|
|
#141
10-17-2007, 09:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 30fps would give you enough precision to be better than the current system... [/ QUOTE ] No. [/ QUOTE ] Boris what are you credentials in the field of computer vision or other related fields, just out of curiosity. You've been so firm in your position about the tech in this thread that I'm curious if you work in the field or if you've just done graduate studies or what. 
|
|
#142
10-17-2007, 10:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
[ QUOTE ]
Also, with the scandal we saw in the NBA this season, it can't hurt to have a judge behind the plate that absolutely cannot be bribed into swaying the outcome of the game one way or the other. [/ QUOTE ] bill gates?
|
|
#143
10-17-2007, 01:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
REdrover - don't have to be an engineer to figure this out. A curve ball reaches home in about .45 seconds. .45*30=13.5. So we will have 13 frames for a pitch. 60.5/13=4.61. So for a curve ball we will be able to see pitch every 4.61 feet. Therefore this system would only be an aid for the human eye method and definitely not a stand alone solution.
|
|
#144
10-17-2007, 01:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
I'm more curious about
[ QUOTE ] It could not be done in real time. It could be done kind of quickly maybe, but not real time. [/ QUOTE ] Edit: And I didn't want to single you out necessarily, there has just been a lot of BS from people in this thread who have no idea what they are talking about with the technology
|
|
#145
10-17-2007, 01:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
[ QUOTE ]
REdrover - don't have to be an engineer to figure this out. A curve ball reaches home in about .45 seconds. .45*30=13.5. So we will have 13 frames for a pitch. 60.5/13=4.61. So for a curve ball we will be able to see pitch every 4.61 feet. Therefore this system would only be an aid for the human eye method and definitely not a stand alone solution. [/ QUOTE ] Interpolation will do better here than you seem to think. You're not going to have millimeter precision from 30fps but the bar for accuracy been set pretty low. Clearly, going to higher-speed cameras would be a good idea.
|
|
#146
10-20-2007, 12:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
the misinformation regarding technology in this thread is hilarious. everyone seems to think they know more than the next guy when they don't know [censored].
[ QUOTE ] any solution that required RFID chips to be put into every potential ball and in every single uniform worn by every potential player is going to be very expensive. it also invites the potential for tomfoolery - you can't let teams have access to the RFID chips. there's far too much money at stake to think that someone out there wouldn't try to fiddle with them. [/ QUOTE ] lol @ using RFID. this isn't what RFID is for. we don't need to identify balls or players. it's not hard to figure out who's at the plate without RFID. and who cares which particular ball is in use? and what would the teams do if they had access to the RFID chips? would they fool the system into thinking that mickey mouse is at the plate? i think that would be easy to detect. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 30fps would give you enough precision to be better than the current system... [/ QUOTE ] No. [/ QUOTE ] lol. the technology exists to do much better than 30 fps. even if it didn't you could always have multiple cameras. besides, if you can find out the ball's "exact" location @ 30 fps (every 4-5 feet), you can easily call strikes and balls much better than an umpire with simple linear interpolation. using a second or higher order approximation you can do a lot better. [ QUOTE ] It could not be done in real time. It could be done kind of quickly maybe, but not real time. [/ QUOTE ] redrover pointed this out already, but wtf is this based on? you guys are hilarious. such a system could call strikes and balls way faster than an umpire. the calculation could be finished before the ball hits the catcher's mitt.
|
|
#147
10-20-2007, 01:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
They have this in cricket so I don't see why you couldn't have it in baseball. Obviously the type of calls they have in cricket are a little different than a strike zone, but nothing that couldn't be overcome.
|
|
#148
10-20-2007, 01:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Should balls and strikes be called electronically?
[ QUOTE ]
They have this in cricket so I don't see why you couldn't have it in baseball. Obviously the type of calls they have in cricket are a little different than a strike zone, but nothing that couldn't be overcome. [/ QUOTE ] Are LBW calls made electronically? I was under the impression that the umpire made the call, and that the technology is only used for the televison audience, and to evaluate the umpires (which would be exactly the same as baseball BTW).
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
