If you turn off the "enabled by default" motion interpolation, your soaps will still look like soaps, since they were shot at 60fps, and will continue playing at this FPS. The issue with the film that was shot at 24fps.
Amen to that. Movies that were shot at 24FPS were specifically intended to be seen as such. Trying to "enhance" such a motion picture is like trying to enhance an oil painting only because someone decided it must now seen like a photograph.
Motion interpolation was likely added during the "Hertz" wars from 10 years ago, since it was the technology that could supposedly justify spending more money on a TV screen with 120Hz or 240Hz screen. I recall how these meaningless specs were being paraded at Best Buy, with TVs having massive stickers saying 120Hz, 240Hz, or whatever with the corresponding price premium. It is when the TV manufacturers decided to turn on motion interpolation because otherwise those screens would look just like the screens with normal 60Hz fps.
that there is some artistic value in it, etc... I call bullshit, it is not a conscious artistic choice, it is a technical limitation.
Technical limitations have nothing to do with it any more. Filmmakers choose 24FPS because it's a medium that delivers a certain cinematic effect. And if people really wanted higher FPS films, the industry would have been all over such business opportunity. But the truth remains that most people consider 24FPS more cinema-like, and higher FPS soap-opera or sports-like. So when the TV manufacturers that a liberty to turn on some kind of motion enhancer by default, they really do a disservice to the consumers and the studios.
The only argument that makes sense IMHO is one of cost. More FPS is expensive: larger file sizes, more rendering time, a need for more sensitive camera sensors, etc..
Nah, we live in a time where storage is nearly "free", and bandwidth is also free. A typical broadband connection in a big city will support 5-10 simultaneous 1080p Netflix streams at 5800kbits.
The reason TV makers are doing interpolation is that 23 fps or 30fps (29.97 or what the fuck ever) just seems fucking choppy when people nowadays are used to 60fps minimum for most video games.
That's not the reason. The TV makers are always hungry to sensationalize a new technology and then hype it to force people to upgrade their TV screens. I remember that the motion smoothing madness started around year 2010, when most of people already had some kind of a 1080p screen that can play at 60Hz. Then someone, Samsung or its like, announced that they have a 120Hz screen, and then other company came up with a 240Hz screen, and there were other already claiming to have 600Hz screen, etc. These meaningless specs were used to lure customers into buying the next TV they don't need. Since in reality, the cable is sending us 1080i signal, that's 60Hz at best after de-interlacing, the TV makers started building these motion enhancers in order to justify their fancy 120-240Hz screens.
Moreover, film is not a computer game, and most people do not want a movie to look like one. 24FPS is a filmmaking medium, just like oil is painting medium. It would be weird to look at an oil painting through some kind of picture enhancing filter. The painter used oil as a medium for a reason, and the painting was made that way that you will look at the oil painting as is.
Likewise, 24FPS is chosen as the frame-rate for movies because most directors want it and most consumers want it. The movie is shot with the assumption that it will be viewed at 24FPS. If you enhance picture somehow, then you're not watching the film the way the director intended. And most of the time the motion smoothing effect just looks ugly. At 60FPS it looks like the soap-opera, the picture quality most people do not like in the movies, and at finer interpolation, the movies start looking like a frigin computer game.
Higher resolution makes a clearly discernible difference for text and computer generated graphics, such as in video games. However, we're discussing movies an RV here. The benefits of 4k or 8k are dar far from being clear in the real world, except apparently for the folks bulding a cinema with a wall-sized display.
Been to make mega large homes in Texas, and lived in one too, and have never seen anyone with a TV screen larger than 60-70ish inches. That's because not everyone in the real wold an actual TV-specs worshiping nerd. Saw someone with a dedicated media room just once.
There is practically no benefit to even 4k resolution screen considering the typical screen size and viewing distance. This is how much the human eye can resolve. I sit from my 55inch 1080p screen at 6 ft away, but to be able to tell the better detail on this size screen in 4k resolution, I'd have to sit either at 4.5 ft away, or continue sitting at 6ft away while replacing the TV with a 70+ inch one.
I dunno, 1080p -> 4K went much quicker than I thought considering how much 1080p beat SD
But did it? Where is the redbox that carries 4k bluerays? The 4k film and TV show library is very small. Live news and sports continue broadcasting in 1080i. Yeah, the 1080p to 4k transition went truly fantastic.
