24, 2009


The jello was brilliant. It occurred to me that it could completely revolutionize bad horror movie special effects; there's no need for CGI if you can just carve your monsters out of jello, set them bouncing and then splice the footage in somehow. I really wanted to draw a little face on it and watch it bounce. A face with fangs.
posted by mygothlaundry at 1:05 PM on April 24, 2009 [3 favorites]


This was so unnerving, especially at the beginning before I got used to it. It was like I was seeing Things We Are Not Meant to See.
posted by The corpse in the library at 1:05 PM on April 24, 2009 [7 favorites]


Ron English Cowgirl SloMo (NSFW)

And not because of the nudity; it's more the OMFG factor.
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 1:07 PM on April 24, 2009


Interestingly, the discovery channel show also seems to feature fire breathing, cheerleaders and shirtless guys...

And a really annoying narrator.
posted by 6550 at 1:16 PM on April 24, 2009


Interestingly, the discovery channel show also seems to feature fire breathing, cheerleaders and shirtless guys...

And a really annoying narrator.


That's nearly EVERY discovery channel show, isn't it?

Have they managed to reduce the actual content in their 60-minute shows to under 40 minutes yet? Last I watched, there were 20 minutes of commercials in an hour, and I pretty much decided the signal to noise ratio was getting too close to 1:1 for my taste.
posted by hippybear at 1:26 PM on April 24, 2009


That's nearly EVERY discovery channel show, isn't it?

This guy even stands out in his obnoxiousness among the other Discovery narrators.

That's why Tivo exists. Or watching the shows online.
posted by 6550 at 1:38 PM on April 24, 2009


So cool.

I want to rent one of these for an afternoon just to shoot a 3 minute reel of my goldfish.
!!!
posted by JBennett at 1:41 PM on April 24, 2009


Have they managed to reduce the actual content in their 60-minute shows to under 40 minutes yet?

Interesting sidenote is that Time Warp is a 30-minute show, that is always shown in pairs. I guess Discovery figured they would have more flexibility that way. But yes, it manages to waste even more time with two intros and two sets of credits and I wouldn't be surprised if each part had less than 20 minutes of content.
posted by smackfu at 2:00 PM on April 24, 2009


What's amazing about the jello is that you can watch the compression wave rising up through it after it hits the ground, and not until the wave reaches the top does it bounce up again. It wouldn't have occurred to me that that's how the physics work there.

That and that shaggy green bouncing thing right before the jello. Do not bring one of those around me if I'm tripping. It is clearly alive and probably untrustworthy.
posted by nebulawindphone at 2:09 PM on April 24, 2009 [7 favorites]


Hey mrzarquon. I've seen that show and it's produced by actionfigure
posted by djrock3k at 2:11 PM on April 24, 2009 [2 favorites]


The shaggy green bouncing thing reminded me of something from Princess Mononoke that crawls out of the forest.
posted by mecran01 at 2:18 PM on April 24, 2009


Will someone please buy this camera and shoot whipped cream coming out of the can? Because I think that would be awesome.
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 2:24 PM on April 24, 2009


Of course, you can slow it down even more with by having a computer interpolate the frames (creating extra 'smoothness')
posted by delmoi at 2:27 PM on April 24, 2009


Slow motion sneezes. Without the sound on, it all looks vaguely erotic, until about the 55s mark. Then the ewwww factor sets in.
posted by ooga_booga at 2:31 PM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


uncleozzy : (It also reminds me that I ought to start recording Time Warp sometime.)

I would strongly recommend this show to anyone here. The hosts are ok, but it really is at its very best when everyone shuts up and they just let the film speak for itself.

It's nothing short of amazing. Stuff that is incredibly mundane, like a bubble or a balloon popping suddenly becomes an education in physics, and more complex things, like skateboard stunts or person pole-vaulting reveal that what you thought was a complicated trick was no where near as sophisticated as what is actually happening.

It's pretty much hypnotic crack for an hour each week.
posted by quin at 2:50 PM on April 24, 2009


Can someone tell me what's going on with the shirtless guys in short shorts at the beginning? And they all appear to have their hands down the front of their shorts if I'm not mistaken.
posted by pantsonsteven at 2:53 PM on April 24, 2009


> Hey mrzarquon. I've seen that show and it's produced by actionfigure

Awesome. I went to find the story about it, which from here, is this:

Punch This
December 3, 2007
what happens when director Mark Miks gets his hands on a Phantom HD camera and has a little time on his hands? he lines up the action figure crew one by one and has his way with them...

