Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906

[Tony Quinn]

On 09/04/2018 18:34, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote:
> Please see below ...
>
> On 09/04/2018 16:54, Tony Quinn wrote:
>>
>> On 09/04/2018 16:23, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote:
>>>
>>> Can't see the logic, if there is any?!  Surely, for the same disk 
>>> space and bandwidth, the customer viewer would get a better download 
>>> from 1440 25fps rather than 720 50fps?
>>>
>> It doesn't scale quite like that ..... in professional terms, 1080p25 
>> is the same data rate as 720p50
>
> Yes, I can see that that might be so, but I don't think it alters the 
> thrust of my argument, does it?  Wouldn't 1080p25 still be better to 
> watch than 720p50?
>

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......."

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/