🚀 go-pugleaf

On a sunny day (Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:10:58 +0000 (UTC)) it happened Andrew
Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in
<slrn3vfsjm41k2.7go.andrews@sdf.lonestar.org>:

>On 2012-03-15, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> So then there are the guys running a 60 Hz display, probably
>> most of the peesees, and feeding that with HDMI into the latest LCD TV,
>> and then play a 50 Hz movie on it.
>> I have tried all that to see what happens, and it is shit.
>
>...and even if you DO match the frame rates you are still watching
>a film originally shot at 24 Hz.

We play the 24 films at 25,
That makes them shorter, a good thing with most Hollywood crap,
and it also increases the pitch of the voices,
so we think all those Hollywood actors are pussies.


> Do you ever notice how films on
>TV are "really shit"?

Most are, not only from content, but also from color tech POV,
editing, what not.
Have you even noticed that in the UK for example (and other countries too)
they play the same movies over and over again?
And not really the good ones.
Some are transmitted non-deinterlaced but as progressive,
no way you can de-interlace that,


>No: that shows how silly the argument is.

No it is a wakeup call, AV quality has been gradually decreasing,
no I am not an audio extremist, but people are sold
low bitrate audio and video that would not pass in the sixties
and seventies of last century for transmission.


>There's sufficient latency in the eye's response that at these
>kinds of frame rates a slightly inconsistent frame rate is a complete
>non-issue.

Bull, it is very clearly visible especially on horizontal moving
(in the field of view) objects.
Combine that with the mpeg2 and other compression systems artifacts
where in still shots you have a lot of detail, but that detail
disappears in any motion.
Fine on a small screen, small viewing angle, but a disaster
on a wide screen where to tend to _follow_ the object or
whatever it  / he / she is with your eyes.
Plus all the edge effects around objects.
A while ago I was watching tennis in 'HD", was easy to follow,
the balls has a long white tail, about a meter long....
Digital was not sold because of a better picture, apart perhaps from noise,
it is sold because more commercials can go in a given bandwidth,
and more stations too, each pays for the channel.


>  You can always imagine problems if you want, but the
>average user doesn't care because it isn't a problem that exists
>in any real-world sense.

The 'average' user, if there is such a person, was happy with AM radio
in the past,
Nipkov really caused a stir with the first teafees,
then it gradually got better, France even had 819 line analog BW TV at some point.
Now Germany transmits in 1280x720@50Hz progressive.
720 is less than 819, but OK the 819 was interlaced.
And on the subject of interlace, Germany does the right thing, uses progressive,
because how many CRT teafees are really left there?
But most of the other idiots transmit HD interlaced!
And good de-interlacing is IMPOSSIBLE, not to mention that interlaced
material does not compress very well.

So, the average 'joe' or house wife or house man or whatever can be - and will be
sold anything, the factories MUST keep running, it creates jobs.
the old standards (NTSC PAL) lasted many years, these days standards change
every few years, requiring people to buy ever new equipment.
Look only at VGA, DVI, HDMI, display-bus ?), whatever.
Next will be optical I guess.

But of you REALLY want a good picture, and see at a movie at home,
the way the movie maker intended it (without the commercials of course),
on a big screen, then you need to pay attention to a lot of details
in both the sound setup and the video system.
They are making it now so you cannot skip commercials... LOL.

I wonder if it takes WW3 to get rid of the crap, or maybe everybody
glass fiber and back to uncompressed (digital if must be), now that
can be sold as 'much better quality'.
But if you are used to watch your 50Hz material on a PC with 60Hz
with a VGA monitor, and do not notice problems, then you do not need
all that real stuff.
I give you for most stuff from Hollywood that would be just fine.
There are real artistic exceptions though, and I love to see that
in HD, with the correct color, without artifacts.