Joined: 4/11/2006
Posts: 487
Location: North of Russia :[
Looks like I am not the only one who thinks that showing number of frames after last second is better than 1/100ths. It's more precise. 1/100ths are easier to understand though~
I wanted to create a poll, but it looks like I can not =(
Joined: 8/26/2006
Posts: 1139
Location: United Kingdom
It is more precise, yes, but to mix frames with seconds is to mix to different forms of measurement. It would confuse many, i feel. Much in the same way that measuring the mass of something in kg and then whatever is left over is measured in lbs rather than the logical g would.
Nu-uh. Frames are indivisible, and you can't divide 60 by 100 evenly; hence all the numbers are rounded, which essentially makes them less precise.
Eh, I think you misunderstood Mukki, from what I read, it sounds like he is saying that frames are more precise, but would lead to confusion...
I personally feel that 1/100th seconds are a better choice. True frames are more precise and would not require rounding off, but then that wouldn't compromise the ability of the viewer to discern between which runs are faster than which (that is if anomalis like the SMB1 don't appear).
And what if certain games do not playback at 60fps? I know that Prince of Persia doesn't, and I believe some N64 games do not as well. Would the 60 frames measure be accurate still? I doubt so...
Eh, I think you misunderstood Mukki, from what I read, it sounds like he is saying that frames are more precise, but would lead to confusion...
Hmm, yes, it seems you're right.
xoinx wrote:
And what if certain games do not playback at 60fps? I know that Prince of Persia doesn't, and I believe some N64 games do not as well. Would the 60 frames measure be accurate still? I doubt so...
While certain games do not, both the respective emulators and the resulting AVIs run at 60 FPS, and there are less than 10 movies with PAL timing on the site. My main problem with millisecond count is that with so much rounding involved, it's much harder to calculate the residual frame count (and the actual number of frames can only be viewed by loading the movie in the emulator, just like that).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
My main problem with millisecond count is that with so much rounding involved, it's much harder to calculate the residual frame count (and the actual number of frames can only be viewed by loading the movie in the emulator, just like that).
Hmmm, we could just ask Bisqwit to include that field... I remember the old version of the submission page had it, but seems like it has been replaced completely with the minutes and seconds. I would prefer both to be displayed together
I think measuring hundredths of a second is a bad idea. We aren't measuring hundredths of a minute because we have a more precise measurement: seconds. Why should we measure hundredths of a second when we have a more precise measurement of frames available?
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
The amount of frames is not very relevant when showing the time it took to complete a run on the front page of this site. I believe that we should show either only conventional time units when required (e.g. hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds) or only the amount of frames (e.g. 23492 frames).
The reason why we shouldn't use frames behind the seconds is because the whole point of using conventional time units is to give an easier impression of how long the run is. Frames can be sufficiently accurately converted to time, so why do so?
Why should we measure hundredths of a second when we have a more precise measurement of frames available?
Precision of hundredths of seconds: 0.01000 seconds.
Precision of frames: 0.01666 seconds.
I'm not changing this to frames, at least not without changing the entire time to frames. The main reason is that there's no established way to express a combination of whole seconds and frames whereas there is an established way to express whole seconds and fractions of seconds.
An unambiguous way could be achieved by listing something like "25:13 + 16 frames", but I'd hate seeing that output format everywhere, so I won't use it.
Saying "23492 frames" would also be of very little informational value.
If the hundredths gain enough opposition, I'll revert that change...
The thing is, a framecount is not even saved in the database. Instantly when reading the file in, it converts it into decimal number of seconds using a movie specific FPS value, and saves that value to the database.
Converting it back to frames would require having the FPS value, which is also not saved to the database.
Precision of hundredths of seconds: 0.01000 seconds.
Precision of frames: 0.01666 seconds.
I don't understand what you're getting at. Did I use "precision" at a wrong time?
Either way, the two have a 1-to-1 correspondence. If you're going to split hours up into minutes, and minutes into seconds, why not seconds into frames? It is a used format of hh:mm:ss:ff, for example in movie (not TAS movie, but motion picture movie) recording, each still is measured to the frames (with 30 fps). I'd say it's established.
Some of my movie times' seconds have also changed; did the site round up/down/nearest before?
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
Sure it does.
. length = frames / FPS
. frames = length * FPS
Both equations depend on FPS.
JXQ: yes, the site did round to nearest.
Re: precision, I meant that hundredths of seconds don't sacrifice any information as regards to the actual movie length.
The thing is, a framecount is not even saved in the database. Instantly when reading the file in, it converts it into decimal number of seconds using a movie specific FPS value, and saves that [number] to the database.
The thing is, a framecount is not even saved in the database. Instantly when reading the file in, it converts it into decimal number of seconds using a movie specific FPS value, and saves that [number] to the database.
I guess saving the framecount as well isn't an option?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Here's my vote: FCEU runs at 60.0998.... frrames per second. 1 second is not a whole number of frames, and vice versa. Go with seconds.
On a related note, I think the site calculates movie length using 60.000 on FCEU, so maybe this isn't relevant anyways. Or maybe that changed since last I checked.
I was just going to bring up how 60 FCEU frames don't even equal one second (you "lose" a second somewhere around 20000 frames, I think) ...
I'm all for hundredths, as it provides a common ground between PAL and NTSC movies, instead of going "Well, some movies end in :60 and some in :50, so you can't tell".
Do we really need sub second precision? I know that of all the movies that have been obsoleted, only a handful are by less than one second.
Personally I dont much care for a time of 59:17.97
Maybe rounding to a tenth of a second is good enough? 59:17.9
That seems more natural.
This signature is much better than its previous version.
I did not intend the coverage of the change to be as wide as it turned out to be. I actually forgot where I intended it to show, but it certainly wasn't "everywhere"…
So I agree with asteron, in that there's no need for sub second precision to be indicated everywhere.
If you're going to split hours up into minutes, and minutes into seconds, why not seconds into frames? It is a used format of hh:mm:ss:ff, for example in movie
That would be really confusing. If someone sees "1:27:16" he will think it's one and a half hours long, not one and a half minutes.
asteron wrote:
Personally I dont much care for a time of 59:17.97
Maybe rounding to a tenth of a second is good enough? 59:17.9
59:18.0 would be more precise (less rounding error) than 59:17.9 in this case.
