[mythtv-users] Not quite OT but of interest: video formats

Andre Newman mythtv-list at dinkum.org.uk
Wed Jun 26 12:29:56 UTC 2013


On 26 Jun 2013, at 13:19, John Pilkington <J.Pilk at tesco.net> wrote:

> On 26/06/13 10:36, Mike Perkins wrote:
>> I noticed this article this morning on The Register. (It may be
>> available elsewhere.)
>> 
>> It gives a lucid and reasoned of how the eye works in relation to
>> Movie/TV viewing and how modern formats miss the point.
>> 
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/25/the_future_of_moving_images_the_eyes_have_it/

Good summary of the issues.


>> 
>> 
>> I think this may inform mythtv users who have trouble determining which
>> filters give the best results.
>> 
> Maybe; but in real life I can choose to fixate on, and track, any object in my field of view.  TV can't allow all its users to do that independently; the choice has to be made once for all.  I'm not saying there's no room for research, but I don't think there's going to be a magic answer.

Agreed but I've seen a fair bit of this experimental high frame rate stuff through my work and it's quite stunningly good. The BBC & EBU 300fps and 600fps material especially but even at 120fps it stops looking like TV and starts to be like you are looking through a window, provided the shutter rates are appropriately set for the frame rate rather than for conversion considerations, ie the Hobbit.

Most material I have seen has been 720p resolution, some QHD or UHDTV resolution but the resolution is much less noticeable than the frame rate. Even projected at >100" 720p300 is quite stunning, well to me anyway after 20 odd years working in Sports TV watching blurry horrible interlaced SD & HD cars whizzing past. ;-)

Andre


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list