On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:55:53 +0000
Graham. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:29:21 +0000, T i m wrote:
Like the early adopter of DAB I know.
He bought a tuner to go in his stack of hifi separates, and even had a
big DAB aerial erected. Horizontally polarised. I tried to tell him
but he was not having it.

I live halfway up a shallow valley, not in direct line of site of any
transmitter, and quite a lot of DAB multiplexes give a stronger signal if the
antenna is at an angle from vertical. I assume the signals are being bounced
around before they reach my house.

--
Spud

On Monday, 30 January 2017 20:59:31 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/01/2017 16:40, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
OTOH 4K displays and to a lesser extent TV's are and are here to stay. In any even the premium for a 4k panel is quite modest, so if I do buy a new TV it will be 4k. I already bought a 4k monitor in 2014 - it was well worth the money.

I'm not convinced I'd be able to see the difference at real viewing
distances. OTOH it may become necessary to go 4k just because normal
1920x1080 becomes so bit starved... just like SD has.

Andy

It depends a bit on the size of the screen and the viewing distances.

When I bought a full HD TV (in 2009), I bought the recommended size for my viewing distance (about 3.5m). At this distance one can't see the pixels and can easily tell the HD from SD. If I watch from 7-8m I can't tell SD from HD as my eye can't resolve enough. Conversely if I sit closer I can resolve the pixels.

With hindsight a larger screen would have been better.

For a PC monitor sat on a desk in front of you 4k is highly desirable as one can just make out the pixels on a 22" full HD screen.

In reference to another sub thread - HDR should be useful too. Yet to view the difference.

On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 10:06:05 UTC, Pinnerite wrote:
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...s-stop-making/

My TV came with the glasses, still in the box. I would have liked to have
tried the effect at home. I'm told that there is some content on the
Internet but I have never found the time to search.

The flat card effect seems to be a function of the two points of recording
and playback. I remember the 3D films of the 50's and have seen a couple of
large screen ones. With the exception of 'Gravity' which I thoroughly
enjoyed, they all seemed to have that appearance.

So do early stereo photographs, but I don't know why.


Maybe one day .....


--
Mageia 5.1 for x86_64, Kernel:4.4.39-desktop-2.mga5
KDE version 4.14.5 on an AMD Phenom II X4 Black edition.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:01:51 +0000, Graham.
wrote:

I bough some cheap headphones the other day for watching NowTv on a
tablet. I quickly noticed that the stereo was back to front (L/R) as
something seen exiting stage left was heard going stage right. So, I
put the headphones on back to front (they were marked and shaped to be
one way round) and will re-wire them when I get roundtuit. ;-)

I wonder what percentage of the TV viewing public would spot that sort
of thing (other than us here and the audiophiles of course). ;-)

'Having an ear' can also be a curse of course as we also hear all the
distortion, hum, crackles and noises that most others are blissfully
oblivious to. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

Speaker phasing is the one the uninitiated always get wrong, because
they don't even know of the concept. Granted, stereo they have a 50/50
chance of getting it right, but with 5.1 its more like...
well you do the math(s).

It's a fair point, though I think the previous poster was talking
about stereo wiring of a pair of headphones which must have been done
wrongly *during manufacture*.

You are right that the average punter doesn't seem to have a clue.
These days I suspect most people have never heard live music played on
actual acoustic instruments, so will have no concept of an "original
sound" with which to compare what they hear via electronics, because
everything they hear is via electronics. But if even the manufacturers
can't always get it right, there isn't much hope.

Rod.

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 10:06:05 UTC, Pinnerite wrote:
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...s-stop-making/

My TV came with the glasses, still in the box. I would have liked to have
tried the effect at home. I'm told that there is some content on the
Internet but I have never found the time to search.

The flat card effect seems to be a function of the two points of
recording
and playback. I remember the 3D films of the 50's and have seen a couple
of
large screen ones. With the exception of 'Gravity' which I thoroughly
enjoyed, they all seemed to have that appearance.

So do early stereo photographs, but I don't know why.

I see it with all stereoscopic instruments: binoculars, Viewmaster stereo
slide viewers, stereo viewers of prints and 3D TV: a very clear perception
of depth, but each item looks like a cardboard cutout. I even see it with
those "Magic Eye" pictures in which you look at a random array of squiggles,
relax your eyes as if you were staring through the picture, and (sometimes,
when your brain feels like playing ball) see an object standing out from a
background.

