Please see below ...
On 09/04/2018 19:22, Tony Quinn wrote:
Not "MIGHT be so" ..... ***IS*** so - having spent 35 years as an
engineer in broadcast TV (some of it at the BBC) , I've heard too many
bloody amateurs dismiss the physics/maths with phrases like "might be
so, but......."
Alright, don't get shirty. The reason I said 'might be so' was
precisely because I was conceding your point without having your
experience to say anything more definite. Also, as a result of your
reply, I realised that, through lack of thought, I'd made a schoolboy
error in my original assertion - if you double the vertical
resolution, to maintain the aspect ration you also have to double the
horizontal, so that in fact you're quadrupling the bitrate, not doubling
it. However, that led me to realise that to double it, you'd have to
multiply each resolution by the square root of two, which is 1.414, but
1.414 x720 ~ 1020, not 1080, hence 'might be so'.
In my opinion 25p has a nasty "cinematic" feel to it (50i is better) -
50p has smoother movement.
Added to which just having eyes (which are not stationary) reduces the
spatial resolution by the square root of 2 in each direction -
increasing temporal resolution is much more effective at convincing
the brain that something is "better".
Read this, and see what I mean
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/25/the_future_of_moving_images_the_eyes_have_it/
I will, but 'The Register' has sometimes proved to be a very unreliable
source of scientific information, so I wouldn't expect it necessarily to
be a good source of technical information either.
_______________________________________________
get_iplayer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer
