[HN Gopher] Moths in slow motion [video]
___________________________________________________________________
Moths in slow motion [video]
Author : Tomte
Score : 612 points
Date : 2021-10-07 12:01 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (aeon.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (aeon.co)
| NHQ wrote:
| We could design human flight like that, what are we waiting for?
| Literally self-powered flight; human pedals, the A.I. directs the
| flap mechanism.
| hbn wrote:
| I don't know what it is, but I get a weird, visceral, wincing
| reaction seeing bugs up close like this. Bugs are a real weakness
| for me.
|
| I don't get put off by blood at all. I can handle (and in fact
| enjoy) gore in movies, horror movies, etc. But man, I don't know
| what it is with insects. Their tiny spindly legs, weird beady
| eyes, the wings, their hair, their antennae. Can't stand looking
| at it.
|
| Fascinating creatures, but boy do they mess with my mind like
| nothing else.
| pengaru wrote:
| Oh man, you'd have a field day with [0]. It's packed with
| fascinating macro photos of insects.
|
| [0]
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/379271.For_Love_of_Insec...
| ioulian wrote:
| When I was young, I was also afraid of insects, especially
| flying ones. But I've read somewhere that you are afraid of
| animals if you don't see what they are thinking. Take for
| example dogs or cats, you can easily see what they are
| "thinking", by their movement, ears, tails...
|
| Insects are so small that you can't see that, you don't know
| where they are looking, or if they are afraid or not.
|
| Looking at macro photography of insects, you can see how they
| are build and the spiders (especially the jumping spiders) are
| quite cute. Knowing how they look and their behavioural
| patterns, and just reading more about them, allowed me to be
| less afraid of them.
|
| Now I don't know if that is "scientifically correct", but it
| helped me.
| rocqua wrote:
| I have something similar with cows. I can't read their
| intentions. If I am walking in a field with them it just
| seems like they are always 'mildly annoyed by my presence'
| and yet they will amble straight at you. And they are big and
| heavy enough to do damage if they need to.
|
| Horses on the other hand, are a lot more nervous, but I can
| read them and I can 'manipulate' them. They are probably more
| dangerous, but they are less scary to me.
| mhh__ wrote:
| That sounds like the caveman instincts kicking in.
| poupanka wrote:
| I really don't like moths and their unpredictable flight
| patterns.
| chelonian wrote:
| You have to try to see them as kind of Muppets. These moths are
| easy in that regard. They are sort of a mixture of silly
| looking, beautiful, and cutely clumsy.
|
| There are some repellant looking arthropods, but these moths
| are the beginner level in getting used to looking at such
| creatures.
| anderspitman wrote:
| I think Muppets might be worse than insects for me.
| seoulmetro wrote:
| I get the same thing with any form of biological 'inside', but
| outsides I"m usually fine with. Hand drawn depiction of how
| nasal cavities work? Eugh, dizziness and instant relation to my
| own gaping head.
|
| Bug shots, bug squishing, blood in movies? Squished brain etc.?
| All good to most degrees.
|
| I pass out during 2D animation demonstrations on how bodies
| work.
|
| I pass out during nasal allergy tests. I can't imagine how I'll
| go with a covid test.... pass out most likely.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| if you are interested in insects I recommend this book:
| "Extraordinary Insects: Weird. Wonderful. Indispensable. The ones
| who run our world."
| https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0008316376/
| antattack wrote:
| If you only have few seconds to spare start @4:00
| TheCraiggers wrote:
| There's a surprising amount of dust and what look to be "moth
| bits" flying around during take off. Between that, and the old
| admonishment from parents not to touch the wings or it'll knock
| off the dust they need to fly, I'm left wondering if moths only
| have a certain number of flaps in them before they can no longer
| fly. Since it's their last stage before death, I could see the
| evolutionary advantage to not wasting resources healing /
| replenishing your wings. Something to read about later.
| soheil wrote:
| I noticed this too. It goes to show how wasteful and
| unrepairable nature can be at times. Leaves and flowers also
| fit the bill. Maybe Apple shouldn't be blamed so easily for
| making something that is becoming more and more perishable
| without being able to be repaired. After all nature does it
| too. As long as they do a good job recycling also like nature
| does.
| flycaliguy wrote:
| Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by leaves and
| flowers being wasteful. I'm open minded but doubtful that
| this can be the case.
| dmos62 wrote:
| The linked article, as well as the article it's linking to, are
| just thin wrappers around this Ant Lab video
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQL25_hoQ1k
| codedeadlock wrote:
| This is mind-boggling, to think how the flight is almost perfect,
| I could not even imagine how evolution could work such wonders
| considering this is a 6000 fps shot. This is some insane level
| optimization for my brain to understand
|
| Absolutely lovely!
