NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR DISCOURSE ON ASR

[flipflop]

And how did movies standardize on 24 fps (or 48 half fps)?

In early cinema history, there was no standard frame rate established. Thomas Edison's early films were shot at 40 fps, while the Lumière Brothers used 16 fps. This had to do with a combination of the use of a hand crank rather than a motor, which created variable frame rates because of the inconsistency of the cranking of the film through the camera. After the introduction of synch sound recording, 24 fps became the industry standard frame rate for capture and projection of motion pictures.[1] 24 fps was chosen because it was the minimum frame rate that would produce adequate sound quality. This was done because film was expensive, and using the lowest possible frame rate would use the least amount of film.[2]

 

[Cosmik]

So movies would have become 1950's TV because of frame rates? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

BTW, TV effectively had 30 frames per second (29.97 more precisely and 25 in some countries). And how did movies standardize on 24 fps (or 48 half fps)? If we are talking accuracy more frames is better. Some of the immersion technology makes people woozy if it runs less than 60 fps.

Don't get me started...

Cinema standardised on 24 fps very early on. Television had to go for a higher frame rate (really interlaced fields) because of the physics of phosphor, flicker, smear. Different countries adopted different television refresh rates related to their mains power frequencies.

And yes, television developed its own style partly because of the frame rate. A high frame rate works better for live music, sport, comedy, news. Sitcoms work brilliantly with a high frame rate and much less so with film.

https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/661111/casualty-film-look-cameras-or-special-fx
https://screenrant.com/peter-jackson-hobbit-48-fps-controversy/
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/dec/05/tom-cruise-motion-smoothing-interpolation

 

[Thomas savage]

Don't get me started...

Cinema standardised on 24 fps very early on. Television had to go for a higher frame rate (really interlaced fields) because of the physics of phosphor, flicker, smear. Different countries adopted different television refresh rates related to their mains power frequencies.

And yes, television developed its own style partly because of the frame rate. A high frame rate works better for live music, sport, comedy, news. Sitcoms work brilliantly with a high frame rate and much less so with film.

Thats interesting, some think music has changed over time as a reflection of the environments its created and enjoyed in. So in that context the environment would act like the frame rate in your idea here.

Completely off tangent and possibly unrelated but I was taking to a disgruntled yoga teacher yesterday, they were the bemoaning the fact the human spiritual element, breathing techniques etc in yoga are all fast disappearing and it's become very different to what its was originally. It's now being taught in a very one dimensional way and all about the stretch and physical strength.

I suggested this might be down to the environment it has been practiced in. Fitness studios and the like aren't the most humanist and naturalistic environments. Maybe if yoga was taught outside maybe in the woods or somewhere (possibly where it developed originally) one can more easily connect with nature, this change he was referring to wouldn't be occurring.

 

[March Audio]

I've got an interesting question for you, @March Audio.

Have you ever considered the significance of frame rate in video? Not many people have, I'll admit. But there's a phenomenon that might be termed 'film look' versus 'video look'. I could point you to various articles on an attempt to make a cinema film at 48 fps as opposed to the normal 24 fps. Some people liked 48 fps, but most preferred 'film look' 24 fps because of its slightly dream-like quality. On the other hand, people who watch sports on TV prefer higher frame rates primarily to do with the rendition of motion. Some TVs will cleverly convert all source frame rates to 120 Hz unless you turn it off. Tom Cruise has fronted a campaign to turn this off as a default setting because it makes cinema films look like a soap opera. On the other hand, when soap operas have adopted 'film look', viewers have written in to complain that there's something odd about the picture.

The interesting thing, I think, is that the difference is in plain sight, yet most people can't really put their finger on it. It's not just smoother motion, but a difference in 'clarity'.

Now, supposing you wanted to know which frame rate was best. Well I think it's a question that science can't answer. Cinema adopted 24 fps by accident, but stumbled upon a complete fluke: whatever you film at 24 fps, it ends up looking 'artistic' and 'dreamlike' - and this is pure subjectivity. Objectively there is no way to measure that quality.

Objectively, higher frame rates are 'better' in every way, and objective tests can demonstrate it: people can complete interactive tasks better at higher frame rates; in gaming they can judge time to impact better, etc.

And in this case, we know that context matters hugely because one person can prefer two different frame rates in two different contexts. And the slow frame rate of cinema created its own genre in the first place - without any Hollywood films to view, you couldn't run a meaningful test on whether 24 fps was better than 48. But had cinema adopted 48 fps to start with, it would have ended up making the same types of material as television did in the 1950s because - you guessed it - television adopted 50 or 60 fps (effectively) for video (it had to). Showing this material at 24 fps would look wrong to start with.

I would suggest this as an example where pure empirical science would fail without some background 'philosophy'. Simply setting out to find 'the best frame rate' would be doomed to never-ending confusion.

I think we have similar doomed quests in audio. The one that springs to mind is "What is the best target curve"? The reason why this is doomed to never-ending confusion is that the notion of target curve is 'wrong' because the curve is derived from the context, and assigning a curve despite the context is meaningless. Only by getting past the 'try it and see' mentality (a.k.a. 'science' for most people) can confusion be avoided.

I have indeed thought about this.

Whilst frame rates were borne out of historical technological limitations (including intetlaced video formats). The current choice is an artistic one.

This is no different to colour grading or the choice of "sound" an artist or producer may make in an audio recording studio.

This isn't a question of technical fidelity.

However if you are considering video fidelity the higher frame rate is superior. I for one certainly don't see the world in 24 fps effect. I assume you don't either.

