• Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    because they are talking about a hypothetical situation where no visual cues are left.

    No, I am not. I’m disagreeing with that, and my comments are stating as much. I’m allowed to disagree with what someone is saying.

    • lunarul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      You seem to talk about different things when you say “visual clue”. Yes, there will be a small duration in the video where the event happens and maybe a short aftermath. That’s not a visual clue, that’s the thing you’re looking for. What all others mean by visual clue is a definite indicator that you can see when picking any random frame in the video that tells you if that frame is before or after the event. That allows you to exclude all other frames from your search, reducing your search range by half.

      A stolen bike, a broken window, your examples that trash the place or end up with a crowd of people in the area, all leave such a visual clue. At any random frame you can check if the bike is there or not, the window is broken or not, etc.

      But let’s say you have footage of the street facing CCTV and you need to find at what time the suspect left the scene (crime happened somewhere else). There’s nothing that tells you when looking at the halfway point if the suspect already passed or didn’t. You still have to look at both sides of that point in time.

      The classic example for binary search is looking for a word in a dictionary. You open it halfway and see if the words there are before or after the one you’re looking for. Then you know which half of the dictionary you need to look in next. Then you use the same method for that half and so on.

      But what if someone highlighted a word in the dictionary and you don’t know which word? Binary search is useless. You have to skim through the whole thing until you see it.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I believe what you stated is partially incorrect, as you don’t look at just a single frame, you compare it to the frames before and after as well, you search for pattern changes.

        I stand by what I said. I don’t believe you’re seeing the whole thing (pardon the pun).

        Five months later, and I’m not going down this rabbit hole again. I’ll just leave it at agree to disagree.

        • lunarul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Even if you’re looking at a range, it still won’t tell you anything except that you found the guy or you didn’t find the guy. If you didn’t, what’s the next step? (In the find when the suspect passed in front of the camera scenario)