Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Mental Model for Video

tjkrusinski.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: A Mental Model for Video

#11

Post by hnzix »

cjensen wrote: post #4

The image that tries to illustrate how frames per seconds affects motion is wrong. At least in my browser, it is crossfading between images in the 30 and 15Hz illustrations. That's not how video works: you show individual images sequentially with no mixing. Simplistic attempts to "improve" motion are universally worse than leaving it alone.

> That's not how video works: you show individual images sequentially with no mixing

In the DVD era, PAL/NTSC used to interlace frames, which is a ghetto crossfade. I have no idea how this works in the Bluray era.

Re: A Mental Model for Video

#12

Post by tacon »

chrisseaton wrote: post #7
sushisource wrote: post #3

This is great article but the contrast on the body text is horrible on the eyes (ironically)

It's 92% contrast, and passes Web Content Accessibility Guidelines at the highest AAA standard for contrast. What more do you want? https://contrast-ratio.com/#black-on-rgb%28246%2C%20246%2C%2...

As demonstrated in this article[0], font weight is critical for accessibility, even if the contrast passes WCAG "at any size."

[0]https://medium.com/@mandy.michael/creating-accessible-text-6...

[1]https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-cont...

Re: A Mental Model for Video

#13

Post by jacobolus »

microcolonel wrote: post #6
sushisource wrote: post #3

This is great article but the contrast on the body text is horrible on the eyes (ironically)

Seems the font-weight on the body has been set to lighter . Maybe it looks OK on a Mac, with incorrect font blending. ;- )

> OK on a Mac, with incorrect font blending

This text looks okay to me even if I manually adjust the gamma to approximate doing antialiasing/compositing in linear space. It’s on the thinner side, but plenty readable.

Which platform has “correct” font “blending” (and what do you mean by “blending”)? I have not yet heard of one which does antialiasing or compositing of fonts or other vector graphics in linear (vs. gamma-adjusted) space. The font hinting / antialiasing on Windows is super ugly. Linux varies a lot from one machine to the next and a long history of various font problems.

Maybe what you meant was “looks OK on the Mac with more-correct-than-usual font blending, and looks terrible on X other platform”?

More likely what you meant was “looks OK on a Mac with a high-resolution display (typical of recent Macs), but is harder to read on a lower-resolution display (still common among budget PCs).”

Re: A Mental Model for Video

#14

Post by microcolonel »

jacobolus wrote: post #13
microcolonel wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems the font-weight on the body has been set to lighter . Maybe it looks OK on a Mac, with incorrect font blending. ;- )

> OK on a Mac, with incorrect font blending This text looks okay to me even if I manually adjust the gamma to approximate doing antialiasing/compositing in linear space. It’s on the thinner side, but plenty readable. Which platform has “correct” font “blending” (and what do you mean by “blending”)? I have not yet heard of one which does antialiasing or compositing of fonts or other vector graphics in linear (vs. gamm…

Macs do weird stuff with font compositing, try toggling subpixel rendering in CSS [0] and watch the weight of your type completely change. :- )

Whatever they're doing, at least one of these modes has to be wrong.

Windows is a complete mess when it comes to text display, but that's nothing new, although to be fair to them, they do not screw this particular thing up.

FreeType2 in Firefox or a Chromium-based browser on X11/Wayland is spectacular, especially following the expiry of many ClearType-related patents, and the Adobe's contributions; with the various fontconfig settings which change the output, it doesn't noticeably change the weight (for a given size) for modes that people actually want to use (nobody's going back to v35).

OSX has an interesting approach, and if they could resolve their blending/filtering/rasterization/whatever (god only knows where their problems lie) problems; a lot of people like the tradeoff of legibility for accurate text sizes in a given weight, and that's OK.

[0]: Usually accomplished with -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased or -moz-osx-font-smoothing: grayscale

CSS rules to disable subpixel rendering (because OSX still doesn't do it right) are littered all over the internet. Here's a random blog post from the front page of HN which has it applied to the body text probably because OSX made the text look inexplicably terrible for no good reason by default: http://ajroach42.com/floppycasts-1-44mb-podcasts/

There's a reason this CSS property doesn't actually do anything on other platforms.

Re: A Mental Model for Video

#15

Post by kimburgess »

Nice article and as others have commented, love the simple and clear aesthetic of the gifs within!

This is just the entrance to that rabbit hole though; for anyone interested in continuing the journey all the way down I'd highly recommend: https://github.com/leandromoreira/digital_video_introduction.

Re: A Mental Model for Video

#16

Post by pjc50 »

a_t48 wrote: post #9
chrisseaton wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 92% contrast, and passes Web Content Accessibility Guidelines at the highest AAA standard for contrast. What more do you want? https://contrast-ratio.com/#black-on-rgb%28246%2C%20246%2C%2...

Not OP, but at default zoom level, the text is too thin - most of the pixels aren't actually black - they are subpixels smeared across two columns.

Yup - for me, each ascender of an "h" is a line of red pixels next to a line of blue, no actual black at any point.

Removing the unnecessary font-weight CSS makes it better. Personally I also find it more readable if I remove the font specification and let it fall back to Serif, and it also takes up less vertical space, but that's a matter of personal taste. Not tried it on mobile.

Re: A Mental Model for Video

#17

Post by chrisseaton »

mrob wrote: post #10
chrisseaton wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 92% contrast, and passes Web Content Accessibility Guidelines at the highest AAA standard for contrast. What more do you want? https://contrast-ratio.com/#black-on-rgb%28246%2C%20246%2C%2...

>What more do you want? 100% contrast. People went to great effort to achieve the highest possible contrast in print, e.g. with barium sulfate coated paper, optical brighteners in paper, single-use carbon film typewriter ribbons, oil based inks so pigments could be used instead of dyes, etc. Contrast is good. The only good reason I can think of to use less than 100% is for syntax highlighting.

People don't want contrast that is too high or too low.

http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/itc/CMU-ITC-089.p...

The accessibility guidelines account for this.

Re: A Mental Model for Video

#18

Post by trevyn »

hnzix wrote: post #11
cjensen wrote: post #4

The image that tries to illustrate how frames per seconds affects motion is wrong. At least in my browser, it is crossfading between images in the 30 and 15Hz illustrations. That's not how video works: you show individual images sequentially with no mixing. Simplistic attempts to "improve" motion are universally worse than leaving it alone.

> That's not how video works: you show individual images sequentially with no mixing In the DVD era, PAL/NTSC used to interlace frames, which is a ghetto crossfade. I have no idea how this works in the Bluray era.

1080i is interlaced; 720p, 1080p, and 2160p are progressive, i.e. non-interlaced. My understanding is that most commercial Blu-rays are progressive encodings, broadcast may be different. (1080i was common back in the day.)

Interlaced had the advantage of looking better for fast motion, such as in sports; for example, 480i with 60 fields/sec would look better than 480p with 30 fields/sec, at equivalent bandwidth.

Re: A Mental Model for Video

#19

Post by mrob »

chrisseaton wrote: post #17
mrob wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What more do you want? 100% contrast. People went to great effort to achieve the highest possible contrast in print, e.g. with barium sulfate coated paper, optical brighteners in paper, single-use carbon film typewriter ribbons, oil based inks so pigments could be used instead of dyes, etc. Contrast is good. The only good reason I can think of to use less than 100% is for syntax highlighting.

People don't want contrast that is too high or too low. http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/itc/CMU-ITC-089.p... The accessibility guidelines account for this.

#000000 on #ffffff passes the guidelines with AAA level too. If it strains your eyes then your monitor is set too bright.

Re: A Mental Model for Video

#20

Post by chrisseaton »

mrob wrote: post #19
chrisseaton wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't want contrast that is too high or too low. http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/itc/CMU-ITC-089.p... The accessibility guidelines account for this.

#000000 on #ffffff passes the guidelines with AAA level too. If it strains your eyes then your monitor is set too bright.

Well we could also say that if the contrast on this website is too low then your monitor is not set bright enough.

Ultimately it's a matter of taste isn't it?

Post reply on HN