This is kind of the stock-negative comment that I don't like about HN. It would be redeemed if it had a link, but instead its just a look-how-cool-I-am-that-I'm-not-impressed-by-this actually-pretty-awesome-technology-demo, dammit.
Here are some best-of's to peruse before concluding that 'anigbrowl is part of the problem with HN:
* http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1875412 (MIDI)
* http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=995096 (3D film)
* http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4011770 (Google Moog doodle)
* http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1263289 (DV on DSLRs)
A couple suggestions:
* If a downvoted comment with no replies upsets you so much that you feel a need to pile on with a pointed negative comment, go to the bottom of the page, type the commenter's name in, click 'comments', then sort by 'score', and read the top 10 or so first. You may find the urge to pile on dissipates quickly.
* While it certainly isn't going to cause drama here ('anigbrowl being one of the more levelheaded contributors to HN, way more so than me), I think you'll find that comments like yours tend to read as personalizing disputes, and lead to embarrassing spats you'd be better off not attaching yourself to.
Looking back, I think what riled me was the word 'folks'. As in, "nothing to see here, folks", although he didn't actually say that.
"Naively, this sounds like one might (a) compute the translation from one pixel to the next in each frame, and (b) re-render the video with small motions amplified. Unfortunately, such an approach would lead to artificial transitions between amplified and unamplified pixels within a single structure. Most of the steps of motion magnification relate to reliably estimating motions, and to clustering pixels whose motions should be magnified as a group."
The math behind the grouping (recognizing the relevant area as an object, magnifying the motion of the area properly, and filling in the empty space intelligently) is the cool "computer vision" part.