Video files are automatically compressed to keep file size low. When they get compressed you lose some data, and can end up with some weird things like this where a frame is just slightly messed up.
Exactly. And don't forget the thing for compression is called codec. Co for compressing and Dec for decompressing. So the first part is cutting off all unimportant things it thinks, and second part is filling in those missing parts and frames with things it thinks are missing
Edit: hit enter too soon... compression and encryption may be part of the encoding, but it isn't guaranteed. CD audio is encoded uncompressed, for example.
they would be massive, eventually maybe infrastructure could support this and we’re seeing some now with ‘lossless’ streaming of audio now and constantly increasing video as well although I think it’s way less popular (I only know netflix 4k thing and not sure it even still exists)
Video being available online in 4K still doesn’t mean it’s not compressed, resolution doesn’t translate directly to quality nor compression. Truly uncompressed consumer video streaming is likely never happening. The cables that your local TV needs for transferring (still a little compressed IIRC) video in 4K are rated between 6 and 12 GIGABIT a second.
Yeah the streaming services are pretty terrible for quality. It's crazy when you compare a true high quality signal (like from a Blu Ray ) to the crappy streaming quality.
Which is why you never see film grain even when watching 4k streaming online. Even 1080p blurays show the from grain. 4k streaming is lower quality than 1080p blurays.
Reminds me when I had to rotate a video recording of my wife teaching a class for a project she was doing 90 degrees. I used an open source video editing software that had way too many options than I was used to. I set the video to rotate and when it asked me what type of compression to use when saving with a long list of options, I just picked none. Well this small less then 50 MB video became a hundred GB video after it ran through the night.
Late to this party, but since I work in the field (closer to customer than to the venue/production), I think I might have something to add to the conversation.
Actually, no, it's easier when compressed. Maybe some extremely high budget films could be made with uncompressed video throughout the production pipeline, but everything would be so difficult when the file sizes are so huge. It is practically used only during live events inside of the venue. Even then, it requires expensive networks (I'm going to simplify this by skipping over SDI, and only focus on ST-2110 IP based media streaming for now) since 12Gbps per video stream means that you need to have 25Gbps access ports. Then you'd need even higher port speeds to get all video streams to your switcher in order to get, lets say 16 different cameras. That would be 200Gbps port speed to get everything into the switcher (unless we'd do some lower frame rate streams for cameras that are not actively being shown to audience, but then we'd need to coordinate throughout the network who needs to send 60fps and who needs to send 15fps).
What we do in practice is utilize some sort of lower, faster, compression during production, for example JPEG XS to deal with the video at premises (to get that 12Gbps to less than 10. Compression rates differs), then when it goes out from the venue, it's being compressed to something more manageable, down to something like 100Mbps. Then it goes to production companies who may add something themselves (commentary, ads, whatever) and they'll create a distribution stream. That could be like 6-15Mbps for full HD sports, since it's good enough for most of the viewers. This kind of stream is then further pushed via CDNs to viewers who'll watch it on second screens, laptops, tablets, phones...
I'd argue that if people would be asked to use the last device they consumed some media on and tell the difference between 10Mbps and 40Mbps video streams with modern compressions, they'd really struggle to tell the difference. The biggest difference that the change from 10 to 40 mbps streams would do is 4x your distribution costs.
More specifically, video compression commonly does a thing where it only stores pixels that are changing from one frame to the next. It compares pixels between this frame and the previous one and only stores info for the pixels that change. And depending on the compression, it may only do a full scan of ALL the pixels every few frames for increased efficiency. And then those frames are compressed even further. All of this is called "lossy" compression because there is data loss.
Incidentally, scenes with a lot of variation (full-screen slow-mo explosions with colorful particles going everywhere, for example) are really hard to compress efficiently while still retaining enough information to reconstruct well.
I agree with this take. Modern video compression breaks things into blocks and tries to encode pixels inside the blocks into fewer bits, by making things lower resolution spatially, and in hue, and in brightness. Like on the key frame in question, the compressor may have chosen to keep the net there as it was there the frame before and after, and may have removed the strings bending around the ball as it exactly went in the middle of the net square hole.
