Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 4]
Discussion
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Why, with modern widescreen tellies, do we still see tennis televised end-on? I'm watching the Men's Singles final and there was a very rare side-on view and it fit the screen very well.
I guess we're just used to the way it is now, but I can't help feeling it is down to the fact that end-on fitted 4:3 aspect a lot better and that's why it was chosen, and it's now just inertia.
Couple of reasons. The first is frame rate. The speed of the ball is too fast for most people's screens to offer up a smooth image of the ball moving through the air. This wouldn't necessarily be instantly obvious but would make for an uncomfortable viewing experience as the ball would effectively 'flicker' across the screen. As TV increasingly move to 4K and 5K this will become less of an issue. It would also tire your eyes as you would be constantly tracking the ball. Neither are issues when viewed end to end as you're essentially watching the ball getting smaller and bigger; its range of movement isn't as great.I guess we're just used to the way it is now, but I can't help feeling it is down to the fact that end-on fitted 4:3 aspect a lot better and that's why it was chosen, and it's now just inertia.
You then have field of view. A camera lens with a wide enough angle to get the whole court in given the space they have to position the camera would distort the far edges; the players would look like they're 7' tall and leaning inwards all the time. You can overcome this by using a longer lens on the camera but the camera would have to be positioned somewhere near Putney for that to work.
It's easier to see if a ball is in or out when viewed end to end.
StevieBee said:
Couple of reasons. The first is frame rate. The speed of the ball is too fast for most people's screens to offer up a smooth image of the ball moving through the air. This wouldn't necessarily be instantly obvious but would make for an uncomfortable viewing experience as the ball would effectively 'flicker' across the screen. As TV increasingly move to 4K and 5K this will become less of an issue. It would also tire your eyes as you would be constantly tracking the ball. Neither are issues when viewed end to end as you're essentially watching the ball getting smaller and bigger; its range of movement isn't as great.
You then have field of view. A camera lens with a wide enough angle to get the whole court in given the space they have to position the camera would distort the far edges; the players would look like they're 7' tall and leaning inwards all the time. You can overcome this by using a longer lens on the camera but the camera would have to be positioned somewhere near Putney for that to work.
It's easier to see if a ball is in or out when viewed end to end.
That all makes complete sense. Thanks! You then have field of view. A camera lens with a wide enough angle to get the whole court in given the space they have to position the camera would distort the far edges; the players would look like they're 7' tall and leaning inwards all the time. You can overcome this by using a longer lens on the camera but the camera would have to be positioned somewhere near Putney for that to work.
It's easier to see if a ball is in or out when viewed end to end.
I think I must have accidentally clicked onto the wrong forum. 
glazbagun said:
How much money do the Wimbledon tennis courts/club make every year?
It always looks as well kept as any Champions League starium, has an expensive roof on centre court, but only gets a few TV days of coverage per year.
Do they have a healthy income after Wimbledon, or is the mobey from the tournement more than enough to cover it all?
Centre Court and Number 1 Court are generally only used for the 2 weeks a year of the Wimbledon tournament, though they were used for the Olympics as well of course. It always looks as well kept as any Champions League starium, has an expensive roof on centre court, but only gets a few TV days of coverage per year.
Do they have a healthy income after Wimbledon, or is the mobey from the tournement more than enough to cover it all?
but the other courts are used throughout the season for other events and tournaments, plus of course I'm sure you can pay for a tour of the park which will do a bit for the cost of upkeep but I'm sure they make that cost back in ticket sales for the main event.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Google Navigation is almost freaky in the accuracy of its ETA, mainly due to the hive mind of everyone's speed and location being continuously slurped up to refine the estimate (it's the price you pay for using it).
Edit: I suspect Google has a pretty good idea of my driving style and average speeds too.
Google Maps adjusts your ETA as you go. I always take note of my original ETA and try to beat it, my best is 22 minutes from a 4 hour drive.Edit: I suspect Google has a pretty good idea of my driving style and average speeds too.
captain_cynic said:
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Google Navigation is almost freaky in the accuracy of its ETA, mainly due to the hive mind of everyone's speed and location being continuously slurped up to refine the estimate (it's the price you pay for using it).
