Slashdot Mirror
Timing Technology Behind Olympic Record Results
An anonymous reader writes "We've been on the edge of our seats cheering on the athletes at the Beijing Olympic games — but so often do athletes' victories and defeats rely on accurate timing. As the athletes compete on the world stage behind the scenes technology records their results. This interview with Omega's Christophe Berthaud (video) — the company's 23rd time as official Olympic timekeeper — explores how far the technology has come since the first time it was used in 1932."
I swear I tried to RTFA, but.. uh.. it doesn't exist...
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Winning Olympic events that involve fastest finish have nothing to do with accurate timing. Getting a world record might but everything about getting a medal is relative to your performance against your peers. Consistency is all that matters. And given that most of these events are run in qualifying heats, consistency between separate races is often not a factor. Even in race Phelps won by 0.01 seconds, the photo finish was just as telling as the actual clock results.
It's about time!
I couldn't be less interested.
Specifically concerning the race which Phelps one by .01 seconds, even with all the photo documentation and the under water video, it was difficult to determine who did what first.
While I agree with you that timing isn't important during a contest that is head to head with a peer, this electronic timing/reporting is very helpful in events such as fencing, and swimming as the Phelps case proves.
Now if we could trust the IOC to not allow corruption, I'ld like to see more electronical surveillance in other events, such as tennis (perhaps on the rackets) and also track (maybe on the blocks to see who actually is leaving first).
Uh, did you watch any of the track events? In the preliminary rounds, the winners (1st, 2nd, sometimes 3rd and 4th) of each heat go to the next round, along with the next fastest times from all the heats. Thus, accurate timing is vital.
All that technology to find out who the fastest drug cocktail is? Wouldn't it be cheaper to hand in the lab results?
no. the french judge would lose the "A" sample and f*ck up the chain of custody of the "B" sample.
I don't consider spending a few dozen hours every couple of years watching the best athletes try and put on their best performance to be pathetic. I think it's probably more pathetic that I spend time on slashdot reading crap like what you just posted.
Except in ensuring a legal start. These need to be done by timer. It'd be intersting to see what the individual times bettwen leaving hte platform and wall touch are. Was Phelps the faster swimmer or starter, not that it matters other than being academic? You can't tell without synching with the start timer.
"I thought victories rely on biochemical enhancements today, i.e. doping?"
At least 5 athletes have been kicked out for doping, and presumably anyone who does get to a final would automatically have to pass a doping test. Usain Bolt certainly didn't need to dope to break the 100m record, look at the size of him. What he did was partly down to his frame, but then the rest of it was down to pure training and determination as it's harder for lanky guys to develop good sprinting technique.
Personally, these Olympics have been full of pretty amazing feats by several athletes from my own country (Scotland/UK) and other countries and I've found them enjoyable to watch.
It's a good thing they didn't try to host them in the US or anything, otherwise I hope you'd consider them a non-event because of all the corruption going on in the US government. But somehow I doubt it.
which is totally what she said
also track (maybe on the blocks to see who actually is leaving first)
This is already done - they no longer rely on human judging to determine false starts
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Personally, these Olympics have been full of pretty amazing feats by several athletes from my own country (Scotland/UK) and other countries and I've found them enjoyable to watch.
Agree to a point, but there have been several instances where the judging was just painfully bad [/canadian viewpoint]
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
No, the world I live in is so plagued with asshole politicians, evil corporations, a sinking morass of a war, and numerous other cancers on the national soul, so that having a national hero I can stand up and cheer for is the only thing that can come close to healing the rift between me and my government. I've never liked the idea of patriotism very much, but that doesn't mean I don't want it.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
In the video the Omega spokesman says that the cameras on the track take 2000 frames per second. However at the water cube the cameras only take 100 frames per second.
Why the difference? Wouldn't it make sense to use a more precise camera at the swimming events since their times seem to so frequently differ only by a 100th of a second?
These guys have so much money to build these buildings and all the other stuff you think they could scrounge up the dough for an extra camera.
I wasn't think for false starts, more for actual time spent completing the race. This of course wouldn't be in any record books, but would be very helpful for useless commentary.
[...] Now if we could trust the IOC to not allow corruption, I'ld like to see more electronical surveillance in other events, such as tennis (perhaps on the rackets) and also track (maybe on the blocks to see who actually is leaving first).
I eagerly await the day that high res, high speed video cameras and sophisticated software can finally provide objective results for sports like gymnastics and diving.
given that most of these events are run in qualifying heats, consistency between separate races is often not a factor.
I disagree. Frequently the final is comprised of the three fastest from semifinal A, the three fastest from semifinal B, and then the two fastest remaining competitors from either race. Consistency between races is extremely important to these people.
There is just as much coruption in any government as there is in the US.
Oh boo hoo, if you don't like this terrible place, you have every right to leave. If you stay, you have every obligation to do what you can to fix it.
I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about the differences between "accuracy" and "consistency". I think the important thing here is really about "scope", i.e. accuracy/consistency across a single competition. The judging needs to be consistent across any single event, or combination of events that will determine a winner. To ensure fairness, the scope may encompass all the heats/races among a single competition, or maybe individual heats/races (depending on the rules of course). If the scope is consistent among all attempts at world records at all events, then we can determine world records.
AccountKiller
The guy mentions several times that the camera takes 2000 frames per second, but unfortunately states that this gives a precision of "two thousandths" of a second. The actual precision would be "one two-thousandth" of a second... I suppose this is an understandable translation error. But I enjoyed the piece, I was interested that they used a GPS signal to synchronise their systems.
Putting syrup in coffee is some form of blasphemy.
They do collect all that information. They know how long it takes someone to leave the platform, how long to turn, everything. While the networks don't focus on that data, if you listen to some of the commentators, they will reference that data during the race.
I don't know for certain, but I'm assuming all timing data would be made available to a country's olympic committee, which would then make it available to the coaches and athletes.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
There are sports, like bicycle time trialing, bobsled, skiing, etc where accuracy is the name of the game because competitors are not going head to head.
The photos were totally inconclusive. There wasn't a single photo (or video frame) shown where one swimmer was touching the wall, but the other was clearly not. They should have used the same kind of cameras as used for running races, and horseraces. I was very surprised that they don't.
"No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!"
So what you're saying is that the US government is either the least corrupt or the least-equal corrupt of all governments? I highly doubt it. Just look at that whole Whitehouse email fiasco :/ I'm not claiming that my country is perfect, but it's just sad that Americans tend to bang on about liberty, democracy, the constitution, blah blah blah - meanwhile their government is walking all over them.
which is totally what she said
Inconclusive? You could clearly see a gap between cavic's finger and the wall. Whereas phelps fingers were bent back a bit from contacting the wall.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0808/oly.phelps.sequence/content.5.html
You changed the outcome by observing it!
Well, I'll certainly be voting in the next election, and I will certainly be keeping emigration in mind as well. I don't see what that has to do with the Olympics, though.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Lynx is the worldwide leader in sports timing. Omega only does the Olympics because they pay the big sponsorship bucks. Their technology is actually inferior, but because the IOC is so focused on money they ignore Omega's problems.
Hey this is slashdot you insensitive clod!
Each of us to a man (and woman) was picked last for sports.
America, Home of the Brave.
The officials have access to high speed cameras (10,000 frames per second or something) -- those images aren't released to the media.
HawkEye. Used in Wimbledon and all the grand slam events. Used for the first time in the Beijing olympics.
America, Home of the Brave.
Timings in all races are important as each athlete's time is measured against their official personal best and also against their national records (British Record, U.S. record...), their continental records (European, Americas, African...) and other groups (Commonwealth).
America, Home of the Brave.
Back in the days, when two runners arrived to the finish line at the "same" time - the race would be held again.
The saddest poem
No, the photo finish actually shows Phelps did NOT win that race. It clearly shows Cavic touched the end of the pool first: http://100thofasecond.com/milo-cavic-beats-phelps.jpg So the clock can still be wrong, and should not always be relied upon
That is not what I said. What I said is that the US is not the only corrup government.
I know that there is corruption in my government. It sickens me some of the things that go on. We have a president with a bad approval rating and we have a congress with and even worse approval rating, but when it comes to the voting booth then same idiots get re-elected.
I am seriously considering voting 3rd party in this presidential election.
And instead you spent it sitting on your ass complaining about the olympics?
Learn to love Alaska
Not true; I saw the finish and immediately after the showed the overhead high-speed camera view. Truly an amazing sight!
wow. you're last sentence reflected so much of what is wrong in this country.
Usain Bolt goes for McNuggets
Seriously, the guys is amazing. He doesn't need any fancy timing technology. Just some weird food technology.
machines are not perfect either
I find that shot anything but clear... They both seem to be touching the end of the pool in that shot. What makes you believe it is so clear- perhaps I am missing something?
Then again I never saw the "military pod" in those 9/11 conspiracy theory videos either, so perhaps I am not the best judge.
Modding me overrated here is probably a good argument for getting rid of the 'overrated' mod, since in this instance it simply means "I disagree with what this person is saying."
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/
shows a listing of the files on their video repository. Try :
435_olympic_timing_200k.flv ( http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/435_olympic_timing_200k.flv )
435_olympic_timing_350k.flv ( http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/435_olympic_timing_350k.flv )
435_olympic_timing_600k.flv ( http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/435_olympic_timing_600k.flv )
Haha, this is about as "clear" to me from that picture as Christianity is from reading the Bible. I sincerely hope you're joking. That picture looks like it was taken on an Elph from a TV screen paused with a Tivo. Pathetic. They are both touching the wall in that pic. You probably are gullible to all hell, aren't you.
Yes there are picture that are conclusive.
They showed them to the coach of the other swimmer and he stopped that former complaint.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Luckily, you stepped in to cover grammar and lack of proper capitalization. Between you two and my asshole behavior here, I think we've got almost everything.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
Does anyone else think the false start thing in track is kind of silly? They charge the first false start to the "field"? So there's some incentive for people who will likely lose to false start once just in hopes of messing others up.
Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
If I understand the circumstances under which he was convicted, he'd only want it if he could run it in reverse. By several years.
logically what you said is that the US is either the least or least equal corrupt government :p If you said 'most governments' instead of 'any government' then it would be different.
We are stuck with the same "2 major parties" here in the UK as well. I don't think a "one or the other" party is going to well-represent my views on any spectrum of topics.. as people say, the system kind of sucks but it's the best we can come up with so far!
which is totally what she said
Finish cameras (at least for racing events where you cross a line) are of a totally different sort than regular square format image array cameras.
They use a "line scan" camera that just photographs the finish line (and nothing around it) with a line of pixels at MHz pixel readout rates and get effectively tens of kHz rates for the whole line. The images are then reconstructions of the time series of data at the line- hence the lack of background and the distortion you often see on photo-finish cameras. There are systems now that also combine this with a regular video camera (synced) looking at the line from the front so they can read numbers off of runners.
I'm not sure how they deal with it for swimming--the line scan doesn't seem like a good approach, but a quick search will probably turn up details...
In the video, the touch pad for timing on the wall of the pool looks at least several cm thick, and I assume there are pads at both ends. Does anyone know if the length of the pool is purposely built larger to accommodate the thickness of the timing pad? On the assumption that it's not, and the pads are 3 cm thick at each end of the pool, that means the length of the pool is really 49.94 m instead 50.0 m. The world record time for the 200 m breaststroke is 127.51 secs, for an average swim speed of 1.57 m/s. If the pool is 0.06 m short, then the total length swam would be 199.76 m -- short 0.06 m * 4 lengths. This could affect the time by 0.15 s at those speeds. Just curious.
Inconclusive? You could clearly see a gap between cavic's finger and the wall. Whereas phelps fingers were bent back a bit from contacting the wall.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0808/oly.phelps.sequence/content.5.html
But you wouldn't know that, according to fucking rules, you need to press the sensor(s) with both hands, eh? That's why people complained about the lack of frame(s) which show that moment.
But sure thing, your incorrect post is at "+5, Informative".
Perfect example of "I read it on the Internet, it must be true".
Yes there are picture that are conclusive.
They showed them to the coach of the other swimmer and he stopped that former complaint.
Jesus, how many dumb fucking people are on this planet.
He nor his trainer didn't fill the complaint. If was done by the olympic 'comitee' of his country.
Maybe next time you should listen to what people involved say, instead of inventing shit?
Somebody got up on the wrong fucking side of the bed. Learn some tactfulness, asswipe.
The poster said "There wasn't a single photo shown where one swimmer was touching the wall, but the other was clearly not". The linked photo does seem to address that question. Blame the OP for not clarifying what they were asking for.
Technically, Phelps should have been disqualified. In butterfly, one's hands must touch the wall at the same time, and from the photo finish he clearly touched with his right hand before his left. Also, if you reach with one hand outstretched further than the other, then clearly you'll get to the wall faster.
about as much right as Mexicans have to leave Mexico.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Judging is always like that. Thats why so many people want the judged sports gone entirely.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
That rule is intended to keep people actually swimming butterfly, and it's OK if your hands touch slightly apart time-wise. What's not OK is if you break form (by stroking with one arm while lunging with the other hand) to attempt to out-reach someone, or if you don't bring both arms forward on that next stroke.
Phelps' shoulders remained square, he brought both hands around consistent with the rules, and the judges made the right call here.
Also note- the touch pad has no way of measuring when a swimmer touches with both hands, it only measures when contact is made. It is this contact that determines one's time, not the placement of the second hand. Once the time is turned in, the decision of whether it was legally accomplished (or a DQ) is a separate one.
If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
What, pray tell, is wrong with voting for a third party?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
nothing. it's the fact that (a) you're only 'seriously considering' voting 3rd party, and (b) 'seriously considering voting 3rd party' is considered a strange, or even extreme, option.
godwin didn't show up yet. but give him time.
Sports Illustrated Cavic-Phelps frame-by-frame
In quantifying a races around the same time, however, something else, namely precision becomes an issue. The racers can be measures in whatever time units, say jankles, but to compare time between races, there must be some confidence that the clocks will keep precise jankles, up to the limits that we wish to time the race. For instance, one runner might have a 1.173 jankle time, and the other might have a 1.172 jankle time. We have to know that the precision of the instrument is greater than 0.01 jankle, otherwise the times are equivalent. Again, not so important if the only issue is who one the race, but important if one is quantifying 'the win'.
Accuracy enters when making the statement 'Usain Bolt is the fastest man in the world.' There are two defensible interpretation of this somewhat dubious statement. One is that the olympics attract the best athletes, Bolt beat all the other athletes in a fair race, therefore with the domain of olympics runners, he is the fastest man in the world. This, as the parent mentions, requires nothing more than a photo at the finish.
However, there is another intepretation that says of all the runners we have time, Bolt is the fastest. This requires an accurate clock that measures the same time interval, which we label a s second, as all the other clocks we have used in the past to measure the race times. Not only that but the clock is precise enough to make the 9.72 second finish significant from the previous 9.74 second record. This idea of accuracy and precision might be what is called constancy. This requires a high level of technology and control.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I misread the header as Timing Technology (faulty such) being the reason why new record results were achieved.
Actually, his post is correct. The clock stops when the sensor is touched by that first fingertip- and Phelps clearly made it to the wall first by that measure. The camera and the electronic sensors agree on this.
