Originally Posted by iacas
I just want to add quickly one thing: both the SwingCatalyst and the SAM Balance Lab measure the exact same things in the exact same way. Both can be thrown off if you don't sync your video (you have to sync each video, though the SwingCatalyst will tie to a FlightScope or Trackman so it will set impact correctly when it's tied to that, and more accurately estimate the other two), but on both the traces and the numbers were virtually identical.
One system is not particularly better than the other (the SwingCatalyst software may be slightly better, given its abilities to tie into more components), and this video does not exist to promote one system over the other as both are great. Both measure pressure - as I've been saying for years now you cannot measure "weight" in a dynamic (moving) system.
This is not entirely correct. SAM for the most part uses a much lower grade camera to process video than SC does. This means that the camera latency will have a much higher impact on sync issues in SAM, then in SC which only ships with high speed cameras.
It is true that SC is dependent on setting the impact correctly, but this is only if you have the motion plate installed (you do if the rotational force graph is showing). This utilizes an NI box to process data, and unfortunately the timestamps are in a completely different format than the other data segments used in SC - this is why the impact must be set correctly, because there is no other way to sync (as of know).
On the other hand, if you only use a forceplate (shows pressure distribution, but does not incorporate weight or lateral torsion in the plate), the center of pressure graph syncing with the video is completely independent of bookmarks in SC, and will be extremely accurate.
In other words, SC will generally be much more accurate and consistent than SAM. I've spent a lot of time researching these programs, so just wanted to clear this up.