I think when AI is used for video more in the future, this sort of unusual event will be even harder to capture, as the AI will be trained on 'normal' things and may have very little training data on unusual but not magical events, and will tend to ignore outliers even more.
Reminds me when cal ripken jr live on MLB network used video and a stopwatch to say they threw just as hard back in the day using old footage and new footage with all different frame rates. Hilarious.
As a layperson, I understand the concept behind compression artifacts and the fact that low resolution hides all the tiny details of the video (net ripples, or even separation in the net that instantly snaps back together as the ball exits).
But what boggles the mind is how is the net constructed? The ball clearly goes underneath the solid white band at the top of the net. Did the ball find a path between where the net is connected to the top band of the net? Like, is it sewn together and perhaps the ball found a seam where the net isn’t completely attached or connected to that top white band?
Forgive me if this has already been argued about. Every time I see this video posted I always ask myself, “Well, maybe it’s not going through the netting, just where the netting is supposed to be attached to the wire covering?”
Because that’s all that white (line) covering is at the top of the net. I think it’s made of a plastic material and it just covers a metal wire (that they draw tight with a crank) that the netting is attached to.
Yes the netting is stitched to the white band. Sometimes the stitching can come undone. It is possible for the ball to slip through. I have played a lot of tennis and seen this happen before.
I saw a longer vid where the player saw what happened, and stopped the play, approached the net, and looked carefully at it. If the stitching was undone, he might have noticed it.
And I think that there are not enough frames per second to capture the actual penetration. We see a frame from just before and a frame from just after. What happened is probably that one of the strings hanging down is severed just above the next row so it does not look severed. Or as someone said before me, maybe the net is not stitched fully to the white tape. I think the severed string is more likely because the path of the ball was perfectly straight and didn't change course by catching on the tape a little or the pressure between the tape and net from around where it was not stitched.
Looks like it went through. Since enough of the white part moved it got the pixel update data and tipped it down. The black line probably only changed for a frame or two so the update data just got omitted in compression.
Did you watch the full video of the play? The tennis player asked for a review of the call. The referee stated that the ball indeed went through the net. My first thought was that the net was broken in that exact spot. It appears to be so stiff that it returned to the original position after being pushed open by the ball.
Compression ignores small changes, like that little bit of net moving. If it only moved for one or two frames it just doesn't send the update data for those few pixels.
The black net came unstitched from the white band. The ball goes through where the stitching came apart, so it passes under the white band and over/through the black net.
To me, on the original video, it looked like the spinning ball hit the net in a way that the rotation of the ball helped to pull it through the net hole.
Watch the white strip on the un-zoomed in image in the first few seconds.
You can see the shadow change as it is pushed out the way by the impact of the ball. One broken black string, or not attached at the top, bends out the way and then the stiffness pushes it back. Cool effect though, but it can't transfer energy to the strip without hitting the net somehow.
Not really. By which state? Quantum tunneling? None of the atoms in that ball are unobserved. They interact with each other. So I dont think it will ever "phase through".
That's just not true. In that case, we would have found objects partly phased into each other in different parts of the world with no explanation. But we dont.
There are a lot of uncertainties and mysteries in quantum mehcanics, yes. But they happen on the quantum scale, not with everyday objects.
Ugh, ok man. You read the "Nobel prize winner in physics" page. We get it. Stop replying to me about it. You dont have to be pedantic just because you know more than what I say. My original point still stands. Every day objects do not phase through each other because of quantum physics.
What makes it pedantic is you replying to all my comments. And picking apart something I said because the new "Nobel Prize page" said something every so slightly contrary "by way of implication", by your account.
Just because "by way of implication" they said that quantum scale "may not be entirely what we thought"? Ohh that definitely completely falsifies what I said. My hands are phasing through my phone right now. Great science man. F/ck off, yo.
By way of implication simply means they didn’t claim it specifically, but implied it. I said it that way because it’s respectful and doesn’t put words in the mouths of people much smarter than me.
I’m not sure why you’re so offended, this is how science works. I replied to both of your comments because you so emphatically claimed what you were claiming…it was honestly less meant for you and more for others passing by to read.
