OT:interesting RedShark article - the Cinema Feel

larry-peter wrote on 3/6/2015, 9:43 AM

This article should stir some comments. A couple of issues that are on the periphery of this article that weren't directly discussed:
1. What you put your attention on affects the speed of many of the perceptual functions mentioned here. (Pixel peepers and frame-rate enthusiasts will have a different cinema experience than popcorn munchers.)
2. Perceptual abilities (and perception itself) can be trained - i.e., getting accustomed to higher or lower frame rates can create a "comfort zone" particular to each viewer. And that comfort zone can change when new frame rates are introduced.


wwjd wrote on 3/6/2015, 10:09 AM
have not read it yet (but will!) but based on your 2 comments.... I agree that people can be RETRAINED to accept new things: frame rates etc. *I* think high frame rates look FAN-FREAKING-TASTIC in TVs, Movies, etc But most opponents claim the "serealistic" look of movies... but there was never anything better to compare it to... it's all there was. So, they got used to it.

Issue I see is we have all grown up USED TO (read: trained) slow frame rates. There should be no reason anyone doesn't want better looking everything. It just looks better, more real, more accurate, more real, more lively, more real....
wwjd wrote on 3/6/2015, 10:17 AM
k, read it. interesting. some of it seems a stretch to me - worry about audiences seeing the sides of curved screens and all - when realistically, MOST will sit in positions that see the whole screen periphrially, and since the eye can only actually look at one single point anyway in a movie, stuff the article mentions kinda seems pointless TO ME.

"35mm immesesion gone for ever".... never ever mattered to me because if the story presented is good enough, how it looks or what it is projected on will never get noticed or matter. In 40 years I have NEVER sat in any cinema and thought even once about the medium the movie was on: film or digital. Not once. I was aware of the projector being film back then and digital now (and so happy for the newest finally clean digital visuals compared to dusty and scratched) but it never crossed my mine while watching a movie - maybe that is just me.
larry-peter wrote on 3/6/2015, 11:08 AM
And it also is difficult to translate many of the physical/neurological components of vision into what we're really researching - perception. That's still a mysterious subject. Based solely on the known neurology, it's astounding we can perceive well enough to survive.

Some of the perceptual models include a component that is similar to vector imagery - perhaps phosphene based - and THAT is astounding to me. I can't imagine the mechanics of replacing these noisy chemical/neurological signals with internally stored lines and shapes that provide the detail that we all agree is what's really there.
SecondWind-SK wrote on 3/6/2015, 12:51 PM
An article in Scientific American is interesting. Because of the differences in visual perception in the brain, which the article states are about 30 to 50 images per second, and audio perception of sound differences, which the brain processes much, much faster, cosmologists are extrapolating scientific data into sound waves, data such as measurements of the solar wind. Observers, that is to say listeners, have been able to detect patterns in the audio extrapolation much better than examining the raw data visually, the way it has been done in the past. I think I've got that right. Read the article yesterday.