I knew I'd seen it here before.  I even qualitied it!

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Sorry my King, you got scooped...

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Awesome-Bullet-Slow-Motion-Video

yeah, i notice the ED209 doesn't actually, you know, MOVE, or do anything useful.

In an actual commercial game that you can play at more than 1 frame-per-second, shaders > polys.

Your video, Soap Bubble - 10 000 Frames Per Second, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^chilaxe:
Can someone explain the force that causes the liquid to stop expanding after the impact and bunch up again?


I believe it's the water's surface tension. The hydrogens of the water are positively charged and attracted to the negatively charged oxygen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_tension

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Keep in mind that one is a movie and the other is a series. Animation standards are higher for movies; more in-between frames per second.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'slow motion, frames per second, punches, faces, slomo, fps' to 'slow motion, frames per second, punches, faces, slomo, fps, punching' - edited by doogle

"Minimum system requirements:

Intel Skulltrail chipset with 2x Core2Extreme Quad-Core QX9775 3.2Ghz or better
4 Gigabytes PC3-10600 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM
3x nVidia 9800 GTX in Tri-SLI config (because nVidia pays us enough to ignore ATI)"

and you'll only get 25 frames per second too!

THANKS CRYTEK!

holy crap, that's A LOT of major problems!

unbelievable the amount of problems and errors for what should be a AAA title release. you should create a channel on youtube, post a video rant (with screen captures) and I'll post it to the sift.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
AAhhh, Crysis... Worst fucking release ever. When it works, it works great. It's a masterpiece. But it never works.
Nothing but trouble ALL day. I've had to call Tech Support four times already.
The first time I started the game, it rendered my cursor 300 pixels right and 100 pixels down of where it was reading it - in other words, if I wanted to click a menu button, I had to move my cursor over two inches and down one.

Second: While playing the game, the performance suddenly drops to about 5 frames per second. Dropping my graphics to nil does nothing to solve. Restart the game, graphics to High, works fine again (for now>

Third: changing anti-aliasing automatically causes the game to crash. Every time.

Fourth: Wile playing, I turn around to find my arms floating in mid-air. It was as if I was staring at myself, only all I could see were my arms. I saved it and restarted the game.

Fifth: Upon loading the game again, it places me inside a tank. It was as if I has use no clip to walk through it's side, then turned clipping on again. I was stuck. Couldn't move at all. So I reloaded my save.

Sixth: Upon reloading, it places me about 100 feet in the air, and of course I fall to my death.

Seventh: I reload again to find myself on top of the tank. I jump off, go around a wall, and all the sudden I get strange colored triangles all over my screen. Nothing I do gets rid of them, so I close the game. Well, Crysis ***** so bad, it kept those triangle on my desktop. Here's a screen shot for you: http://i50. photobucket.com/albums/f329/marinegunrock/Untitled.jpg.

Eighth: The game starts stuttering EVERY sound it produces. Even a restart doesn't solve it.

So here's my question: How the hell did this game make it out of beta?


In reply to this comment by qruel:
hey bro, I don't know if you got a chance to revisit this post, but check out Thylans comment as it was really interesting in describing what was happening.

ow's Crysis coming along ? Do you do modding at all ?

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
This PSA is absolutely right in what it's saying, but throwing water on to a grease fire does not equate to throwing gasoline onto it. Gotta love exaggeration.

If I had to guess I wouldn't say this is 10000 frames per second, but rather the same as the water drop strobe light thingy, if you take a picture every 1/10th sec at an engine running at 1000 rpm (or 60,000 rev/s) you could combine pictures to make an animation because the combustion is relatively repetitive enough combine frames from later.

Hopefully this will be my final post on this page.

Rougy,

I very disappointed that you did not address my observations specifically about the funding of research into the collapse of the WTC. I am also disappointed that you feel I am not open to your opinion. I can only tell you that I am. However, before you can convince me, you need to show me data and analysis.

Briefly, you mention the Pentagon attacks. While I think that is a non sequitur, I will humor some discussion. The standard frame rate of most cameras is 32 frames per second. Say the distance the plane traveled in the picture was approximately 100-50m, and the speed of the plane was 600-800mph(270-360m/s). This assumes constant velocity, which is wrong but for our purposes it is close enough. At 32 frames per second that means anywhere from 11 to 4 frames, which means a very spotty video. And even if you double this distance you are still talking about less than 30 frames. That is not a lot, and hardly enough to make a video. I would agree that it would seem to me that there had to more than one camera pointed in that direction. But the closer you are the harder it is to capture the plane, because it would mean fewer frames. Secondly, the only way a closer camera would catch a better view would be if it was pointed in the direction of the attack, which might be possible and a valid point.

I would like to conclude with some comments on our discussion. There are some key features that I believe are strong indicators of a bad argument or at least a losing one.

1) Personal Attacks

2) Comparisons to Totalitarian Regimes\Evil Dictators

3) Inventing Vocabulary

4) Non sequitur

5) Gross Extrapolation

If at the very least these do not indicate a bad argument, then they do demean it. They devalue our discussion and make it useless. In the end you walk away thinking what you thought in the beginning and so do I, which is contrary to the heart of debate and discussion.

I think it is funny that you say,

"I've honestly come to despise my country, America, largely because of people like you."

The fact that people like you can speak freely is precisely why I love America.

Anyway, I harbor no hatred towards you.

Sincerely,

MH

Perhaps the weight was looking at his girlfriend, or said something unflattering about protein shakes? Perhaps if the video was more than 4 frames per second, we might know.

This is where you need 300 frames per second and HD

Despite what Solmed suggests, a high shutter speed WOULD be necessary to theoretically capture an effect like this, in addition to frames-per-second synchronization.
With a low shutter speed, each blade would move a significant distance while the shutter was open, resulting in a blurred (though apparently stationary) blade.
For the record, I believe it's entirely possible that this video is legitimate. As long as there is a (motion picture) camera capable of a high-enough shutter speed to capture the blade tips then the rest is academic.
It could be rendered, but I doubt it.
If you track down the original post there are actually two videos. The second includes a flyover of a crowded airstrip indicating that this probably took place at an airshow.

It has nothing to do with shutter speed but Frames Per Second (FPS), you don't need a high shutter speed to capture the blades like that. If I were going to try this I would turn the FPS up as high as it will go and record. In editing I would adjust the FPS to create the effect of the blades not moving. I have a sneaky suspicion (and I'm not going to count) this video does not have a standard FPS, i.e. 24 or 29, but rather somewhat below that rate. As evidence to that fact look how jerky the clouds in the background are. Great trick though!

From Wiki:

A Trip to the Moon (French: Le Voyage dans la lune) is a 1902 French black and white silent science fiction film. It is loosely based on two popular novels of the time: From the Earth to the Moon by Jules Verne and The First Men in the Moon by H. G. Wells. It was written and directed by Georges Méliès, assisted by his brother Gaston. The film runs 14 minutes if projected at 16 frames per second.

A Trip to the Moon was extremely popular in its day and is the best-known of the hundreds of fantasy films made by Méliès. It is also recognized as the first science fiction film, and utilizes innovative animation and special effects.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Voyage_dans_la_Lune