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| Life is a miracle, no matter how small.
| mholt wrote:
| The whole Ant Lab channel is really fascinating, for example:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbOzYMKROs8
| wombatmobile wrote:
| It looks like a lot of effort for not very much aerodynamic
| return.
|
| How far do these moths fly?
|
| How often, and what for?
| formerly_proven wrote:
| IIRC most moths can't even eat, so their only purpose in that
| stage of life is to mate and lay eggs.
| aasasd wrote:
| Yeah, Richard Dawkins finally cleared it up for me that the
| primary stage of insects like butterfly is the larva. The
| larva sits around eating stuff and generally having a good
| time, whereas after turning into the butterfly it's gonna
| just mate and die.
| berkes wrote:
| ~some. not "most", IIRC.
|
| Many butterflies (moths are butterflies) are pollinators and
| eat nectar (and pollen).
| ctrlp wrote:
| Love stuff like this. Always reminds me of the classic film
| Microcosmos.[0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcosmos_(film)
| tikwidd wrote:
| Imagine an ornithopter drone doing a vertical takeoff with the
| grace of the Dark Marathyssa.
| jakear wrote:
| Semi-related, moth larvae (in my case Wooly Bears) are
| astonishingly intelligent. Put in a challenge arena they
| immediately begin a beam search and will learn over time what
| paths are futile, which require further exploration, how to pass
| particular obstacles, etc. They also have the ability to id
| humans and will "warm up" to individuals over a session of
| exposure.
|
| Unfortunately this memory does not seem to persist long term --
| after a day passes all it all resets. I was hoping a friendly
| Wolly would turn into a friendly tiger moth, but that does not
| seem likely based on my observations. I ended up releasing my
| Wolly back to the wild, he appeared to lose will when placed in
| captivity and I couldn't bring myself to keep him that way given
| my observations of his intelligence.
| gamerDude wrote:
| This made me feel so much better about moths. With the video so
| close up they looked super cute and snuggly. Something I have
| never associated with a moth before.
|
| Secondly, I found it pretty cool to see how their flight wasn't
| as controlled as I had thought of. It looked like a bit of a mess
| on take off. Again, just disarmed me from the moths I've grown to
| despise flying around the house.
|
| Very cool to see them from a different perspective.
| ajuc wrote:
| > I found it pretty cool to see how their flight wasn't as
| controlled as I had thought of.
|
| In Polish the word for butterfly is "motyl" which comes from
| "motac" = to move around randomly, to struggle or to move in
| circles :)
|
| BTW I always found it suspicious that "moth" is so similar to
| "motyl" yet it's apparently unrelated.
| vitro wrote:
| Heh, TIL this connection, it never occurred to me before. In
| Czech it is motyl and to motal means to walk as if you are
| drunk :)
| lou1306 wrote:
| How funny, in Italian we kind of have the reverse! We say
| "andare a zonzo" which mean "wandering without a clear
| direction", and "zonzo" is onomatopoeia for the sound of a
| flying insect.
|
| > BTW I always found it suspicious that "moth" is so similar
| to "motyl" yet it's apparently unrelated.
|
| By the way, the phenomenon is called "false cognates":
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_cognate
| vanderZwan wrote:
| I can picture that, ever noticed how flies have this weird
| random-walk zigzagging flying pattern?
| fhe wrote:
| > "their flight wasn't as controlled as I had thought of"
|
| I had the same reaction, and it reminded me of other slo-mo
| videos of insects crawling -- it looked like they are falling
| all over themselves, with none of the gracefulness that I see
| in mammals (cheetah running, for example). I wonder if it has
| to do with insects having much smaller mass, hence they are
| more easily jerked around by things like airflow.
| mattnewton wrote:
| It could also be due to the way some insect musculature
| works, they typically don't have the same
| extension/contraction methods we have by pulling on either
| side of a bone, which doesn't work in an exoskeleton. My
| understanding is that they instead rely on a combination of
| flexors and vascular pressure to extend which is a jerkier-
| looking process. See the muscle section here
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_physiology
| mc32 wrote:
| It's probably due to slowing it down by 4000x.
|
| When the slow the windup of a baseball pitcher it also looks
| ungraceful.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| The Rosy Maple moth is my favorite so it makes me happy to se
| it as the first one. It's a good moth to represent the cute or
| adorable aspect of moths. There is a similar, almost identical
| fuzzy wig moth like them that is entirely white.
|
| I think their flight is a good representation of Douglas Adams'
| description of flight being falling without hitting the ground.
|
| Such a great channel and good start to the day.
| SwiftyBug wrote:
| Yes, Douglas Adams sums up pretty well the flight of moths.
| But the Guide is even funnier, it says that to fly, one must
| "throw themselves at the ground and miss".
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| THAT'S the quote. Thank you.
|
| It seems like moths, and many other insects, throw
| themselves at everything and just miss most of the time.
| pengstrom wrote:
| That's how you get orbits.
| foobarian wrote:
| I found it interesting that the extreme slow motion made them
| seem a lot larger. As if they were furry dog-sized flying
| animals.
| remram wrote:
| That's probably due to the lens more than the speed.
| foobarian wrote:
| It has to do with the scale and physics of the motion. When
| you film an avalanche from far away, it appears to descend
| very slowly at the normal replay rate. But if you made your
| typical science fair volcano on a tabletop, the foam
| descends a lot more quickly at the same time scale.
| pcurve wrote:
| Me too! Moths frighten me so much! I've always had this
| irrational fear that their powdery wings would cause skin rash.
| loveJesus wrote:
| God is good - maybe not so irrational, Animousisme posted
| this below https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224879785
| _The_moth_...
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Ha, ha, only as an adult I learned that that's not actually
| powder on their wings, but scales, similar to the ones on a
| fish. And rubbing it off impedes their flight.
| DonaldFisk wrote:
| It's the hairs of hairy caterpillars (and, rarely, hairs on
| some adult moths) which cause dermatitis, rather than scales
| on adult moths' wings, so its wise to avoid contact with
| hairy caterpillars. For a list of species to avoid, see
| https://ccsuniversity.ac.in/bridge-library/pdf/Biology-
| Paras...
| [deleted]
| SiVal wrote:
| Fine cashmere? Too ordinary. Mink? Maybe, for the merely rich.
| When I make my first billion, I'll have a scarf made of snow-
| white moth fur.
| blitzar wrote:
| Given what moths have done to every piece of cashmere I own
| it would be a fitting revenge.
| DonaldFisk wrote:
| The larvae of only a few species attack clothes, these ones
| in particular:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tineola_bisselliella
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_moth
| dylan604 wrote:
| What is it about the wool being knitted that attracts the
| moths. Why are sheep not just covered in moths?
| deepsun wrote:
| Don't even look at bees landings in slow-motion :)
| aasasd wrote:
| There were videos floating on the webs of bugs taking flight--
| looked way messier than this, pretty much jumbling around with
| legs swinging this and that way, until finally going in the
| air.
|
| This vid, I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87iV4ISAY5U
|
| Better than I remembered, but those legs are funny.
| kellengreen wrote:
| They look like tiny dragons :)
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jimmaswell wrote:
| I recently learned woolly bears are moth caterpillars. I see them
| all the time but I can't say I've ever seen the distinctive moth
| they apparently turn into. I wonder why.
| eigenvalue wrote:
| I wonder what the purpose/benefit is of the holes in their wings
| from an aerodynamics standpoint. Maybe it helps them deal with
| sudden gusts of wind? It's like having a hole in the bottom of a
| boat.
| DonaldFisk wrote:
| They aren't holes: they're areas of wings with no scales.
| malikNF wrote:
| Slightly off-topic, but I really love the video[1] embedded in
| the article. Just a slow motion video, no nonsense.
|
| Most slow motion videos on youtube has a section on the setup,
| the backyard of the producer, the equipment etc. Just give me a
| slow motion video without all the interruptions.
|
| [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQL25_hoQ1k
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| You somehow need to get the video to those sweet ten minutes.
| dmix wrote:
| > a section on the setup, the backyard of the producer, the
| equipment etc
|
| Funny, that's exactly what he does in this video
| https://youtu.be/Cnn9CfsYJqc
|
| At 1:35 he shows his backyard here https://youtu.be/1Wnd6c42w7w
| Arnavion wrote:
| That's because this video is the sixth in the series. The first
| video goes into all those details.