So I disagree with you here, you are over thinking it. You shouldn't conflate artistic choices with technical fidelity.

 

[watchnerd]

How does epistemology help my 2 channel stereo system in my living room sound better?

 

[Floyd Toole]

Wow.

I suddenly thought of Jack Handey.

As for speakers, I have both types - with and without smooth off-axis response.

I prefer the direct sound, so apparently I get lumped in with the "audio professionals", per Dr Toole's research.

I can live with that.

It should be noted that the combination of smooth, flattish, on-axis response with smooth, but not flat, off axis response is a prime indication that there are no resonances. The importance of off axis behavior to the timbre of reflections is likely to be lower. Resonances are to be avoided at all costs.

 

[THW]

sooooo is there any TL;DR for this particular thread?

also, if I’m going to be frank, obsessing over “what-if” scenarios that have no relevance to reality is intellectual masturbation, plain and simple.

 

[SIY]

sooooo is there any TL;DR for this particular thread?

"Avoid dime store philosophers who think they understand something about science."

 

[Blumlein 88]

Don't get me started...

Cinema standardised on 24 fps very early on. Television had to go for a higher frame rate (really interlaced fields) because of the physics of phosphor, flicker, smear. Different countries adopted different television refresh rates related to their mains power frequencies.

And yes, television developed its own style partly because of the frame rate. A high frame rate works better for live music, sport, comedy, news. Sitcoms work brilliantly with a high frame rate and much less so with film.

https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/661111/casualty-film-look-cameras-or-special-fx
https://screenrant.com/peter-jackson-hobbit-48-fps-controversy/
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/dec/05/tom-cruise-motion-smoothing-interpolation

There was no high frame rate TV until HD came along. The early soap opera effect was due to video tape vs film.

 

[digicidal]

Completely off tangent and possibly unrelated but I was taking to a disgruntled yoga teacher yesterday, they were the bemoaning the fact the human spiritual element, breathing techniques etc in yoga are all fast disappearing and it's become very different to what its was originally. It's now being taught in a very one dimensional way and all about the stretch and physical strength.

Isn't that a natural outcome of people becoming more generally "scientific" in their thinking - even if they are not aware nor directly involved in that science? At some fundamental level most people want to believe in something magical or fantastical... either for cultural reasons or simply good old fashioned escapism. It's rarely the same exact thing, but the principles are fairly consistent IMO. It seems that the very things that the teacher was bemoaning the loss of... are the aspects that are most questionable - but the obvious benefits to stretching and resistance training remain as strong as ever.

It's almost like he's upset that yoga is becoming less of a religion and more of a science... I wonder if that has anything to do with profit potential. Hmmm.

 

[watchnerd]

Isn't that a natural outcome of people becoming more generally "scientific" in their thinking - even if they are not aware nor directly involved in that science?

Nahhh...it's a natural outcome of people's desires to look good naked, instead of reach enlightenment.

 

[digicidal]

Nahhh...it's a natural outcome of people's desires to look good naked, instead of reach enlightenment.

Which in and of itself is more biologically scientific... since enlightenment (or at least claims thereof) tends to repress reproduction rather than incentivize it - while the other side definitely makes it more likely. At least up to the point the enlightenment reaches cult-leader levels... then you can look as unattractive as you want and have a huge harem at the same time.

 

[watchnerd]

Which in and of itself is more biologically scientific... since enlightenment (or at least claims thereof) tends to repress reproduction rather than incentivize it - while the other side definitely makes it more likely. At least up to the point the enlightenment reaches cult-leader levels... then you can look as unattractive as you want and have a huge harem at the same time.

I never thought of Brazilian butt lifts, breast implants, and collagen lip injections as evidence of the progress of scientific knowledge amongst the general public as most are relatively ignorant of evolutionary biology and the role of sexual selection therein, but I guess you could call it "the wisdom of crowds".

 

[Thomas savage]

Nahhh...it's a natural outcome of people's desires to look good naked, instead of reach enlightenment.

It's not a either or though.

 

[watchnerd]

It's not a either or though.

Perception:

"Why is this instructor spending all this time telling us about breathing and relaxing into a pose when I want to tone my butt?

Nobody got time for that. I'll just go on YouTube and watch the 16 Minute Butt Toning Yoga Class, instead."

 

[Thomas savage]

Perception:

"Why is this instructor spending all this time telling us about breathing and relaxing into a pose when I want to tone my butt?

Nobody got time for that. I'll just go on YouTube and watch the 16 Minute Butt Toning Yoga Class, instead."

Then it's a Pilates class or one of a million other classes ..

 

[watchnerd]

Then it's a Pilates class.

Yoga is the new pilates

 

[Thomas savage]

Yoga is the new pilates

Climate is the new audio.

 

[watchnerd]

Climate is the new audio.

Turntables and vinyl, are more eco-friendly because you can power them with clockworks / springs / cranks / animals-people on treadmills.

I'm pretty sure I could get a startup funded that would turn the same compostable "plastic" we use for recyclable forks and cups into compostable LPs.

Charge a premium for planet-friendly, recyclable LPs....and those cardboard sleeves are already planet friendly, unlike CD jewel boxes that choke polar bear cubs and blind butterflies.

 

[digicidal]

Turntables and vinyl, are more eco-friendly because you can power them with clockworks / springs / cranks / animals-people on treadmills.

I'm pretty sure I could get a startup funded that would turn the same compostable "plastic" we use for recyclable forks and cups into compostable LPs.

Charge a premium for planet-friendly, recyclable LPs....and those cardboard sleeves are already planet friendly, unlike CD jewel boxes that choke polar bear cubs and blind butterflies.