4 ms·

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?)

by Aissen 5y ago

kevincox 5y ago
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 5y ago
  >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 5y ago
  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.
skipnup 5y ago
Standard videos on YouTube are 30fps, so it should be 200× slower.
- Aissen 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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 200× 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...)

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?)

by Aissen 5y ago

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?)

kevincox 5y ago

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 5y ago
>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 5y ago
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.

skipnup 5y ago

Standard videos on YouTube are 30fps, so it should be 200× slower.

Aissen 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 200× 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...)