5 ms·

This is kind of the stock-negative comment that I don't like about HN. It would be redeemed if it had a link, but instead its just a look-how-cool-I-am-that-I'm

This is kind of the stock-negative comment that I don't like about HN. It would be redeemed if it had a link, but instead its just a look-how-cool-I-am-that-I'm-not-impressed-by-this actually-pretty-awesome-technology-demo, dammit.

tptacek 14y ago
The commenter you are replying to (and downvoting) has done (IIRC) professional digital video work, and written many detailed and helpful comments on HN about digital media. The comment you're replying to isn't snarky. Assume good faith. Maybe he's just mistaken? Or maybe he's right, and the thread just doesn't like that? Here are some best-of's to peruse before concluding that 'anigbrowl is part of the problem with HN: * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1875412 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1875412 (MIDI) * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=995096 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=995096 (3D film) * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4011770 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4011770 (Google Moog doodle) * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1263289 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1263289 (DV on DSLRs) A couple suggestions: * If a downvoted comment with no replies upsets you so much that you feel a need to pile on with a pointed negative comment, go to the bottom of the page, type the commenter's name in, click 'comments', then sort by 'score', and read the top 10 or so first. You may find the urge to pile on dissipates quickly. * While it certainly isn't going to cause drama here ('anigbrowl being one of the more levelheaded contributors to HN, way more so than me), I think you'll find that comments like yours tend to read as personalizing disputes, and lead to embarrassing spats you'd be better off not attaching yourself to.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  blush
- taliesinb 14y ago
  Fair enough. Please accept my apology, anigbrowl. You are correct, tptacek, to suggest I should assume good faith. Looking back, I think what riled me was the word 'folks'. As in, "nothing to see here, folks", although he didn't actually say that.
anigbrowl 14y ago
I referenced a particular piece of software, which I thought was well-known enough not to need a link. I am not trying to look cool, but rather point to existing cool technology, and stand by my comment.
- ilkandi 14y ago
  quote from http://people.csail.mit.edu/celiu/motionmag/motionmag.html http://people.csail.mit.edu/celiu/motionmag/motionmag.html "Naively, this sounds like one might (a) compute the translation from one pixel to the next in each frame, and (b) re-render the video with small motions amplified. Unfortunately, such an approach would lead to artificial transitions between amplified and unamplified pixels within a single structure. Most of the steps of motion magnification relate to reliably estimating motions, and to clustering pixels whose motions should be magnified as a group." The math behind the grouping (recognizing the relevant area as an object, magnifying the motion of the area properly, and filling in the empty space intelligently) is the cool "computer vision" part.

tptacek 14y ago

The commenter you are replying to (and downvoting) has done (IIRC) professional digital video work, and written many detailed and helpful comments on HN about digital media. The comment you're replying to isn't snarky. Assume good faith. Maybe he's just mistaken? Or maybe he's right, and the thread just doesn't like that? Here are some best-of's to peruse before concluding that 'anigbrowl is part of the problem with HN: * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1875412 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1875412 (MIDI) * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=995096 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=995096 (3D film) * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4011770 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4011770 (Google Moog doodle) * http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1263289 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1263289 (DV on DSLRs) A couple suggestions: * If a downvoted comment with no replies upsets you so much that you feel a need to pile on with a pointed negative comment, go to the bottom of the page, type the commenter's name in, click 'comments', then sort by 'score', and read the top 10 or so first. You may find the urge to pile on dissipates quickly. * While it certainly isn't going to cause drama here ('anigbrowl being one of the more levelheaded contributors to HN, way more so than me), I think you'll find that comments like yours tend to read as personalizing disputes, and lead to embarrassing spats you'd be better off not attaching yourself to.

anigbrowl 14y ago
blush
taliesinb 14y ago
Fair enough. Please accept my apology, anigbrowl. You are correct, tptacek, to suggest I should assume good faith. Looking back, I think what riled me was the word 'folks'. As in, "nothing to see here, folks", although he didn't actually say that.

anigbrowl 14y ago

I referenced a particular piece of software, which I thought was well-known enough not to need a link. I am not trying to look cool, but rather point to existing cool technology, and stand by my comment.

ilkandi 14y ago
quote from http://people.csail.mit.edu/celiu/motionmag/motionmag.html http://people.csail.mit.edu/celiu/motionmag/motionmag.html "Naively, this sounds like one might (a) compute the translation from one pixel to the next in each frame, and (b) re-render the video with small motions amplified. Unfortunately, such an approach would lead to artificial transitions between amplified and unamplified pixels within a single structure. Most of the steps of motion magnification relate to reliably estimating motions, and to clustering pixels whose motions should be magnified as a group." The math behind the grouping (recognizing the relevant area as an object, magnifying the motion of the area properly, and filling in the empty space intelligently) is the cool "computer vision" part.