h a l f b a k e r y"My only concern is that it wouldn't work, which I see as a problem."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
welcome! For the home viewer nothing will replace the slow motion replay. |
|
| |
Even that slo-mo replay shows the ball smooshing as it hits the ground so it's still unclear... what we need is a non-smooshing tennis ball :) |
|
| |
Thanks for the feedback.
Yes, I agree with WcW.
And Yes, Hawk-eye do the job, but it requires "at least four high speed video cameras located at different locations and angles around the area of play" |
|
| |
But when I suggested this idea I was thinking in something cheap, that could be used by amateur weekend players... :-) |
|
| |
Building something that would be cheap enough for casual play is interesting -- but I'm skeptical, especially in an ambient noise environment, that you could be accurate enough where it matters (i.e. where the ball is not obviously out), and still use cheap sensors. |
|
| |
What might work, I think, are line-of-sight lasers -- of the type used in garage doors to prevent the door from closing on the pooch. |
|
| |
Positioned at the four corners of the court at the appropriate distance from the line (let's say half the diameter of the ball to the side and above the ground), they will get interrupted if and only if the ball hits very close but not on the line or inside. |
|
| |
Couldn't one just rework one of those radioshack golf ball thingumalocationators with laser sight action? |
|
| |
I'd suggest a non-laser photosensor; such sensors detect whether anything is between the transmitter and receiver, and can be essentially as sensitive as those using lasers, but they are much easier to set up and align. |
|
| |