I wonder why, for people like me, real vision gives the illusion of objects
with depth whereas via any form of optics they appear like cardboard
cutouts. I say "for people like me" because I gather that it's not an effect
that everyone sees: some people *do* perceive rounded solid objects as
opposed to cardboard cutouts at different depths.

I find binoculars even more difficult because the focus of one eye relative
to the other changes over time: I use the main focus to adjust for one eye,
then turn the other eyepiece until that's in focus too, and lo and behold,
one eye then drifts in and out of focus - I rarely manage to see both in
focus at the same time so I think my brain tends to ignore one image. That's
been the case all my life - it hasn't started since I've got older and my
eyes have become less good at accommodating for close focussing.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:36:42 -0000, "NY" wrote:

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 10:06:05 UTC, Pinnerite wrote:
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...s-stop-making/

My TV came with the glasses, still in the box. I would have liked to have
tried the effect at home. I'm told that there is some content on the
Internet but I have never found the time to search.

The flat card effect seems to be a function of the two points of
recording
and playback. I remember the 3D films of the 50's and have seen a couple
of
large screen ones. With the exception of 'Gravity' which I thoroughly
enjoyed, they all seemed to have that appearance.

So do early stereo photographs, but I don't know why.

I see it with all stereoscopic instruments: binoculars, Viewmaster stereo
slide viewers, stereo viewers of prints and 3D TV: a very clear perception
of depth, but each item looks like a cardboard cutout. I even see it with
those "Magic Eye" pictures in which you look at a random array of squiggles,
relax your eyes as if you were staring through the picture, and (sometimes,
when your brain feels like playing ball) see an object standing out from a
background.

I wonder why, for people like me, real vision gives the illusion of objects
with depth whereas via any form of optics they appear like cardboard
cutouts. I say "for people like me" because I gather that it's not an effect
that everyone sees: some people *do* perceive rounded solid objects as
opposed to cardboard cutouts at different depths.

I find binoculars even more difficult because the focus of one eye relative
to the other changes over time: I use the main focus to adjust for one eye,
then turn the other eyepiece until that's in focus too, and lo and behold,
one eye then drifts in and out of focus - I rarely manage to see both in
focus at the same time so I think my brain tends to ignore one image. That's
been the case all my life - it hasn't started since I've got older and my
eyes have become less good at accommodating for close focussing.

Specsavers
Seriously though,
Does anyone here get much benefit from stereo vision with unaided
eyes?
I can't say I notice it at all, and if I walk about with one eye shut
the lack of stereo is no problem at all, compared with the reduced
field of view.

Using my prismatic binoculars however certainly has a wow factor. If
it's a bit cardboard cutout landish, then that's just the brain's way
of interpriting what it's unacoustomed to.

It's almost as if our eyes are too close together, and we need a bit
more time to evolve.


--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On 31/01/17 10:06, Pinnerite wrote:

My TV came with the glasses, still in the box. I would have liked to have
tried the effect at home. I'm told that there is some content on the
Internet but I have never found the time to search.

It's a minor novelty, once you've seen the effect that adds nothing to
the story, and then go back to watching 2D you won't be searching to
replace your library (if you could) with 3D versions of it all. And that
still would be the case if current 3D worked perfectly.

The flat card effect seems to be a function of the two points of recording
and playback. I remember the 3D films of the 50's and have seen a couple of
large screen ones. With the exception of 'Gravity' which I thoroughly
enjoyed, they all seemed to have that appearance.

Maybe one day .....


Probably not, unless we get 3D holograms to look at ..

The main problem with current 3D is the viewing limits of objects don't
change when you move your head. The brain expects to be given further
information for new surfaces brought into view by your angle change, and
where there is none - well that's where it looks annoyingly like
overlaid cardboard and yes it also gives me a headache.

Moving further away from the screen is the answer to that, or keeping
your eyes and head unnaturally still just to be guided by what the film
editor thinks should be the 3D point of focus (the mouth of Jaws).

Maybe if the TV could track your face and somehow generate that extra
content for the limits, then it might be a bit more comfortable. Needs
work, might as well go full holographic.

Most consumers just want a easy to use TV to site in their viewing room.
Additional glasses, speakers, complications of "smart" is only for a few.

And for the moment film producers will still keep making 3D films and
would probably prefer more paying bums on seats to watch that in the cinema.


