1

Lab 2: Kinematic Analysis of Constant Velocity and Free-Fall Motion

via Video Tracking by the Tracker Software
Tanya Tripathi
Faculty of Science and Technology, Athabasca University
PHYS 200: Introductory Physics I (Rev. 8)
Professor Jacob Siebe
14th August 2025
 2

Introduction
Kinematics is a branch of mechanics that focuses on describing the motion of
objects without analyzing the forces or interactions that cause that motion. It
is concerned with measurable quantities such as position (the location of an
object at a given time), velocity (the rate of change of position), and
acceleration (the rate of change of velocity) in relation to time. By isolating
these descriptive aspects from the underlying causes, kinematics provides a
mathematical framework for predicting and analyzing motion in a wide range
of physical situations.The simplest type of motion is one-dimensional motion
at constant velocity. In this scenario, an object moves along a straight path at
a uniform speed, meaning there is no acceleration. The motion can be
mathematically expressed as:
x = x0 + vxt
In the above equation, x0 represents the initial position, vx is the constant
velocity along the x-axis, and tt is the elapsed time. Graphically, a position–
time plot for constant velocity is a straight line, with the slope of that line
equal to the velocity. This linear relationship reflects the fact that the object
covers equal distances in equal time intervals. When an object’s velocity
changes at a constant rate, it is said to be in uniformly accelerated motion.
This more complex motion is described by the kinematic equation:
y = y0 + v0yt + ½ ayt2
In this equation, y0 is the initial vertical position, v0y is the initial vertical
velocity, ay is the constant vertical acceleration, and t is time. The quadratic
form of the equation means that the position–time graph is a parabola, where
the curvature reflects the changing velocity over time. The instantaneous
velocity at any given moment can be found by determining the slope of the
tangent to the curve at that point.

A specific and important example of constant acceleration is free-fall motion.

In free fall, the only significant force acting on the object is gravity, causing
it to accelerate downwards at g = 9.80 m/s2, near Earth’s surface. The motion
is described by:
 3

y = y0 + vyt -½ gt2

In this case, the negative sign before ½ gt2 indicates that gravity acts in the
downward direction. This type of motion is symmetrical: in the absence of air
resistance, the time taken for an object to rise to its highest point is equal to
the time taken to fall back down from that point.
In this experiment, a video analysis approach was used to study these
motions. A camera was employed to record the movement of a ball, and the
motion was analyzed using Tracker, a physics analysis software that enables
frame-by-frame measurement of position and velocity. By tracking the ball’s
motion under conditions of both constant velocity and free fall, the
experiment provides a clear demonstration of the relationships between
position, velocity, acceleration, and time. This method allows for precise
analysis of motion that occurs too quickly for the human eye to accurately
measure, bridging the gap between theoretical kinematics and real-world
observation.

Procedure
Materials
 4

● Medium-sized ball
● Measuring tape or ruler
● Smartphone with a digital camera
● Computer with the Tracker software installed
● Flat surface and clear vertical drop space

Part 1: Motion with Uniform Velocity

A flat floor was selected to allow the ball to roll at least 67 cm in a straight
line. A measuring tape was placed parallel to the ball’s path to serve as a
length calibration scale during video analysis. A smartphone camera was
positioned perpendicular to the ball’s trajectory. The ball was gently rolled
across the surface to maintain a uniform velocity and was recorded using the
smartphone camera. The procedure was repeated as necessary to ensure a
clear recording free of obstructions or camera shake. The final video was
saved for later analysis.

Part 2: Motion with Uniform Acceleration (Free Fall)

A location with a clear drop zone approximately two meters in height was
chosen, ensuring safety and an unobstructed view of the falling object. A
measuring tape was positioned vertically to an adjacent wall to act as a
reference scale. The camera was positioned at a sufficient distance to capture
the entire vertical motion of the ball from release to impact, ensuring the field
of view contained the full measuring tape for calibration. The ball was held
next to the wall (without contact) and released without any additional force,
allowing gravity to act as the sole source of acceleration. The motion was
recorded continuously until the ball struck the ground, and the video was
saved for analysis.

Data Analysis

Both the constant velocity and free-fall videos were imported

into the Tracker software for analysis. The initial time for
each video was established by playing the recording until a
 5

suitable frame was reached shortly after the ball began

moving. Fine adjustments were made using the step-forward
and step-backward controls to advance or reverse the video
one frame at a time. Once the exact frame corresponding to
the start of motion was identified, the time was reset to zero
for both videos. The distance scale in each video was
calibrated using the visible measuring tape. This was
accomplished by aligning the ends of the calibration stick
with two known points along the measuring tape and setting
the scale to match the real-world length spanned. All
measurements were recorded in meters. A perpendicular
coordinate axis was positioned in Tracker such that the ball’s
motion was aligned with the x-axis for the uniform velocity
trial (Part 1) and with the y-axis for the free-fall trial (Part 2).
The Point Mass tracking tool was then used to mark the ball’s
position frame-by-frame, producing a set of data points
representing its motion over time. For the Part 1 (uniform
velocity) dataset, a position–time graph was generated, and
the slope was calculated to determine the constant velocity.
For the Part 2 (free fall) dataset, a quadratic fit was applied to
the position–time graph to extract the constant vertical
acceleration, enabling a comparison with the theoretical
value of gravitational acceleration (g≈ 9.80 m/s 2)
 6

Experimental Setup and Tracker Software Images

Part 1: Motion with Uniform Velocity

Figure 1. This image demonstrates setup and camera angle for the constant
velocity part of the lab. The measuring tape is laid out to about 67 cm (0.67
m), with the ball placed next to it help with scale

Figure 2. Horizontal motion of the ball tracked using the Tracker software.
Data collected over 26 data points within a 0.67-meter range to analyze the
ball’s constant velocity, which was later reorganized into a table and graph
 7

Part 2: Motion with Uniform Acceleration (Free fall)

Figure 3. Proper setup and camera angle for the uniform acceleration part of
the lab. The measuring tape is stretched about 2.00 meters vertically along
the wall, with the ball placed next to it for scale.

Figure 4. Downward vertical motion of the ball tracked using the Tracker
software. Over 19 data points were collected across a 2.00-meter drop to
analyze the ball’s constant acceleration, which was organized into a data
table and graph.

Tracker Software Data Analysis

 8

Part 1: Motion with Uniform Velocity

Figure 5. The Tracker Software displays the linear graphical representation

of the uniform velocity of the ball accompanied by the table of values
recording the time (in seconds) on the x-axis, and the position (in meters) on
the y-axis. Since this is a position vs. time graph, the slope represents the
velocity of the ball. This image also displays the fit equation and the values
of parameters A and B as (8.12 + 0.08) E-1 and (1.5 + 0.4) E-2 respectively.

Part 2: Motion with Uniform Acceleration (Free Fall)

 9

Figure 6. The Tracker Software displays the parabolic graphical

representation (parabolic graph) of constant acceleration of the ball
accompanied by the table of values recording the time (in seconds) on the x-
axis, and the position (in meters) on the y-axis. The slope of the tangent line
at any point on the curve gives the instantaneous velocity (vy). The negative
position values show that the ball is falling downward with acceleration due
to gravity (ay = -g = -9.80 m/s2). This image also displays the fit equation and
the values of parameters A, B, C as (-3.1 + 0.3), (-1.8 + 0.2), and (6 + 3) E-2
respectively.

Analysis and Discussion

Part 1: Ball moving in a straight line on the floor
 10

This section investigates the horizontal motion of a ball rolling on a flat

surface. Based on the position-time graph (Figure 5), the following equation
was used to model the motion:
x = At + B
From the fit, the following quantities were deduced:
- A = (8.12 + 0.08) × 10-1 m/s
- B = (1.5 + 0.4) × 10-2 m

The slope ‘A’ represents the velocity of the ball, and the y-intercept ‘B’
represents the initial position of the ball, which should be close to zero. To
check the accuracy of the model, the position can be predicted by calculating
it at t =0.300 s via the equation:
x = At + B
By performing the required substitution we get,
x = (0.812)(0.300) + 0.015
= 0.2436 + 0.015
= 0.2586 m ≈ 0.259 m (after accounting for significant figures)

From the table illustrated in Figure 5, the actual measured value at t = 0.3s is
approximately 0.264 m, which is very close. This supports the reliability of
the linear fit. Additionally, to check if the average velocity found using the
best fit line is accurate, we can manually calculate using 2 random points.
- At t1 = 0.167 s, x1 = 0.149 m
- At t2 = 0.333 s, x2 = 0.290 m
Using the average velocity formula:
x2 −x1 0.290−0.149 0.141
v= = 0.333−0.167 = 0.166 = 0.84939759036 ≈ 0.849 m/s (after
t 2 −t 1
accounting for significant figures)

Compare with line of best-fit velocity:

v = 0.812 m/s
The calculated velocity (0.849 m/s) is extremely close to the fitted value
(0.812 m/s), with a difference of only 0.037 m/s, well within the experimental
 11

uncertainty (+ 0.08). This indicates that the ball was moving at a nearly
constant horizontal velocity. The graph shows a straight-line trend with a
very little scatter around the fit line. The error margin in the velocity (+ 0.08
m/s) is small relative to the measured value, suggesting high reliability.

As a result, it can be discerned that the horizontal motion of the ball on the
surface is well-described by a constant-velocity model. In the position–time
graph, the data align closely with a straight line whose slope represents the
ball’s speed and whose intercept represents its position at the chosen time
origin. The narrow spread of the data around the best-fit line along with the
visual linearity of the trend, suggests that the ball’s speed remained relatively
steady throughout the observation interval.

Furthermore, to assess the robustness of this interpretation, the fitted trend

was compared against the raw data at an intermediate time of t = 0.300 s, and
also against simple hand-checked estimates of average speed taken between
widely separated points on the graph. Both checks led to the conclusion that
the fitted line predicts positions that agree closely with what was measured,
and independent point-to-point estimates of speed are consistent with the
fitted slope.

On the contrary, the small deviation of data points from the line of best-fit
and relatively low uncertainty values show that the motion of the ball is
precisely represented by this velocity model. Nevertheless, this experiment
does have its fair share of limitations. It is possible that small magnitude of
forces from friction and tiny bumps on the surface could have slowly slowed
the ball down, but the effect was so small that it might be impossible to
notice with the measuring tools used. Additionally, minor conditions such as
barely perceptible seams or dust on the surface could have caused tiny
changes in the ball’s path or speed. On another note, human variability in the
initial push could have introduced small differences, especially if the push
adds slight spin or an off-axis component that the tracking subsequently
 12

projects onto the measurement axis. On the measurement side, parallax and
perspective effects could have arisen if the camera was not perfectly
perpendicular to the motion plane. Moverover, the Tracker’s centroid
marking is limited by pixel resolution and motion blur, both of which can
shift the apparent position by a fraction of a pixel frame to frame. These
effects are all small and random for the most part. However, this explains
why the data points show up as gentle scatter about a single straight trend
rather than as a systematic curvature. Ultimately, the qualitative and
statistical features of the data support the conclusion that over the observed
interval, the ball’s motion is well-represented by uniform horizontal velocity.

Part 2: Free-falling Ball

In this part, the graph of vertical distance (y) versus time (t) (Figure 6) shows
a parabolic shape, which is what we expect for an object undergoing constant
 13

acceleration due to gravity. This type of motion is described by the kinematic

equation:
y = At2 + Bt + C
Based on the fit from the graph, we obtained:
A = -3.1 + 0.3
B = -1.8 + 0.2
C = (6 + 3) E-2
This equation is the modified version of equation: y = y0 + v0yt + ½ ayt2
● A (acceleration coefficient): This value corresponds to half of the
vertical acceleration of the ball (A = ½ ay). So the actual acceleration is:
a = 2A
A = 2 × (-3.1) = -6.2 m/s2
This is not close to the theoretical value of gravity (-9.81 m/s2) and this
suggests that the ball’s motion is governed by constant acceleration
downward due to gravity. [explain why the difference in value might
have happened]
● B (initial velocity: This represents the vertical velocity of the ball (B =
v0) at the start of the free fall. A value of -1.8 m/s indicates that [what
does the vertical velocity of -1.8 m/s indicate. Please explain]
● C (initial position): This is the vertical position of the ball at t = 0 (C =
y0), which seems slightly positive here and is very close to zero (0.06).
This could mean that the reference in the video tracking and the
measurement baseline is optimal considering this parameter of the
Tracker Software
To test the model’s accuracy, let’s calculate the vertical displacement at t =
0.3s:
x = (-3.1)(0.3)2 + (-1.8)(0.3) + (0.06)
= (-3.1)(0.09) -0.54 + 0.06
= -0.279 - 0.54 + 0.06
= -0.759 m
 14

From the table and graph displayed in Figure 6, the actual measured value at t
= 0.3 s is approximately -0.771 m, which is extremely close to the calculated
value. This confirms the reliability of the quadratic model.

The vertical motion during the drop, its position-time graph, forms a smooth
curve instead of a straight line, showing that the ball was speeding up at a
constant rate. The fitted curve mirrors the expected parabolic form, and the
coefficients of the fit have clear physical meanings. One encodes the vertical
acceleration, another demonstrates the vertical velocity at the chosen time
origin, and the third illustrates the vertical position at a given instance. The
fact that the curve closely overlays the data points over the full duration of
the fall indicates that the model provides an internally consistent description
of the motion and that the measurements were precise enough to resolve the
changing speed as the ball falls down.

Although the curve’s shape strongly supports constant acceleration, the

acceleration inferred from the fit is lower than the ideal value associated with
free fall (-9.80 m/s2). This shortfall is common in video-based drop
experiments and could be attributed to the physical and measurement effects.
Physically, air resistance always acts opposite to the direction of motion such
that even a modest drag force reduces the net downward acceleration below
the idealized value. This effect is particularly noticeable for light and low-
density objects with relatively large surface area for their mass, which applies
to the ball used in this experiment. Considering that the drag grows with
speed, its influence increases as the ball accelerates, thus flattening the
trajectory to report a value that is relatively small in magnitude.

Measurement considerations can reinforce this. If the camera was not

perfectly placed perpendicular to the plane of motion, perspective
foreshortening underestimates vertical distances. On another note, when
frames are relatively sparse or shutter speeds are slow, early-time changes in
position can be under-resolved and motion blur can smear the ball’s image.
 15

This could have caused a shift in the apparent centroid. The choice of the
zero-time frame also matters. If the time was set to zero even a fraction of a
second after the actual release, the fitting algorithm interprets the earliest
captured motion as if the ball already had a head start in speed. The fit shows
a small starting vertical speed, which could be from the ball moving slightly
downward when released or from starting the timing a bit late. In addition,
small offsets in the starting height come from how the axes were set relative
to the ball’s center in the first frame.

Even with these limitations, the trajectory follows the qualitative expectations
of motion under a nearly constant downward acceleration. The fitted curve
predicts intermediate positions that align closely with what the camera
captured. The discrepancy in the magnitude of the acceleration is therefore
best understood as the cumulative result of drag, perspective and parallax in
the imaging setup, finite frame-rate, and small choices in the time-zero
definition. All of these influences are well known in video-tracking
experiments and do not undermine the primary conclusion that the motion is
described by the constant-acceleration model.

Conclusion
 16

This experiment explored key kinematic principles through

two types of motion: constant velocity and free fall. For the
ball rolling on the floor, the linear distance–time relationship
and calculated velocity of 0.849 m/s closely matched the
best-fit value of 0.812 ± 0.08 m/s, confirming approximate
uniform motion. For the free-falling ball, the parabolic
displacement–time graph indicated constant acceleration,
with a fit-based acceleration of −6.20 m/s². However, this
deviates substantially from the theoretical acceleration due
to gravity (−9.80 m/s²). This discrepancy can be attributed to
factors such as tracking inaccuracies, air resistance, and
surface friction.

Overall, the results supported the theoretical motion models and

demonstrated the value of motion-analysis tools such as Tracker in
visualizing and quantifying kinematic behavior. To reduce the observed
discrepancies in future trials, several refinements could be implemented.
Firstly, using a denser ball could reduce the relative effect of air drag and
better resolve early-time motion. Secondly, employing a tripod-mounted,
perpendicular camera positioned farther away and zoomed in would make the
scale and fall path lie in the same plane. Thirdly, increasing frame rate and
shutter speed would minimize the motion blur and timing quantization, thus
correcting for lens distortion when possible. And lastly, using a hands-free
release mechanism to eliminate any initial downward push would also be a
viable strategy to inculcate in future experiments of this nature. These
adjustments would target the limitations identified and improve the accuracy
of measured acceleration while maintaining the strong internal consistency
that was already achieved.
 17

Questions
1) From your best-fit linear graph corresponding to uniform motion,
estimate the speed of the rolling ball in km/h
From the linear fit, the velocity of the rolling ball was:
v = 0.812 m/s
To convert this to km/h:
3600 seconds 1 kilometer
= (0.812 m/s) × 1 hour
×
1000 meters
= 2.9232 km/h
Therefore estimated speed (after accounting for the significant figures) = 2.92
km/h

2) Based on your best-fit analysis of the free-falling ball, estimate the

acceleration (g) due to gravity. How does your experimental
estimation of g compare to the known value?
Since equation,
y = at2 + bt + c
Is derived from, y = y0 + v0yt + ½ ayt2
Therefore, a = ½ g
A = -3.1 m/s2
By substitution we get,
g = 2A = 2 × (-3.1 m/s2)
= -6.2 m/s2
The known value of gravitational acceleration is -9.80 m/s2
The experimental value of g = -6.2 m/s2 is not close to the known value. The
difference could be due to tracking inaccuracies, timing errors, or air
resistance