This was the worst Nexus device in history. Most of them probably already bootlooped, with the bootloops usually happening just over a year since day purchase.
Samsung already lost me by making the "infinity edge" display the only display you can have on their galaxy devices.
It blows my mind why many people insist of having battery-killing CPU-devouring QHD resolution on their phone even though it makes no difference to the human eye, and yet will accept the rounded edge display which gives you a clearly visible distortion at the edges of this marvelous display with QHD resolution.
OnePlus includes a USB-C adapter in the box and that's good enough. You probably only use one set of headphones with a headphone jack. Hotglue that sucker on and be done with it.
That's absolutely NOT good enough. I use three sets of wired headphones. There is one set in my gym bag, another one at home for the times when I walk the dog, go shopping, and so on. And a third set that's a backup set for the times when one of the others is lost and misplaced. A few times I have ended up in gym with no headphones in my bag, and had to borrow somebody's wired headphones.
This basically means I need to have three of those dangling USB-C adapter penises connected to each of my headphone sets, plus another back up laying in my car and in my gym bag just in case. Ugggh! why did they need to create this problem?
Anyways, no headphone jack means for me no deal. So Good bye Apple, good bye Oneplus, good bye Hauwei Mediapad M5.
Since the advent of Moto G and Huawei Honor series, I haven't bought smartphone costing more than 250 bucks.. They came with a big screen, good build, and lots of storage. Yes, the CPUs are kinda weak, but not a spoiler.
I would buy the Huawei Mediapad M5 in a heartbeat were it sold at a store I could go to.
And what's the problem with ordering it from Amazon? Here in the USA, the WH administration seems to have scared the brick stores from carrying Huawei products.
It's still much nicer to read an ebook, web site, or watch a movie on a 8-10 inch tablet, than on a smartphone. This truly big phones are a nuisance, and everyone I know wants to stick with a relatively small iphone 6/7/9 or a Galaxy S8/S9
In other news, the special prosecutor Rob Mueller inches closer towards proving Trump's collusion with Kremlin by indicting a Russian pancake. The pancake was not available for comment. News at 11', Tonight!
When the military delivers us a 100-million dollar a pop fighter jet (which was originally meant an affordable replacement to the F16, which itself was the affordable Swiss army knife of 4th generation fighter jets), it better work! But it turns out that the F-35 can't dog fight, can't fly in thunderstorm, software is not ready, gun is not accurate, etc, etc. and the amount of reliability problems is shocking.
Your comment is right on the money. I recall the time when the rapid succession of ever bigger and more complicated operating systems demanded that we all upgrade hardware, because hardware that did well under Windows 3.1 would not do well running Windows 95 or 98. The hardware that run Windows 95 or 98 well, would not run Windows 2000 or XP. The XP hardware was not sufficiently fast for Windows Vista or 7.
The reason for that was that the older OSes like 95 were junk. They lacked true multi-user multitasking features, they sucked at networking and security. But the subsequent OSes fixed that.
After Windows 7, the Microsoft operating systems (as well as others) have reached a certain degree of maturity. These were now OSes with true multitasking, multi-user, networking and security features. As a result, the trend after Windows Vista was that the subsequent versions would actually run better and better on the same hardware. A computer that comfortably run Windows Vista, can still run Windows 10 today. I have tested this hypothesis on a couple of Core 2 desktops from something like 2008-9.
Thanks to AMP pages, when I need to visit a news site, first I need to click on the link, and second I need to click on "more info" above and then click on the full URL. When I need to go back, I need to click on the back button twice. That's five clicks to visit a web page, and then return back to the search engine results. How is this an improvement?
I refuse to look at plain AMP pages because they don't render the original faithfully (links to forums are missing, etc). AMP also makes a pain to search through the web browser history because they all register in history as "google" instead of the original site name.
Slashdot Mirror
If you turn off the "enabled by default" motion interpolation, your soaps will still look like soaps, since they were shot at 60fps, and will continue playing at this FPS. The issue with the film that was shot at 24fps.
Amen to that. Movies that were shot at 24FPS were specifically intended to be seen as such. Trying to "enhance" such a motion picture is like trying to enhance an oil painting only because someone decided it must now seen like a photograph.
