480p -- Dreaming of what could be done.

[PixResearch]

Not really,

time is a dimension. It doesn't matter if the dimension is discrete or continuous. By that reasoning x,y & z are also discrete since they're working at the precision of whatever number format you're using (float). In simulation t is running at exactly the same level of precision as x,y & z.

Could you expand on why you think parameters aren't interchangable with dimensions? Never had any issue using lens parameters as dimensions before...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

time is a dimension. It doesn't matter if the dimension is discrete or continuous. By that reasoning x,y & z are also discrete since they're working at the precision of whatever number format you're using (float). In simulation t is running at exactly the same level of precision as x,y & z.

That's true, but for the sake of talking about movies, time isn't talked about as a dimension. Otherwise movies would be 3 dimensional photographs (x, y, t) and we'd be talking about 4D movies with stereoscopy. T can be used in generating computer graphics nicely though, and is essential for good motion blur where an object is sampled in all four dimensions.

Could you expand on why you think parameters aren't interchangable with dimensions? Never had any issue using lens parameters as dimensions before...

Dimensions are the domains from which we sample or choose values. In imaging a scene, we have an observer with parameters for x, y, z, position and rotation. If we have a lens, that lens has parameters for length, measured in one of the spacial dimensions, and aperture, measured as a ratio between diameter (measured in relation to two dimensions forming a plane perpendicular to the dimension of length) and length.

One could possibly chuck in some other dimensions like wavelength (although wavelength for the purposes of photography is in reality a factor of distances over time in the 3D space, so not a dimension itself), which in turn can be divided into HSL or some other 3 dimensional representation that's discrete from the spacial dimensions that the scene and observer exist in. Fundamentally though, we are talking about sampling a 2D image from a 3 dimensional space in discrete time slices. Everything else is a parameter in how those aspects interact.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Supersample with downsample to 480p. Upscale to 1080p and add 1080p overlay with HUD and text.

 

[PixResearch]

Dimensions are the domains from which we sample or choose values...

Thanks for that - you learn something new every day Will give it some thought.

 

[-tkf-]

the low resolution of tv show on VHS or VCD really kill details but the picture look realistic to me. It seems the way the light affect the objects and shadows give the impression of "Realistic"

The first time i saw SD in full quality (ehmm how it looks before it's broadcast) directly from a AVID system i was surprised just how good it looked.

However i also had the pleasure of seeing just how much detail is lost compared to reality, a studio in the SD days looked way better on TV than in real life. Maybe it's thanks to the "downsampling" but many flaws just didn't show on TV because the resolution didn't allow it to show. For example, when we had printouts in a TV program, they could be pretty bad in resolution, but thanks to the limited resolution it would never show on TV.

In the end i think that the brain is good at adding missing details and the camera was good as hiding flaws and making everything look better thanks to the limited resolution.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

People need to remember that our SD experience was on small CRTs. SD on pixel-perfect LCDs/plasmas is atrocious as everything is clearly made out of a mosaic. It's only modern upscaling that makes it good enough on large screens. And the 4:2:0 colour compression caused terrible bleeding. Snooker is a great reference point, with balls' colours smearing all over the screen. That's something an SD game won't suffer from, meaning much better clarity, but also less confusion to obscure the flaws.

I ran my PS3 on my old CRT before getting an HDTV, and the lack of clarity in Warhawk was a major incentive to upgrade. Regardless of whether the game was photorealistic or not, you want to be able to read player names and spot distance snipers etc., and SD is a real limiting factor in that regard. Depending on the game, dropping resolution for more PLOPS could be beneficial, like, say, Heavy Rain being SD and photorealistic would be preferential to it's uncanny valley look at HD, but lower res won't always be preferable (in either spacial or temporal dimensions).

 

[Silent_Buddha]

That's true, but for the sake of talking about movies, time isn't talked about as a dimension. Otherwise movies would be 3 dimensional photographs (x, y, t) and we'd be talking about 4D movies with stereoscopy. T can be used in generating computer graphics nicely though, and is essential for good motion blur where an object is sampled in all four dimensions.

However, you can manipulate time other than just in straight FPS for film and video. Either by reversing, slowing, speeding up, jump cuts in time, etc. It definitely is something that is editable in film and video. In other words, it isn't necessary for it to be a linear progression. Although use in anything but sparing quantities can produce an unenjoyable experience...unless you're on drugs...

Regards,
SB