26Apr/1014
HDTV
by Jeff
Image text: We're also stuck with blurry, juddery, slow-panning 24fps movies forever because (thanks to 60fps home video) people associate high framerates with camcorders and cheap sitcoms, and thus think good framerates look 'fake'.
I'll be honest with you, and I'm not trying to be THAT guy. But, this comic comes off a might condescending towards the "people". How dare they be impressed!
« Eagle
Desert Island »
April 26th, 2010
I’m right there with you Jeff. As a die hard fan of all things XKCD, I find this one not as funny as usual; but maybe that’s because I can’t afford a big screen, even at 720p.
April 26th, 2010
I don’t think you guys get it. He’s not saying that people shouldn’t recognize the improvement of HDTV over low-resolution analog TV. He’s also not saying that you should spend more money on something better. He’s simply pointing out that 1080 lines of resolution is simply commonplace already on other things that we don’t ooh and ahh over. Like cell phones and computer screens.
I don’t see any reason to be defensive or feel some sort of judgement. If that’s the way you feel, you just aren’t getting it.
April 27th, 2010
The point made in the picture regarding a comparison of resolutions is noteworthy, and probably goes unrealized by most consumers, but I think the caption and image text reveal a lack of perspective which, as already noted, can come across as condescending.
Film and computing are totally different worlds, and the number of pixels of the display device is just one factor of quality, which is totally subjective. The consumer’s judgment of what is “impressive” is based quite simply on what they think looks best, and that doesn’t correspond to pixel count. Higher resolutions and frame rates do not necessarily look better unless the film-maker was targeting them (think digital IMAX films), and some of the characteristics we associate with low quality may actually have a positive effect on the viewer (e.g., motion blurs, simulated lens flares, shaky camera work to impart realism).
Personally, I sometimes think that “good framerates” do often look ‘fake’, not because of some association with camcorders and cheap sitcoms, but because the sterile and crisp picture actually loses some characteristic that our brain associates with reality. Our eye sees an analog picture with differing levels of focus and clarity in the field of view, particularly when there’s motion, and perhaps a high-res, high-framerate video is simply too clear. Turn your head quickly and notice how fuzzy everything is as you “pan.” A high-framerate camera would capture that detail that our brain ignores, and maybe that’s part of the problem.
Anyway, I recently saw a blue-ray copy of Avatar playing on a big HDTV at Costco, and yes, I very impressed.
April 27th, 2010
I have to agree with Randall here. When it first reared its head I was ranting about how HD wasn’t new and that PC monitors had been even better than that for years…
April 27th, 2010
This comic might have actually been funny if it were technologically accurate. Maximum, in the U.S. at least (and let’s assume we’re talking U.S. frame rates rather than trying to compare NTSC to PAL or even to film frame rates from other countries (Australian film frame rate: 25fps)), a broadcast legal frame rate, like what’d you see in a “cheap sitcom,” is 30 fps non-drop frame. So, it’s 1) doubtful that homevideo is moving at double that, and 2) it’s a specious comparison because it implies that standard broadcast television uses that same frame rate. [/video geek]
April 28th, 2010
woodstock is wrong because he doesn’t know the difference between frames and fields. ntsc is 60 *fields* per second, which means 60 refreshes with possibly-distinct pictures from possibly-distinct moments in time. each of these pictures consists (in alternation) of either only even scanlines, or only odd scanlines. “cheap sitcoms” and anything filmed with a traditional broadcast-oriented camera will likely actually sample 60 distinct moments in time, giving smooth motion but aliasing due to undersampling in the vertical spatial dimension. content recorded on film (and various digital formats not aimed at traditional broadcast media) will usually be recorded at 24 frames per second (extremely choppy motion), and then prepared for broadcast via a process known as 3:2 pulldown or “telecine” where frames are shown (alternatingly) for 3- and 2-field durations (thus representing every original scanline at least once and 25% of the scanlines twice).
April 28th, 2010
In broadcast standard terminology FPS, used in the comic, refers to Frames Per Second, not Fields Per Second.
Yes, there are 60 fields in a single frame of broadcast video, that is correct. Display 30 of them and you will only have a half and image whether you choose odd or even scan lines. And yes, 3:2 pulldown is exactly how film conversion to video works but guess what, you could have 120 scan lines and video would still only run 30 fps (that’s *frames* per second).
So, if the intent was to compare refresh rates, which likely it was, then fps was the wrong terminology to use.
Woodstock is not wrong. And she knows the difference, thanks so much.
April 28th, 2010
our motion perception do not distinguish between “frames” and “fields”. TV can emit 60 different pictures in a second (NTSC) while we can only see 24 different ones in cinema and this makes the difference for our brain.
but i think xkcd is overly pessimistic. digital technology enters the cinema, too, and it will be inflating the megapixels and gigabytes like in every other area it had infected. filmmakers will be using higher FPS sooner than we expect
April 28th, 2010
…Is someone wrong on the internet again?
April 30th, 2010
lol @ smug xkcd fantards
May 4th, 2010
Yeah, woodstock isn’t wrong.
/srcm_0
May 9th, 2010
Hooray for Full HD computer monitors. Such a great marketing exercise, they actually convinced consumers to downgrade their resolution…
May 29th, 2010
I want to start blogging too, what do you think, which blog platform is good for beginner?
July 6th, 2010
I like the looks of 24fps, and doubt that movies theaters will be upgrading that for a while, but I agree with “random user” computers are a different story