Freezeframe selection can obviously be better -- I have chosen a better one out of the video.
So, anyway, to zoom onto an example good freezeframe of the RLCSContender video (regardless of opinion of his technique).
I analyzed
this YouTube video, just for kicks.
Searching freezeframes are my proper way to analyze handwave pursuit camera footage. To grab the best freezeframe, I singlestepped using "," and "." keys at the highest YouTube resolution, and found something near 0:07 to screen capture and zoom, of a sync track error margin that I liked.
Hand wave shakiness varies widely throughout a whole video file, but there are often instantaneous chances of sufficiently small shakiness. For this specific freezeframe, handwave shakiness is definitely subpixel both horizontally and vertically. From what I see in the sync track, the accumulated hand tracking vertical error margin over 4 refresh cycles was only approximately one-quarter pixelheight -- while an estimate, it is clearly subpixel combined error margin.
Now tracking accuracy confirmed, time to closely analyze what's true WYSIWYG and what's not true WYSIWYG. This is somewhat subjective due to so many smartphone auto-everything behaviours, but at least the auto-everything behaviours are so well-known, that they are quickly identified.
Once I trust the sync track certificate, I can finally analyze:
WYSIWYG Cons
- Compression artifacts out of the wazoo. Biggest error margin in analysis.
- Clipped histogram issue. Camera automatically oversaturates the colors (red bleed) blowing out other detail (e.g. black-lines detail lost in red UFO body).
- Focus is not subpixel-league, but adequate for basic analysis
- Much noise is completely filtered out due to compression artifacts and lowness of resolution when zoomed
- Auto-sharpening in smartphone camera shows sharpening artifacts at high-contrast edges
WYSIWYG Pros
- It correctly shows faint horizontal screendoor lines (vertical error margin is very subpixel).
- It correctly shows the faint brightened corona to the left of the black UFO legs.
- It correctly shows a blurrier left-edge than right-edge, very common on most panels
- It correctly shows dome haze to the left (ghosting). All LCDs do this to 'some' degrees, some below human visibility noisefloor of some humans, while others really get distracted by it (much like they get distracted by tearing more than the next person, or pick-your-favourite-nit-pick of motion -- everyone is picky in different ways).
- It correctly shows the faint color tinting of yellow UFO (reddish on left edge, greenish on right edge) from the blurred subpixels (R leftmost subpixel, B rightmost subpixel). I see this even in display-motionblurred motion when tracking eyes on UFO.
I see these artifacts instantly when I play videogames, but the next person don't. Everybody is picky in different ways for real-world games. Poor color? Tearing? Stutter? Faint ghost artifacts? Discolored ghosting? Etc. And sometimes what is not visible in some games (CS:GO) is amplified visibility in another (Fortnite) due to different colors chosen.
Fortnite often uses more saturated TestUFO-like colors than CS:GO does, and the 3rd person view means turn-blur and overhead flying objects more resemble TestUFO motio ntests. So some realworldness of TestUFO varies on a game-by-game basis. And of course, if you haven't controlled your microstutters (e.g. 400dpi mouse preference), you won't see TestUFO-smoothness in your game, and thus won't see the artifacts as well.
And of course, artifacts are more visible at 4K 144fps than at 1080p 144fps, if you're LUCKY to have a 4K 144Hz vs 1080p 144Hz, and a GPU powerful enough (RTX 2080) to do a 144fps versus test in your favourite game. That's the Vicious Cycle Effect in action.
See? Still has
some usable analysis value.
I prefer these stuff be done by professional reviewers, but I continually encourage hobbyists (of all stripes) to keep practicing hand-wave pursuit camera. It's still scientifically usable, even Ph.D / graduates agree.
The sync track to me, is like a certificate of tracking accuracy, no matter how you tracked (rail or railless). Once it's done, it's easy to identify camera limitations (e.g. compresison artifacts, histogram blowouts, noise filtering artifacts etc), THEN continue analysis of what wasn't filtered out.
Another reason why I encourage readers to experiment with pursuit camera is to better understand how to improve error margin analysis.
I don't like the bait headlines (I edited that out, RLCSContender), but anyway, I'm not discouraging hobbyist pursuit camera. Keep it up everyone (no matter who you are). Just remember this is a discussion forum, carry a backpack full of salt grains, and remember to correctly analyze without boasting "This Is My Perfect Pursuit. LOL. MICDROP. TL;DR. TRUTH" -- that's going to be unceremoniously edited out.
Pursuit camera is inherently imperfect. But as seen in the above, there's value especially when one works to find-best-freezeframe-and-zoom.
The art of the freezeframe selection is sometimes a skilled job. The good news is that job can partially be outsourced sorta (hobbyist pursuit video + me choosing best freezeframe with sufficiently low tracking error margin)
