Hmm... Not necessarily. If you knew it was a constant rate, I think you should be able to approximate it from the input if you can also make some assumptions about the shape of the real propeller (e.g. radial symmetry). Now I'm curious how well it would work
Good point. You can at least know a multiple of the rotation rate if you know the shutter speed. I wonder if 4 rotor objects are always discernable from 5-rotor ones?
Almost certainly based on the number of blobs you see and rate they move, at least I think. Also I think you can be pretty confident in the multiple by putting some bounds on the speed (propeller tip not going faster than speed of sound, blade not longer than a certain amount)
Any thoughts on how to undo it with the known shutter rate and the output of your analysis as an input?
s3cur1ty 12 points · Sep 2019
This post has been removed.
Synaps4 9 points · Oct 2019
Yep, you would need to match your shutter rate to the rotation of the object.
bradfordmaster 6 points · Oct 2019
Hmm... Not necessarily. If you knew it was a constant rate, I think you should be able to approximate it from the input if you can also make some assumptions about the shape of the real propeller (e.g. radial symmetry). Now I'm curious how well it would work
Synaps4 4 points · Oct 2019
Good point. You can at least know a multiple of the rotation rate if you know the shutter speed. I wonder if 4 rotor objects are always discernable from 5-rotor ones?
bradfordmaster 1 points · Oct 2019
Almost certainly based on the number of blobs you see and rate they move, at least I think. Also I think you can be pretty confident in the multiple by putting some bounds on the speed (propeller tip not going faster than speed of sound, blade not longer than a certain amount)