Well, I subscribe to Philosophical realism and do believe that the reality is out there, even if and when I cannot perceive it...
You are off target again. You fail to understand trivial notions.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Super rez for video, how long till it's reality ?
- Thread starter KAAMBIC
- Start date
You are off target again. You fail to understand trivial notions.
KAAMBIC
Leading Member
- Messages
- 999
- Reaction score
- 1,210
Funny, HERE is a research paper from 2014 that shows our brains can process images at about 75fps. You see this is the problem when you start throwing around the word "tested", tested by who?
On top of that, not everybody has DNA that is identical, some people have reflexes that are far apart, vision varies too. You have not proven anything you have said, just claims.
Actually it's exactly the opposite, we see blurry things but our brains make it sharp in our mind. It's why video "looks" sharp but if you pause any particular frame, is much softer than when video is in play.
BTW, I just created a MATLAB script for a somewhat different purpose - to test my perception of photon noise depending on the fps. I can clearly see the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps. Not to mention that there is a huge difference in real life shooting between the two but then one can always blame the shutter speed for that.
I cannot test 40fps reliably because my monitor does 60 fps.
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
That conflicts with something you said earlier:
What do you think accounts for the two different observations?
So, have you revised the theory regarding noise averaging and lighting with high frame rates?
Last edited:
tbcass
Forum Pro
LOL, it would require a super computer and I'm not even sure that would do the job so don't hold your breath!!!!!
I see different dynamics - noise changing faster with 60fps but it does not look more or less noisy. When you pause, it does, as it should.
Here are the clips. Do NOT play them in your browser! The compression will destroy the noise. Download them and play them from your computer. It is tricky to play two videos side by side in WIN at least, you can use two different players or some more sophisticated one (VLC should work). Also, 30fps is played by doubling each frame, I guess.
I wish I had, that would have shaken statistics as we know it and would have made me a celebrity in some circles.
The leaps and bounds of High ISO capabilities in recent years more than makes up for the increase in shutter speed.
No one is talking about 1000fps video right now, but if everyone starts shooting at 1/120s it will only benefit the movie industry as a whole.
3D already incurred a huge lighting penalty anyway, most Hollywood studios should already have everything they need.
If you were paying attention, here I linked to an article that references that very study.
There is a difference between discerning information and discerning motion.
There are variation in DNA, this is true. But they are within a relatively tiny range and there is a limit to improvement.
What? OK, I didn't say it perfectly. Our brains don't actually blur the motion, but they are not capable of registering close up motion in anything but a blur. Our brains don't make that motion look sharp, they just ignore the blur.
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
Depends on how far you leap.
I'm someone, and I've been talking about it - but probably not in the way you assumed.
I wasn't talking about the movie industry, but I guess you are.
I wasn't talking about Hollywood, but I guess you are.
Since we're talking about different subjects, and since I've addressed my subject in more detail with someone else here already, we probably don't need to talk at all.
Last edited:
KAAMBIC
Leading Member
- Messages
- 999
- Reaction score
- 1,210
Ok sounds like you just like playing semantics games. Discerning "information" and "motion". There is information whether something is moving or not, our brain is constantly processing info, if you are moving even the slightest bit your vision isn't static.
And our brains don't make it look sharp, just ignore the blur. Ok? Sounds like when it ignores blur, looking sharper is the only outcome.
Not semantic at all. Actually read the article I linked.
For a forum dedicated to a visual medium, not many people understand the visual part very well. I don't feel creating a seminar on how the brain processes information and the link I provided gives a good enough basic illustration of this part of it.
No. Wave your hand in front of your face and, if you pay attention, you notice the blur. Most of the time when people do this, they just register that the hand has moved, they don't really think about whether it was sharp. In other words, the brain doesn't make the motion appear sharper, it ignores sharpness completely.
The conversation you were not apart of and then quoted was full of rhetoric that does apply to big budget movies.
tbcass
Forum Pro
Didn't he say that? Yes he did and therefore your reply was unnecessary.
A note on why big budget productions/Hollywood is relevant to this conversation.
Whilst budget is certainly a consideration, and there are eccentricities, much of what is done with purpose. To serve the telling of the story, to get the film making out of the way. Cinema is also the test bed for experimentation because the audience provides a broader feedback
Given that cinema is the gold standard, technique and equipment will tend to work within professional parameters.
Individuals can want/prefer whatever, but equipment manufacturers are not spending money to chase every vagrant whim.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum