What I believe, and what I plan to do

[johnlvs2run]

I find great motivation in seeing that there are others like me or a tiny bit better.

I like that too.

[Ben Rea]

cant wait to see the videos, I wish more people would do it so there wouldnt be so much arguing. I have video taped my self on the erg but i wouldnt post it, dont want to be embarrased!

[Dickie]

Fred,

Nevertheless, this tempest in a teapot has gone beyond the point of absurdity. It's time to get a life, so I'm taking an indeterminate hiatus from this forum. I may read it from time to time, but I won't be posting anymore. I wish you all well.

I hope you don't leave us entirely, It is sad that so many good people view these threads and say no more, when the real solution is so simple. When you see a thread degenerating to a point you no longer want to deal with, simply abandon the thread, I have seen no job description that says anyone has to take it upon themselves to set everyone else straight. I read very few threads now, there are so many, some just don't interest me,

"Shorts"
"Cycling Thread"
"Belly Bruises"
"The Feet"

I don't read anything in the womans forum (No offense Ladies, I like you all a lot, I even married one) but theres not much there that pertains to me and I'm sure you don't need my boorish comments.

and I avoid, the contentious threads after a time, because nothing is ever resolved and they degenerate quickly, but I havn't abandoned the forum.

I hope you and others can find what I will call a more reasonable approach and stick around for the good stuff.

Fred Dickie

[Ducatista]

cant wait to see the videos, I wish more people would do it so there wouldnt be so much arguing.

It's not an absence of videotape that's to blame for so much arguing. It's a tendency to argue.

The drama can be annoying, sure, but leaving the forum over it is like throwing out your television because there's too much crap on TV. Just change the damn channel! And skip the offending threads. (Unless you're drawn to them, trainwreck-style, and feel the only way to avoid them is to stay away from the tracks.)

[gcanyon]

And by the way, Dwayne, was goaded into doing a 2000 that received an IND_V, and still that is not good enough, because the PM3 can be "scammed". He is derided because there is no video. Well, let me be the first to tell you it is easier to scam a photo or video than the PM3. And beyond the already achieved IND_V how would you have him prove it, the racing season is over.

Fred Dickie

First, my post wasn't about Dwayne. I don't care one way or the other about one rower who may or may not be the fastest 40-49 hwt in the rankings. Either way, I'm pretty certain he's much faster than I am

But I don't see how you can say that it's easier to scam video than the PM3? The PM3 can be scammed just by getting a group of people together. Video requires video editing skills that are (for now) beyond most people. Of course, ten or so years from now video might mean nothing, but for now I think it's fairly reliable. If you disagree, please post a video of you rowing a 2K in four minutes. See if anyone thinks it looks convincing.

Again, I'm not saying it can't be done, just that most people can't do it. You might be the exception, in which case I'd be curious to see what you can do.

[michaelb]

Again, I'm not saying it can't be done, just that most people can't do it. You might be the exception, in which case I'd be curious to see what you can do.

Maybe it is friday, and I am getting punchy. But might I take you up on that. I have video of me rowing, and I won't bother to take more now, or actually row a 2k. But I bet I could take out about 30% of the frames in the video, or compress the time scale about that much (total editing time: 1 minute), then export the DV to a compressed format and a smalll size suitable for web posting. The video might look jumpy or blotchy; but videos streamed on the web always do.

Also, as a technical matter, I would say it is going to be practically impossible to display the PM3 and the rower, in the video rowing at the same time. Maybe a head mounted camera could work. But you couldn't get the whole rower and the PM3 at the same time. At any distance back where you can see the rower I would say there is no chance you would be able to read the PM3 on the video. A camera operator could pan back and forth, but then that would be so easy to fake by cutting in the editing room.

But for purposes of this test, I am not going to mess with faking the PM3 display (a simple mask over the screen might be the easiest way).

[whp4]

But I don't see how you can say that it's easier to scam video than the PM3? The PM3 can be scammed just by getting a group of people together. Video requires video editing skills that are (for now) beyond most people. Of course, ten or so years from now video might mean nothing, but for now I think it's fairly reliable. If you disagree, please post a video of you rowing a 2K in four minutes. See if anyone thinks it looks convincing.

Again, I'm not saying it can't be done, just that most people can't do it. You might be the exception, in which case I'd be curious to see what you can do.

Given that a 4:00 2k calls for a continuous 1620 watts, I think it will be hard to make a convincing video because everyone knows that it isn't possible. Show me as many videos of a magician sawing someone in half as you like, but I won't believe that anyone was bisected and rejoined.

In general, how do you know the person rowing in the video is the person claiming the result? Looking at the annual meters board, most people don't have pictures, some pictures are hard to use as identification, and there isn't any authentication of the pictures in any case. No need for any fancy video editing tricks if you can just shoot a video of someone faster and send that in! I haven't had much difficulty finding people who can row 2k faster than I do

Bill

[Citroen]

But I bet I could take out about 30% of the frames in the video, or compress the time scale about that much (total editing time: 1 minute), then export the DV to a compressed format and a smalll size suitable for web posting. The video might look jumpy or blotchy; but videos streamed on the web always do.

Now take a video from behind with the PM2/PM3 showing distance and elapsed time in sharp focus. Try editing that. I can simply use a stopwatch to show it as false. Don't stream it. Post the full gigabyte sized file.

[NavigationHazard]

There's been a video up for a while of my 50s HW wr 500m row, at http://media.putfile.com/500m-erg-WR-row.

You're right -- it's nearly impossible to get both the whole erg and the monitor in focus at the same time. This particular angle manages to show the monitor, and enough of the the flywheel housing/damper lever to show that nothing funky is going on there, as well as enough of me going back and forth at sufficient speed and regularity to rule out any possibility of a relay. Note that I included an audio track. I should also say that the elapsed times on the monitor match precisely a stopwatch, and for that matter my to-and-froing matches the displayed stroke rating.

It's not the most exciting video ever, but it has a certain charm.....

EDIT -- you can also see quite clearly that I'm starting from a dead fan. This is something that perhaps needs to be taken into consideration if the idea is to replicate race conditions as faithfully as possible.

[NavigationHazard]

I also videoed my sub-3 1k, if anyone wants to watch that ....

[michaelb]

This was slightly harder than I thought. The speedup/slowdown tool in iMovie doesn't let you adjust the factor, so bumping it up in speed by one notch, cuts the time in half. So this clip is pretty much the equivalent of me rowing a 4:00 2k pace, since I would have been rowing about a 2:00 pace in real life (ie. this clip is at 50% of real time). This is an old clip, not from DV, so the quality is bad, perfect for a fake.

I am not sure this is credible, since my stroke rate on the 2nd stroke is too fast. To stage this properly, I should be rowing about 15 strokes a minute, not 25 as in this clip. But I think a 20-30% reduction in time, which I am pretty sure I could do if I had quicktime pro still, would be very difficult to see. And that would be going from a 7:00 2k down to a nice brisk 5:35.

http://public.sorella3.myfastmail.com/fake.mov

[johnlvs2run]

Impressive 500 meters.

I counted 68 strokes, thus 50.7 spm and 7.35 meters per stroke.

I believe the fan was stationary, but don't see any proof of that. The camera could be farther back, and in more of a straight line with the monitor which would then give a better view of it.

The 1:14 to 1:17 pace for the first 250 meters gives support to the PERathlon's 1:17 standard for 50+ heavyweights as being likely, certainly not impossible and possibly a bit soft. It even looks like you'd be able to approach that yourself, with a more even pacing and not dying out to 1:32 pace at the end.

Anyway it looked a nice 500 meters, especially the constant rhythm all the way through and consistency with the meters per stroke.

Thanks for sharing the video.

[Dickie]

And by the way, Dwayne, was goaded into doing a 2000 that received an IND_V, and still that is not good enough, because the PM3 can be "scammed". He is derided because there is no video. Well, let me be the first to tell you it is easier to scam a photo or video than the PM3. And beyond the already achieved IND_V how would you have him prove it, the racing season is over.

Fred Dickie

First, my post wasn't about Dwayne. I don't care one way or the other about one rower who may or may not be the fastest 40-49 hwt in the rankings. Either way, I'm pretty certain he's much faster than I am

But I don't see how you can say that it's easier to scam video than the PM3? The PM3 can be scammed just by getting a group of people together. Video requires video editing skills that are (for now) beyond most people. Of course, ten or so years from now video might mean nothing, but for now I think it's fairly reliable. If you disagree, please post a video of you rowing a 2K in four minutes. See if anyone thinks it looks convincing.

Again, I'm not saying it can't be done, just that most people can't do it. You might be the exception, in which case I'd be curious to see what you can do.

GCanyon

In reference to your first paragraph above. Don't get mad at me if you can't read a post. The part you quoted from me was in response to TomR, whom I quoted in my post .

Second, there is video editing software out there today that costs less than $100, that with a little practice, anyone could use. It would be very difficult to scam a video where both the rower and the PM3 were on the screen all the time, simply because you would need to alter many many frames and time sync the whole thing, But one of my daughters ex-boyfriends, who is studying computer graphics at college assures me it could be accomplished in his computer lab , my guess is it would take more than a week. A much easier task would be to show the rower from the side as you would video someone for a critique of their rowing style and at the end, without stopping the film, move in to a closeup of the monitor. You could then edit the film by removing frames to compress the timeframe and then edit the final frames that show the monitor. I believe this would be a lot easier than trying to convince some of my friends to lie for me.

I program mainframes for a living and I have a passing knowledge of PC's, not enough to perform the first scenario I outlined. But I have thought about trying the second, just to se if I can. If I get around to it, I will give it a try. Maybe I will show everyone how easy it is to pull a 5:20.

So there we have it. You can scam the PM3 and you can scam (alter) a video, still there are no solutions.

I am open to suggestions..... Anyone?

Fred Dickie

[michaelb]

Obviously I made no effort to capture the PM3 display. Nav's video is an interesting contrast. Since the rower is not visible, I would guess that I could edit out the relay changes. The choice of the avg pace display would make this easier, since the clock count down is barely visible and sometimes fades out in the glare. The framerate is also jerky enough that cuts could be pretty rough and still be plausible. I would get rid of the curtains fluttering if I was staging this, although they are a nice detail. The rhythmic shaking of the erg would be need to be synchronized so lighter guys or tougher ergs would help.

I am not at all serious in this BTW. I don't think anyone should feel compelled to video tape their rows. Great job Nav on the world record, that is amazingly fast.

[Dickie]

This was slightly harder than I thought. The speedup/slowdown tool in iMovie doesn't let you adjust the factor, so bumping it up in speed by one notch, cuts the time in half. So this clip is pretty much the equivalent of me rowing a 4:00 2k pace, since I would have been rowing about a 2:00 pace in real life (ie. this clip is at 50% of real time). This is an old clip, not from DV, so the quality is bad, perfect for a fake.

I am not sure this is credible, since my stroke rate on the 2nd stroke is too fast. To stage this properly, I should be rowing about 15 strokes a minute, not 25 as in this clip. But I think a 20-30% reduction in time, which I am pretty sure I could do if I had quicktime pro still, would be very difficult to see. And that would be going from a 7:00 2k down to a nice brisk 5:35.

http://public.sorella3.myfastmail.com/fake.mov

All you really need to do with this type of film is film yourself rowing normally for a distance that you can complete in say 5:20 so that the timing is right. At the end of the film pan in to view the monitor, square up on it and hold for a few seconds.

Now perform some other rows, whatever it takes to show the various numbers that would go together on the monitor for your fictional row. For instance pull a few strokes at 1:20 to get the watts for that pace and the pace itself and take a digital photo from the same position as the final view from the video. Then row a 2k at any pace so you have the distance etc. Then edit one of the digital pictures substituting the numbers shown on the monitor with the numbers from other pictures. finally take that digital photo and edit that screen into the video frames at the end. Now you have a video that is 5:20 in length and shows all the appropriate numbers on the performance monitor. As long as you take the video and the stills of the monitor from the same position and perform all the erging in a place where you can control the lighting so it does not change, you should be able to cut and paste bits and pieces of various stills of the monitor into one that says you rowed a 5:20 and edit it into the video.

Fred Dickie