On 10/18/16 2:30 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
Hi Vladimir,

Some of these numbers survive to the present. I'm typing this post on
an XP laptop where QueryPerformanceCounter() has a Frequency.QuadPart
of, you guessed it, 3579545 Hz, which is why my Win32 laptop's
high-res clock has ~279 ns resolution.

For more fun with time, frequency, oscillators, and prime numbers,
see: http://www.poynton.com/PDFs/Magic_Numbers.pdf

and this is why clocks in film movies on TV run slightly slow<grin>.. because the film was shot at 24 fps, and it's converted to 29.97 frame rate (in the US) by a 3:2 pulldown scheme.

I am sure that all the time nuts here notice that 0.1% rate difference. Over a half hour TV program it adds up to almost 2 seconds of offset. (that's just because we watch things like movies shot of counters running).

Hmm.. there's probably film footage of things with a running counter in the scene counting tenths or hundredths of a second (sporting events, nuclear bomb tests, etc.) I wonder if you could see that difference by single framing something like a filmed 100 meter race where they have an onscreen timer.

You don't have to go back very far and film cameras used mechanical governors for speed control.. "quartz lock" is a relatively recent addition, and as recently as 20 years ago, you had to pay extra for it when renting camera gear.

When I was in that business, one of the things I used to do was modify PCs so that they could be locked together - the frequency tolerance on PCs is pretty bad, so if you have a set with a bunch of PCs they could adjust the camera shutter phase and frame rate so you didn't get the sync bars on one screen, but not on all, and furthermore, over a long take, they would drift relative to each other, so even if you had them all lined up to start...

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.

Reply via email to