• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Audiophilia - From skeptic to believer

ExtremeSkeptic said:
It's pretty obvious that you get more detail if you combine two pictures into one, assuming both pictures aren't identical. I guess the skeptics watch movies with the movie paused. They do the same thing with everything, they just pause it and cluelessly try to measure it. They don't know the big picture.
Click to expand...

What you're talking about is called "interpolation," which is a method used, in addition to anti-aliasing, in order to make a low resolution source look more passable (interpolation helps correct for movement-based artifacting, for one). If you look at the source web site for your images, you will see they run several AA passes on the image first, as well they should. AA on video is fairly processer-friendly, and yields decent results when using modern anti-aliasing alogorithms.

Whether or not interpolation makes the picture look better will depend largely on the scene being processed (it does little to nothing for very still shots, for example). My point has consistently been that you aren't going to get the same results from using a low-res source and upconverting as you will from simply using a high-res source.

The VE web site talks about "converting" SD video to HD, but this is misleading. They are filtering the video to make it look better at HD resolutions, but that is a far cry from actually playing an HD mastered source.

You are not creating more "detail," you are essentially averaging the detail both within the frames and between frames to make up for the lack of resolution close up. You will notice that Ms. Jolie's face in your upconverted sample is quite blurry. If you were to also display a high-res comparison image in addition to your scaled (but not filtered) set and your interpolated/AA set, you would see a much sharper picture.

You seem to mistake making the picture look better for adding detail. The greatest level of detail you can possibly have are the native pixels of the source image. That isn't the same as the viewer perception when the image is scaled. If you think I'm saying they are, you're not reading a word I write.

I'm posting this picture so they sane people can see what skepticism is all about. For the skeptic this upconversion has the "same detail", and they don't bother upconverting because "their eyes cannot physically discern a difference" because they choose to run away from the screen instead of sit closer to the truth.
Click to expand...

Again, you appear to not be comprehending what I am saying. I have been quite clear on the distinction between the detail of the source image and the perception of the viewer. I have also been quite clear that it is preferable to scale the video using anti-aliasing (or interpolation, although the results can be quite similar).

You're also divorcing real-world viewing conditions from the process. If you're viewing, say, an HD-DVD mastered at 1920x1080, whether or not you will see a benefit from upconverting will depend greatly on viewing distance.

The human eye stops being able to resolve the distinction between 1920x1080 and higher resolutions on a 37" display at about 4 and a half feet. With a 42" display, it's a bit over 5 feet. If you sit closer, then it will make sense to filter the image (although there are very few players that can handle HD-DVD filtering directly), and I have never said differently. Those are quite realistic viewing distances for a small room, and have to do with display size choice as well as video resolution.

But don't mistake that for adding detail, you're really covering up the loss of detail inherent in a low-res source!

Nothing wrong with that, I do it all the time when scaling up low-res videos (standard DVDs, for example) on my computer. I also bought a 1080p display because I sit less than 12.5 feet from the display, which is the cutoff point for discerning the difference between 720p and 1080p. I can clearly see the difference if I switch resolutions.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I don't ever upconvert video, or that I think it looks "the same," as I have never said those things. I have said that at certain viewing distances the images look the same, and it doesn't matter if you upconvert or not, as your eye won't be able to see a difference. If you are closer, and your display supports a higher native resolution than the source, it makes sense to upconvert. Although, with your display it would look sharper to simply not scale 1920x1080 video.

I don't upconvert 1920x1080 sources because that's my display's native resolution. I upconvert everything else because it's smaller, and I don't like the blocky look of unfiltered video, although the blurriness of filtered SD video isn't always that much better. I'd much rather simply view an HD source in the first place, but that's not always an option.
 
JonnyFive said:
I don't upconvert 1920x1080 sources because that's my display's native resolution. I upconvert everything else because it's smaller,
Click to expand...
Like I said before, you haven't tried to upconvert 1920 to 2560. You just say it doesn't make a difference, because you want to make yourself believe your 1920 display is good enough. Skeptics are just like the believers, they try justify their purchases and go very far in trying to convince themselves and others.
 
ExtremeSkeptic said:
Like I said before, you haven't tried to upconvert 1920 to 2560. You just say it doesn't make a difference, because you want to make yourself believe your 1920 display is good enough. Skeptics are just like the believers, they try justify their purchases and go very far in trying to convince themselves and others.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that, ExtremeSkeptic?

I have said, several times, that it does make a difference, and I have quantified the reasons why it makes a difference, as well as realistically explained the limitations of the process involved.

Again, you cannot physically create more detail than the source resolution. The only point to upconverting with a filter is in order to fit the source to your native resolution without it looking like a pixellated turd.

As current and future HD broadcasts and hi-def DVDs (both HD-DVD and Blu-ray) don't support resolutions higher than 1920x1080, why would it even matter? The only reason that you need to upconvert in the first place is because your native resolution is greater than 1920x1080, and forcing the display to run non-native will look like crap due to pixel stretching if you're close enough to the TV (like when I run mine at 720p, or 1600x900).

Are you upconverting regular DVDs (which is a 480p source) to your native resolution or something? Are you watching media that was originally produced in 1920x1080 (like an HD-DVD or a BR disc), or what? Without that information, the resolution you're converting something to is pretty meaningless.

Actually, I prefer to make rational purchases based on cost/benefit balancing, my preferences, my actual needs, and the technological factors involved. I chose the display that was most appropriate for my budget, needs, and wants.

But if it makes you feel better to explain it away as me "justifying" my purchases, then go right ahead... I think I've got a lot less of a financial stake in my hobby than you do in yours.
 
JonnyFive said:
Where did I say that, ExtremeSkeptic?

I have said, several times, that it does make a difference, and I have quantified the reasons why it makes a difference, as well as realistically explained the limitations of the process involved.
Click to expand...
Ok, so the problem is, you know it makes a difference but you also think that humans can't see it. Skeptics don't like it when someone else sees something they don't, so they just explain it as placebo. It's the same with audio, skeptics don't like to feel inferior so they assume all humans are equally deaf and biased because it makes them feel better about themselves.

If there's a difference in the image on the screen, then it will affect the human eyes differently even if the human can't perceive a difference. It's the same with EMI, it can be measured, but skeptics don't think it affects the human body because nobody can feel anything. It needs to be tested long-term.
It's pretty obvious that everything affects the human body in one way or another, you just need practice to be able to perceive it. Skeptics just like to block everything instead of opening themselves up for the truth.
 
i noticed something interesting with MAME. if i used hardware stretching to fit the screen, there was less "color" than if i ran it in at its true res.
 
ExtremeSkeptic said:
Ok, so the problem is, you know it makes a difference but you also think that humans can't see it. Skeptics don't like it when someone else sees something they don't, so they just explain it as placebo.
Click to expand...

Actually, I didn't say that either, but it's a very ham-handed and over-general version of what I did say.

Again, I have explicitly qualified everything I have said. I said that humans can't see the difference between certain resolutions, or between an upconverted/filtered and an upconverted/unfiltered video beyond a certain point at which the human eye cannot physically resolve the detail and no amount of training will help in the same way that you cannot breathe water with "training" because you are physically incapable of ever doing it, ever.

I would love it if you would actually respond to what I write, rather than some imaginary version of it.

It's the same with audio, skeptics don't like to feel inferior so they assume all humans are equally deaf and biased because it makes them feel better about themselves.
Click to expand...

Why would I feel inferior because I haven't spent over thirty thousand dollars on stereo equipment? Why would I feel inferior because I'm happy with the way what I already own sounds?

Actually, that makes me feel pretty good. I don't have the monkey on my back of having spent thousands upon thousands of my hard-earned dollars on something that might ultimately be a product soley of my subjective experience (and is a trivial matter even if it isn't).

If there's a difference in the image on the screen, then it will affect the human eyes differently even if the human can't perceive a difference.
Click to expand...

Ah, but this is the problem. There is a finite limit to the level of detail that the human eye can physically resolve at any given distance. Obviously, if you used a magnification device of some kind (or something to measure the pixels electronically) you might be able to discern a distinct difference, but that has nothing to do with visual accuity under viewing conditions.

When it comes to display technology, it's only one thing that needs to be considered. The nice thing about it is that you can conduct objective tests of visual accuity and detail resolution. If you wish to know more about visual accuity and its relationship to display resolution you can find more at these links:

Visual accuity in general.

Determining optimal viewing distance based on screen size.

That second one is especially illustrative of the point I'm trying to make. Beyond those visual accuity distances, the human eye is incapable of resolving distinctions between that resolution (although it only gives 1080p and 720p as references, it should help to demonstrate what I mean) and higher ones, assuming the same source and processing methods are applied.

It still doesn't change what I said, anyhow, or the ridiculous nature of many of your comments to me (the ones bout "justifying" my purchases, for example).

It's the same with EMI, it can be measured, but skeptics don't think it affects the human body because nobody can feel anything. It needs to be tested long-term.
Click to expand...

So test it, then! Prove it has an effect on something! All the skeptic asks for is evidence.

It's pretty obvious that everything affects the human body in one way or another, you just need practice to be able to perceive it.
Click to expand...

That is not "pretty obvious" at all. There are distinct and measurable limits to human perception, for one.

But, then, I suppose you can train yourself to perceive infrared light... or to hear frequencies greater than 40 khz.

Skeptics just like to block everything instead of opening themselves up for the truth.
Click to expand...

That is simply another blanket statement without proof or reason behind it, ES.
 
JonnyFive said:
Actually, I didn't say that either, but it's a very ham-handed and over-general version of what I did say.

Again, I have explicitly qualified everything I have said. I said that humans can't see the difference between certain resolutions, or between an upconverted/filtered and an upconverted/unfiltered video beyond a certain point at which the human eye cannot physically resolve the detail and no amount of training will help in the same way that you cannot breathe water with "training" because you are physically incapable of ever doing it, ever.

I would love it if you would actually respond to what I write, rather than some imaginary version of it.



Why would I feel inferior because I haven't spent over thirty thousand dollars on stereo equipment? Why would I feel inferior because I'm happy with the way what I already own sounds?

Actually, that makes me feel pretty good. I don't have the monkey on my back of having spent thousands upon thousands of my hard-earned dollars on something that might ultimately be a product soley of my subjective experience (and is a trivial matter even if it isn't).



Ah, but this is the problem. There is a finite limit to the level of detail that the human eye can physically resolve at any given distance. Obviously, if you used a magnification device of some kind (or something to measure the pixels electronically) you might be able to discern a distinct difference, but that has nothing to do with visual accuity under viewing conditions.

When it comes to display technology, it's only one thing that needs to be considered. The nice thing about it is that you can conduct objective tests of visual accuity and detail resolution. If you wish to know more about visual accuity and its relationship to display resolution you can find more at these links:

Visual accuity in general.

Determining optimal viewing distance based on screen size.

That second one is especially illustrative of the point I'm trying to make. Beyond those visual accuity distances, the human eye is incapable of resolving distinctions between that resolution (although it only gives 1080p and 720p as references, it should help to demonstrate what I mean) and higher ones, assuming the same source and processing methods are applied.

It still doesn't change what I said, anyhow, or the ridiculous nature of many of your comments to me (the ones bout "justifying" my purchases, for example).



So test it, then! Prove it has an effect on something! All the skeptic asks for is evidence.



That is not "pretty obvious" at all. There are distinct and measurable limits to human perception, for one.

But, then, I suppose you can train yourself to perceive infrared light... or to hear frequencies greater than 40 khz.



That is simply another blanket statement without proof or reason behind it, ES.
Click to expand...
That's the problem with skeptics, they think there are "limits". Then they show off with some numbers and write fancy words they have learned from little books. But they don't even understand what they are saying because they haven't thought it up themselves. They are brainwashed with flawed knowledge and they don't even know it.
 
ExtremeSkeptic said:
That's the problem with skeptics, they think there are "limits". Then they show off with some numbers and write fancy words they have learned from little books. But they don't even understand what they are saying because they haven't thought it up themselves. They are brainwashed with flawed knowledge and they don't even know it.
Click to expand...
:dl: :tr: :wackygoofy:

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Ahh the old, you don't know the truth, I do. Bit. And for only $29.95 you too can own the truth! Act today and we'll throw in this fine electric razor! Just pay separate shipping and handling! (Offer not valid in Utah)
 
TheRedWorm said:
Ahh the old, you don't know the truth, I do. Bit. And for only $29.95 you too can own the truth! Act today and we'll throw in this fine electric razor! Just pay separate shipping and handling! (Offer not valid in Utah)
Click to expand...


Why do you hate the humans in Utah?:confused:
 
I am truly sorry for insulting the great state of Utah. This was not my intent, and I have nothing but respect for the state, and the people within. That being said, you still can't get your free electric razor (just pay separate shipping and handling)!
 
ExtremeSkeptic said:
That's the problem with skeptics, they think there are "limits". Then they show off with some numbers and write fancy words they have learned from little books. But they don't even understand what they are saying because they haven't thought it up themselves. They are brainwashed with flawed knowledge and they don't even know it.
Click to expand...

So do you believe that, with proper training, one could get one's eye to observe infrared light? Do you think you could train your eye to read the smallest line on a standard eye chart at two-hundred feet?

If you believe you are capable of such things, perhaps you might wish to demonstrate them under controlled conditions? There is this man - James Randi - who I believe offers a substantial amount of money to those who can perform such feats of derring-do.

I don't believe I can be anymore upfront with you, yet you still refer to the "brainwashed" generic skeptics. If that is going to be your attitude, then I fear we have little common ground upon which to sow the seeds of productive discourse.
 
i refuse to debate with ES to any extent until he learns the history of the subjectivists and objectivists. this has been beaten to death in Speaker Builder, Audio Amateur, Stereophile, and professional magazines. ES engages in ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the issues cited.
 
Paulhoff said:
So unlike him, you do know reality.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

JonnyFive said:
That's right, Mr. Giant Talking Badger, I sure do.
Click to expand...
People who think they know reality are the most delusional ones, because their belief in their "reality" is very strong. They say they are "100%" sure they are right, but they don't realize they are already wrong after making that statement. The skeptics who say they are 100% sure about something, they don't have any credibility at all.

The difference with me is that I don't believe in anything even if it's obvious, because I know there are variables I don't yet know of.
 
ExtremeSkeptic said:
People who think they know reality are the most delusional ones, because their belief in their "reality" is very strong.
Straw-man
They say they are "100%" sure they are right, but they don't realize they are already wrong after making that statement. The skeptics who say they are 100% sure about something, they don't have any credibility at all.
Again a Straw-man no one said this.
The difference with me is that I don't believe in anything even if it's obvious, because I know there are variables I don't yet know of.
You have destroyed equipment even when told that the paper you use may short out your equipment and/or cause overheating, this shows that you have a great inability learn from others.
Click to expand...

Paul

:) :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom