0732: "HDTV"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Peripatetic
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:47 am UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby Peripatetic » Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:21 am UTC

Also good points, ausmax.

User avatar
Shpow
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:08 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby Shpow » Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:46 am UTC

All about FPS.

Okay, my laptop has an LED screen (yes LED) and 1920x1080, It's quite large, and it gives good space on most websites, and I'm gonna say, there's a difference between a 640x480 video and a 1920x1080 video, sure the resolution doesn't seem to be anything amazing but it does make a difference.
On the surface, in view, an unnamed member,
Underneath that, a flame amidst the embers.
And in that surge of flames ne'er growing fainter,
Lies the beauty of art in the young painter.

Cute Jailbait, belonging to DJorgensen!

toresbe
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:49 am UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby toresbe » Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:05 am UTC

Randall has neglected to take into account viewing distance, usage and size, possibly for a rare failure at comic effect.

A 42" HDTV will be used for video at a viewing distance of at the very least one meter, whilst a cellphone will be nearly in your face. Of course the dot pitch has to be lower, but it is only a 4" display or something in that range, so the higher density isn't really impressive. The resolution of a 1080p TV isn't really impressive either, but viewing video on a good one certainly is - and 1080p is a high enough resolution for anything likely to be in any non-billionaire's home in my generation. The 2K digital cinema standard, which is a few pixels more than 1080p, is rolled out to quite a lot of cinemas here in Norway. When that resolution is viewed on the screen of a major movie theatre, the resolution is adequate-ish. That means that 1080p resolution on a 42" screen viewed at 2 meters basically "saturates" the eye's resolving power anyway.

Besides: Unless the camcorder is 720p60 or similar, it is _not_ 60 "fps" (since that's usually taken to be frames per second), rather 60 _fields_ per second, forming 30 full frames.

SuprXY wrote:You really are comparing apples to oranges. Watching a bluray on my HDTV looks way better than watching it on my monitor with 150% of the resolution. And the comment about crappy camcorders is really misleading. It didn't look fake because of the framerate, it looks fake because of the cheap processors used by the cameras. Besides, as a comic largely about science should know, the human eye is incapable of detecting more than 24 fps. It is a term that doesn't REALLY mean the same thing in different formats like videogames vs movies.


You're close, but you're also a bit wrong. It's not just the processors in the camera, it's also every other part of it. The tiny chip, the cheap lens, the slow tape transport forcing hard compression and chroma subsampling, etc. Film looks more expensive because the production of film is more expensive. The frame rate is one of a host of different indicators of a "film look" - I can mention high dynamic range, narrow depth of field, careful and profesional lighting, great care taken to colour grading (though they're really going amuck with that in the video world nowadays), camera movement in preference to zoom lenses, etc etc etc. Video has higher temporal resolution, but frequently lower spatial resolution even when viewed in PAL, and has a more neutral tone curve and a markedly different colour look in most cases.

BTW: The eye is absolutely able to detect more than 24fps! Try watching a slightly slow pan in 24fps, and then in 60fps. It's just that film stock is pretty expensive, and 24fps was a standard that worked out just fine - besides, the juddering is so slight that it's considered something only registering subconsciously. Though that's not the only reason why people use slow pans. Fast panning is ugly.

gormster
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:43 am UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby gormster » Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:35 am UTC

I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but Randall's cellphone has a horizontal resolution of 960 pixels? I call massive, massive bullshit.
Eddie Izzard wrote:And poetry! Poetry is a lot like music, only less notes and more words.

kerohazel
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:10 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby kerohazel » Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:41 am UTC

Nice comparison of 60i vs. 24p:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSXSwSUK ... re=related

Even has a split-screen bit at the end so you can really compare.

Also, I wonder how much the interlacing has an effect on the "look" of 60i (aside from the obvious fact that it enables us to "double" the apparent frame rate). After all 60i isn't actually 60 full frames per second, it's 30 per second, but each frame is split into 2 frames (all odd or even rows). I'd like to see some video shot in 60p (if you can even find the equipment to do it) to see how much of the look is due to the interlacing.

flguy1980
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:24 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby flguy1980 » Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:46 am UTC

BlueNight wrote:All I really want is an HDTV receiver with a monitor out. An SVGA monitor out. I have at least three monitors sitting around the house, and at least two sets of computer speakers not being used. An HDTV receiver with a 1/8" stereo plug. Is that so much to ask?


http://www.monoprice.com/products/produ ... 1&format=2

Solved: you can connect any SVGA monitor to any source with an HDCP-protected HDMI output. This product was primarily intended to allow pre-HDCP HDTVs and video projectors to be connected to HDCP sources: cable boxes, TiVos, Blu-Ray players, etc...