Punches

(Yow! to AQ for the kick-ass edit)
posted by mrzarquon at 2:54 PM on April 24, 2009 [4 favorites]


Mythbusters would be so much better with that camera. I wanna see that 650mph+ rocket sled they annihilated a car with in slow mo.
posted by Submiqent at 3:06 PM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


mrzarquon: YES!!
posted by milestogo at 3:17 PM on April 24, 2009


> Mythbusters would be so much better with that camera

Actually, they were using a slow motion camera, one probably faster this one was used, check it out here. I believe they broke the sound barrier, or came really close to it.

Speed of sound is around 340 m/sec (or 1,116 feet/sec)

with a 1000fps camera, lets say it could capture, in it's entirety, the sled traveling 1 foot per frame.

Average car length is around 16 ft.

So using the above camera, they would have all of 16 frames to show the sled colliding with the car. (that is if my envelope math is at all right). Chances are they were using something much, much faster to capture the sled.

The big deal (I see) about this camera is it shoots HD with a really good color depth. Before getting this quality of image was really the realm of highspeed drive film cameras, the digital equivalents just didn't have the bandwidth that analog film provided (granted, analog film requires a longer processing cycle). 1080P at 1000FPS, assuming uncompressed 8bit color and 4:2:2 color space is around 4.25GigaBytes the needs to be put SOMEWHERE every second.
posted by mrzarquon at 3:26 PM on April 24, 2009


I liked the jello and the koosh ball best. Awesome post - thanks!
posted by rtha at 3:29 PM on April 24, 2009


mrzarquon: FANTASTIC!

My dog actually jumped at my reaction to the hit on Mr. Sunglasses.

and the fpp itself -- wonderful.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:34 PM on April 24, 2009


It's not just that it captures 2 megapixels at 1kHz in color, it's that it does it with ambient light. That's a heck of a CMOS sensor.
posted by mbd1mbd1 at 3:44 PM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


how soon before there is porn like this?
posted by kitchenrat at 4:12 PM on April 24, 2009


1080P at 1000FPS

The sample on their website is 1080i.

The tech sheet [pdf download] for the camera says that it comes with either a 16GB or 32GB memory, yielding ~5.17seconds of 1000fps at the lower memory option.
posted by hippybear at 4:14 PM on April 24, 2009


> The sample on their website is 1080i.

Yeah, it appears that is what the CCU will playback the feed as (1080i being the most common broadcast HD option), it looks like it uses straight fiber to the box, which is where the magic happens, and what will store the footage. So it actually stores what you are seeing on the screen + the previous 2 seconds, so you can grab the awesome shot just after you realized what happened.

Really using the full 1000fps is kind of overkill for a lot of situations. A fast ball going 100mph would cover the distance from mound to plate in just over a second. Do you really need an agonizing 40 second replay of a 1 second pitch? For the pitcher to review in training, yeah. For the sports highlight show, a 20 second replay would be pushing it, and that buys you twice the loop time, twice the storage space, etc.

What weirds me out is there are people who probably have to think about this stuff all the time. How many frames of motion can I capture at this speed. (an object traveling at 100 MPH = 1.7 frames per inch of movement at 1000FPS)
posted by mrzarquon at 4:37 PM on April 24, 2009


That was absurdly interesting. Thanks for the post!
posted by Effigy2000 at 5:44 PM on April 24, 2009


I just came by to see how long it took someone to gripe that the Jell-o and the cheerleaders weren't combined. (Seven minutes; I was guessing it would be more like 70 seconds.) Also, to echo the idea that that was one of the catchiest front-page headlines in some time. And yes, that fire breather was pretty amazing in super-slow-motion...
posted by LeLiLo at 5:44 PM on April 24, 2009


29.97. This is Metafilter, dammit. There's no fucking excuse for error as big as 0.1%.

Fuckin' A. I took a workshop on video production in my senior year of high-school, and the instructor taught that NTSC was 30fps. I, being the know-it-all little dork that I was, protested. It didn't go well.
posted by brundlefly at 6:02 PM on April 24, 2009


I have to say that the Jell-O bounce was the most pleasing visual I've had in months. Maybe I'll clip that from the 1080i source and have it auto-play every morning while I sip my coffee....

ocherdraco: thank you!
posted by Jubal Kessler at 6:03 PM on April 24, 2009


Fucking cool!!!! The saturation of the colours was amazing.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:08 PM on April 24, 2009


Can someone tell me what's going on with the shirtless guys in short shorts at the beginning?

