Page 2 of 3

Re: Resolution of your eyes [YouTube video]

PostPosted: 14 Mar 2014, 19:52
by trey31
Chief Blur Buster wrote:Another interesting vision/resolution exercise:

There are also differences between a display (an ordered matrix of pixels) and human vision (an unordered scatter of photoreceptors), so it's hard to translate between the two. Also, there can be indirect effects (e.g. aliasing).

For example, http://www.testufo.com/aliasing-visibility test pattern:


(Ideally click on the above and maximize to full screen.)

Stand 5 to 10 feet away from your computer monitor while watching the slowly tilting line above, and you can often see the effects of aliasing, as beads that are spaced at several centimeters apart. Although you aren't seeing the individual pixels, there can still be aliasing or moire effects -- even 10 feet away from a 50" 4K HDTV even though human eyes can't see individual pixels, you still see the effects of finite resolution (aliasing/moire effects) far beyond angular vision resolution.

spacediver wrote:So, for example, if two lines are very close together, we may not be able to fully "resolve" them into two lines, but we can discriminate that stimulus from a single line, because the distribution of light that falls on the retina (the point spread function) is different from that originating from a single line.


What you're both saying makes sense. We did the blurbusters aliasing test on a 65" panel and 3 out of 3 people identified the aliasing effect from over 30' away (w/ AA on & off, and at 1 & 8 pixel thickness). So apparently we weren't seeing the *actual* pixels, but rather the effect as a whole?

EDIT: my post about it here http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=256&p=2472#p2472 and we measured it at 36' away, not 30'.

So this must be why I think those "4K sucks because 1080p is the cat's pajamas" distance charts that people post & re-post all over the web are completely bogus/useless...

Re: Resolution of your eyes [YouTube video]

PostPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 18:18
by nimbulan
Haste wrote:Today I learned:
-15 frames a second is nice and fluid.
-TV's have frame rates as high as 1000Hz.
-High frame rates make you dizzy.
-We need motion blur at high frame rates.

Thank you V-Sauce. In my name and the in name of the 2 331 987 viewers you educated with that video.

/sarcasm

I really could not believe what I was hearing when I watched that video. It makes me cast serious doubt on the other videos he's produced if his research is this poor.

The only part of that which has any merit is higher frame rates causing dizzyness/motion sickness. It's been known to happen in movie theaters showing 48 fps films, but I believe that's mostly a case of people being too used to 24 fps.

Re: Resolution of your eyes [YouTube video]

PostPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 21:06
by Haste
nimbulan wrote:The only part of that which has any merit is higher frame rates causing dizzyness/motion sickness. It's been known to happen in movie theaters showing 48 fps films, but I believe that's mostly a case of people being too used to 24 fps.
I'd take that with a grain of salt. For both Hobbit movies, you had only 3 flavors to chose from:
24fps 2D
24fps 3D
48fps 3D

That means all the people that report dizziness from the HFR did see it with 3D glasses.
Now how do you know if their diziness came from the 3D or from the HFR.

Re: Resolution of your eyes [YouTube video]

PostPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 21:20
by nimbulan
Haste wrote:
nimbulan wrote:The only part of that which has any merit is higher frame rates causing dizzyness/motion sickness. It's been known to happen in movie theaters showing 48 fps films, but I believe that's mostly a case of people being too used to 24 fps.
I'd take that with a grain of salt. For both Hobbit movies, you had only 3 flavors to chose from:
24fps 2D
24fps 3D
48fps 3D

That means all the people that report dizziness from the HFR did see it with 3D glasses.
Now how do you know if their diziness came from the 3D or from the HFR.

From what I understand more people had trouble with 48fps 3D compared to 24fps 3D but I don't know if anyone's keeping statistics. It could just be that more people complained because of the 48fps strangeness in addition to the 3D discomfort. Or I could be completely wrong. I think we need a scientific study on the matter.

Re: Resolution of your eyes [YouTube video]

PostPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 21:27
by Haste
I don't go often to the theater.
But for me watching Hobbit 1 and 2 in HFR was enjoyable.
Gravity at 24fps in 3d, on the other hand, was painful. Many fast sequences felt like slideshows.