SANAFABICH
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:11 am UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby SANAFABICH » Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:57 am UTC

As much as it "baffles" you, it is impressive to watch movies on a HDTV, so what's the point of all this fussing?

funknjam
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:13 am UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby funknjam » Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:00 am UTC

HDTV. Pffft - suckers. Just a couple more years of exposure and mark my words the hospitals are gonna start filling up with people suffering from cancer of the eye.

boaarmpit
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:25 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby boaarmpit » Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:14 am UTC

I noticed a number of people mentioning that low frame rates look bad in games. I think this is because there is no built in motion blur, as the game is rendering the scene at discreet instants in time. On the other hand, when filming a movie, the light is integrated over the time the shutter is open, creating motion blur. I don't really know, but I expect the ratio of the time the shutter is open to the frame rate has quite an effect on how the movie looks.

toresbe
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 9:49 am UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby toresbe » Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:21 am UTC

kerohazel wrote:Nice comparison of 60i vs. 24p:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSXSwSUK ... re=related


I'm not sure I trust YouTube to preserve 60i; that may well be deinterlaced 30p.

kerohazel wrote:Also, I wonder how much the interlacing has an effect on the "look" of 60i (aside from the obvious fact that it enables us to "double" the apparent frame rate). After all 60i isn't actually 60 full frames per second, it's 30 per second, but each frame is split into 2 frames (all odd or even rows). I'd like to see some video shot in 60p (if you can even find the equipment to do it) to see how much of the look is due to the interlacing.


The interlacing comes into the picture (hah) because it was a 1950s compromise between bandwidth and image quality; by interlacing, you could double the apparent temporal resolution without a loss in apparent spatial resolution. It looks pretty comparable to what 60p would look like - the looks only really differ when the interlacing becomes noticable (jagged edges in a quick pan, or something like that)

ZeroSkulleton
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 1:19 am UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby ZeroSkulleton » Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:35 am UTC

As true as it is (and its very), Call of Duty does look awesome at 55 inches. Yeah, kinda blocky but fun nonetheless.


And speaking of framerates, has anyone seen that show Time Warp?

The Jon
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:32 am UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby The Jon » Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:40 am UTC

The problem isn't 60hz video, it's anything above that. Indoor lighting has a refresh rate of 60hz, thus anything we see inside is at 60hz. I know I have trouble looking at 120hz televisions because of this. It just doesn't look right because we don't view anything in our normal lives at 120 hz. If anything, it's too smooth. I agree that 24fps movies are a little slow, but I've never had trouble looking at 60hz video. If you don't believe me on any of this, go to your nearest Best Buy and look at their display of a 120hz blu-ray, it hurts.

dst
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:01 pm UTC
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby dst » Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:13 pm UTC

theta4 wrote:I absolutely love the way 24p 35mm film looks. I hate the fact that digital is beginning to take over theaters! It would have been amazing to see classics like Star Wars and 2001: A Space Odyssey in theaters in all of their 35mm 24p glory. But now I have to settle for VHS and DVD, sacrificing that genuine, warm projector look. Ah, 24p 35mm projectors. Bliss :)


Ahem: 2001 was shot in 65mm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_(film)#Filming

But other than that I agree with you.

dst
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:01 pm UTC
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby dst » Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:17 pm UTC

KitsuneKnight wrote:I might be mistaken, but aren't the '3DTVs' going to support 120hz video (i.e. 120fps)? Even when cutting the framerate in half to produce the 3D effect, that'd be 60 fps, which is still a fairly large improvement.


The explanation I've heard for higher refresh rates with stereoscopic cinema is that if you stick with the regular 48 Hz, the image will not seem stable. Heard this explanation in 2008 from the guy who's responsible for the 1st digital stereoscopic cinema in Finland.

Ie. if the fps of the footage went up to, say, 48 fps, you might have to up the actual display rates, too. (But this is pure speculation on my part.)

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby Technical Ben » Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:21 pm UTC

Peripatetic wrote:
Spoiler:
I was looking for some good comparisons of frame rates when I came across this informative discussion on avsforum. There's a link on the second page to a video showing Casablanca and Casino Royale [2006] at 24 and 60 frames per second (mediafire link: http://www.mediafire.com/file/2uzidxymqkm/casa.wmv). I have to admit I hate the look of both Casino Royale scenes at 60fps.

I have some baseless speculation as to why: it shows too much movement. A lower frame rate will tend to filter out the small, quick movements of inadvertent motion of the actors, leaving only the deliberate scripted movements (Nyquist theorem and all that). It's similar to the way that scripted dialogue doesn't contain "um" or other extraneous sounds of natural speech. 60fps looks unprofessional because it's not screening out the unscripted parts.

Of course, for games, you want to see everything in as much detail as possible because the action is unscripted and you have to respond to it. So, the frame rate should be as high as possible.

Movies and games are different and have different frame rate needs. Even different kinds of movies may have different frame rate needs. Movies telling fictional stories may be best shot at a lower frame rate than documentaries.

Again, lots of baseless speculation here.


I have to agree partially. I think 60fps IS better, but not with todays hardware and technology. We need the video cameras to catch up in other areas first, before we can enjoy 60fps.
As an example of why, take a movie in HD. I was watching one at a TV store. Lovely screen, big and colourful, defined and bright. But it made me feel sea sick. I could see the camera shake. It was a scene of a cafe, and the camera shakes as people walked by, doors closed or it panned around. In standard res, you barley see this. But in HD you get all the faults in detail. However, watching "Up" which is an animation, and has no shake, was beautiful.
Perhaps 60fps would need some software anti shake, similar to the one that comes on home camcorders and cameras?
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

dst
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:01 pm UTC
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby dst » Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:23 pm UTC

Re: 24 fps

There have been many good explanations here on the subject of why 24 fps feels more natural than 30 or 60 fps. My guess is it's a combination of pretty much everything mentioned: what we're used to, the lighting, the lenses, the film stock, the shutter speed, the frame rate, the way the camera moves etc ad nauseam.

As for why movies still aren't shot using higher frame rates, well… there are nearly 40,000 movie projectors (one per screen, I assume – http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/19/magazines/fortune/theater_futureof_fortune/) in the US alone and probably much more than that in the rest of the world. Those things play 24 fps and 24 fps only, and converting all of them would be a heck of a job.

Johnny Pixels
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:35 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby Johnny Pixels » Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:41 pm UTC

dst wrote:Re: 24 fps
As for why movies still aren't shot using higher frame rates, well… there are nearly 40,000 movie projectors (one per screen, I assume – http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/19/magazines/fortune/theater_futureof_fortune/) in the US alone and probably much more than that in the rest of the world. Those things play 24 fps and 24 fps only, and converting all of them would be a heck of a job.


There are two projectors per screen. A film reel only holds a certain length of film (because otherwise the reel would be massive). The film is started on one projector, the second reel is prepared on the second one, and then near the end of the first reel a small mark appears in the top right hand corner of the film to let the projectionist know they need to get ready, and then when a second mark appears, they switch over the projectors. They then load the third real onto the first projector etc.

flguy1980
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:24 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby flguy1980 » Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:53 pm UTC

2004? Hrmph. I got a 17" CRT monitor in 1998 [Sony CPD-200ES] that supported 1280*1024/60 Hz, but for eye comfort, I used it almost exclusively at 1024*768/85 Hz. I used the thing continuously until 2009, at which point the image started to get uncomfortably fuzzy.

whataburger
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:43 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby whataburger » Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:21 pm UTC

TV and display technology is (sadly) an area where a lot of people fall into the "more is better" trap.

Historically, one of the reasons to shoot at 24 fps was to save money on film stock, as pointed out earlier. But why then has this tradition been preserved for close to a hundred years?
Simply because it looks good. Cameras and projectors come and go, and could have easily been replaced up through the years if showing films at higher frame rates was desirable, but it`s not.
In fact, in my country (Norway) the big studios of Hollywood are chipping in a lot of money to replace old analogue movie projectors with modern digital ones. All of which show movies at good old 24 fps.

What a lot of people here are forgetting is that film making is an art form. There is a reason why motion blur is desirable, just like why you would light a scene in a certain way, or use a particular costume on an actor. Everything you see and hear in a movie is carefully thought out and planned ahead in order to convey an emotion. Well, in good movies it is at least. If people knew how much time, effort and money is used on even the tiniest shot in every single scene of a movie to get everything just right, they would be shocked. And then when some display manufacturing company decide to boost their sales by touting that "our TV´s have twice the frame rate of any other!" it is downright insulting! TV sets that interpolates frames to produce more fluid motion should be banned!
I wish people would stop looking at numbers and instead look at the actual, subjective quality of the experience.

And the thing about two projectors per movie screen is not entirely true. In the old days this was very common, but in most modern cinemas today they splice together all the reels on one huge one and play it in one go. Not everything in Fight Club is true ;-)

trisweb
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 5:00 am UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby trisweb » Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:22 pm UTC

gormster wrote:I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but Randall's cellphone has a horizontal resolution of 960 pixels? I call massive, massive bullshit.


The line was "over twice", so it could be any of the newer hi-res android phones. Droid is 854px, the nexus one is 800px wide. Either would fit the bill believably.

clanders
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:07 am UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby clanders » Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:38 pm UTC

It baffles me that people find xkcd worth reading.

User avatar
sorceror
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:26 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby sorceror » Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:46 pm UTC

trisweb wrote:
gormster wrote:I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but Randall's cellphone has a horizontal resolution of 960 pixels? I call massive, massive bullshit.


The line was "over twice", so it could be any of the newer hi-res android phones. Droid is 854px, the nexus one is 800px wide. Either would fit the bill believably.


Yup. And properly-converted DVDs look wonderful on the Droid. It's fun to show off.

(The Nexus One, though, has... issues: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2010/03/secrets-of-the-nexus-ones-screen-science-color-and-hacks.ars/)

User avatar
J the Ninja
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:08 pm UTC
Location: Portland, USA
Contact:

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby J the Ninja » Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:12 pm UTC

Technical Ben wrote:Perhaps 60fps would need some software anti shake, similar to the one that comes on home camcorders and cameras?


Anti-shake tech is present in pretty much all editing and compositing software. Hell, it's even in iMovie now (Granted, that's because Apple already had it sitting around from their various pro video apps, but hey, it's there!)


And for those who don't read the Blag, Randall rolls a Droid and a 13" MacBook Pro.
Shishichi wrote:Applies a sexward force to counter the sexpression effect that Forward Advection can apply to fluid density, particularly along sextainer boundaries. In this way, the sextribute attempts to conserve the overall fluid volume ensuring no density loss.
(he/him/his)

dst
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:01 pm UTC
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby dst » Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:13 pm UTC

Johnny Pixels wrote:
dst wrote:Re: 24 fps
As for why movies still aren't shot using higher frame rates, well… there are nearly 40,000 movie projectors (one per screen, I assume – http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/19/magazines/fortune/theater_futureof_fortune/) in the US alone and probably much more than that in the rest of the world. Those things play 24 fps and 24 fps only, and converting all of them would be a heck of a job.


There are two projectors per screen. A film reel only holds a certain length of film (because otherwise the reel would be massive). The film is started on one projector, the second reel is prepared on the second one, and then near the end of the first reel a small mark appears in the top right hand corner of the film to let the projectionist know they need to get ready, and then when a second mark appears, they switch over the projectors. They then load the third real onto the first projector etc.


This depends on the theater, eg. here in Finland in most cases the films are spliced together and run on a single projector.

But yes, this means my original estimation was too low.

Xenoterranos
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:20 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby Xenoterranos » Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:26 pm UTC

J the Ninja wrote:
thegamefreak0134 wrote:(of course, the computer world is probably too busy having multi-monitor wars. Tri-monitor? Really? These people have clearly never used workspaces...

Fine if you can get the whole app on to one screen, and don't need to look at a second window constantly. That's not a luxury you get with some things


Even when I'm just coding, I like to have, for instance, my .h files open across the screen for so that I can reference structures and function calls easily. It just makes more sense to have more screen.

tofof
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 12:21 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby tofof » Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:34 pm UTC

SuprXY wrote:Besides, as a comic largely about science should know, the human eye is incapable of detecting more than 24 fps.


This is honestly just laughably uninformed.

Your motion-blurred 24fps source actually encodes a substantial amount of data in the blur itself. If you had the same source, shot at something absurd like 4800 fps, so that every frame was totally blur free, and displayed every 200th frame, the result would look like crap. You'd get a very clear 'flipbook' feeling as you viewed anything moving on it. Then again, if you displayed somehow at 4800 fps, that wouldn't happen at all - so clearly there's something that your eye can see that you gain from >24 fps.

The human eye and brain are capable of seeing a silhouette and identifying it when it was flashed for a single frame at 220 fps. And I don't just mean "I saw a bunny rabbit" - the silhouettes were all aircraft (for identification training in WWII) and the testers correctly identified the specific model of plane.

Read up more and try again later.

nahkaimurrao
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:18 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby nahkaimurrao » Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:47 pm UTC

trisweb wrote:
gormster wrote:I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but Randall's cellphone has a horizontal resolution of 960 pixels? I call massive, massive bullshit.


The line was "over twice", so it could be any of the newer hi-res android phones. Droid is 854px, the nexus one is 800px wide. Either would fit the bill believably.


Looks like quite a few 800px and up.

I wonder when/if the 1024px LG GW990 or the Sharp AQUOS 941SH will be available, I bet they are available in asia somewhere.

heck some cell phones come with a 640x480 projector!
This thing can project a 50" screen!

Check out this UTA classwith a guest speaker from TI (yeah Texas!) where they developed the DLP pico technology if your interested!

If your mind hasn't been blown yet, check out this guy who developed Sixth Sense technology!
Gesture sensing device for $2!
Open source FTW!

Johnny Pixels
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:35 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby Johnny Pixels » Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:51 pm UTC

dst wrote:
Johnny Pixels wrote:
dst wrote:Re: 24 fps
This depends on the theater, eg. here in Finland in most cases the films are spliced together and run on a single projector.

But yes, this means my original estimation was too low.


Sorry, yes you are correct.

chimerical
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:49 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby chimerical » Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:56 pm UTC

I'm not sure if it's a fair comparison to contrast resolutions. The issue is the resolution of available video content, in which case 1080p is actually fairly high. You have to remember that TV's aren't designed to run video in windowed mode, unlike computer monitors.

User avatar
The Scyphozoa
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Sector 5

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby The Scyphozoa » Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:14 pm UTC

Yeah, the fact that higher framerates look cheap is weird, because I know that technically it's "more stuff" and thus "higher quality", but it still looks lower quality.
Image
3rdtry wrote:If there ever is another World War, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "World War 2: Episode One"

doogly wrote:murder is a subset of being mean

User avatar
meat.paste
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:08 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby meat.paste » Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:17 pm UTC

Finally! This is the first comic that really irritates me.

There is so much more to watching something than just the resolution. In my experience, my TV with its associated sound system makes a much more compelling viewing experience than watching the same thing on my laptop. This is mostly because I can control the brightness in the room where I watch the TV, but I often can't when watching something on a laptop (think airplanes). Both my TV and laptop are reasonably well calibrated in terms of contrast, brightness and color. I would be surprised if most cell-phone screens could be set to have the kind of contrast my TV has. Most phones are designed to be used in bright light, which tends to wash out the blacks and turn them grey. Also, it's a lot easier to watch a movie with family and friends on a TV than a laptop or a phone. Resolution is important, but contrast is critically important.

So, to end my rant, phones, laptops, and televisions are not designed to display the same things in the same way. When I meet the first person who watches Lawrence of Arabia a phone and thinks its good enough, I will weep.
Huh? What?

User avatar
RobShaver
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:10 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Snarky Comebacks

Postby RobShaver » Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:26 pm UTC

"Oh wow! You had a 55" 1080P monitor in 2004? How far back did you have to sit?"
"It baffles me how jaded people get with amazing technological advances. It's like saying the holodeck is too small."
"It baffles me that a modern forum can't resize my avatar photo."

But still I read every one. Keep 'em coming.

Peace,

Rob:-]

ColtonProvias
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:13 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby ColtonProvias » Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:39 pm UTC

dst wrote:
Johnny Pixels wrote:
dst wrote:Re: 24 fps
As for why movies still aren't shot using higher frame rates, well… there are nearly 40,000 movie projectors (one per screen, I assume – http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/19/magazines/fortune/theater_futureof_fortune/) in the US alone and probably much more than that in the rest of the world. Those things play 24 fps and 24 fps only, and converting all of them would be a heck of a job.


There are two projectors per screen. A film reel only holds a certain length of film (because otherwise the reel would be massive). The film is started on one projector, the second reel is prepared on the second one, and then near the end of the first reel a small mark appears in the top right hand corner of the film to let the projectionist know they need to get ready, and then when a second mark appears, they switch over the projectors. They then load the third real onto the first projector etc.


This depends on the theater, eg. here in Finland in most cases the films are spliced together and run on a single projector.

But yes, this means my original estimation was too low.


In many cinemas here in the United States that use film projectors, they use platters for storing the film instead. When they receive a new film, they will splice the strips together at a cutting station usually located near the projectors. The film is then loaded onto one of the three platters on each projector. The small black circle with a yellow outline in several frames at the end of each strip and beginning of the next provide them a location to sync the spliced strips. When done with the film, they will take it apart, put it back in the container, and usually store it somewhere in the lobby until it is finally shipped out to the next theatre.

Also, a neat trick they use with film is getting a movie to play just 5 minutes apart on two projectors. They have a set of guides on the wall or ceiling between the projectors that they run the film through. This way, the movie will start approximately 5 minutes after it started on the previous projector.

User avatar
Mistercharles
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:24 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby Mistercharles » Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:03 pm UTC

why high frame rates look bad
by niko šveikovsky

first things first— what the human eye perceives. i have heard many people say that the frame rate of the eye is 60fps. this is silly, as there is no need for our brains to split the signals that the optic nerve receives into individual frames. instead, any light that has hit the retina is remembered for a split second. the light that has hit the retina in the last split second is composited into an image, very much like photographic emulsion. to put it in pseudo-computing terminology, our eyes are dynamically adding data to the top of a stack, and removing data from the bottom of a stack, where the composite of the stack is what's interpreted at a given moment. the difference is that cameras have to record individual frames in quick succession, to be played back in series, thus only simulating motion, not reproducing it.

where this ties in to the alt-text— when you are watching a film at 24fps, each frame took anywhere from (typically) 1/30 of a second to 1/60 of a second to be recorded onto the emulsion. this amount of time is fast enough for the brain to accept as motion, but slow enough to have frames that blur motion similar to the way our eyes do. when you are watching a video at 60fps (i say video because no one would record and play film at 60fps), the frames took anywhere from (typically) 1/70 of a second to 1/125 of a second to be recorded onto the emulsion. a shutter speed this fast registers as motion, but it looks "weird" because the shutter speed isn't slow enough to blur motion in the way our eyes do.

fair enough?

User avatar
meat.paste
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:08 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby meat.paste » Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:04 pm UTC

ColtonProvias wrote:Also, a neat trick they use with film is getting a movie to play just 5 minutes apart on two projectors. They have a set of guides on the wall or ceiling between the projectors that they run the film through. This way, the movie will start approximately 5 minutes after it started on the previous projector.

When I was a projectionist, I hated when movies would be shown this way. The timing required for two independent motors to move 1.6 miles of film (93.9 minute film) synchronized enough so that the difference between the two motors was less than 5 feet made for a painful setup (600 ppm error in rotation rates between the two motors).
Huh? What?

User avatar
RobShaver
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:10 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby RobShaver » Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:09 pm UTC

The other cool thing about the "platter" system is that there's no rewind step at the end. The film is pulled from the center of the supply platter, runs through the projector and then winds onto the take-up platter. The start of the film is always in the center of the platter. For the next showing the projectionest just pulls the film start from the center of what was the take-up platter, which is now the supply platter, and threads it through the projector back to another empty platter.

There's a picture in this Wikipedia article in the section "Single reel system": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_projector

Quote ...
In a platter system the individual 20-minute reels of film are also spliced together as one large reel, but the film is then wound onto a horizontal rotating table called a platter. Three or more platters are stacked together to create a platter system. Most of the platters in a platter system will be occupied by film prints; whichever platter happens to be empty serves as the "take-up reel" to receive the film that is playing from another platter.

Film is unwound from the center of the platter through a mechanism called a payout unit which controls the speed of the platter's rotation so that it matches the speed of the film as it is fed to the projector. The film winds through a series of rollers from the platter stack to the projector, through the projector, through another series of rollers back to the platter stack, and then onto the platter serving as the take-up reel.

User avatar
themonk
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:45 am UTC
Location: Around
Contact:

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby themonk » Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:17 pm UTC

I can't watch Saving Private Ryan in HD. The realism looks fake, as other have pointed out by HD.