--
Adrian C

On 31/01/2017 15:08, Graham. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:36:42 -0000, "NY" wrote:

I wonder why, for people like me, real vision gives the illusion of objects
with depth whereas via any form of optics they appear like cardboard
cutouts. I say "for people like me" because I gather that it's not an effect
that everyone sees: some people *do* perceive rounded solid objects as
opposed to cardboard cutouts at different depths.

I find binoculars even more difficult because the focus of one eye relative
to the other changes over time: I use the main focus to adjust for one eye,
then turn the other eyepiece until that's in focus too, and lo and behold,
one eye then drifts in and out of focus - I rarely manage to see both in
focus at the same time so I think my brain tends to ignore one image. That's
been the case all my life - it hasn't started since I've got older and my
eyes have become less good at accommodating for close focussing.

Specsavers
Seriously though,
Does anyone here get much benefit from stereo vision with unaided
eyes?
I can't say I notice it at all, and if I walk about with one eye shut
the lack of stereo is no problem at all, compared with the reduced
field of view.

Using my prismatic binoculars however certainly has a wow factor. If
it's a bit cardboard cutout landish, then that's just the brain's way
of interpriting what it's unacoustomed to.

It's almost as if our eyes are too close together, and we need a bit
more time to evolve.

If normal vision without optical aids gave you any kind of 'wow' factor
then there would be something the matter with your perception. The real,
perceived, world is supposed to be 'just there'. It's our constant
hankering after arousal that makes us seek artificial stimulation,
whether it's stereo sound, colour photos or recreational drugs.

--
Max Demian

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:05:24 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

On 31/01/2017 15:08, Graham. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:36:42 -0000, "NY" wrote:

I wonder why, for people like me, real vision gives the illusion of objects
with depth whereas via any form of optics they appear like cardboard
cutouts. I say "for people like me" because I gather that it's not an effect
that everyone sees: some people *do* perceive rounded solid objects as
opposed to cardboard cutouts at different depths.

I find binoculars even more difficult because the focus of one eye relative
to the other changes over time: I use the main focus to adjust for one eye,
then turn the other eyepiece until that's in focus too, and lo and behold,
one eye then drifts in and out of focus - I rarely manage to see both in
focus at the same time so I think my brain tends to ignore one image. That's
been the case all my life - it hasn't started since I've got older and my
eyes have become less good at accommodating for close focussing.

Specsavers
Seriously though,
Does anyone here get much benefit from stereo vision with unaided
eyes?
I can't say I notice it at all, and if I walk about with one eye shut
the lack of stereo is no problem at all, compared with the reduced
field of view.

Using my prismatic binoculars however certainly has a wow factor. If
it's a bit cardboard cutout landish, then that's just the brain's way
of interpriting what it's unacoustomed to.

It's almost as if our eyes are too close together, and we need a bit
more time to evolve.

If normal vision without optical aids gave you any kind of 'wow' factor
then there would be something the matter with your perception. The real,
perceived, world is supposed to be 'just there'. It's our constant
hankering after arousal that makes us seek artificial stimulation,
whether it's stereo sound, colour photos or recreational drugs.

Yes I agree, what I am saying is binocular/stereoscopic vision gives
us two advantages, a wider field of view, and depth perception.

If I deprive myself by closing one eye the former becomes a problem,
but the latter is not noticeable. I said before that maybe we need to
evolve more, but thinking about it, maybe as a species we have
outgrown the need for binocular vision.



--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"Graham." wrote in message
...
If normal vision without optical aids gave you any kind of 'wow' factor
then there would be something the matter with your perception. The real,
perceived, world is supposed to be 'just there'. It's our constant
hankering after arousal that makes us seek artificial stimulation,
whether it's stereo sound, colour photos or recreational drugs.

Yes I agree, what I am saying is binocular/stereoscopic vision gives
us two advantages, a wider field of view, and depth perception.

If I deprive myself by closing one eye the former becomes a problem,
but the latter is not noticeable. I said before that maybe we need to
evolve more, but thinking about it, maybe as a species we have
outgrown the need for binocular vision.

I find that stereoscopic vision *is* an advantage. If I close one eye, I see
a narrower field of view but also I can't judge distance as accurately. I
tested this by trying to touch an object, sideways on, that was somewhere
between my face and arms' length away. I tended to touch an inch or so in
front or behind it. It's only difficult if it's strange surroundings.
Objects on my desk were easy because I know how far away things are and my
muscles "know" it too.