Motion interpolation was likely added during the "Hertz" wars from 10 years ago, since it was the technology that could supposedly justify spending more money on a TV screen with 120Hz or 240Hz screen. I recall how these meaningless specs were being paraded at Best Buy, with TVs having massive stickers saying 120Hz, 240Hz, or whatever with the corresponding price premium. It is when the TV manufacturers decided to turn on motion interpolation because otherwise those screens would look just like the screens with normal 60Hz fps.
that there is some artistic value in it, etc... I call bullshit, it is not a conscious artistic choice, it is a technical limitation.
Technical limitations have nothing to do with it any more. Filmmakers choose 24FPS because it's a medium that delivers a certain cinematic effect. And if people really wanted higher FPS films, the industry would have been all over such business opportunity. But the truth remains that most people consider 24FPS more cinema-like, and higher FPS soap-opera or sports-like. So when the TV manufacturers that a liberty to turn on some kind of motion enhancer by default, they really do a disservice to the consumers and the studios.
The only argument that makes sense IMHO is one of cost. More FPS is expensive: larger file sizes, more rendering time, a need for more sensitive camera sensors, etc..
Nah, we live in a time where storage is nearly "free", and bandwidth is also free. A typical broadband connection in a big city will support 5-10 simultaneous 1080p Netflix streams at 5800kbits.
The reason TV makers are doing interpolation is that 23 fps or 30fps (29.97 or what the fuck ever) just seems fucking choppy when people nowadays are used to 60fps minimum for most video games.
That's not the reason. The TV makers are always hungry to sensationalize a new technology and then hype it to force people to upgrade their TV screens. I remember that the motion smoothing madness started around year 2010, when most of people already had some kind of a 1080p screen that can play at 60Hz. Then someone, Samsung or its like, announced that they have a 120Hz screen, and then other company came up with a 240Hz screen, and there were other already claiming to have 600Hz screen, etc. These meaningless specs were used to lure customers into buying the next TV they don't need. Since in reality, the cable is sending us 1080i signal, that's 60Hz at best after de-interlacing, the TV makers started building these motion enhancers in order to justify their fancy 120-240Hz screens.
Moreover, film is not a computer game, and most people do not want a movie to look like one. 24FPS is a filmmaking medium, just like oil is painting medium. It would be weird to look at an oil painting through some kind of picture enhancing filter. The painter used oil as a medium for a reason, and the painting was made that way that you will look at the oil painting as is.
Likewise, 24FPS is chosen as the frame-rate for movies because most directors want it and most consumers want it. The movie is shot with the assumption that it will be viewed at 24FPS. If you enhance picture somehow, then you're not watching the film the way the director intended. And most of the time the motion smoothing effect just looks ugly. At 60FPS it looks like the soap-opera, the picture quality most people do not like in the movies, and at finer interpolation, the movies start looking like a frigin computer game.
Higher resolution makes a clearly discernible difference for text and computer generated graphics, such as in video games. However, we're discussing movies an RV here. The benefits of 4k or 8k are dar far from being clear in the real world, except apparently for the folks bulding a cinema with a wall-sized display.
Been to make mega large homes in Texas, and lived in one too, and have never seen anyone with a TV screen larger than 60-70ish inches. That's because not everyone in the real wold an actual TV-specs worshiping nerd. Saw someone with a dedicated media room just once.
There is practically no benefit to even 4k resolution screen considering the typical screen size and viewing distance. This is how much the human eye can resolve. I sit from my 55inch 1080p screen at 6 ft away, but to be able to tell the better detail on this size screen in 4k resolution, I'd have to sit either at 4.5 ft away, or continue sitting at 6ft away while replacing the TV with a 70+ inch one.
I dunno, 1080p -> 4K went much quicker than I thought considering how much 1080p beat SD
But did it? Where is the redbox that carries 4k bluerays? The 4k film and TV show library is very small. Live news and sports continue broadcasting in 1080i. Yeah, the 1080p to 4k transition went truly fantastic.
hospitals, assisted living and nursing homes
I am sure people living there have a hawk's eye resolution to be able to benefit from 8k resolution. LOL
It's because Spaniards take siesta, eat tapas, and drink wine more than anyone else in the EU.
This was the worst Nexus device in history. Most of them probably already bootlooped, with the bootloops usually happening just over a year since day purchase.
Samsung already lost me by making the "infinity edge" display the only display you can have on their galaxy devices.
It blows my mind why many people insist of having battery-killing CPU-devouring QHD resolution on their phone even though it makes no difference to the human eye, and yet will accept the rounded edge display which gives you a clearly visible distortion at the edges of this marvelous display with QHD resolution.
OnePlus includes a USB-C adapter in the box and that's good enough. You probably only use one set of headphones with a headphone jack. Hotglue that sucker on and be done with it.
That's absolutely NOT good enough. I use three sets of wired headphones. There is one set in my gym bag, another one at home for the times when I walk the dog, go shopping, and so on. And a third set that's a backup set for the times when one of the others is lost and misplaced. A few times I have ended up in gym with no headphones in my bag, and had to borrow somebody's wired headphones.
This basically means I need to have three of those dangling USB-C adapter penises connected to each of my headphone sets, plus another back up laying in my car and in my gym bag just in case. Ugggh! why did they need to create this problem?
Anyways, no headphone jack means for me no deal. So Good bye Apple, good bye Oneplus, good bye Hauwei Mediapad M5.
Since the advent of Moto G and Huawei Honor series, I haven't bought smartphone costing more than 250 bucks.. They came with a big screen, good build, and lots of storage. Yes, the CPUs are kinda weak, but not a spoiler.
I would buy the Huawei Mediapad M5 in a heartbeat were it sold at a store I could go to.
And what's the problem with ordering it from Amazon? Here in the USA, the WH administration seems to have scared the brick stores from carrying Huawei products.
Indeed. I still use a 2014 Galaxy Tab S 10.5. Yes, it's old and runs outdated Marshmallow, but it does most things I need from a tablet.
It's still much nicer to read an ebook, web site, or watch a movie on a 8-10 inch tablet, than on a smartphone. This truly big phones are a nuisance, and everyone I know wants to stick with a relatively small iphone 6/7/9 or a Galaxy S8/S9
The iPhone 4S is ridiculously slow. By now it's only useful as a messaging and call device (e.g. phone, without smart).
So is Mozilla now an adware driven business? What has the world come to.
In other news, the special prosecutor Rob Mueller inches closer towards proving Trump's collusion with Kremlin by indicting a Russian pancake. The pancake was not available for comment. News at 11', Tonight!
The always happened in the past right before the repartitioning of this country.
When the military delivers us a 100-million dollar a pop fighter jet (which was originally meant an affordable replacement to the F16, which itself was the affordable Swiss army knife of 4th generation fighter jets), it better work! But it turns out that the F-35 can't dog fight, can't fly in thunderstorm, software is not ready, gun is not accurate, etc, etc. and the amount of reliability problems is shocking.
2 dollars a gallon is not cheap.
Your comment is right on the money. I recall the time when the rapid succession of ever bigger and more complicated operating systems demanded that we all upgrade hardware, because hardware that did well under Windows 3.1 would not do well running Windows 95 or 98. The hardware that run Windows 95 or 98 well, would not run Windows 2000 or XP. The XP hardware was not sufficiently fast for Windows Vista or 7.
The reason for that was that the older OSes like 95 were junk. They lacked true multi-user multitasking features, they sucked at networking and security. But the subsequent OSes fixed that.
After Windows 7, the Microsoft operating systems (as well as others) have reached a certain degree of maturity. These were now OSes with true multitasking, multi-user, networking and security features. As a result, the trend after Windows Vista was that the subsequent versions would actually run better and better on the same hardware. A computer that comfortably run Windows Vista, can still run Windows 10 today. I have tested this hypothesis on a couple of Core 2 desktops from something like 2008-9.
Thanks to AMP pages, when I need to visit a news site, first I need to click on the link, and second I need to click on "more info" above and then click on the full URL. When I need to go back, I need to click on the back button twice. That's five clicks to visit a web page, and then return back to the search engine results. How is this an improvement?
I refuse to look at plain AMP pages because they don't render the original faithfully (links to forums are missing, etc). AMP also makes a pain to search through the web browser history because they all register in history as "google" instead of the original site name.