I doubt that any modern TVs are actually undoing 3:2 pulldown without mucking around with interpolation (i.e. 1080i vs. 1080p), which causes its own similar artifacts.
Did you mean interlacing rather than interpolation? Fixing 3:2 pulldown is a simple matter of shifting pixels - all the data is there, but some of it duplicated and can be discarded. Interpolation is not required, and doesn't really make sense in this context.
NTSC DVD "film" material is (if it's been done right) stored at ~24fps, and pulldown is only applied in the player's software, so all your Oppo should be doing on most discs is ignoring the pulldown flags and outputting the original 24fps - I can't think why you'd get any kind of tearing, let alone top/bottom if I understand what you mean correctly.
Most of the judder posts in that link seem refer to 60Hz panels, rather than the 120Hz panels the GGP was talking about. I'm not saying it's entirely inconceivable that a 120Hz TV would introduce 3:2 pulldown, but it it'd have to be a deliberate decision to screw up the video.
If that was really the underlying problem, you'd have the same problem with still or near-still images, like a static matte shot. It's simply that thanks to decades of having two different styles of moving picture poured into our eyeballs, our brains are now stuck with the automatic impression that anything with a high frame-rate is non-cinematic real-life footage.
Some UK soap operas are still shot multicamera at video framerates, in HD and complete with special effects on occasion, and no-one seems that bothered. Others have changed to a film-ish frame rate (either multicamera or single camera) and adopted other cinematic conventions, such as montages, dream sequences, etc. Everyone's used to it because it's just the way things are. If 48fps takes off (and personally I hope it works, but I doubt it will take off as quickly as 3D), people will eventually get used to it and 24fps will start to look fake and old and rubbish.
Most "120 Hz" TVs process 24fps input by performing 3:2 pulldown. After that, each frame is shown 4 times.
Do you have a source for this? Not that I specifically disbelieve, but to decide to go down that route a TV manufacturer would be actively deciding to screw the picture up.
TV broadcasts deal with 24fps sources by performing 3:2 pulldown to get the picture to the broadcast standard 30fps. My understanding was that all modern TVs have programming specifically to detect pulldown patterns and undo them.
Thanks - although to clarify, I wasn't questioning that tiny things can do huge damage at high speed. I was looking for some more info on the "micro meteorite puts hole in shuttle windshield and ends up in headrest" story. I just would have naively thought that, y'know, all the air'd blow out and stuff.
I'm tempted to say that you've made the semantic error, and the one in the summary is just a spelling mistake. Unless you were going for the rhythm (pedantic/semantic), in which case I could let it slide.
and it has a false-positive rate of just one in a million
Having skimmed the article - naughty me - it seems like it's the already existing FPGA that has a false-positive rate (for detecting cancer, which hadn't been mentioned in the text up to this point) of 1/1000000, and they were just waiting for a fast enough camera to come along.
please continue with your delusional thinking that a web browser is an operating system and that web apps are alwaysa sensible and desirable alternative to native apps.
FTFY.
furthermore, i can't tell you how impressed i am that web sites that would have worked nicely with just fairly plain html in a tabbed browser now forces me to work in just the one tab because all that js crap just fucking breaks when you 'open in new tab'.
Complain to the site creator. It's not the browser developer's fault that people make poor (in your opinion) use of the functionality they provide. Come to think of it, the same applies to your whole post.
The average 15" laptop is 1366x768.
With 25 (!) people, each could be responsible for a 54x31 block, barely bigger than a large icon. Talk about bloat.
Ouch, I hope you're not working on the next Mars lander;)
You'd need 25*25=625 people for that scheme. 25 people would each have a 273x154 block.
Slashdot Mirror
There's such a thing as Good Enough.
Good enough for you.
I doubt that any modern TVs are actually undoing 3:2 pulldown without mucking around with interpolation (i.e. 1080i vs. 1080p), which causes its own similar artifacts.
Did you mean interlacing rather than interpolation? Fixing 3:2 pulldown is a simple matter of shifting pixels - all the data is there, but some of it duplicated and can be discarded. Interpolation is not required, and doesn't really make sense in this context.
NTSC DVD "film" material is (if it's been done right) stored at ~24fps, and pulldown is only applied in the player's software, so all your Oppo should be doing on most discs is ignoring the pulldown flags and outputting the original 24fps - I can't think why you'd get any kind of tearing, let alone top/bottom if I understand what you mean correctly.
Most of the judder posts in that link seem refer to 60Hz panels, rather than the 120Hz panels the GGP was talking about. I'm not saying it's entirely inconceivable that a 120Hz TV would introduce 3:2 pulldown, but it it'd have to be a deliberate decision to screw up the video.
Apparently only a "Darwin Awards At-Risk Survivor" award, though, which is really just an honourable mention.
If that was really the underlying problem, you'd have the same problem with still or near-still images, like a static matte shot. It's simply that thanks to decades of having two different styles of moving picture poured into our eyeballs, our brains are now stuck with the automatic impression that anything with a high frame-rate is non-cinematic real-life footage.
Some UK soap operas are still shot multicamera at video framerates, in HD and complete with special effects on occasion, and no-one seems that bothered. Others have changed to a film-ish frame rate (either multicamera or single camera) and adopted other cinematic conventions, such as montages, dream sequences, etc. Everyone's used to it because it's just the way things are. If 48fps takes off (and personally I hope it works, but I doubt it will take off as quickly as 3D), people will eventually get used to it and 24fps will start to look fake and old and rubbish.
Most "120 Hz" TVs process 24fps input by performing 3:2 pulldown. After that, each frame is shown 4 times.
Do you have a source for this? Not that I specifically disbelieve, but to decide to go down that route a TV manufacturer would be actively deciding to screw the picture up.
TV broadcasts deal with 24fps sources by performing 3:2 pulldown to get the picture to the broadcast standard 30fps. My understanding was that all modern TVs have programming specifically to detect pulldown patterns and undo them.
when asked by a reporter why he had done it, Walters replied, "A man can't just sit around."
A compressed air energy storage (CAES) plant... ...world's first modern CASE plants.
Oops - CAES has just become CASE.
A CAES power generation facility uses electric motor-driven compressors (generated by natural gas generators)
I think you mean "powered."
according to the plants owner.
Apostrophe!
The plant is estimated at 350 million-plus
350 million plus what?
While this was a functional account,
Also a fictional one :)
Another decades-old mystery solved by a Slashdot poster!
Oh, wait. No.
why facebook has become unhip
Yeah, MySpace was never as cool after the pedos left.
It's exactly 80 characters. Maybe timothy posts with Lynx.
Thanks - although to clarify, I wasn't questioning that tiny things can do huge damage at high speed. I was looking for some more info on the "micro meteorite puts hole in shuttle windshield and ends up in headrest" story. I just would have naively thought that, y'know, all the air'd blow out and stuff.
a micrometeorite left a pinprick in the 1"+ thick windshield and embedded itself in the pilot's headrest durring a mission.
[citation needed]
+1 Smug.
Dynamic range has nothing to do with it - just maximum volume at the receiver's end, and that's down to the equipment being used.
Sometimes you just need a cleverly worded recording: http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/07/10/0052245/when-telemarketers-harass-telecoms-companies
Don't attribute to a lazy brain that which is adequately explained by a fat finger.
I'm tempted to say that you've made the semantic error, and the one in the summary is just a spelling mistake. Unless you were going for the rhythm (pedantic/semantic), in which case I could let it slide.
...the basement. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
and it has a false-positive rate of just one in a million
Having skimmed the article - naughty me - it seems like it's the already existing FPGA that has a false-positive rate (for detecting cancer, which hadn't been mentioned in the text up to this point) of 1/1000000, and they were just waiting for a fast enough camera to come along.
Since you're reading this here, you're probably already aware...
Yes, yes we are. So why are you telling us again?
!!
Are you annotating a chess match?
please continue with your delusional thinking that a web browser is an operating system and that web apps are alwaysa sensible and desirable alternative to native apps.
FTFY.
furthermore, i can't tell you how impressed i am that web sites that would have worked nicely with just fairly plain html in a tabbed browser now forces me to work in just the one tab because all that js crap just fucking breaks when you 'open in new tab'.
Complain to the site creator. It's not the browser developer's fault that people make poor (in your opinion) use of the functionality they provide. Come to think of it, the same applies to your whole post.
The average 15" laptop is 1366x768. With 25 (!) people, each could be responsible for a 54x31 block, barely bigger than a large icon. Talk about bloat.
Ouch, I hope you're not working on the next Mars lander ;)
You'd need 25*25=625 people for that scheme. 25 people would each have a 273x154 block.
(bah, Slashdot won't let me use <sup>)
they make the mistake of thinking that the number of results has changed, when it is actually their individual and collective promise which is less.
I'm not sure I see a mistake - isn't it exactly that ambiguity which they're trying to demonstrate?