Pro Throws

I cannot accept that the loss in shaft flex is due to the camera.
If that is the case, then why are the arms not warped as well?

Athletes Throw.jpg

Did you mean to say “why are the arms NOT warped as well”?
Surely it’s because the club head is moving a lot faster than the arms/hands?
If the camera is progressively scanning from top to bottom to form the frame, then that would suggest the faster the swing speed at impact, the more warped it will look.

Look up the thread 4 barrel swing on In that thread somebody introduces a video of Lag’s swing. One guy there (a TGM quoter) finds a frame where Lag’s shaft flex seems to have been lost and thrown, and says something like “is a picture still worth something?”. Now I don’t believe for one second that Lag loses shaft flex ahead of impact! So, something must be amiss in some of these cameras, and that is what people concluded on that thread.

Thanks for pointing that out…I have edited my posts accordingly.
I am of the belief that the modern equipment actually promote this…when I switched to old school clubs, I had problems adapting. Happy to say that all is well now.

Romo appears to have the least throw away. Perhaps that’s why he’s +3.3.
Romo is a sick athlete. In addition to what he’s famous for, he was in the running for but lost the high school Mr. Basketball title to Caron Butler in Wisconsin I believe…

Re: the Blake photos, isn’t there an argument (maybe it was Lag’s) that the curve shown is from toe dip as opposed to losing flex?

Toe dip is a reality… and can appear to be a loss of shaft flex when it is not. Toe dip can appear to be bigger before rotation from P3 into impact, as it is rotating and picking up speed this can be apparent. Looser shafts will show more toe dip.

There is no way the shaft can bend that much as seen in some of those pics.Most likely is the effect of rolling shutter cmos camera sensors.

This link explains it well. … ensors.htm

Thanks Dap…

that certainly explains a lot of the issues that come up about viewing shaft flex.

I think the lesson is that although we know that this is what we need to do, it is not always going to be reliable for us if we don’t know the specs of our camera.

I had a VHS video camera back in the 1980’s that did the same thing… no matter what I did, holding flex seemed not to be possible… I finally used a different camera, set two of them up at once, and compared… and had completely opposing results.

There are apparently two types of shutters in cameras.Rolling and Global shutters.Global shutters take a whole frame instantaneously so does not have that jello effect.Rolling shutters take a small amount of time to scan from the top of the frame to the bottom.

Also not all rolling shutters are equal.The rolling shutter cmos sensors used in high speed cameras such as the casio are very fast to scan from top to bottom so the jello effect is virtually non existent.Can’t go wrong with the Casio’s for swing analysis.

They had rolling shutters in some older cameras as well,perhaps that explains why some cameras had this effect in the past.Apparently rolling shutters are preferred in some applications because it gives a more filmic effect but not good for high speed applications.

There certainly was something terribly wrong with the original photos in Hogan’s Power Golf… hard to believe those pics made it into the book. I have known there were issues for a long time, so it’s good to have a better understanding of that. Lot’s of people are still puzzled by this and will continue to do so…

Everyone go buy a Casio!

But which Casio? Would the Exilim EX-FC100 do? Or do you need to step up a bit in the price range to get the quality needed?

And I always thought there were some illusions in this picture that I shot with a mobile cam of my son :slight_smile:
DSC00318 copy.JPG

wow Zoufly, even your son’s arm is distorted in that shot!

See my quick review of the Casio FC 100 Exilim in the camcorder thread just posted a few minutes ago. If you have any questions about that camera just let me know.

I haven’t seen any footage of swings with the FC100 that has the jello effect.I would assume it would need a fast rolling shutter to accomodate the 1000 fps capability.The problem is it doesn’t have manual shutter speed control so the shutter speed is at the mercy of how much light is available.In dim light,it will automatically set a slower shutter speed and you might have some shaft blur.The FH20 and the EX-F1 can manually set a high shutter speed even in dim light so there will be no shaft blur.Of course the image will be a bit dark but for the purpose of swing analysis,the trade off is accceptable.

I posted a video in the tech forum here a minute ago where I tried to show how it looks on different speeds. Not sure that this video is “true” because I think iMovie might make adjustments that I’m not completely aware of :slight_smile: But it looks quite ok anyway.

But does the camera use shutter speed when filming??? Maybe that’s covered somewhere here…but your comments made me think about how this works. For pictures it uses shutter, but for movies??? Hmmm…lots of things to think about :slight_smile: Maybe dig out the old analogous gear when taking pictures!!!