Archive for the 'Television' Category
Posted by John Preston on 1st, 2009
I finally got caught up on C.S.I. New York. As I’ve said before, having a 16 month old in the house sure does put you behind on some of your favorite shows. As far as I can tell, the season finale only had one scene worthy of a WeCallBull, but it was a dandy.
Mack Taylor and his crew were at a dead end in their search for a kidnapping victim. All they had to work with was a videotape of the victim reading some demands. There was nothing about the background or the ambient noise that could possibly pinpoint a location.
The tape was worthless… until the kidnapped reached across in front of the camera to turn off the tape. His hand was in the shot for a fraction of the second. They froze a frame from the video and then enhanced the image of the hand until you could see the ridges on one finger. They were then able to capture a fingerprint from that enhanced image and identify the kidnapper. I’ve got to Call Bull on that.
Video enhancement is a common tool for television shows nowadays. Shows like C.S.I. are always taking blurry images and clearing them up. You do have to give them a little leeway because there is some amazing enhancement software out there, but this just goes too far. Fingerprint matching doesn’t leave much room for error; you either find and exact match or you don’t. I don’t care how complex of an algorithm you use for enhancement there is a significant margin of error from those areas being "filled in" by the software.
It did occur to me that if the video was shot in HD, the software would not have to fill in nearly as many gaps and a fingerprint match might be possible. However, this video was shot in a 4×3 aspect ratio instead of a 16×9. Therefore it was standard def. (old style) and simply wouldn’t have had enough data to allow for an accurate fingerprint.
Posted by John Preston on 21st, 2009
I know it seems like I post a lot about C.S.I. Miami. That may be because they push the reality barriers more than other dramas. More likely, it’s because I’ve been watching a lot of C.S.I. Miami lately. With a 16-month-old around the house, you tend to get a little behind on your favorite shows. The summer reruns give you a chance to catch up.
Nonetheless, I’m Calling Bull to Horatio Cane and his crew once again. In the episode Sink or Swim, an Attorney (played convincingly by P.Diddy) is throwing a party on his yacht. His fiance’ is killed during an "Only-In-Miami" style pirate raid. The later captured pirates (no eye patches, sorry) say there’s no way they killed the girl. They say they fired their shots straight into the air. When the C.S.I.’s studied the body more closely, they discovered a long thin piece of metal lodged in the wound.
It was identified as a bullet stabilizer used for shooting underwater. From that they determined that the woman was killed by a diver beneath the surface of the water. BULL!!!
Apparently, this stabilizer is designed to lead the way for a bullet passing through water allowing that bullet to avoid the turbulance and deflections that it would normally encounter. I guess, in theory, I can see how such a device would allow a bullett to travel straighter. When a bullet it going through the water, there is a tremendous pressure wave that travels in front of it. This is caused by the flat front of the bullet pushing the water ahead at extreme speeds. These pressure waves usually push the bullet one way or another. If there was something with a sharp point leading the way, the bullet might travel straighter. That’s why dart guns are usually much more effective underwater.
The Bullish issue isn’t whether such a device exists, it’s whether or not you could use such a device to kill someone on the boat with a shot from underwater. That’s where I Call Bull. This is a matter of optics. Let’s assume the stabilizer exists and it does exactly what it is supposed to do. You could easily shoot someone else who was also underwater, but when you tried to shoot someone above the surface you’d miss my a mile. The refraction of light at the surface of the water could make the victim appear to be as much as 10 feet from where she actually was. Next time you are swimming, go underwater and try to look at someone at the pools edge. You’ll see what I mean. This woman was a good twenty feet above the water. There would be no way for a shooter (without some pretty complex compensation computers) to calculate the actual position of the victim and hit her perfectly with one shot.
Posted by rcornish on 20th, 2009
Show on Spike that a friend was telling me about, the episode explained I thought was kind of bad from the get go. Basic premise, pick two famous warrior classes from history, gather information on weapons, armor, etc, and then run a computer model simulation to see who would have won in a contest of arms. I had my doubts when I heard about the show and now that I am finally watching an episode I am in even more doubt about the true measure of any outcome. The current episode I am watching is pitting the William Wallace era Scottish warrior against the Shaka Zulu warrior, and more specifically those two leaders pitted against one another. A multitude of reasons, listed below lead me to CALL BULL!
The first thing that I see as major problem with this episode is it completely based on the movies of most recent fame dealing with the two subjects. I am the first to admit that the I am not very familiar with the Zulu warfare techniques and weaponry and really can not make a comparison of the movie to the reality. However, as I think I have noted on another blog before, there are a huge number of issues with the the Braveheart movie, especially in regards to historical accuracy, even in regards to weapons and armor.
A first instance is the use of the much more modern very plaid and wrapped kilt. Fact is in the late 13th century of Wallace the Scottish were not wearing kilts of that design and they were certainly not that heavy. That does not really impact the outcome here. What does though is they scored the claymore sword as being more effective then the short spear. Fact is the longer hand and half or two hand sword that we think of as a claymore is much more of a 15th century weapon. And even then it was not called a claymore, that term was actually used for a basket hilted broadsword of 17th century and onward, especially popular with Scottish officers.
Another anachronistic aspect that was introduced by the show was when testing that short hand spear (which technically I think is more like a short sword in it usage) was the selection of maile that was used in the testing and conduction of the testing. All the previous demonstration showed the weapon being used as a slashing weapon and for this they stabbed straight in without regard to speed but a full front open attack. Given the nature of adaptation I could forgive that, but the chain mail used was mild steel butted links. During most of the time period most mail worn would have been either riveted or alternated solid rings and riveted. And mild butted links will tend to open up when a point penetrates, just like slow prying them open.
Another thing they do on this show is with each time they test a weapon it specifically a test they have set up for the weapon. They never do a test of apples to apples so speak. For instance the Zulu axe was analyzed while slicing up a static pig carcass while the war hammer was only tested versus crashing down on replica skulls. If the Scottish warrior is indeed in the status of knight, like Wallace was, he would have had maile at least over his upper body. This is exactly the kind of edged weapon the maile would have been best at defended against and they did not include his in the testing.
There are numerous faults with the data collection and very limited observation, but I will limit to just one more. All of the analysis and data that is entered into the computer for the final simulation. But that data as to which weapon is determined to be most deadly or effective at a given range is mostly decided by the various scientists, doctors, and whoever is involved. And no matter how objective they claim to be, it hard to be totally objective in such an arbitrary call.
One more thing I think the show misses is the situation that the warrior culture was finding itself in and what the society was like. For instance, the Scottish under Wallace had been oppressed for years by the English and were clearly fighting for both home and hearth and even a way of life. They were fighting the English, that clearly had supply issues when in Scotland. The inverse was true when Wallace did take York and his position there was largely untenable for more then a season or two and hence his eventual willingly yielding it back to the English for other concessions. There are again, so many additional points about differences in cultures and background, how could one be comprehensive about this list.
I will say in this particular episode, it came out 67% of time the winner would have been Wallace over the Shaka, which is about the way I would have expected the outcome. Though clearly the folks on the show seemed to have favored the Shaka weapons during the analysis. But regardless, I give the show an overall bad review, fully meeting my expectation of the show.
** Orignally posted on eligius.org, May 26, 2009 **
** Photo from promotional materials for the show from Spike **
Posted by John Preston on 11th, 2009
I remain a big fan of the all of the C.S.I. franchises, but sometimes I think they really should be labeled Sci-Fi.
In the episode titled "Collateral Damage", the crew led by Horatio Cane is trying to track down the photographer who took a particular photo of some suspects. They were at a dead-end until one of the lab guys suggested they could identify the make and model of the camera that took the photograph by analyzing the photos pixel pattern. He said that every make and model of camera created a very distinct pixel pattern; he compared it to DNA in humans.
They quickly identified the camera. BULL!!! "Luckily" they had already encountered a photographer who happened to shoot with the very make and model of camera. What a Break!
Now I don’t know whether or not these "pixel patterns" exist; I suspect they do. Every digital camera has a semi-conductor chip that has millions of tiny photo sensors placed on it. You can almost call them small solar panels. When light hits them they generate an electrical burst which is read by the computer in the camera as a digital 1. If no light (or the wrong kind of light) hits the photo cell, the computer registers a digital 0. From these 1′s and 0′s, a computer image is created.
It stands to reason that the way these millions of sensors are alligned is probably different for different types of chips and that this is reflected in the pictures (under high magnification). That being said, I doubt that every different make of camera uses a different chip. Several different models by the same manufacturer probably use the same chip.
That’s just speculation. The part that I’m certain deserves a Bull call is the fact that they just happened to have a database which they could use to match up the pixel pattern with the right camera. Not only were they able to instantly match the pattern, the camera that came up on their screen had the exact same lens on it that the guilty photographer was using.
I feel 100% certain in saying there is NO database in existence that contains the pixel pattern for every digital camera on the market.
Posted by John Preston on 11th, 2009
Regular readers of these posts will recognize a common theme that takes place nowadays in some of the most popular TV shows. I like to call it the "Let’s take a little bit of theoretical science and make it reality" theme. The latest practitioner of this theme is Grey’s Anatomy.
I have to admit, I hesitated to write this one. It meant I would have to admit that I watched the show. I’ll use my wife as an excuse. She loves it and I just watch to fit in. 
In the episode "What a Difference a Day Makes", Izzie becomes convinced that she has a brain tumor because she keeps having visions of her late fiance’ Denny. They don’t find any evidence that the tumor exists. Dr. Shephard comes up with the idea of hooking her up to an EEG machine that will measure her brain waves. He figured that if she starts having the visions, that he’ll be able to use the EEG readings to locate the tumor. The theory is that if she starts to have a vision, they will see increased brain activity at one exact point in the brain and that would be the location of the tumor. Low and behold, it worked like a charm. They not only located the tumor, but were able to go in and remove it as well.
I’ve got Call Bull on that one. There are several problems with this. They are right about one thing; the vision would more than likely result in additional brain activity. After that, the Bull begins! First of all, if tracking thoughts were that easy we’d have mapped the brain decades ago. The brain is a neural-network. There is no single point where a thought originates; it is spread out across the brain. That’s why people are often able to recover from brain injuries. No single point in the brain has complete control of anything.
The second Bull factor is that even if the vision came from a single part of the brain, the lone thought would not create a strong enough electrical current to stand out from all the other brain functions underway. It would get lost in all the other "noise" talking place. You can bet that when the vision started, Izzie’s stress level shot up. That would have created a whole flood of activity in all parts of the brain.
And finally, if the vision could be isolated and measured it still wouldn’t lead them to the tumor. The tumor itself isn’t creating the vision. It’s just changing the chemistry and connections in the brain to make way for the vision. Some other part of the brain is actually making her see Denny.
Once again…WeCallBull. I’ll admit I’m not a brain surgeon and could be totally wrong about all of this. Feel free to comment and prove me wrong.
