On the right (use the left-right arrows to see more detail):
I hear the guy on the left is also famous.
And how does it feel to lose by 1/100th of a second!? If he won a bronze instead, he would have been happier.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I really don't understand how Olympic athletes deal with the grief of losing by 1/100th of a second. That's an incomprehensible amount of time and yet it's the defining difference in the biggest event of their lives. I can only assume that, if I lost by a fraction of a second, I would have…
Developmental psychologists since Piaget have been interested in how well children are able to take the perspective of another. Piaget's laboratory had a large table with elaborate models on top; children who were able to take the perspective of a doll on the table and explain what the table looked…
My first column in the Guardian science blog will be coming out soon, and it's about a recent discovery that I found very exciting…but that some people may find strange and uninteresting. It's all about the identification of nodal in snails.
Why should we care? Well, nodal is a rather important…
We're only sorta bilaterally symmetric: superficially, our left and right halves are very similar, but dig down a little deeper, and all kinds of interesting differences appear. Our hearts are larger on the left than the right, our appendix is on the right side, even our brains have significant…
If I were the silver medalist in that race, I would be pretty frustrated.
We have a lot of faith that the sensors on the wall are accurate because of the precision they ultimately will need to address, as has been the case in numerous races this year. I'm fascinated at how that technology must work, though I've never looked into it before.
However, my real fascination is video, and the exposure as to how relatively slow 30 frames per second is. Despite the implied conclusion of Phelps fingers on the wall, no video showed an obvious "who touched first" winner in the race.
A few years ago I was investigating cameras that shot thousands of frames per second, mainly used in safety and "crash test" type of environments to document exactly when a structure / mechanism / product would fail. If I recall exactly, the example was on NASCAR equipment, testing the automobile equipment's resistance or failure upon impact. Cameras that could produce images at 10,000 frames per second were used to pinpoint structural defects.
I wonder if something as fleshy as a finger touching a wall would be visible to such an image. Or, how detailed would a picture need to be to capture a nose (nose hair?) crossing a finish line. Or as Torres said joking, but maybe not Really joking, a filed fingernail could make all the difference in a race.
It would be a great video review tool, although I could see such a camera slowing down the judging process a bit...the NHL video review process might look like a model of efficiency in comparison to scanning through thousands of frames of video to spot a winner.
For the record, I really like Phelps and glad he won, feeble 20th century 1/30 per second image or not.