Hot shirtless guys. Short shorts. You need this explained?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:17 PM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


Although combining jello and cheerleaders would be cool, combining fire and rugby players was pretty damn smart. Although Mr. Red Shorts kept distracting me from watching the fireball, and it took me a few (dozen) replays to really appreciate the fire.

Does anyone know what this translates to in simple time? As in, how many seconds of real life is one second of this clip?
posted by kanewai at 6:30 PM on April 24, 2009


> As in, how many seconds of real life is one second of this clip?

if every shot was at 1000FPS, then played back at 25fps, it would be 1/40 of a second. IE, every second you saw go buy in the video was actually 1/40 of a second.

To put that into comparison, a hummingbirds wings beat around 10-15 times a second. It would take 4 seconds to see a hummingbird beat it's wings once, if it was included in this video.
posted by mrzarquon at 6:40 PM on April 24, 2009


(actually that was a wrong statistic, depending on the hummingbird it varies between 10-80 per second. so it would really be .5-4 seconds to see a wingbeat)
posted by mrzarquon at 6:43 PM on April 24, 2009


(or another way to visualize it: if they showed an analog clock in the scene, it would take 40 seconds for the second hand to move one second)

did I mention I want to become a highschool science teacher eventually?
posted by mrzarquon at 6:45 PM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


Well that was really excellent. The smoke coming from the torch was amazing, as were the cheerleaders' pom-poms.

Their breasts were nice too.
posted by Mister_A at 7:02 PM on April 24, 2009


All I could think was "Gelatinous Cube! 1d6 slam attack + acid damage!"
posted by Scattercat at 7:28 PM on April 24, 2009 [5 favorites]


Bah! A puny 1000fps. There are faster. A lot faster. A hell of a lot faster.
posted by bz at 9:47 PM on April 24, 2009 [1 favorite]


That's just fucking cool. Oh m goodness. Can't stop! I'm Tommy Boy up in here with the bad brakes and all - I can't stop!
posted by PuppyCat at 10:13 PM on April 24, 2009


I felt like I was looking through a Viewmaster, particularly for the smoke and fire bits.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:43 PM on April 24, 2009


If the video seems like 3 fps, use the download link. Vimeo often chokes even on fairly new computers and fast connections.
posted by ikalliom at 12:56 AM on April 25, 2009


It's pretty much hypnotic crack for an hour each week.

This. I tend to put it on while I'm doing something else, but I inevitably end up just staring at the TV, watching whatever they're blowing up / crushing / poking / jiggling. The only downside is the narration and dialogue; sometimes they're really approaching "Ow My Balls" territory. Only in slow motion.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:46 AM on April 25, 2009


It's been said before, That's how to write an FPP headline.

Kkkkooooooooosssshh.

This camera would be a great teaching tool ie: a hockey slapshot. Watching the closeup of the field hockey stick hitting the ball, the slight change of angle... I was fezmerized.

cool.
posted by alicesshoe at 10:03 AM on April 25, 2009


I now wish I had much larger eyes and faster brains.
posted by Anything at 2:39 PM on April 25, 2009


I was fezmerized.

Like, with the hat?
posted by nebulawindphone at 3:44 PM on April 25, 2009


30fps is the frame rate of NTSC television

29.97. This is Metafilter, dammit. There's no fucking excuse for error as big as 0.1%.

Oh you're all wrong. Reading for god knows how many years and this is the straw that breaks my back. Someone was wrong on the internet today and then someone corrected the wrong guy but they were wrong too.

NTSC television was/is 59.94 frames per second rendered using alternating half resolution fields.

What is more important is that we now have displays that can play back the same motion but with high resolution; 60fps progressive.

Insist your slo-mo jiggle be rendered with high fidelity. 60p or bust.
posted by vicx at 12:33 AM on April 26, 2009 [2 favorites]


Watching boxing or any kind of competitive martial art on this camera would be so amazing. Like the Matrix but for real.
posted by nihraguk at 5:57 AM on April 26, 2009


I wonder which came first - Punches, or Hay Muy Poca Gente, from Enrique Bunbury (of Heroes del Silencio)....
posted by benzo8 at 7:18 AM on April 26, 2009



Oh you're all wrong. Reading for god knows how many years and this is the straw that breaks my back. Someone was wrong on the internet today and then someone corrected the wrong guy but they were wrong too.

NTSC television was/is 59.94 frames per second rendered using alternating half resolution fields.


No. 59.94 is the FIELD refresh frequency. 29.97 is the frame rate. This is getting to be a pretty long string of "wrongs."
posted by brundlefly at 5:24 PM on April 27, 2009


« Older Col. Steven Kleinman, interrogation specialist, wa...  |  Planning on partying hard this... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments