Specs [vs. "reality"]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 06:04 PM 1/21/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>Performance specifications are one thing, image fidelity is
>another. "Trusting
>your eyes" has its limits. If all of life was intuitive, we wouldn't need
>schools, or science, or standards.

Point taken, Alan. I wasn't really debating that point however, just
railing against people who try to convince other people that they
can't possibly be satisfied with what they are seeing. Beauty is in
the eye of the beholder and just because another person doesn't agree
with a particular viewer's standards doesn't give him/her the right
to tell the viewer that he/she can't possibly like something. If
people are enjoying life through intuition, then all the standards in
the world aren't going to make them any happier. These people are
looking for an image that pleases them, not necessarily an image that
meets a pre-defined standard. Granted, by standardizing an image you
will usually yield noticeably better results to most people. But
when you get down to those last few degrees of separation some people
get overzealous about measurements that the average person can't
see. At some point you (not "you" in the literal sense) should be
willing to enjoy life rather than constantly worrying about whether
things could be even better.

My background involves schools, science and standards so I know all
about them (in one of my former lives I was a Chemistry teacher on
the high school and college level). Yet I'm constantly reminded of
the person who won't give you the time of day until he explains how
the watch works. <g>


-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

> "Trust your eyes, not another person's
> statistics. I'm constantly butting heads with people who try to tell
> me that what I'm seeing is not a true representation of
> reality."

Alan,

Thank you so much for addressing that with such eloquence!

Richard Fisher
www.HDLibrary.com Published by Tech Services
A division of Mastertech Repair Corporation

[email protected] wrote:
> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> "Trust your eyes, not another person's
> statistics. I'm constantly butting heads with people who try to tell
> me that what I'm seeing is not a true representation of
> reality."
>
> Just remember to keep this principle in this context. We're talking about
> misleading claims of performance specifications. "Reality" in the video
> production world is the final judgement of the program producer, NOT the
> viewer. The only reality in video is faithfulness to the original program.
> Real life "reality" just isn't available from any video display. All we'll
> likely ever see from a TV is an artificial approximation of reality. There are
> just too many limitations in the technology compared to our human visual
> system.
>
> We are told in TV owner's manuals to adjust the picture settings until flesh
> tones look "natural." How many natural flesh tones are there in this world?
> Which one matches the performer on the screen? Do we know if they had a tan, a
> sunburn, or what shade of makeup or color of lighting was used on their face?
> If a sportscaster is standing next to a bright green wall on a sunny day, his
> face is going to look green on camera.
>
> No consumer knows for sure what shade of green the grass is supposed to be in a
> film or video frame, or what skin tone was intended to be seen by the
> audience. Grass is an endless variety of colors, depending on a miriad of ever
> changing circumstances. How long has it been since that field was fertilized
> with nitrogen? What time of day is it? How long since it was watered? What
> is the variety of grass that has been planted? How long has it been since it
> was mowed? Is the sky cloudy or clear, or partly cloudy? What shade of blue
> is the portion of sky you can look at, on this particular day of the year, at
> this time of day, with today's unique weather conditions?
>
> The only thing that preserves image fidelity is adherence to industry
> standards. Only one person has the authority to decide what looks right in a
> film or video program- the program producer. Most consumers have never seen a
> reference image on a professional monitor. They have no clue what a correct
> video image should look like and most never will!
>
> The masses could care less if they get an accurate image on their TV. They
> have other priorities that interest them much more. This Tips List crowd wants
> the best picture possible from their TV. That has to be defined as image
> fidelity: all the truth, all the time, nothing altered, nothing added, nothing
> taken away. That ideal rests entirely upon adherence to production and display
> standards, NEVER upon any consumer's personal opinion of what the image "ought"
> to look like.
>
> Performance specifications are one thing, image fidelity is another. "Trusting
> your eyes" has its limits. If all of life was intuitive, we wouldn't need
> schools, or science, or standards.
>
> Best regards and beautiful pictures,
> Alan Brown, President
> CinemaQuest, Inc.
> www.cinemaquestinc.com
>
> "Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"
>
>
>>----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>>
>>At 11:52 PM 1/20/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>>The projector is known to show great images but I rather experience
>>>the viewing than trusting the
>>>numbers, your eyes will tell how good the blacks and whites actually
>>>are on actual viewing.
>>
>>Rodolfo,
>>
>>If everyone would just heed that great advice rather than listening
>>to the so-called experts and salespeople things would be a lot
>>simpler for many of us. Trust your eyes, not another person's
>>statistics. I'm constantly butting heads with people who try to tell
>>me that what I'm seeing is not a true representation of
>>reality. They can quote all the facts and figures they want but the
>>final judge should be a personal experience and not second hand research.
>>
>>Well said!
>>
>>
>>-- RAF
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>>
>>To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
>
> day) send an
> email to:
>
>>[email protected]
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using ViaWest's Vmail.
> http://www.viawest.net/
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Alan,

You are preaching to the choir here. I have absolutely no problem
with any attempt to get the best quality picture out of any display
device and I applaud those who keep the flame alive to try to achieve
that goal. My issue was with the person who tries to tell others
what they should like, regardless of personal preferences. Sometimes
they insist that the person can't possibly like what they are seeing
(or what they are hearing) when actually they do. Dale's commentary
about the Japanese vs. European versions of attaining video nirvana
was spot on. Sometimes the technically best picture is not
esthetically the best, or the one that wins the race for acceptance.

I'm not suggesting that we abandon standards or lower them to please
those individuals who "like what they see." I'm just saying that
sometimes it's better to back off from them and concentrate efforts
on raising the bar rather than trying to tell such individuals that
they can't possibly like what they are seeing. Sometimes there is no
accounting for taste, or else a lot of programming material on our
beloved TVs wouldn't be heading for the lowest common denominator. <g>


At 09:24 PM 1/21/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>I certainly didn't doubt your ability to keep a discussion in context. My
>elaboration was intended for the general audience of the Tips List
>and whomever
>they may encounter in conversation or forward our discussions to. In my
>experience in this field of electronic imaging there is much wrong-headedness
>about what a video image is supposed to look like and how to achieve
>it. This
>erroneous thinking is usually due to ignorance or wrong teaching. Certain
>comments you made begged clarification, because they touched upon
>issues widely
>misunderstood, even in the professional ranks. I am an advocate of imaging
>science and display standards, and an opponent of confusion, ignorance and
>wrong teaching in this arena....

-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

I would also like to salute Alan on his definitive response to this
perception issue. During the early days of HDTV development there were two
main HDTV systems in global competition. The first was spawned by the
Japanese (NHK) and the second by Europe. The Japanese engineers did
everything they could to scientifically adjust the demonstration monitors
for the way the eye sees and interprets reality. Those pictures, while
attractive enough, had an almost cadaverous quality to them (which provoked
many unsettling comments). Yes, the Japanese were more accurately portraying
the wavelengths reflected from those items being photographed, but...the
Europeans, on the other hand, opted for a slight exaggeration in their
settings which produced richer, more saturated colors on their monitors. The
European settings produced more of a "Kodak look" than the more precisely
calibrated Japanese monitors. In comparison those European images jumped out
as the more attractive to all but those who had placed pure science ahead of
human appeal. Of course, both are needed and both are right.

Dale

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

At 06:04 PM 1/21/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>Performance specifications are one thing, image fidelity is
>another. "Trusting
>your eyes" has its limits. If all of life was intuitive, we wouldn't need
>schools, or science, or standards.

Point taken, Alan. I wasn't really debating that point however, just
railing against people who try to convince other people that they
can't possibly be satisfied with what they are seeing. Beauty is in
the eye of the beholder and just because another person doesn't agree
with a particular viewer's standards doesn't give him/her the right
to tell the viewer that he/she can't possibly like something. If
people are enjoying life through intuition, then all the standards in
the world aren't going to make them any happier. These people are
looking for an image that pleases them, not necessarily an image that
meets a pre-defined standard. Granted, by standardizing an image you
will usually yield noticeably better results to most people. But
when you get down to those last few degrees of separation some people
get overzealous about measurements that the average person can't
see. At some point you (not "you" in the literal sense) should be
willing to enjoy life rather than constantly worrying about whether
things could be even better.

My background involves schools, science and standards so I know all
about them (in one of my former lives I was a Chemistry teacher on
the high school and college level). Yet I'm constantly reminded of
the person who won't give you the time of day until he explains how
the watch works. <g>


-- RAF


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an email to:
[email protected]


To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]

----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----

Robert,

I certainly didn't doubt your ability to keep a discussion in context. My
elaboration was intended for the general audience of the Tips List and whomever
they may encounter in conversation or forward our discussions to. In my
experience in this field of electronic imaging there is much wrong-headedness
about what a video image is supposed to look like and how to achieve it. This
erroneous thinking is usually due to ignorance or wrong teaching. Certain
comments you made begged clarification, because they touched upon issues widely
misunderstood, even in the professional ranks. I am an advocate of imaging
science and display standards, and an opponent of confusion, ignorance and
wrong teaching in this arena.

There is no down-side to adhering to display standards. Every TV offers ways
to alter the picture "to taste", as some put it. Those of us who value image
fidelity just want a TV that will do at least all the basics right. It's
obvious to me that we have to keep emphasizing the importance of imaging
science and display standards if we're going to see that desire become a
reality in consumer displays. For us it's, as Joe Kane likes to say, "All
about the art." The purpose of imaging industry standards is to preserve
accuracy, consistency, repeatability and the original intent of the artist.

One person's individual preference can mean a great deal to that person. As
far as how it impacts a standards governed industry, or the consuming public in
general, it holds very little value. Too often I've heard and read people
advise someone passionate about the pursuit of excellence in this arena, "Don't
be bothered with accuracy, just settle with something you think looks good to
you." In my estimation, that's poor advice. It only serves the diminishment
of what life can offer, rather than enhancing the individual's capacity for
enjoyment.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"



> ----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
>
> At 06:04 PM 1/21/2006 +0000, you wrote:
> >Performance specifications are one thing, image fidelity is
> >another. "Trusting
> >your eyes" has its limits. If all of life was intuitive, we wouldn't need
> >schools, or science, or standards.
>
> Point taken, Alan. I wasn't really debating that point however, just
> railing against people who try to convince other people that they
> can't possibly be satisfied with what they are seeing. Beauty is in
> the eye of the beholder and just because another person doesn't agree
> with a particular viewer's standards doesn't give him/her the right
> to tell the viewer that he/she can't possibly like something. If
> people are enjoying life through intuition, then all the standards in
> the world aren't going to make them any happier. These people are
> looking for an image that pleases them, not necessarily an image that
> meets a pre-defined standard. Granted, by standardizing an image you
> will usually yield noticeably better results to most people. But
> when you get down to those last few degrees of separation some people
> get overzealous about measurements that the average person can't
> see. At some point you (not "you" in the literal sense) should be
> willing to enjoy life rather than constantly worrying about whether
> things could be even better.
>
> My background involves schools, science and standards so I know all
> about them (in one of my former lives I was a Chemistry teacher on
> the high school and college level). Yet I'm constantly reminded of
> the person who won't give you the time of day until he explains how
> the watch works. <g>
>
>
> -- RAF
>
>
> To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]
>
> To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same
day) send an
email to:
> [email protected]


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using ViaWest's Vmail.
http://www.viawest.net/



To unsubscribe please click: [email protected]

To receive the digest mode (one email a day made from all posted that same day) send an email to:
[email protected]