Acosta's white house pass removed ..

[Sparko]

Would you trust a scientist who contradicted himself a very short time after making his initial statement? Would you trust a scientist who when shown wrong wanted to go back and have a second look but made his conclusion known before doing so? Would you trust a scientist more or less if he felt the need to go for the ad hominem?

Chuck, I told you I was looking for something completely different than missing frames. When I hear "doctored" I assume someone is changing the actual video, not some missing frames due to compression and changing of frame rates. Video frames are not like movie film frames either. They are not discrete objects. They can have interlaced fields or be progressive in nature. You not understanding any of that is to be expected since you are not a video editor, nor do you have a degree in digital electronics like I have. But you doubting my expertise on the topic is basically similar to an antivaxxer arguing with a doctor about why vaccines don't work and are dangerous.

And like I told Ox, I already agree Acosta didn't assault her so I have no reason or bias here to defend a video that is doctored to show he did.

I will look again on monday.

[Zymologist]

Chuck, I told you I was looking for something completely different than missing frames. When I hear "doctored" I assume someone is changing the actual video, not some missing frames due to compression and changing of frame rates. Video frames are not like movie film frames either. They are not discrete objects. They can have interlaced fields or be progressive in nature. You not understanding any of that is to be expected since you are not a video editor, nor do you have a degree in digital electronics like I have. But you doubting my expertise on the topic is basically similar to an antivaxxer arguing with a doctor about why vaccines don't work and are dangerous.

And like I told Ox, I already agree Acosta didn't assault her so I have no reason or bias here to defend a video that is doctored to show he did.

I will look again on monday.

I think this response is fair.

Thanks ox for posting that link; I'm guessing it's similar to the one Charles posted but for whatever reason I wasn't seeing it in my browser on the page.

[Mountain Man]

I described exactly what is recorded there. You are exactly right MM. It is there for all to see. And your claims something 'forceful' happened there are clearly not supported by the video.

Ah, I'm not buying what you're trying to sell, Jim. You tried to defend Accost-her's aggressive behavior earlier by dismissing it as a simple "defensive reflex" as if that could justify it. That didn't go over, so now you're trying to act like it didn't happen at all even though the video is there for all to see.

This is a no-win scenario for you. Sorry.

[Sparko]

The explanation I posted shows that frames are first duplicated to slow the video a bit and then 3 frames are removed as his hand comes down against the girls arm as compared to the original, speeding up that specific motion.

Charles in not being anything like an antivaxxer in this case. But you are ignoring the hard evidence. Why?

Jim

I will look again, but as I said, when you go from 24 frames per second to 29.97 frames per second, frames have to be duplicated, interpolated and removed to make the change. It is not something done deliberately, it is done by the video software.

here is an article on the topic.

https://larryjordan.com/articles/fra...tricky-beasts/

HARD: 24 fps to 29.97 fps

This was done traditionally when converting films for television broadcast using a telecine.

Here, we need to create, your action will slightly stutter every five frames. This illustrates why you want to avoid converting frame rates.

[Charles]

Also why would they think Sarah Huckabee would even be aware that it was doctored if it actually was? She just copied the video from someplace and inserted it in twitter. And me watching it, at full speed, I don't see any difference in how violent the action appears.

There are certain details about the "someplace" she copied the video from and the way she reacted that could have been handled a lot better:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...oke-press-pass

Perhaps Infowars should not be the "someplace" the next time. And insisting that the question was whether there was contact when the video was doctored to create a manipulated idea about the very nature of the contact seems a little strange. If she was completely unaware there is a word called "sorry". We are yet to see them use it in this context.

[One Bad Pig]

There are certain details about the "someplace" she copied the video from and the way she reacted that could have been handled a lot better:



Perhaps Infowars should not be the "someplace" the next time. And insisting that the question was whether there was contact when the video was doctored to create a manipulated idea about the very nature of the contact seems a little strange. If she was completely unaware there is a word called "sorry". We are yet to see them use it in this context.

Awesome how you completely ignore Sparko's expert analysis in favor of your own opinion here, Charles. So much for your pretense of reasonable objectivity.

[Charles]

Chuck, I told you I was looking for something completely different than missing frames. When I hear "doctored" I assume someone is changing the actual video, not some missing frames due to compression and changing of frame rates. Video frames are not like movie film frames either. They are not discrete objects. They can have interlaced fields or be progressive in nature. You not understanding any of that is to be expected since you are not a video editor, nor do you have a degree in digital electronics like I have. But you doubting my expertise on the topic is basically similar to an antivaxxer arguing with a doctor about why vaccines don't work and are dangerous.

And like I told Ox, I already agree Acosta didn't assault her so I have no reason or bias here to defend a video that is doctored to show he did.

I will look again on monday.

I doubt your expertise based on the fact that you have contradicted yourself, concluded beforehand and made statements that have been shown to be wrong.

I am not too interested in your ad hominems as a cover up for the fact that anyone can look at your posts in this very thread and see how quickly you needed to change your mind and come up with new explanations. I expect consistency and I see no reason to trust anyone based on their own appeal to their own authority. There is actually a fallacy in that category...

[Mountain Man]

If you look at the two videos even in the one he was showing, you will see a blurry double image with a ghosted outline in Huckabee's video. Which makes it very hard to judge when comparing to the clear original video. And I really don't care if you are convinced. You are someone who knows nothing about the subject. This is like a scientist trying to convince an antivaxxer that he is an idiot who knows nothing about viruses. Your ignorance is expected and laughable.

Speaking as another video professional with over 2-decades of experience, I will say that your explanation is most likely correct. Another problem is that if Huckabee's video started with a compressed source (most likely h.264 if it was grabbed from the web) and then recompressed it again at a different frame rate then all sorts of unintentional weirdness can happen. But even then, watching the two videos side by side at full speed, there is no discernable difference. It's only when they're slowed down that they appear slightly different. And another point, the guy making the comparison video could have introduced his own unintentional weirdness if he didn't match framerates and depending on the interpolation method he used for the slow motion.

In layman's terms, we're not talking an apples to apples comparison.

But this is all irrelevant since I posted an original unedited video earlier in the thread on which I based my remarks.

[Charles]

But this is all irrelevant since I posted an original unedited video earlier in the thread on which I based my remarks.

It appears the Trump administration did not...

[Charles]

Awesome how you completely ignore Sparko's expert analysis in favor of your own opinion here, Charles. So much for your pretense of reasonable objectivity.

Awesome how you ignore the sources I have pointed to, the reasoning I provided, the demo-video I provided a link to and my explanation as to why it is a little interesting that the difference is exactly where they need it to be. And you want me to ignore all that based on "Sparko's expert analysis"? You know about the fallacy of appeal to authority?

Did you read all the expert analysis on this area before you allowed yourself to hold an opinion on my opinion? I have read quite a lot on this topic before I formed an opinion.

Sparko proudly claimed there was no difference, until he needed to admit there was a difference which he then claimed was smaller than it actually was and then he is going to give it a second look but before doing se he knows what he will find... I am not convinced that this is the right method. And I don’t blindly follow the expert-claims that you can find everywhere and on all topics.

Feel free to provide some actual arguments and I will be happy to look into it.

[lilpixieofterror]

What you are being is ridiculous. There was no force involved.

Where we agree:

Acosta was rude, and probably pushing the edge on what can be tolerated in terms of being aggressive when trying to get an answer to a question.

Where we disagree:

Saunders lied about why Acosta's press pass was removed. There was nothing 'inappropriate' per the way that terms is used these days about how Acosta 'touched' the intern. There was no force involved. There was nothing sexual about it. They actual reason they pulled the pass because Acosta was rude and asking questions the President didn't want to answer. Why they couldn't just say that, I'll never know, but nevertheless is was a lie.

It was inappropriate to pull his pass. It is an escalation of Trumps war on the press. An appropriate action would be a rebuke and a warning that such behavior can't be tolerated, and perhaps an official policy that if a reporter is holding a mike and has been told their time is done, they must relinquish it or face censure. And that policy must then be strictly enforced. Nothing at all wrong with rules of order that are enforced. Problem is, there are not many rules that are enforced, and Acosta's behavior was only marginally outside what is 'normal' for those events - as evidenced by the large number of reporters defending him from the President's actions.


Jim

As I said before Jim. I am merely holding liberals to their own rules and standards.

[One Bad Pig]

Awesome how you ignore the sources I have pointed to, the reasoning I provided, the demo-video I provided a link to and my explanation as to why it is a little interesting that the difference is exactly where they need it to be. And you want me to ignore all that based on "Sparko's expert analysis"? You know about the fallacy of appeal to authority?

Did you read all the expert analysis on this area before you allowed yourself to hold an opinion on my opinion? I have read quite a lot on this topic before I formed an opinion.

Sparko proudly claimed there was no difference, until he needed to admit there was a difference which he then claimed was smaller than it actually was and then he is going to give it a second look but before doing se he knows what he will find... I am not convinced that this is the right method. And I don’t blindly follow the expert-claims that you can find everywhere and on all topics.

Feel free to provide some actual arguments and I will be happy to look into it.

I'm not into playing your silly games, Charles. You show here you can't even represent what Sparko has said fairly, so I'm not going to take your word on the rest of your pontification. And, no, I'm not going to take up your anticipated query of how you've misrepresented him - I'll let others read for themselves, and draw their own conclusions.

[Sparko]

[Sparko]

... The side by side video that they are passing around is the doctored one. They simply shifted the video on the right by a couple of frames to show the contact at a different time. if you look at the actual frame at the point of contact, they are identical except one is blurrier. .

Chuck this is from my initial post where I mentioned the frame discrepancy.

[oxmixmudd]

I will look again, but as I said, when you go from 24 frames per second to 29.97 frames per second, frames have to be duplicated, interpolated and removed to make the change. It is not something done deliberately, it is done by the video software.

here is an article on the topic.

https://larryjordan.com/articles/fra...tricky-beasts/

HARD: 24 fps to 29.97 fps

This was done traditionally when converting films for television broadcast using a telecine.

Here, we need to create, your action will slightly stutter every five frames. This illustrates why you want to avoid converting frame rates.

Yes, and not at spefic moments and 3 frames at a time. Mathematically, to convert from 24fps to 30 fps you duplicate one frame for every 4 processed. You don't dup 3 and then just as Acosta puts his arm down pull just the right set of 3 to make it appear he hit her instead of just blocked her.


Jim