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

[MacFH - C E Macfarlane]

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.