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

[MacFH - C E Macfarlane]

Please see below ...

On 09/04/2018 21:13, Tony Quinn wrote:
>
> On 09/04/2018 20:37, MacFH - C E Macfarlane wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> What that actually means is that if it doesn't agree with my amateur 
> assessment and biases, it's inaccurate.

My, we are aggressive today ...

What that means is EXACTLY what I wrote, nothing more, nothing less -  
YOU may care to read THESE, YOU may learn something, like why The 
Register is so often linked to by Global Warming denialists:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.d-i-y/vnQVeCra7ow[1-25]
         (note particularly the first two posts by Roger Chapman, and 
the first by Martin Brown)
     https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/uk.d-i-y/m8UVfh0QueU
         (note particularly my own post as Java Jive debunking both the 
original The Register's article and Terry Fields uncritical linking to it)

The simple fact is that The Register is not a reliable source for any 
matter related to certain areas of science such as climate change.  In 
fact, they're probably even less reliable than the Daily Fail  -  at 
least the latter are occasionally brought to book by the IPCC, whereas 
blugger-land (deliberate mistype) has no such oversight.

> It's a John Watkinson article - he is NOT unreliable or an amateur, 
> and, given your patently obvious lack of knowledge, you might 
> actually  learn something by reading it.

May be, but I have enough knowledge to observe that even an article by 
John Watkinson can still contain an error!

"Eye tracking causes interlace to fail in television. The two fields 
that make a frame are presented at different times so to a moving eye 
the odd and even lines are never going to fit back together, and they 
don’t, except for marketing purposes."

That is really only valid if the original source was filmed as 
uninterlaced, and is being broadcast as interlaced, but, as I have 
understood from others who like yourself who have industry experience, 
historically most analogue TV was recorded as interlaced, so the two 
fields in each frame represent different points in time, and so 
absolutely should not be *expected* to fit back together (and 
accordingly I would argue that the concept of 'frame' has no real 
meaning in this situation)!

That said, I agree with the general thrust of the article, but with the 
proviso that, to go back to my original (corrected) assertion that 
1080p25 would be better than 720p50, I suspect it depends what you like 
watching.  If, like me, you like watching slow pans across beautiful 
landscapes, like some Natural History documentaries, the Hubble DVD, or 
the foreign satellite TV channel that overnight shows shots of Earth 
from the Space Station, I suspect that would indeed be true, but if you 
want to watch the World Cup, I don't suppose that it would!