21–25 of 25 posts
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.
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.
The purpose of interlace is to double the frames per second and capture motion better. The downside is some vertical resolution loss and some odd, but rarely seen, visual artifacts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Each of your pixels is made of a tiny red, green, and blue pixels. The 'black pixel' is the gap between the red and blue sub-pixels (the green being off is black.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Interlace does not crossfade either :-) The purpose of interlace is to double the frames per second and capture motion better. The downside is some vertical resolution loss and some odd, but rarely seen, visual artifacts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interlace does not crossfade either :-) The purpose of interlace is to double the frames per second and capture motion better. The downside is some vertical resolution loss and some odd, but rarely seen, visual artifacts.
Doesn't interlacing alternate even lines from one frame with the odd lines from the next, thus showing 50% of each image? Which would make it a ghetto crossfade as described.
It's worth noting that this takes advantage of the human vision system's features. When an object moves quickly across your vision (for example, when turning your eyes quickly down a field), there is resolution loss that your brain makes up for, And when focusing on a still object, vision allows you to see more resolution.
So when a player runs across the camera view, your brain correctly processes the lower resolution and higher motion resolution. And when a player is still, your brain correctly processes the improved resolution.