You don’t need “unobserved atoms” for tunneling. Tunneling isn’t about being watched or not. It’s just the wavefunction evolving under the Schrödinger equation.
edit: if you are interested in this topic, you would definitely be interested in reading up on the 2025 Nobel prize in Physics.
edit again: obviously I don’t think we actually observed a macroscopic quantum tunneling event at a tennis match - I just wanted to point out the distinction.
What do you mean exactly by “unobserved”? Like in a literal way, meaning because we are actively looking at it and that’s why it won’t phase theough? (Genuinely trying to learn more)
Very basically, for a particle to be "observed" means that particle interacting with any other particle. So, on an atomic level and above, it's not really possible to not interact with anything else, unless you maybe create specific conditions yourself. That's why quantum mechanics usually only apply to subatomic particles.
So, "observation" doesnt necessarily just mean that some person is looking at it. But if we are looking at it, it does mean it's been observed. Because the way we "look" at stuff means that photons bounced off of (interacted with) the surface of the ball. So technically, it's the photon doing the observation. Us seeing it or not seeing doesnt change anything after the photon does what it does.
I'm not an expert. Probably everything I say has more nuance to it. I'm just giving it in layman terms.
It's not really about practicality. It's called quantum tunnelling because it occurs to particles of subatomic size. Those principles don't apply to objects big enough to be visible, so it wouldn't be possible for it to happen to a tennis ball.
im pretty sure the netting was loose exactly at that spot. like the black netting wasnt attached to the white strip on top anymore. honestly no other explanation
I thought that but the frame right after it passed through, the net is intact, there's no suggestion or movement like the black netting moved or flipped back into place
You can see it moves slightly. Imagine bending a plastic straw in half and then release the one side. It will snap back up to form the straw shape again.
I’m fairly certain that’s what we’re seeing here. The ball pushes the one strip of netting back and then it snaps back up to be rigid and creates this illusion
Are you sure? Isn't that for customers who pay more? I swear I've never seen 60fps live matches. I've never paid for anything premium. Idk if premium services provide that.
"A" rated tennis player here. It happens. You just have to hit the ball hard enough. These are pros. It's difficult to imagine how hard they hit the ball. If you've ever seen professionals hit the ball, the first time you experience it, it's remarkable. Also the ball is pressureized. A damaged ball would easily pass through a taught net.
The specific black rope it "goes through" has a cut at the bottom, so it's just hanging there. Ball goes through, pushing aside the rope -> rope settles back into hanging position.
I believe this was a compression artifact. Sometimes in the space time continuum, compression will eliminate some data which may include space and time. People will sense this as missing time or forget how they got somewhere. Sometimes there will be a reload of this data resulting in what is often called deja vu. Hope this explains things.
There's a very very miniscule chance your hand could go through your desk when you slap it. We might have seen that caught on camera with the tennis ball throufg the net
It's a compression artifact, the compression took out the net actually moving.
Could you please elaborate?
Video files are automatically compressed to keep file size low. When they get compressed you lose some data, and can end up with some weird things like this where a frame is just slightly messed up.
Ah makes sense. Just like a shitty mp3 losing quality. Thanks!
Exactly. And don't forget the thing for compression is called codec. Co for compressing and Dec for decompressing. So the first part is cutting off all unimportant things it thinks, and second part is filling in those missing parts and frames with things it thinks are missing
I'll just drop this here: Wikipedia on codecs
Edit: hit enter too soon... compression and encryption may be part of the encoding, but it isn't guaranteed. CD audio is encoded uncompressed, for example.
Wouldn't it be easier to just... not?
they would be massive, eventually maybe infrastructure could support this and we’re seeing some now with ‘lossless’ streaming of audio now and constantly increasing video as well although I think it’s way less popular (I only know netflix 4k thing and not sure it even still exists)
Video being available online in 4K still doesn’t mean it’s not compressed, resolution doesn’t translate directly to quality nor compression. Truly uncompressed consumer video streaming is likely never happening. The cables that your local TV needs for transferring (still a little compressed IIRC) video in 4K are rated between 6 and 12 GIGABIT a second.
Yeah the streaming services are pretty terrible for quality. It's crazy when you compare a true high quality signal (like from a Blu Ray ) to the crappy streaming quality.
Which is why you never see film grain even when watching 4k streaming online. Even 1080p blurays show the from grain. 4k streaming is lower quality than 1080p blurays.
Reminds me when I had to rotate a video recording of my wife teaching a class for a project she was doing 90 degrees. I used an open source video editing software that had way too many options than I was used to. I set the video to rotate and when it asked me what type of compression to use when saving with a long list of options, I just picked none. Well this small less then 50 MB video became a hundred GB video after it ran through the night.
I take it you’re in the U.S., same as myself. South Korea is the goal.
Most streaming services have 4k now
Yeah but shit bitrate/encoding.
They’re still compressed
You wouldn’t be watching video on your phone if this were the case
Compression reduces size between 50-90% so imagine waiting 4x longer for any media to load
Easier but not possible
Late to this party, but since I work in the field (closer to customer than to the venue/production), I think I might have something to add to the conversation.
Actually, no, it's easier when compressed. Maybe some extremely high budget films could be made with uncompressed video throughout the production pipeline, but everything would be so difficult when the file sizes are so huge. It is practically used only during live events inside of the venue. Even then, it requires expensive networks (I'm going to simplify this by skipping over SDI, and only focus on ST-2110 IP based media streaming for now) since 12Gbps per video stream means that you need to have 25Gbps access ports. Then you'd need even higher port speeds to get all video streams to your switcher in order to get, lets say 16 different cameras. That would be 200Gbps port speed to get everything into the switcher (unless we'd do some lower frame rate streams for cameras that are not actively being shown to audience, but then we'd need to coordinate throughout the network who needs to send 60fps and who needs to send 15fps).
What we do in practice is utilize some sort of lower, faster, compression during production, for example JPEG XS to deal with the video at premises (to get that 12Gbps to less than 10. Compression rates differs), then when it goes out from the venue, it's being compressed to something more manageable, down to something like 100Mbps. Then it goes to production companies who may add something themselves (commentary, ads, whatever) and they'll create a distribution stream. That could be like 6-15Mbps for full HD sports, since it's good enough for most of the viewers. This kind of stream is then further pushed via CDNs to viewers who'll watch it on second screens, laptops, tablets, phones...
I'd argue that if people would be asked to use the last device they consumed some media on and tell the difference between 10Mbps and 40Mbps video streams with modern compressions, they'd really struggle to tell the difference. The biggest difference that the change from 10 to 40 mbps streams would do is 4x your distribution costs.
You can test this on audio: https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
It’s a feature not a bug lol
lol sounds like software engineer antics.
More specifically, video compression commonly does a thing where it only stores pixels that are changing from one frame to the next. It compares pixels between this frame and the previous one and only stores info for the pixels that change. And depending on the compression, it may only do a full scan of ALL the pixels every few frames for increased efficiency. And then those frames are compressed even further. All of this is called "lossy" compression because there is data loss.
Incidentally, scenes with a lot of variation (full-screen slow-mo explosions with colorful particles going everywhere, for example) are really hard to compress efficiently while still retaining enough information to reconstruct well.
Video
MP4, MP3 is audio
Both are just individual layers of a complete mpeg
This also explains the vast majority of paranormal videos (especially with cheaper security cameras).
I agree with this take. Modern video compression breaks things into blocks and tries to encode pixels inside the blocks into fewer bits, by making things lower resolution spatially, and in hue, and in brightness. Like on the key frame in question, the compressor may have chosen to keep the net there as it was there the frame before and after, and may have removed the strings bending around the ball as it exactly went in the middle of the net square hole.
I think when AI is used for video more in the future, this sort of unusual event will be even harder to capture, as the AI will be trained on 'normal' things and may have very little training data on unusual but not magical events, and will tend to ignore outliers even more.
Some CIA shit you just said….
Sounds like something agent smith would say
Thanks bud
Glitch in the pixel-matrix
Reminds me when cal ripken jr live on MLB network used video and a stopwatch to say they threw just as hard back in the day using old footage and new footage with all different frame rates. Hilarious.
Thank you for the rationalization Mr Smith. We will choose to believe our eyeballs. Thank you.
