Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why do we seem to be snobs with our ears but not our eyes?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do we seem to be snobs with our ears but not our eyes?

post #1 of 65
Thread Starter 
It seems everyday I see a post or article that basically says, “I can hear the difference between 75 bit/500 teraherz sound compared to redbook cd’s.” Basically implying they hear well above 22000hz and the rest of us are missing something. I’m not chasing that rabbit.

What I’m wondering is where are those people when it comes to video? How come they’re not stating that we need videos at 700 frames per second because the current videos are too jittery? After all, video is motion pictures right? Discreet sampled pictures (or rasters) played/refreshed fast enough to fool the brain into seeing it as continuous movement. Kinda digital like. Is there not a corresponding sampling rate that fools the ear, or are there people with dog ears and brains faster than the speed of sound and redbook just isn’t fast enough to fool them?

Does this make any sense, or is my sampling rate set too low?
.
post #2 of 65
Probably because this is an audiophile forum. Maybe people do think the things you have posted, but they just post them on eye-fi.org.

EDIT: TV's have had a pretty rapid increase in refresh rates too. A lot of new TV's are boasting 240Hz now.
post #3 of 65
Movies are shot at 24FPS. 700FPS would be an amusing waste of energy.

A better analogy would be pixel density. HD, 1080p etc. That is increasing. Also, contrast ratio. That is also increasing, with numbers like 1million:1 cited for OLED screens, up from 500:1 for LCD screens.
post #4 of 65
There's supposedly a newer high-definition format, 4 times the resolution of 1920x1080, but that wouldn't catch on for ages. Look how long it took for everyone to adopt HD. Plus, we don't even have the cable data bandwidth for that kind of resolution.
post #5 of 65
Many tv viewers want faster frame rates, but it is of course held back by how fast video cameras are. And plenty of people think there's a visual difference between 24fps and 60fps, if you're under the illusion that 24fps is already perfect.
post #6 of 65
Every hobby has its snobs. It's this "Us Kids Know" mentality, you feel special/different/better etc. While a hobby doesn't necessarily have to be snobby members, I suppose you'll always have your snobs.

The current trend for TVs is towards 3D..though I personally feel like this is a gimmick that won't go on (let's see me reread this in a few years). Then I suppose whether this tech dies or not, we'll move on to 2k-4k etc. resolutions
post #7 of 65
Thread Starter 
I understand the dpi aspect, but avoided it because we are still at the obviously and observably better state with 720 vs 1080, etc. At least until we get closer to the spatial resolution of the eye. I was thinking that 24fps was closer to 16 bit/14.4k as a standard that is pretty hard to dbt against.

Maybe I just haven't heard 24bit on a sufficiently superb enough system to be able to spot the difference as obvious, or it falls into that I'm not experienced enough to appreciate it yet like the cable thing. I'm not ragging on the higher bit/higher freq people (or the cable folk), I guess I was just wondering where the "audiophiles" of the video field were. Maybe they're called movie critics.
.
EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by haloxt View Post
Many tv viewers want faster frame rates, but it is of course held back by how fast video cameras are. And plenty of people think there's a visual difference between 24fps and 60fps, if you're under the illusion that 24fps is already perfect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDE View Post
24 and 30 fps isn't enough. 60 fps is much more smooth.
44/16 and 48/16 isn't enough. 96/24 is much better.
1920x1080 is enough for 23'' LCD. 46'' LCD should have resolution 3840x2160.
I guess there are and I didn't know it. I rest my case. I was obviously wrong.
(I wonder if the 60fps people have dbt freedom of speech?)
.
post #8 of 65
24 and 30 fps isn't enough. 60 fps is much more smooth.
44/16 and 48/16 isn't enough. 96/24 is much better.
1920x1080 is enough for 23'' LCD. 46'' LCD should have resolution 3840x2160.
YV12 is sh*t. Video should use at least 24-bit RGB. CCD and LCD also use RGB.
post #9 of 65
24FPS is easy to DBT against 60FPS. That doesn't mean 60FPS is better. 24FPS gives a more "cinematic" effect for movies, I'm not sure why exactly. Increasing the frame rate usually makes the movie look cheap.
post #10 of 65
some food for thoughts: How many frames per second can the human eye see?

James Cameron supercharges 3-D - Entertainment News, Technology News, Media - Variety

the money is clearly on 48fps.

the videophiles are to be found on AVS: Question : Only for those that are 6500K/D65/REC709 calibrated ... - AVS Forum

the PC colorimetry OCD'ed ppl are on doom9...I created this thread ages ago, there's now a lot of solutions for PERFECT colorimetry on a PC: gamut conversions through Avisynth ? - Doom9's Forum

and the PC smoothness OCD'ed ppl use Reclock in 24.000/48.000Hz: ReClock - SlySoft Forum

luckily, it's often the same ppl that want the best PQ/SQ
post #11 of 65
and if you want to read someone who's got it completely wrong from A to Z: The Big Judder Problem and the Overhyping of 24p
post #12 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0dhi View Post
24FPS is easy to DBT against 60FPS. That doesn't mean 60FPS is better. 24FPS gives a more "cinematic" effect for movies, I'm not sure why exactly. Increasing the frame rate usually makes the movie look cheap.
This is true.

edit: btw if any of you watch HD sports channels, that's filmed and broadcast at 60fps.
post #13 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0dhi View Post
24FPS is easy to DBT against 60FPS. That doesn't mean 60FPS is better. 24FPS gives a more "cinematic" effect for movies, I'm not sure why exactly. Increasing the frame rate usually makes the movie look cheap.
24fps requires a long exposure time and introduces a slight blurring of moving objects.
post #14 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by DayoftheGreek View Post
A lot of new TV's are boasting 240Hz now.
Lol, plasma get around 600hz and have for years
post #15 of 65
the top of the line models in the Sony VPL-VW serie play 24fps at 120fps, and then their LCD panels play it at 240Hz....because the more you double the refresh rate, the more stable the picture looks.

cinema projectors play 24fps@48Hz, due to the shutter speed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why do we seem to be snobs with our ears but not our eyes?