|
| The setup is meaningful to people who want to know how it was
| filmed. If you don't care for it you can always skip it. Why
| ask for the video to have less content that other people might
| want to watch just because you don't?
| rudian wrote:
| I get it, I do watch that kind of in-depth content, but
| sometimes you just want the raw stuff without looking at
| stock footage websites.
|
| I kinda like TikTok because you can often find short, no-
| nonsense videos like this, that you can't find on YouTube.
| Groxx wrote:
| I mean, that's kinda like saying "why skip ads, someone made
| that content" or "why not watch whatever is on the tv on
| whatever channel happens to be open with you turn it on".
| People like different things, and tastes change with mood,
| timing, etc.
| [deleted]
| kroltan wrote:
| I don't think it's like that.
|
| Ads are content with an ulterior purpose of, well,
| advertising.
|
| And the suggestion to skip is precisely the opposite of
| "just watch whatever's on TV", it's more of "if you don't
| like that channel, why don't you switch to another one?"
|
| ---
|
| Regardless, the argument is not whether or not one should
| watch the behind-the-scenes content, it's the existence of
| the content in the first place. If the behind-the-scenes is
| there, you can skip it if you want, but if it is not, then
| the one who _wants_ to know how it was filmed will be left
| with no options.
|
| Of course it doesn't mean it has to all be on the same
| video, but the nature of social video platforms ends up
| requiring that, otherwise the BTS is monetarily inefficient
| (if the channel in question is in it for the money).
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| More than that, this video series has noticeably less "Look
| at MMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!" to it. Which is refreshing. Less
| filler, just the good stuff, like a professional production
| about the subject rather than the maker.
| dylan604 wrote:
| If I click a link to a video that has the person suggesting
| to subscribe, follow, smash, etc, I just stop watching. If
| you feel the need to prompt for followers, you're content
| is more than likely not good enough for me to want to
| follow it naturally.
| totoglazer wrote:
| Interesting. I found the editing back and forth really
| unpleasant.
| malikNF wrote:
| Ha! I didn't realize anyone was talking was watching this on
| mute. With my own background music.
| anonymousisme wrote:
| Just when you think they're harmless, you learn about this:
| https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224879785_The_moth_...
|
| I heard stories about these from some of my unfortunate co-
| workers who went to Kourou for Ariane launch campaigns.
| xook wrote:
| Quite the missed opportunity for "slow mothtion"!
| smitty1e wrote:
| Oh, beehave!
| dustintrex wrote:
| HN is not Reddit, we don't tolerate _ant_ ics here.
| mathieubordere wrote:
| Beautiful, but just leave these/all animals alone ...
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Cool slo-mo. But they look pretty ungainly compared to the
| amazing flying skills of dragonflies.
| stef25 wrote:
| That's incredible. I'll do my best never to kill one again.
| cies wrote:
| Reminded me of this video (music clip for: Vitalic - Birds):
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=651UYYxrfh0
| im3w1l wrote:
| Seemed so straighforward: angle wing like \, lift wing. angle
| wing like /, lower wing. Result: propulsion.
| rudian wrote:
| Flight _is_ straightforward, it's just that humans are too
| heavy and slow for that.
| im3w1l wrote:
| From what I read it's very complicated, with vortex
| formations and stuff being quite important. That's why I was
| surprised at how simple it seemed.
| barcoder wrote:
| Super slow motion videos of tiny creatures are absolute gold for
| animators.
|
| Seeing the giant flappy wings lift the moths body gave me helpful
| insights and really inspired me.
| MayeulC wrote:
| Interesting how they raise their wings vertically:
|
| - this way, there is much less drag during the ascending part
|
| - I imagine the air above is laminar, so that should provide much
| better lift too.
| chinaev wrote:
| You've got a nice LAMP there, can I come in?
| firecall wrote:
| OMG that's incredible!
| berkes wrote:
| Fascinating to see some of the moths having ripped and scratched
| wings. And despite that, still flying just fine.
|
| If a human-made aircraft had a tear in a wing like that, it would
| probably just crash, let alone be properly navigable.
| Jaxtek wrote:
| Which camera did they use?
| sharmin123 wrote:
| Let's Secure WiFi Network and Prevent WiFi Hacking:
| https://www.hackerslist.co/lets-secure-wifi-network-and-prev...
| headsoup wrote:
| Those ant lab slo-mo videos are awesome. Can't say I haven't
| binged a few times on them on YouTube (lockjaw ants, springtails,
| Etc).
|
| A lot of the insects do look completely silly taking off though,
| sometimes like they're a marionette! But fascinating.
| fnord77 wrote:
| really curious how the creator of this was able to get such good
| depth of field with what seems like a macro setup.
| Cd00d wrote:
| Seems like he stages the initiation of everything on a very
| small platform.
|
| He mentions it around 1:10 of this video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2okI6ZszQY&t=205s
| dylan604 wrote:
| due to the frame rate, I would not be surprised if this was a
| smaller image sensor. you could get away with not needing a
| macro lens to fill the frame.
| irln wrote:
| I was struck by how close a Bugs Life and Ants movie flying
| scenes was to this video.
| [deleted]
| NDizzle wrote:
| Does anyone else think that moths in super slow mo look like
| video games bosses?!
|
| I could imagine fighting one of those things in the next FROM
| Software game. (Dark Souls studio)
| kleiba wrote:
| Norm MacDonald's moth joke is pretty much OT but then again...
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxD3pT8C9-A
| dharma1 wrote:
| this kind of slow motion and macro stuff is really eye opening, a
| perspective shift that gives us an opportunity to reflect on life
| - how intricate, beautiful and perfect the millions of different
| species we have on our planet are.
|
| I think we're unable to fully appreciate biodiversity - a lot of
| it is too small for us to take notice, or too large to comprehend
| at ecosystem level. Similarly we are also unable to fully
| appreciate the loss of it - it's too abstract and happens at
| timescales our biological planning capabilities haven't evolved
| for (decades instead of minutes or days).
|
| Such a shame to lose millions of years of amazing parallel
| optimisation by evolution, across so many species.
| verisimi wrote:
| I like your point about the slow motion stuff being eye opening
| - I agree.
|
| I don't get why _every_ point about 'the wonder of nature' has
| to suffixed with a downer.
|
| It actually leaves the impression with me that you actually
| want to put everyone on a downer, while trying to signal to us
| how much you love nature.
|
| Its like saying the ice cream is great, but its so unhealthy
| for you to eat. The way I see it, eat the ice cream if you
| like, but don't also moan about how bad it is for you.
| dharma1 wrote:
| I recognise that! Did not want to put you on a downer though,
| just reflect on why it often feels like we are on a slow
| motion train wreck, incapable of doing much about it.
|
| Feels like we should generally have more positive narratives
| and stories of the future, like this
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solarpunk
| verisimi wrote:
| The truth is also that this is not a problem you or I
| created. We leave our lives fairly simply I'm sure,
| choosing not to harm others. When we make choices, these
| choices are provisioned for us by the governance structure
| and the corporations. The same entities that cause
| environmental damage (eg wrt fires - cutting down pristine
| forests rather than farming them, poor forest management in
| not undertaking controlled burns, etc). This is not our
| fault. To me, this is directly equivalent to the Christian
| idea that we are born in sin. We are not.
|
| However, it is expedient that this is the message that we
| receive and so we are being blamed for 'climate change'.
| Those doing the blaming are those that caused the problem -
| corporations and governments.
|
| Rather than take a positive action to address the problem,
| even if there is a hit to the bottom line (money), it is
| far easier and cheaper to 'socialise' the risk. So
| corporation use lobbyists etc to make government put the
| costs on the general population (carbon taxes, 'smart'
| cities, etc). And, as it happens, this provides the same
| corporations with the opportunity to make even more money,
| providing us with the governmental solutions that they
| lobbied to achieve!
|
| Its a win/win for the corporations. Its lose/lose for the
| general public.
| [deleted]
| kucing wrote:
| Is it only me or the video cannot load due to HN front page?
| dhritzkiv wrote:
| I was able to load it. Here's is a direct link to the video
| that is embedded on the page:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQL25_hoQ1k
| dylan604 wrote:
| I wonder if the director yelled at the talent for not being
| able to hit their mark correctly causing them to go out of
| focus /s
|
| Also, I love where this new camera/lighting tech has gotten
| us. 6k fps with zero flickering. hellzyeah that's cool!
| awestley wrote:
| This was a great way to start my day
| 3grdlurker wrote:
| The video left me with a feeling of reverent astonishment about
| how beautiful our planet really is. Such a shame that we're
| destroying it.
| rudian wrote:
| The last sentence reads like "Such a shame we're destroying it.
| Oh well. So what did you have for breakfast?"
| j7ake wrote:
| I doubt moths will be gone after we've "destroyed" the planet.
| They survived before us and will survive after us.
|
| We are destroying the habitat for many large animals though.
| berkes wrote:
| We are destroying the habitat of a lot of moths too, though.
| Edit: but, indeed, quite probably not of the entire group.
|
| Many are specialists. In fact, moths are just butterflies,
| and what we call butterflies are specialists in being able to
| navigate by daylight.
|
| Some moths need very special plants for their time as
| catterpillar, others need very special flowers to drink from.
| Again others need a goldilock humidity or temperature or
| both.
|
| I'm just an amateur though. But as beekeeper, I do have a lot
| of interest for other pollinating and nectar eating insects.
| whichquestion wrote:
| Taxonomically moths aren't butterflies. Butterflies are in
| a different suborder, Rhopalocera, and moths are in the
| suborder Heterocera. They are all a part of order
| Lepidoptera. Additionally, there are moths that aren't
| nocturnal, like some species in the family Uraniidae.
| DonaldFisk wrote:
| The number of moths in the UK has declined by 28% since
| 1968. There are various causes, including use of pesticides
| and other changes in agricultural practices, destruction of
| habitat, and anthropogenic climate change. See
| https://butterfly-conservation.org/moths/why-moths-
| matter/mo...
|
| > moths are just butterflies
|
| It's more accurate to say that butterflies are a kind of
| day-flying moth, those belonging to the superfamily
| Papilionoidea of the order Lepidoptera.
| Aissen wrote:
| This is incredibly nice, but I kept wondering how it looked like
| in real time. 6000 fps is _a lot_ , so how much is it slowed down
| ? 100x ? (6000 -> 60 fps?)
| skipnup wrote:
| Standard videos on YouTube are 30fps, so it should be 200x
| slower.
| Aissen wrote:
| Yeah, that's precisely this type of guessing I wanted to
| avoid :-). YouTube supports 60fps uploads, although this one
| does not seem available in a 60fps format. And of course
| there's the possibility of pre-processing :-)
| skipnup wrote:
| The video on YouTube has exactly 30fps, you can right click
| and view the information for nerds (I think its called in
| English).
|
| Of course this doesn't help with the issue of pre-
| processing, but assuming no frames have been removed or
| interpolated the factor 200 should be more or less correct.
|
| Problem left: at least I can't really mentally process what
| 200x faster/slower would look like. (Besides turning the
| light on tonight, opening the window and watching at moths
| flying into my room and taking off again...)
| kevincox wrote:
| I agree. I find it so strange when people talk about the frame
| rate. The is a product of filming and doesn't directly matter
| to the viewer. To the viewer I care what the slowdown is.
| Presumably it is 6000/30 which is 200x slower, but it doesn't
| actually say anywhere that I can find.
|
| I guess bigger number is better click-bait?
| dylan604 wrote:
| >I find it so strange when people talk about the frame rate.
|
| Calling out the frame rate is a quick and easy way to tell
| you that you are going to be able to see some details that
| you ordinarily don't get to see. Yes, the higher the number
| the more nuanced the detail can be. They could call it HFR,
| but until recently 60 fps was considered HFR and not normal.
| So 120 fps would be HFR as much as 6k fps, but lets face it
| 6k fps is much more impressive than 120 fps.
|
| I don't find it to be click-baity at all to include the frame
| rate in a title of a video. In fact, I find it quite useful
| metadata.
| heleninboodler wrote:
| I think it's because the frame rate is usually used as
| _shorthand_ for the amount it slowed down, since a fixed
| playback rate is assumed, but yes, it drives me crazy and
| when I heard "shot in 6000fps" I immediately thought to
| myself, "well tell us what fps it's being played back in so I
| can tell how much slower it is!"
|
| When the guy filming it switches his camera from 30fps to
| 120fps, 240fps, or 6000fps, he knows exactly what the result
| will be so he starts thinking of "6000fps" as a specification
| for how slow it is, which it isn't.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-08 23:01 UTC)