Maybe I'm just not used to it?
Image
- click for the One Sentence Project (OSP). (Nothing to do with Oral Sodium Phospate)

User avatar
tetsujin
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby tetsujin » Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:22 pm UTC

So, TV is catching up to resolutions that computer displays had more than ten years ago. Is this a bad thing? I rather like it. I like that I can walk into Best Buy or whatever and buy a really large, high-resolution TV for just a few hundred dollars.

What I don't like so much is 16:9 for computer monitors. As others have mentioned, vertical resolution is important on the computer... Over-emphasizing horizontal resolution is not a good thing IMO. Maybe I'll feel differently when I get my new monitor, but at present I feel like for a lot of tasks a balance of width and height is a lot better.
---GEC
I want to create a truly new command-line shell for Unix.
Anybody want to place bets on whether I ever get any code written?

User avatar
phillipsjk
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: Edmonton AB Canada
Contact:

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby phillipsjk » Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

The Jon wrote:The problem isn't 60hz video, it's anything above that. Indoor lighting has a refresh rate of 60hz, thus anything we see inside is at 60hz. I know I have trouble looking at 120hz televisions because of this. It just doesn't look right because we don't view anything in our normal lives at 120 hz.


Even lighting that "flickers" from the power company will typically flicker at 120 Hz. A complete cycle goes through a positive peak and a corresponding negative peak.

Incandescent lights "blur" this out by averaging the temperature of the filament (even a small filament doesn't change temperature instantaneously).

Fluorescent lights will typically flash at 120 or 100 Hz unless there is an electronic ballast that pulses the current at an even higher rate (like 1000 Hz).

Cheap LED (Christmas) lights are the only lights that flash at 60Hz: they only use half the power cycle because LEDs only let current flow in 1 direction. More expensive LED light would likely use DC or, more commonly, pulses in the kilohertz range to "save power" (by only staying on for a fraction of the time).

Edit: You could be complaining about the lighting being out of phase with the Television. I'm not sure if the eye would pick up on that.
Edit: 120Hz TVs could look crappy because of compromises they had to make to push the frame rate up to 120Hz (like colour reproduction, Time-domain dithering, etc.).
Did you get the number on that truck?

RabidScotsman
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:04 pm UTC

Re: "HDTV" Discussion

Postby RabidScotsman » Mon Apr 26, 2010 4:48 pm UTC

CobaltMouse wrote:Alt text: We're also stuck with blurry, juddery, slow-panning 24 fps movies forever because (thanks to 60fps home video) people associate high framerates with camcorders and cheap sitcoms, and thus think good framerates look "fake".

Heh. Just another example of how computers beat everything.


First, anyone who read this comic should check this site out to learn more about what our eyes see.

As a filmmaker and (more importantly) a film editor, let me take issue with this 'good framerate/fake framerate' thing.

To call 24fps backwards or 'out of date' is misguided. Calling it 'real' or 'fake' is misguided. All film is fake, even documentaries. You are seeing a reproduced image, you aren't actually there. We have a 24 fps image because it is what is most aesthetically pleasing to our eyes. As the link above describes, what framerate we 'see' and at what framerate we can identify an object are two entirely different things.

So for a video game of course I want the highest framerate possible so that I can catch the smallest change in scenery and notice that I'm about to get a grenade lobbed at my head. However, you can't equate the computer/video game experience to movies. Sure, movies are only being shown in 1080p at home, but the resolution for 35mm film is 4000 lines per frame. I'm pretty sure your monitor isn't doing that.

I agree with the resolution argument that 1080p is not nearly enough resolution to be excited about, but there is one problem with it. We don't have a way to deliver higher resolution files easily. Blu-ray, the current HD standard media form for movies, only holds 25 GB (33 with the new discs). Two Hours of uncompressed 1080p video is about 200 GB. It is true there are some great codecs out there that can bring that file down a great deal, but there is still image quality loss. As for streaming, not enough people have enough throughput to be able to stream 4,000 lines of resolution at 24fps. So unless you want to have a Hard Drive delivered to you for every movie you buy, you'll have to settle for 1080p.

So yeah, we've got these great resolutions on our screens that make our videos play in tiny boxes while we get to see our digital images and pictures in glorious 1600 lines, or whatever. That is your digital art on your digital medium. We have our film art that was made to be displayed on a giant screen for the enjoyment of as many people as possible. I happen to love both of these and would rather not disparage either.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 98 guests