Edit: I suspect Google has a pretty good idea of my driving style and average speeds too.
Google Maps adjusts your ETA as you go. I always take note of my original ETA and try to beat it, my best is 22 minutes from a 4 hour drive.Edit: I suspect Google has a pretty good idea of my driving style and average speeds too.
It is owned by Google, but has access to different data from Waze users - I heard that they aren't allowed to merge the two as it would be too dominant, although that may be a story.
How much of how someone looks is inheritable?
I found a photo of my grab when she was young in the 1930s, and she basically looks like an older version of one of my daughters. But my daughter looks nothing like any of her grandparents.
Do these things skip generations, can be recessive or what?
I found a photo of my grab when she was young in the 1930s, and she basically looks like an older version of one of my daughters. But my daughter looks nothing like any of her grandparents.
Do these things skip generations, can be recessive or what?
captain_cynic said:
Google Maps adjusts your ETA as you go. I always take note of my original ETA and try to beat it, my best is 22 minutes from a 4 hour drive.
Yes, indeed, you are correct. Although the initial ETA is still often uncannily accurate. I'll often think to myself "I'll get there far sooner than that" and invariably get there pretty much exactly bang on the initial ETA.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
captain_cynic said:
Google Maps adjusts your ETA as you go. I always take note of my original ETA and try to beat it, my best is 22 minutes from a 4 hour drive.
Yes, indeed, you are correct. Although the initial ETA is still often uncannily accurate. I'll often think to myself "I'll get there far sooner than that" and invariably get there pretty much exactly bang on the initial ETA.
captain_cynic said:
Agreed... I take it as a challenge to beat it.
Don't we all?Google Maps told my wife that it would take us 3hrs 45 mins to get to her uncle's house in Devon. I said "'We can do it in 3" - because we were leaving at 8am on Boxing Day.
Pulled into his driveway just as the trip computer hit 2h 59 mins.
"You always have to be right, don't you?"
loafer123 said:
captain_cynic said:
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Google Navigation is almost freaky in the accuracy of its ETA, mainly due to the hive mind of everyone's speed and location being continuously slurped up to refine the estimate (it's the price you pay for using it).
Edit: I suspect Google has a pretty good idea of my driving style and average speeds too.
Google Maps adjusts your ETA as you go. I always take note of my original ETA and try to beat it, my best is 22 minutes from a 4 hour drive.Edit: I suspect Google has a pretty good idea of my driving style and average speeds too.
It is owned by Google, but has access to different data from Waze users - I heard that they aren't allowed to merge the two as it would be too dominant, although that may be a story.
SpeckledJim said:
dxbtiger said:
How do they work out how many people are listening to a particular radio station?
They regularly survey a relatively small panel of people, and multiply the results up to the general population.These days with on demand telly via the internet, they have much more accurate data. And everyone provides it for free (often without realising).
As a side note, this is why Sky always used to insist that you connected a phone line to your Sky box - it allowed it to (literally) phone home with your viewing figures.
SpeckledJim said:
dxbtiger said:
How do they work out how many people are listening to a particular radio station?
They regularly survey a relatively small panel of people, and multiply the results up to the general population.Figures may not lie, but liars figure as the old adage goes.
captain_cynic said:
Hence I consider listener (and veiwership) numbers to be highly suspect. You lead with "do you listen to the radio" before giving them the survey so you can reduce the number of negative answers and have a larger number of people with which to extrapolate total numbers. Any statistic gleaned by survey and extrapolation is far too easy to game to be considered reliable. Especially when marketing professionals are involved.
Figures may not lie, but liars figure as the old adage goes.
You are suggesting they don't record the "No, I don't listen to the radio" answers?Figures may not lie, but liars figure as the old adage goes.
But if BBC R2 gets c. 9 million listeners, at peak, and its leagues ahead of anything else, the numbers don't add up to 66 million however you count them, it must account for the "no" people in the model?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff