2-D video analysis

[GeoffDickson]

In recent weeks the forum has discussed the limitations of video analysis, usually in comparison to the benefits of 3D.

Given that most of us will never access a 3D machine, I think we have to find a way of using 2D successfully.

Am I correct in saying this: 2D remains useful for highlighting positions but one cannot infer anything about the forces at play.

What positions can be effectively analysed using 2D?

 

[ms1170]

There are too many benefits to list. Just because it doesn't give trackman data doesn't mean it's not a great tool. I love my Casio.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Can you LEARN "something" about a golf swing from a Casio?

Sure.​

Can you help a golfer using a Casio?

Sure.​

Can you help a golfer as much with Casio as you can with TrackMan and Casio?

Not if you know how to use TrackMan.​

Can you do any significant study of the swing using Casio?

Rolling Shutter distortion, Parallax, etc. will ALWAYS taint whatever you think you see, at least somewhat.​

"Dr. Nesbit, could you have done 'Work & Power' using high-speed video (like a Casio)?

No.​

 

[SteveT]

"Dr. Nesbit, could you have done 'Work & Power' using high-speed video (like a Casio)?

No.​

Yup.... numbers beat pictures... still or moving....

 

[ms1170]

Brian, I would rather have 30 minutes with you and a Casio, than 3 hours with a kid fresh out the Golfer's Career College and a Trackman. By the way I love Trackman. I want one for every room in the house.

 

[cwdlaw223]

Xray (video) vs. MRI (Trackman). I still love my Casio, but it doesn't tell me anything in detail about impact. At some point video just gives you half of the picture. I'm not anti video at all, I just realize the limitations of video for my swing and need detailed information about impact to continue improving. I bet my swing hasn't really changed that much in 15 years.

3D with Trackman would be incredible and I'm sure it's coming.

 

[mgranato]

I watched this years Masters in 3D, and they had some very cool slow motion swing sequences in 3D. There are also some personal 3D cameras out now. Other than the cool factor, do any of these offer any advantage of for looking at the swing over the standard 2D HD?

 

[TeeAce]

3D-measurement is totally different thing than 3D-video. Just seems in many forums people are totally confusing those things. Also some people confuses double radar measurement to 3D systems.

I think we need 2D video, 3D measurement and double radar ball flight tracker to make everything work. And that 2D video needs to be over 150 fps.

 

[mgranato]

Not confusing 3D vid with 3D measurement at all. Just wondering if 3D vid has anything more to offer. 2D vid is just one small click above useless.

 

[ZAP]

I still say 2D has some merit in illuminating the feel vs real for some people. I used it myself to test the out toss and what it looked like versus what it felt like. Made it much easier for me to buy into what was being said. JMHO

 

[TeeAce]

Not confusing 3D vid with 3D measurement at all. Just wondering if 3D vid has anything more to offer. 2D vid is just one small click above useless.

For sure not for you, I didn't mean it that way. Just wanted to say that because I know many who confuse those.

 

[wulsy]

2D vid is just one small click above useless.

That is just nonsense. 2D vid is useless in the hands of clueless users, as is TM and 3D.

 

[mgranato]

That is just nonsense. 2D vid is useless in the hands of clueless users, as is TM and 3D.

Don't be hasty, I didn't say it was useless.

You can invite it to dinner, but it has to sit at the kid's table while the grown ups talk.

 

[SteveT]

Don't be hasty, I didn't say it was useless.

You can invite it to dinner, but it has to sit at the kid's table while the grown ups talk.

So when will they come out with 3D internet porn... I'm bored with 2D ...

 

[mgranato]

For sure not for you, I didn't mean it that way. Just wanted to say that because I know many who confuse those.

No worries. I just haven't seen 3D video talked about at all, much less seen it confused with the 3D measurement systems out there. Then again, I do live an enormously sheltered life. I'll yeild to the experts.

 

[wulsy]

Fair comment, but TM without video is nowhere near enough IMO.

 

[SteveT]

We in the world of golf are now embarking on an era of paralysis by analysis..... 2D or not 2D ... 3D or 4D ... where will it all cease to be..??!!!

 

[mgranato]

Wulsy, I used to think the same thing.

What changed was seeing Brian make significant improvements to 3 golfers (myself included) over a 4 hr period with TM, but without video. My own experience has been that my biggest changes/improvements have come when I've only used FS during a practice session. No matter what my swing looks like on video, it always looks different than what I feel it looks like (if that makes any sense). Some of my best looking swings don't produce my best numbers. I've come to trust numbers over pictures. And golf is only about the number - thank goodness.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Fair comment, but TM without video is nowhere near enough IMO.

Totally and completely disagree.

 

[dbl]

I'm going to guess, that having "educated eyeballs" and tons of experience....+TM = enough.

Haha, I guess by the same token, if someone like me was suddenly going to become an instructor, having TM wouldn't be enough. Even TM +video wouldn't be enough.