The decision as to whether or not he did it according to the rules is a separate one. The rules for butterfly require that your shoulders be level, that your arms come around symmetrically and above the water, and that you touch the wall with both hands at the same time- but there are allowances for slight imprecisions in this regard, and Phelps was well within those tolerances. What the judges would look for is whether Phelps galloped his stroke (i.e., brought his arms around significantly assymetrically), if he would have stroked with one hand while lunging with the other, if he'd lunged over on one side, or if he'd kicked assymetrically in such a way that would get him some advantage. He did none of these things- at the finish, his body is straight, his shoulders and hips are level and square, his feet together.
What this came down to was stroke timing. Once you commit to the glide phase of a butterfly stroke, you can't break that straight-armed glide position unless you stroke through past your shoulders and recover both hands forward above the water. Approaching the wall, the two swimmers were out of phase with each other, with Phelps gaining ground- in such cases, it's always a matter of some strategery to time your stroke most advantageously, since in that drive phase of the stroke your hands can't reach forward to the wall and you're decelerating in your glide phase. Cavic stretched his last glide/lunge really well- given where he was in his stroke cycle, it wouldn't have made much sense to take another stroke. Phelps, on the other hand, was more than half-a-stroke away from the wall at the point where he needed to decide whether to take another one, so essentially he didn't do any gliding in- he touched the wall on the down-beat drive phase of his stroke, just barely in time to out-touch Cavic.
From what I can see, (based on having swum competitively for 20 years) I agree with the result- Phelps clearly won, if only by a very teeny margin.
If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
But why is it strange and/or extreme? In my country, we have several major political parties, and it is not uncommon to see three way races.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Now if they'll come up with non-human judging for extremely subjective events like gymnastics, artistic skating, or diving, we'd be in business. These two events are dominated by the whim of the judges and their respective federations, so even if a professional or most of the audience objectively thinks one routine is better than another, that can be overridden by a judge or a director on a power trip.
An example is a FIBA secretary general changing the outcome of a close basketball game against the rules in Munich. Granted, the referees and scorekeepers really destroyed any semblance of fairness in the gold metal match, but if he was interested in a fair match, he shouldn't have done it when the appeals board was dominated by pro-Soviet countries. There was a big enough stink about it (the USA refused the silver medals) that FIBA instated better rules and procedures. If the FIG had any desire to make sure the judges rule fairly, they should have permitted more challenges of scores from coaches with high-speed camera replays from several angles, rather than including a "difficulty bonus" score. That way the judges really have to answer to the eyes of the world, rather than behave in the dickish "I'm right and there's nothing you can do about it" attitude.
Or give all the judges LSD prior to events. I don't know.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
Because it's more likely to get McCain elected?
(I probably actually agree with a higher quantity of specific opinions of McCain's, but disagree with a couple of his most strongly held beliefs, such as the support of the war in Iraq.)
If the timing technology is so good, why is it that they get the age of China's gold medal winning gymnast wrong by 2 years? She shouldn't be eligible.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
The cameras used by the officials in swimming are under the water, so they don't have to deal with splash obscuring the swimmers hands. Those images are not released to the media.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
He might have been referring to the frame by frame from the regular cameras they showed first (where at 30 frames/second, it couldn't resolve the .01 second difference) rather than the much clearer footage from the high speed cameras we saw later after it was reviewed.
Although I'm not sure how much faith I have in my own timekeeping.
That was the point, it IS uncommon here, that's the problem.
No, it isn't used officially in the French Open. They still check marks on the clay.
Soon all Olympians will be assimilated into the Borg cube.
just fyi, in the Australian coverage of the swimming the constantly told us the reaction time of the athletes, i.e. how long they spent on the blocks. And then yes the useless commentary that followed with "she was last of the blocks with a shocking start 0.5 seconds slower than so and so, but by the turn she was ahead..." etc