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? - Page 4

post #46 of 65
Yet it is still one of the hardest games to run and people still cant play it Well if people complain about their network lag, just change ISPs etc...either that or suffer
post #47 of 65
I think the reason that there are "audiophiles" and not videophiles is twofold. For one, in this day and age, video can be purely digital, while audio output must always be analog.

But more importantly, hearing is a bit more intangible of a sense than seeing. This intangibility leaves room for folks to apply magical thinking.
post #48 of 65
Oh no not magical thinking. It is magical thinking that allows videophiles to magically vanish.
post #49 of 65
good point, there's no magical thinking in video, everything has a proper scientific explanation...OTOH, nothing but big bucks can yield major improvements.
post #50 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 is VERY low refresh rate, but HD movies get away with it because they use motion blur, making seeing individual frames harder on fast moving scenes. 60FPS is only cheap if you use motion interpolation feature found on supposedly 120Hz TVs t o increase low FPS video to higher. This feature that adds extra frames on some scene, and "guestimates" on-fly what picture between two frames might look like, but is very fake and artificial, cheap soap-opera effect that is.

Seeing real non-interpolated 60FPS picture on 60Hz monitor, or even better 120FPS picture on REAL 120Hz monitor is very close to lifelike movement even on very fast moving objects/scenes.
post #51 of 65
you can fool the brain starting from 72fps.
post #52 of 65
Quote:
I think the reason that there are "audiophiles" and not videophiles is twofold. For one, in this day and age, video can be purely digital, while audio output must always be analog.

But more importantly, hearing is a bit more intangible of a sense than seeing. This intangibility leaves room for folks to apply magical thinking.
1: There are lots of videophiles. A 3 second Google search would reveal this. Also, you may have heard of this place called a "cinema".

2: Both audio and video are in the end analog - neither is "purely digital" any more than the other.
post #53 of 65
I think there are many similarities between video and audio:
smearing = speed/transparency
contrast = dynamics
colors = signature
brightness = clarity

The major difference i can think of is that screens have a limited resolution and need to upscale SD sources, whereas headphones & speakers don't need any extra audio processing to upscale poor sources.

Maybe we are indeed less demanding about screens, i can see a few reasons for that:
- most people like colored headphones so they need to try different signatures. Who would do that with screens? Most screens are quite neutral anyway.
- picture is not the only key point of movies. Music, dialogues & screenplay are also very important. Music is all about sound (and lyrics sometimes).
post #54 of 65
humm? you can perfectly calibrate brightness/contrast/gamma curves/colorimetry using a commercial sensor and following the industry standard rules...D65/2.4/SMPTE-C

most screens are not neutral, as most of them have funky wide gamuts...you need to process a gamut mapping to get the genuine movie colors back.

some experiments tend to prove that vision takes 95% of the brain processing time....reason why lossy audio in movies is not such a big of a deal after all
post #55 of 65
The snob glands in my ears are better developed than the snob glands in my eyes.
post #56 of 65
Leeperry: that's pretty much what i said, it's easy to make a good screen look natural. On the other hand it's kind of pointless to do the same with an equalizer and a headphone.

Yes picture is important but it's only an artistic point among others in a movie.
post #57 of 65
the annoying thing is that if you focus on sound in a movie, you pretty much miss on the storyline

I pity the ppl w/ 7.1 systems...they need to watch the movie 8 times basically?
post #58 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealric View Post
Meh. I can't see how that will be the future. It's one thing on a giant cinema screen, but home screens just aren't big enough to benefit from that kind of resolution. Even now, a lot of people think they are watching HD video when they are not. I can't imagine the average joe will notice the upgrade.
Right, but in like 10 years big screen will be much cheaper and the industry need a new format to sell new gear. Something just 2 or 4 bigger than HD will be more than enough.
post #59 of 65
Yeah but you miss my point, you don't need a good screen to appreciate a storyline Many movies are not very interesting to watch and can be viewed on whatever screen.
While for music you need a good headphone to enjoy rythm, instruments, etc.
post #60 of 65
Well, I can enjoy music on an iPod with the stock earbuds. Just like I can enjoy watching a VHS on an old TV. Sure, I have a hd TV in my room with a ps3 etc for blu-ray, but i enjoy it just as much. I start to feel selfish and spoiled because I have all this (even though I paid for it all). I miss the good old days when I used to wake up, turn on the crappy TV with my PS2 and play gta: SA all day.
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?