5 ms·

But the article doesn't explain why it calls it "distortion", and not "clarification".

throwanem 10y ago
>The researchers believe that the slow motion version is giving observers the sense that those carrying out the violent acts on tape have more time to think and deliberate - and the observers therefore believe there is more intent in the violent actions. Premeditation makes the difference between first- and second-degree murder, and being convicted of the former tends to bring much harsher sentences. The article describes the paper as finding that people who view (e.g. store CCTV) recordings of a murder only in slow motion and without a timecode, thus lacking any clear reference to the real speed of events, are much more likely to impute premeditation than those who don't. That's what "distortion" means here.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
a3n 10y ago
It's a distortion because it didn't happen at slow motion. Not to say slow motion can't be useful, but it's not how it happened. Think of the ultimate slow motion, a photograph. Emotions and muscle movements sweep across a face, but depending on the photographer's or editor's choice of moment, the same person can look scary or beatific.
mcguire 10y ago
Let's say that A punches B, causing B to fall backwards onto a hard surface, resulting in death. If A intended to kill B, that's murder. If A did not intend to kill B, it's manslaughter, a lesser crime with lesser punishment. You are sitting on the jury, with the prosecution flashing between two frames of a video of the punch and arguing that A altered the trajectory of the punch to cause B to fall onto the hard surface. Two frames is, say, 33 milliseconds, or somewhere between 2cm and 4m (I admit, I was surprised by that speed) of neural pathway, taking the lowest and highest nerve conduction velocities I can find. How many intentions and motor changes can you perform in 33ms?

>The researchers believe that the slow motion version is giving observers the sense that those carrying out the violent acts on tape have more time to think and deliberate - and the observers therefore believe there is more intent in the violent actions. Premeditation makes the difference between first- and second-degree murder, and being convicted of the former tends to bring much harsher sentences. The article describes the paper as finding that people who view (e.g. store CCTV) recordings of a murder only in slow motion and without a timecode, thus lacking any clear reference to the real speed of events, are much more likely to impute premeditation than those who don't. That's what "distortion" means here.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

a3n 10y ago

It's a distortion because it didn't happen at slow motion. Not to say slow motion can't be useful, but it's not how it happened. Think of the ultimate slow motion, a photograph. Emotions and muscle movements sweep across a face, but depending on the photographer's or editor's choice of moment, the same person can look scary or beatific.

mcguire 10y ago

Let's say that A punches B, causing B to fall backwards onto a hard surface, resulting in death. If A intended to kill B, that's murder. If A did not intend to kill B, it's manslaughter, a lesser crime with lesser punishment. You are sitting on the jury, with the prosecution flashing between two frames of a video of the punch and arguing that A altered the trajectory of the punch to cause B to fall onto the hard surface. Two frames is, say, 33 milliseconds, or somewhere between 2cm and 4m (I admit, I was surprised by that speed) of neural pathway, taking the lowest and highest nerve conduction velocities I can find. How many intentions and motor changes can you perform in 33ms?