Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Timing Technology Behind Olympic Record Results 118

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Timing Technology Behind Olympic Record Results

Comments Filter:
  • by Lucid 3ntr0py ( 1348103 ) on Thursday August 21, 2008 @10:38AM (#24689381)
    Specifically concerning the race which Phelps one by .01 seconds, even with all the photo documentation [cnn.com] 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).
  • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by oldspewey ( 1303305 ) on Thursday August 21, 2008 @10:50AM (#24689571)

    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]

  • Why the difference? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21, 2008 @10:56AM (#24689641)

    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.

  • by discards ( 1345907 ) on Thursday August 21, 2008 @12:25PM (#24690989)
    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 [100thofasecond.com] So the clock can still be wrong, and should not always be relied upon
  • Gary Glitter? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BenEnglishAtHome ( 449670 ) on Thursday August 21, 2008 @01:51PM (#24692373)

    ... allowed them to instantly age their gymnasts from 14 to 16 ...

    Do you think they could give Gary Glitter one of those?

    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.

  • by bitingduck ( 810730 ) on Thursday August 21, 2008 @01:56PM (#24692459) Homepage

    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...

  • Pools too short (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pachelbel1414 ( 1348969 ) on Thursday August 21, 2008 @02:00PM (#24692529)
    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.
  • by h2_plus_O ( 976551 ) on Thursday August 21, 2008 @03:08PM (#24693625)
    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.

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Working...