Re: Resolution of your eyes [YouTube video]

PostPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 21:38
by nimbulan
Haste wrote:I don't go often to the theater.
But for me watching Hobbit 1 and 2 in HFR was enjoyable.
Gravity at 24fps in 3d, on the other hand, was painful. Many fast sequences felt like slideshows.

I observe the slideshow effect in most, if not all movies these days. The first time I remember noticing it significant was in the intro of The Two Towers where the camera is flying past a mountain. Its actually gotten worse with modern action movies because they use a faster shutter to increase that effect on purpose in addition to having faster motion than older movies.

Re: Resolution of your eyes [YouTube video]

PostPosted: 16 Mar 2014, 21:45
by Haste
Yep.

I'm about to make my first computer build. And one of the first thing I will be installing will be the Smooth Video Project.
24fps isn't enjoyable for me anymore. Sure it has its charm but when things start to move a bit faster it shows its limit.

Re: Resolution of your eyes [YouTube video]

PostPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 00:08
by nimbulan
Haste wrote:Yep.

I'm about to make my first computer build. And one of the first thing I will be installing will be the Smooth Video Project.
24fps isn't enjoyable for me anymore. Sure it has its charm but when things start to move a bit faster it shows its limit.

Unfortunately SVP and all other interpolation algorithms I've seen complete fall apart for fast, and even medium speed motion. You end up with the slow parts of the video being much smoother, but the faster parts actually look less smooth than if you weren't using interpolation at all in addition to the inevitable interpolation artifacts. It's even worse with animated video. The algorithm will completely fail with objects with certain patterns as well, such as leopard spots.

Re: Resolution of your eyes [YouTube video]

PostPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 09:47
by trey31
nimbulan wrote:
Haste wrote:Yep.

I'm about to make my first computer build. And one of the first thing I will be installing will be the Smooth Video Project.
24fps isn't enjoyable for me anymore. Sure it has its charm but when things start to move a bit faster it shows its limit.

Unfortunately SVP and all other interpolation algorithms I've seen complete fall apart for fast, and even medium speed motion. You end up with the slow parts of the video being much smoother, but the faster parts actually look less smooth than if you weren't using interpolation at all in addition to the inevitable interpolation artifacts. It's even worse with animated video. The algorithm will completely fail with objects with certain patterns as well, such as leopard spots.

I'd have to re-install it to elaborate any further, but I noticed "smooth motion" in WinDVD Pro 11 (whichever version did 3D Blu Ray; might have been like "Pro Plus" or something like that) did a better job than several TV's with built-in motion smoothing. Combined with a motion smoothing TV it may fall apart though. I didn't play with it all that much.

Re: Resolution of your eyes [YouTube video]

PostPosted: 17 Mar 2014, 09:54
by trey31
nimbulan wrote:
Haste wrote:
nimbulan wrote:The only part of that which has any merit is higher frame rates causing dizzyness/motion sickness. It's been known to happen in movie theaters showing 48 fps films, but I believe that's mostly a case of people being too used to 24 fps.
I'd take that with a grain of salt. For both Hobbit movies, you had only 3 flavors to chose from:
24fps 2D
24fps 3D
48fps 3D

That means all the people that report dizziness from the HFR did see it with 3D glasses.
Now how do you know if their diziness came from the 3D or from the HFR.

From what I understand more people had trouble with 48fps 3D compared to 24fps 3D but I don't know if anyone's keeping statistics. It could just be that more people complained because of the 48fps strangeness in addition to the 3D discomfort. Or I could be completely wrong. I think we need a scientific study on the matter.

Interestingly enough, I read that Peter Jackson used HFR specifically to reduce eye fatigue in 3D on large screens like IMAX. Same article said James Cameron praised the method and intends to use it on all future 3D releases.

As someone who saw it in person, I GREATLY prefer HFR to 24hz. Also for future reference, RealD glasses can be modded for Left + Left lenses for watching 3D films in 2D, which would actually work great if you dislike 3D but want to experience HFR 3D movies. Also they can be purchased as well, but I'm pretty sure the RealD ones pop open and you could use 2 left and 2 right lenses from 2 pairs to make 2 pairs of 3D-to-2D glasses.

EDIT: IMAX glasses can be easily popped out and swapped. RealD glasses would require 15-45 minutes to mod as you'd have to remove the hinge pins and replace them after swapping the lenses.