Accusation that Sanders pushed out "doctored" video ends up drawing more attention to Acosta's behav

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
But then BuzzFeed ended up raining on everyone's "actual fake news" parade. After looking more closely at the video, BuzzFeed concluded that rather than some nefarious attempt to mislead the public about Acosta's unprofessional actions, the alterations in the video appear to simply be what happens when converting video from one format to another.

"There's no evidence that the video was deliberately sped up — but the change in format, from a high-quality video to a low-quality GIF, turns the question of whether it was 'doctored' into a semantic debate," BuzzFeed's Charlie Warzel reports. "This video analysis by BuzzFeed News demonstrates what the GIF conversion process does to video. While it's not technically "sped up" by intent, it effectively is in practice. The video-to-GIF conversion removes frames from the source material by reducing the frame rate. The GIF-making tool GIF Brewery, for example, typically reduces source video to 10 frames per second. Raw, televised video typically has a frame rate of 29.97 frames per second."


CNN's Claim That Sarah Sanders Pushed 'Actual Fake News' About Acosta Backfires


:gossip:
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
But then BuzzFeed ended up raining on everyone's "actual fake news" parade. After looking more closely at the video, BuzzFeed concluded that rather than some nefarious attempt to mislead the public about Acosta's unprofessional actions, the alterations in the video appear to simply be what happens when converting video from one format to another.

"There's no evidence that the video was deliberately sped up — but the change in format, from a high-quality video to a low-quality GIF, turns the question of whether it was 'doctored' into a semantic debate," BuzzFeed's Charlie Warzel reports. "This video analysis by BuzzFeed News demonstrates what the GIF conversion process does to video. While it's not technically "sped up" by intent, it effectively is in practice. The video-to-GIF conversion removes frames from the source material by reducing the frame rate. The GIF-making tool GIF Brewery, for example, typically reduces source video to 10 frames per second. Raw, televised video typically has a frame rate of 29.97 frames per second."


CNN's Claim That Sarah Sanders Pushed 'Actual Fake News' About Acosta Backfires


:gossip:
I know nothing of technicalities of video. I do know the man had his question, kept insisting on another and another acted like an a-hole and got stomped by the president.
Good.
A Presidential conference is not some beer hall where he can wrestle the microphone away and run off at the mouth as long as he pleases.
Those opposing his suspension are in favor of turning a Presidential Press conference into a free for all.
 

limblips

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
If the loony left wants to dictate how Trump runs his pressers Trump should just stop doing them. There is no requirement that he conduct press conferences. He can release written statements.
 

mAlice

professional daydreamer
If the loony left wants to dictate how Trump runs his pressers Trump should just stop doing them. There is no requirement that he conduct press conferences. He can release written statements.
I agree. If I were the Prez, I would have already taken all their passes, and had their #### packed up and moved out.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
So, what context are they claiming might be changed because of this conversion? When you convert WAV to MP3 the conversion also goes through a similar conversion process. I challenge any of you ordinary music listeners to play the same song in WAV and MP3 to hear any difference.

CNN propped a bigoted leftist hack to "challenged" the president. Not ask issue-oriented questions and report; but challenge the president. Acosta goes in their every day with the express purpose of trying to make a fool out of the president, AND to make it all about him (Acosta). No manipulation of video will change that. CNN counts on us being too ignorant to see what they're doing.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
So, what context are they claiming might be changed because of this conversion? When you convert WAV to MP3 the conversion also goes through a similar conversion process. I challenge any of you ordinary music listeners to play the same song in WAV and MP3 to hear any difference.

CNN propped a bigoted leftist hack to "challenged" the president. Not ask issue-oriented questions and report; but challenge the president. Acosta goes in their every day with the express purpose of trying to make a fool out of the president, AND to make it all about him (Acosta). No manipulation of video will change that. CNN counts on us being too ignorant to see what they're doing.
Now they will have to find a new fool. Acosta is gone .
 

Clem72

Active Member
So, what context are they claiming might be changed because of this conversion? When you convert WAV to MP3 the conversion also goes through a similar conversion process. I challenge any of you ordinary music listeners to play the same song in WAV and MP3 to hear any difference.
No.

Most WAV files are pulled from CDs, which have a sampling rate of 44.1khz (44,100 samples per second). Sometimes they come from digital sources like DAT, which is 48khz.

The conversion to MP3 is very configurable, but most often the sampling rate is left the same. In fact, just about the only time you see the sampling rate reduced is when it's spoken word (like an audiobook) which limits the impact to the sound. Music dropped from 44khz to 22khz is absolutely noticeable.

But in either case, we are talking about 3 orders of magnitude more samples than video. If you dropped the audio to 30 samples per second it would likley be unrecognizable (probably sound like a speak and spell).

But even more to the point, audio and video are not encoded the same way.

Ignoring the Analog to Digital process, an uncompressed digital audio signal represents an actual sound wave (or several) using a 16bit numbers taken once per sample period (I.E. 44,100 times in a second). Most lossy compression schemes (like Mpeg 1 Layer 3 Audio, I.E. MP3) for audio use models to build approximate matches to the audio wave. The more source "wave" algorithms and the more advanced ways to combine them the more processing power is needed to encode/decode and (typically) the better the approximation/result. But the key here is that by approximating an actual wave, and not reproducing samples of a wave, you can play the result at any sampling frequency without affecting the original timing/tempo of the source (you basically have infinite samples from which to choose from).

This is completely different from video. In video you have an image built of individual pixels (say 1920 veritcal by 1080 horizontal) and each pixel can be (in 10 bit color) over a billion different colors. Most lossy compression schemes for video first reduce the number of colors per frame by identifying groups of close colors and making them the same, then they build a "key" frame that has recognizable shapes of these like colors, and for every frame in between a key frame (I/B frames) these shapes are tracked, and the transformation and movement of each is tracke. This allows you to discard these frames and during runtime "rebuild" them using the data from the key frames before and after, and the shape tracking algorithms.

With video the fewer the frames (and more importantly the fewer the key frames) the greater the amount of movement has to be approximated. Add to that the fact that video is played typically in frames synced to original media sources (24fps for film, 29.97fps for NTSC TV, 25fps for PAL TV being the three major ones) you have issues where converting between one and another while keeping the "key" frames synchronized in time causes you to drop I/B frames (for film to TV conversion this is called 3:2 pulldown, where every 4 frames of video is turned into 5 frames, witha slight jittery pause is interjected because the last frame is copied rather than interpolated to be the average between two frames).

This is further complicated when older "web graphic" standards (.gif, MJPEG, etc.) introduced lower frame rates to save on space (15fps and 12fps specifically, as they are roughly half the original standards) and did not bother to build I/B frames but rather display the same frame until a new one is synced (so if your monitor is set for 30hz refresh, playing a 15fps .GIF will display every frame twice).

So to put it simply, when converting 29.97 NTSC video (or in this case 30fps digital tv camera source) to 15fps for web-video half of the information is lost and all "motion" becomes more jittery (or as described in this video more "aggressive").
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So to put it simply, when converting 29.97 NTSC video (or in this case 30fps digital tv camera source) to 15fps for web-video half of the information is lost and all "motion" becomes more jittery (or as described in this video more "aggressive").
Yet, it does not change that it was done. "More" or "less" aggressive is in the eye of the beholder - pushing the staffer for doing her job is indisputable, and justifiably unacceptable to the White House.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I see reporters taking up for this prick.
That is a bit hard to understand because what he does is take up their time and cheat them out of their own questions.

But then if they are taking up for him , maybe they are too stupid to ask good questions.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
No.

Most WAV files are pulled from CDs, which have a sampling rate of 44.1khz (44,100 samples per second). Sometimes they come from digital sources like DAT, which is 48khz.
We can get into the weeds of formats and their sample rates and conversions to various other formats and how the data is handled if you want. I was pointing out that converting from a higher quality video or audio format to a lower quality format, there is going to be compression, which requires dropping of bits and compressing of data to save space. That's why iPods use mp3, because you can store more. It's not done to manipulate context, it's done to save space. But, to the ordinary listener or viewer they aren't going to hear or see the difference. And, more to my point is, what context of that video was lost or changed by converting from a higher quality video to gif? I was fortunate to watch the thing live. CNN's claim is, like most of what they report, bull####.
 
Top