What I believe, and what I plan to do

[gcanyon]

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

I wasn't trying to say that a four minute 2K would be convincing. A demonstration video that is supposed to prove that a result could be faked should be unrealistic enough that there is no question that it might be a fake fake -- a real video purporting to be proof that results can be faked.

The question of how you know the person in the video is the one claiming the result is somewhat moot. There is presumably some person out there who signs on as Navigation Hazard. I don't know his/her name, and I don't need to. If I see a video posted claiming to be Navigation Hazard rowing a certain result, what more do I need?

(NavHaz, sorry to pick on you)

Of course, if Navigation Hazard claims to be a 70 year old lightweight woman, but looks an awful lot like a 30 year old heavyweight man, then we have a verification issue to work on.

I'm happy to leave that bridge uncrossed for now.

[gcanyon]

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).

You are correct -- my original idea of showing the initial setup and the final result, and in between focusing on the rower, is flawed.

And your video sped up two times looks fairly convincing.

But Navigation Hazard's video looks serviceable -- the display is clearly visible throughout the row. True, you can only see a bit of Navigation Hazard in the row, but I think it's enough to see that there isn't a switch in rowers part way through.

You'd probably want to have a continuous shot that starts on the rower, goes to a view of the rower and the display, and finishes with the rower again after the finish.

Let's put it this way: In a few days I'll post a video of me doing my best at a 2K. Hopefully it won't be too embarassing.

Take my video, and make me a superstar. I'll be thinking of ways to trip you up -- an analog clock in the background sounds difficult. Maybe have the dog in the background as well...

[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.

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

Sorry if I wasn't being clear. I understood that you were referencing someone else's post. I just wanted to be clear that for me this is not about Dwayne.

I think it's clear at this point that a video that simply starts with a closeup of the setup, then shows only the rower, and then goes back for a closeup of the result, is likely to be suspect from the moment it is posted.

But as stated in another response, I think there are several fairly simple things that can be done to increase the level of difficulty significantly.

And again, I am not saying that it can't be done -- only that I think it is going to be harder to be convincing than people think.

gc

[gcanyon]

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

I'd be very interested.

[gcanyon]

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.

Fred Dickie

I agree, so a video that looked like this wouldn't be convincing. I think it will be possible to produce videos that are far less likely to have been faked.

[NavigationHazard]

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

I'd be very interested.

Okay, I've posted it at http://media.putfile.com/50-MHW-1k-erg-WR

It's clipped from about 7 minutes of video showing me checking DF, punching in the workout, and waiting for the fan to come to a stop before starting. The file is .wmv, and runs about 16mb. It turns out that other compression methods available to me, e.g. avi, degrade image quality such that what's on the monitor becomes hard to read. I'm not sure that I could get an entire 2k into the 25mb limit my free hosting site imposes.

Warning -- the plot isn't real exciting. It looks a lot like the 500m video, only longer and with rather slower stroke paces....

It also show up fairly dark on my desktop monitor -- you may need to adjust monitor brightness to be able to see the PM3 display clearly.

[johnlvs2run]

The 500 was 68 strokes, 50.7 spm and 7.35 meters per stroke.

The 1000 was 123 strokes, 41.3 spm and 8.13 meters per stroke.

[pduck]

OK, your time might be accurate, but how do we know that you aren't on steroids?

(I'm just kidding!)

[NavigationHazard]

Fat boyz don't do steroids.

We do donuts.