Maybe they should try middle out compression?
The Matrix glitched but it’s better now
As a layperson, I understand the concept behind compression artifacts and the fact that low resolution hides all the tiny details of the video (net ripples, or even separation in the net that instantly snaps back together as the ball exits).
But what boggles the mind is how is the net constructed? The ball clearly goes underneath the solid white band at the top of the net. Did the ball find a path between where the net is connected to the top band of the net? Like, is it sewn together and perhaps the ball found a seam where the net isn’t completely attached or connected to that top white band?
Forgive me if this has already been argued about. Every time I see this video posted I always ask myself, “Well, maybe it’s not going through the netting, just where the netting is supposed to be attached to the wire covering?”
Because that’s all that white (line) covering is at the top of the net. I think it’s made of a plastic material and it just covers a metal wire (that they draw tight with a crank) that the netting is attached to.
Yes the netting is stitched to the white band. Sometimes the stitching can come undone. It is possible for the ball to slip through. I have played a lot of tennis and seen this happen before.
I saw a longer vid where the player saw what happened, and stopped the play, approached the net, and looked carefully at it. If the stitching was undone, he might have noticed it.
And I think that there are not enough frames per second to capture the actual penetration. We see a frame from just before and a frame from just after. What happened is probably that one of the strings hanging down is severed just above the next row so it does not look severed. Or as someone said before me, maybe the net is not stitched fully to the white tape. I think the severed string is more likely because the path of the ball was perfectly straight and didn't change course by catching on the tape a little or the pressure between the tape and net from around where it was not stitched.
or the matrix.
Nah, that's too small scale. I'm thinking more... M.I.B cover up
Well the compression effect certainly uses matrices
It's just the result of a low framerate. The net moved in between the frames
Combined with compression ignoring the change for the 1 or 2 frames that it happened over.
But my question is, did the real ball just skim the top of the net and the picture makes it look like it's going through?
Looks like it went through. Since enough of the white part moved it got the pixel update data and tipped it down. The black line probably only changed for a frame or two so the update data just got omitted in compression.
Ohhh! I didn't realize the ball could squeeze through. That's what was throwing me off so much.
U mean the black piece right? Just making sure.
Did you watch the full video of the play? The tennis player asked for a review of the call. The referee stated that the ball indeed went through the net. My first thought was that the net was broken in that exact spot. It appears to be so stiff that it returned to the original position after being pushed open by the ball.
I really need the "You da real MVP" gif now
Compression can't do that. I'm no expert but I am a software engineer so I'm not just talking out of my ass. Generative AI, on the other hand...
Compression ignores small changes, like that little bit of net moving. If it only moved for one or two frames it just doesn't send the update data for those few pixels.
This happens sometimes. It’s not common in tennis but it’s not unheard of.
The fact that you can’t see the ball actually go under the white strip of the net is a compression artifact and nothing more.
Are you saying the ball actually just goes through one of the squares?
The black net came unstitched from the white band. The ball goes through where the stitching came apart, so it passes under the white band and over/through the black net.
And lets not forget that the ball is spinning.
To me, on the original video, it looked like the spinning ball hit the net in a way that the rotation of the ball helped to pull it through the net hole.
That's dope. Thanks for explaining.
That’s what I thought which is why their comment confused me when they claimed the ball never actually went under the white band. Thanks.
It goes in the square hole
It is not a compression artifact, unless you consider framerate compression, in which case all video is compressed.
Watch the white strip on the un-zoomed in image in the first few seconds.
You can see the shadow change as it is pushed out the way by the impact of the ball. One broken black string, or not attached at the top, bends out the way and then the stiffness pushes it back. Cool effect though, but it can't transfer energy to the strip without hitting the net somehow.
Quantum mechanics state this can happen.
Throw a ball at the wall for infinity eventually it will phase through.
Not saying it's the case there
The men who stare at nets
GREAT FUKIN MOVIE!!!!
Some would say……The Goat
There is a non-zero chance this could happen.
Not really. By which state? Quantum tunneling? None of the atoms in that ball are unobserved. They interact with each other. So I dont think it will ever "phase through".
This right here. People keep thinking it means objects can just magic their way through. Like no. That's not what that means.
It would be a lot cooler if that is what it meant, though, eh?
Might sound cool. But I dont think the universe would be stable enough to even allow for human civilization to exist if that was the case.
Noone knows how quantum mechanics works... anything is possible in quantum mechanics...
That's just not true. In that case, we would have found objects partly phased into each other in different parts of the world with no explanation. But we dont.
There are a lot of uncertainties and mysteries in quantum mehcanics, yes. But they happen on the quantum scale, not with everyday objects.
I see your point. -cheers-
Cheers
Sounds like the Philadelphia project
Check out the technical write up from this year’s Nobel prize winner in physics.
It suggests, by way of implication, that “quantum scale” may not be entirely what we thought it was.
Ugh, ok man. You read the "Nobel prize winner in physics" page. We get it. Stop replying to me about it. You dont have to be pedantic just because you know more than what I say. My original point still stands. Every day objects do not phase through each other because of quantum physics.
wtf, yo? I’m just spreading science around. If anyone was being pedantic it was you, I was politely trying to tell you that you were wrong.
And yeah, one part of what you said was right and the other part of it was wrong. Fucking sorry I tried to tell you something you didn’t know. Geez.
What makes it pedantic is you replying to all my comments. And picking apart something I said because the new "Nobel Prize page" said something every so slightly contrary "by way of implication", by your account.
Just because "by way of implication" they said that quantum scale "may not be entirely what we thought"? Ohh that definitely completely falsifies what I said. My hands are phasing through my phone right now. Great science man. F/ck off, yo.
By way of implication simply means they didn’t claim it specifically, but implied it. I said it that way because it’s respectful and doesn’t put words in the mouths of people much smarter than me.
I’m not sure why you’re so offended, this is how science works. I replied to both of your comments because you so emphatically claimed what you were claiming…it was honestly less meant for you and more for others passing by to read.
You don’t need “unobserved atoms” for tunneling. Tunneling isn’t about being watched or not. It’s just the wavefunction evolving under the Schrödinger equation.
edit: if you are interested in this topic, you would definitely be interested in reading up on the 2025 Nobel prize in Physics.
edit again: obviously I don’t think we actually observed a macroscopic quantum tunneling event at a tennis match - I just wanted to point out the distinction.
What do you mean exactly by “unobserved”? Like in a literal way, meaning because we are actively looking at it and that’s why it won’t phase theough? (Genuinely trying to learn more)
Very basically, for a particle to be "observed" means that particle interacting with any other particle. So, on an atomic level and above, it's not really possible to not interact with anything else, unless you maybe create specific conditions yourself. That's why quantum mechanics usually only apply to subatomic particles.
So, "observation" doesnt necessarily just mean that some person is looking at it. But if we are looking at it, it does mean it's been observed. Because the way we "look" at stuff means that photons bounced off of (interacted with) the surface of the ball. So technically, it's the photon doing the observation. Us seeing it or not seeing doesnt change anything after the photon does what it does.
I'm not an expert. Probably everything I say has more nuance to it. I'm just giving it in layman terms.
Even if there might be a mathematical equation that says so, it could never practicaly happen.
That's why we never see sports cars spontaneously appear without a factory.
You are correct. The paper I read stated something like it takes a google tries, but it is technically possible
If anyone would make it happen it'd be Google. *(Googol is the number)
Ooooohhhh! Someone went to college!
It's not really about practicality. It's called quantum tunnelling because it occurs to particles of subatomic size. Those principles don't apply to objects big enough to be visible, so it wouldn't be possible for it to happen to a tennis ball.
No, that's not how the wave function collapses.
"There is no net."
Exactly.
There’s a hole between the net and the top stitching that was only visible in between frames.
I still don’t understand how this happened. One of the craziest things I’ve ever seen in my life
im pretty sure the netting was loose exactly at that spot. like the black netting wasnt attached to the white strip on top anymore. honestly no other explanation
I thought that but the frame right after it passed through, the net is intact, there's no suggestion or movement like the black netting moved or flipped back into place
It might be also that the camera recording missed a critical frame to understand the physics of this event.
Or reality missed a critical frame.
Further testing required
Frames are missing, was my first conclusion also. We don't see the whole story here.
You can see it moves slightly. Imagine bending a plastic straw in half and then release the one side. It will snap back up to form the straw shape again.
I’m fairly certain that’s what we’re seeing here. The ball pushes the one strip of netting back and then it snaps back up to be rigid and creates this illusion
Yup. Spot on.
Gotta go a long way to find simple explanations sometime on Reddit.
Doesn't seem like that. The ball didn't lose speed nor changed is trajectory.
But the net did react to the ball hitting it
Much less than it should have. That ball was fast, the whole net should have wobbled.
Right!!! The ball would have changed course a little if it met with any resistance, yea??
No other explanation.. except a glitch in the matrix
It happens when the white part has gone lose. It happens more often than you think.
Probably the frames per second are less because it's live television. If fps was 60 it would take up a lot of resources to televise
TV broadcasts, including live ones, are generally at 60 fps
Are you sure? Isn't that for customers who pay more? I swear I've never seen 60fps live matches. I've never paid for anything premium. Idk if premium services provide that.
This has to do with framerate.
"A" rated tennis player here. It happens. You just have to hit the ball hard enough. These are pros. It's difficult to imagine how hard they hit the ball. If you've ever seen professionals hit the ball, the first time you experience it, it's remarkable. Also the ball is pressureized. A damaged ball would easily pass through a taught net.
I think I got it:
The specific black rope it "goes through" has a cut at the bottom, so it's just hanging there. Ball goes through, pushing aside the rope -> rope settles back into hanging position.
There aren’t enough frames in the original file due to compression or just format. Slowing it down doesn’t do anything.
It's a framerate issue. The camera can only capture so many frames per second, kinda like watching a helicopter rotor spin.
Hey OP good job. This sub has been brigagded by bots and apologists who otherwise wouldn’t even be here to comment on “nonsense”
Over the target they say 🎯
Magnets
No one knows what they are
How do they work
Tennis double-slit demonstration .. :)
This is GenZ’s Loch Ness Monster.
Very very strange
The tennis player has some strong visualisation skills.
Framrate issue, not glitch in the matrix
You can see the net bounce a little before it even hits which proves this is a compression rate issue
There's only so many frames in the source video. It didnt capture the net separating from the band.
Today's round of "is it a bug or a feature?"
We live in a simulation
The net is torn where the ball goes through. It snaps back after the ball goes through. Case closed.
Proof that we live in a simulation. All the commenters talking about artifacts are just the programmers trying to dissuade us.
No you didn't. This video is so old and recompressed I'm impressed you can still make out a ball at all.
Ok now what
Part of the net wasn’t attached to
The ultimate proof that we are living in a simulation
:D :D :D
this just raises further questions..
"super slow mo"
As in frame by frame?
Do they keep track of how fast the hits go? I can do the math and try to figure out if this is a camera framerate issue.
See, just like Santa, angels are real.
That ball quantum tunneled
Ditto
We have a chain-link fence for the dog in our backyard. I frequently see full-sized bunnies hop right through it, much like that tennis ball.
I believe this was a compression artifact. Sometimes in the space time continuum, compression will eliminate some data which may include space and time. People will sense this as missing time or forget how they got somewhere. Sometimes there will be a reload of this data resulting in what is often called deja vu. Hope this explains things.
It's pretty clear the net mesh just broke right there.
There's a very very miniscule chance your hand could go through your desk when you slap it. We might have seen that caught on camera with the tennis ball throufg the net
You know that in quantum physics this is allowed right? Just not very likely, I mean really really really unlikely.
Glitch in the Matrix.
THIS IS OLD.
First time seeing it, and it’s relevant for once.
AI? Like when the Pope on the balcony vanished into thin air. I think ai has been used for a while without our knowledge.
Just a phase shift that God made. He had to make some reality adjustments
Ai
It did go through the net. Just watched the whole video and this is not strange whatsoever.
A ball going through the net is normal for you?
There is another video and you can tell how it goes through
Trust me bro
Glitch in the matrix
More proof this is all a simulation
do you know what the word ‘proof’ means