Live data from Hacker News

Moths in slow motion [video]

aeon.co

91–100 of 129 posts

Re: Moths in slow motion [video]

#91
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because this video is the sixth in the series. The first video goes into all those details. The setup is meaningful to people who want to know how it was filmed. If you don't care for it you can always skip it. Why ask for the video to have less content that other people might want to watch just because you don't?

I mean, that's kinda like saying "why skip ads, someone made that content" or "why not watch whatever is on the tv on whatever channel happens to be open with you turn it on". People like different things, and tastes change with mood, timing, etc.

I don't think it's like that.

Ads are content with an ulterior purpose of, well, advertising.

And the suggestion to skip is precisely the opposite of "just watch whatever's on TV", it's more of "if you don't like that channel, why don't you switch to another one?"

---

Regardless, the argument is not whether or not one should watch the behind-the-scenes content, it's the existence of the content in the first place. If the behind-the-scenes is there, you can skip it if you want, but if it is not, then the one who wants to know how it was filmed will be left with no options.

Of course it doesn't mean it has to all be on the same video, but the nature of social video platforms ends up requiring that, otherwise the BTS is monetarily inefficient (if the channel in question is in it for the money).

Re: Moths in slow motion [video]

#92
post #51
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine cashmere? Too ordinary. Mink? Maybe, for the merely rich. When I make my first billion, I'll have a scarf made of snow-white moth fur.

Given what moths have done to every piece of cashmere I own it would be a fitting revenge.

What is it about the wool being knitted that attracts the moths. Why are sheep not just covered in moths?

Re: Moths in slow motion [video]

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because this video is the sixth in the series. The first video goes into all those details. The setup is meaningful to people who want to know how it was filmed. If you don't care for it you can always skip it. Why ask for the video to have less content that other people might want to watch just because you don't?

More than that, this video series has noticeably less "Look at MMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!" to it. Which is refreshing. Less filler, just the good stuff, like a professional production about the subject rather than the maker.

If I click a link to a video that has the person suggesting to subscribe, follow, smash, etc, I just stop watching. If you feel the need to prompt for followers, you're content is more than likely not good enough for me to want to follow it naturally.

Re: Moths in slow motion [video]

#94
post #44

This is incredibly nice, but I kept wondering how it looked like in real time. 6000 fps is a lot , so how much is it slowed down ? 100x ? (6000 -> 60 fps?)

I agree. I find it so strange when people talk about the frame rate. The is a product of filming and doesn't directly matter to the viewer. To the viewer I care what the slowdown is. Presumably it is 6000/30 which is 200x slower, but it doesn't actually say anywhere that I can find. I guess bigger number is better click-bait?

>I find it so strange when people talk about the frame rate.

Calling out the frame rate is a quick and easy way to tell you that you are going to be able to see some details that you ordinarily don't get to see. Yes, the higher the number the more nuanced the detail can be. They could call it HFR, but until recently 60 fps was considered HFR and not normal. So 120 fps would be HFR as much as 6k fps, but lets face it 6k fps is much more impressive than 120 fps.

I don't find it to be click-baity at all to include the frame rate in a title of a video. In fact, I find it quite useful metadata.

Re: Moths in slow motion [video]

#96
post #54
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standard videos on YouTube are 30fps, so it should be 200× slower.

Yeah, that's precisely this type of guessing I wanted to avoid :-). YouTube supports 60fps uploads, although this one does not seem available in a 60fps format. And of course there's the possibility of pre-processing :-)

The video on YouTube has exactly 30fps, you can right click and view the information for nerds (I think its called in English).

Of course this doesn't help with the issue of pre-processing, but assuming no frames have been removed or interpolated the factor 200 should be more or less correct.

Problem left: at least I can't really mentally process what 200× faster/slower would look like. (Besides turning the light on tonight, opening the window and watching at moths flying into my room and taking off again...)

Re: Moths in slow motion [video]

#99

This made me feel so much better about moths. With the video so close up they looked super cute and snuggly. Something I have never associated with a moth before. Secondly, I found it pretty cool to see how their flight wasn't as controlled as I had thought of. It looked like a bit of a mess on take off. Again, just disarmed me from the moths I've grown to despise flying around the house. Very cool to see them from a…

I found it interesting that the extreme slow motion made them seem a lot larger. As if they were furry dog-sized flying animals.

Re: Moths in slow motion [video]

#100
post #35
post #7

Seemed so straighforward: angle wing like \, lift wing. angle wing like /, lower wing. Result: propulsion.

Flight is straightforward, it’s just that humans are too heavy and slow for that.

From what I read it's very complicated, with vortex formations and stuff being quite important. That's why I was surprised at how simple it seemed.
Post reply on HN