WEBVTT - Resolution in the New Year 0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:07.200 Brought to you by Toyota. Let's go places. Welcome to 0:00:07.400 --> 0:00:13.920 Forward Thinking. Hey there, everyone, and welcome to Forward Thinking, 0:00:14.000 --> 0:00:16.720 the podcast that looks at the future and says, there's 0:00:16.760 --> 0:00:20.000 Frank's remote control. You can look, but don't touch it please. 0:00:20.360 --> 0:00:25.919 I'm Jonathan Strickland and I'm Joe McCormick. Hello everyone, Hello Joe. 0:00:26.079 --> 0:00:28.920 How are you all doing today? How about you? I'm 0:00:28.920 --> 0:00:31.200 doing just fine. Yeah, I got a question for both 0:00:31.240 --> 0:00:37.520 of you? Did you make any New Year's resolution? See 0:00:37.560 --> 0:00:39.760 that joke's only funny if you already know what the 0:00:39.800 --> 0:00:42.919 topic is, and then it's not even funny, But it's 0:00:42.960 --> 0:00:46.240 a good point. We're talking about. We're talking about resolution, 0:00:46.320 --> 0:00:50.559 television resolution. In this episode, I recently attended c e 0:00:50.800 --> 0:00:54.400 S and one of the big things that's always a 0:00:54.480 --> 0:00:59.080 huge presence at c S is uh, it's high definition 0:00:59.200 --> 0:01:02.240 and beyond TVs. Jonathan, I have a question for you. 0:01:02.360 --> 0:01:05.080 Ask me your question, Joe. Okay, while you were at 0:01:05.080 --> 0:01:08.600 cs what was the greatest number of TVs you were 0:01:08.640 --> 0:01:14.600 ever watching at the same time simultaneously. That oh, probably 0:01:15.160 --> 0:01:20.520 somewhere in the realm of forty because there are entire 0:01:20.640 --> 0:01:23.880 walls that are just made up of various televisions and displays, 0:01:24.400 --> 0:01:27.720 so sometimes they all work together to form one image, 0:01:27.720 --> 0:01:32.039 but you're still watching forty different TVs. Is it like 0:01:32.200 --> 0:01:34.640 at best Buy where they're all showing the same Mark 0:01:34.640 --> 0:01:36.560 Wahlberg movie at the same time, or do they have 0:01:36.640 --> 0:01:39.760 different stuff playing? They had different what Mark Wahlberg movies 0:01:39.800 --> 0:01:45.560 playing simultaneously. No, Actually, the it depended on the the 0:01:45.600 --> 0:01:47.800 place you were at and what the TVs were trying 0:01:47.840 --> 0:01:50.960 to show, like anything that's doing ultra high definition and 0:01:51.080 --> 0:01:53.640 beyond or I guess you could just say uh D 0:01:53.720 --> 0:01:56.640 because technically eight K is still in that category. Uh 0:01:56.840 --> 0:02:01.080 tends to have a loop of various you know, supposed 0:02:01.080 --> 0:02:04.320 to be all inducing images, things that have lots of 0:02:04.360 --> 0:02:09.080 different color and contrast, something where the detail is really 0:02:09.120 --> 0:02:13.600 important in the image. There's usually no um, no content 0:02:13.720 --> 0:02:17.880 that has like dialogue or anything. It's all about images. 0:02:18.240 --> 0:02:21.480 So uh you know, usually it's it's also video because 0:02:21.480 --> 0:02:23.800 you don't want to have just a still photo up there. 0:02:24.440 --> 0:02:28.400 But it will be like a Chinese dragon at a parade. 0:02:28.520 --> 0:02:35.360 That's that's a typical one, right, sunrises or ocean you know, 0:02:35.520 --> 0:02:38.320 something like like fish beneath the sea, that kind of thing. 0:02:38.840 --> 0:02:41.240 So it's all about, you know, lots of different colors 0:02:41.240 --> 0:02:45.160 and vibrant and uh images and lots of motion to 0:02:45.240 --> 0:02:47.720 really show off what the televisions are capable of. And 0:02:47.760 --> 0:02:50.640 I wanted to kind of talk a little bit in 0:02:50.680 --> 0:02:54.839 this episode about what resolution is because you know, now 0:02:54.880 --> 0:02:57.920 we're in that era of four K becoming the standard, 0:02:58.400 --> 0:03:00.720 Like it's I would say that the year is the 0:03:00.720 --> 0:03:03.640 first time we're really seeing four K move beyond the 0:03:03.720 --> 0:03:07.760 early adopter stage and try to push into mainstream, which 0:03:07.800 --> 0:03:10.079 means that a lot of people probably have questions about 0:03:10.080 --> 0:03:13.079 it and they're wondering what exactly sets it apart, how 0:03:13.160 --> 0:03:16.880 is it different from earlier versions, and and you know, 0:03:17.040 --> 0:03:19.360 just kind of an overview Yeah, yeah, because I mean 0:03:19.400 --> 0:03:22.120 you see all of this kind of marketing or advertising 0:03:22.120 --> 0:03:25.280 material all the time about how totally awesome this new 0:03:25.320 --> 0:03:27.160 television is and how much you need it in your 0:03:27.160 --> 0:03:31.240 house right now. Um, And I have well, I mean 0:03:31.320 --> 0:03:34.760 it's I do because I've researched this kind of stuff 0:03:34.760 --> 0:03:37.520 for tech stuff in this episode before. UM, but I 0:03:37.560 --> 0:03:39.880 don't think that the average consumer really has a good 0:03:40.200 --> 0:03:43.800 grip on what any of that means. Yeah. Yeah, And 0:03:43.800 --> 0:03:46.160 and furthermore, like yeah, like like, where is all of 0:03:46.200 --> 0:03:49.400 this technology moving towards in the future? Like, are are 0:03:49.400 --> 0:03:52.080 we going to get to sixteen K? Is it going 0:03:52.120 --> 0:03:54.840 to be thirty two K? That? What? Will we just 0:03:54.960 --> 0:03:58.280 have television screens literally in our eyeballs? I mean that's 0:03:58.320 --> 0:04:00.360 these are all great questions and we're going to be 0:04:00.440 --> 0:04:04.560 looking at them, uh figuratively because this is an audio podcast. 0:04:04.880 --> 0:04:07.160 But yeah, no, this is this is exactly why I 0:04:07.200 --> 0:04:11.320 wanted to have this conversation. Okay, So the numbers that 0:04:11.360 --> 0:04:14.120 are represented when you hear people bragging about their different 0:04:14.160 --> 0:04:17.000 screen resolutions, you know, we've got tin ADP or we've 0:04:17.000 --> 0:04:20.200 got four K. What do those numbers mean? What do 0:04:20.279 --> 0:04:24.480 they represent? All right? Those numbers represent a basic unit 0:04:24.520 --> 0:04:26.960 called a pixel. And you can kind of think of 0:04:27.000 --> 0:04:29.800 pixel as like a point of light on your television. 0:04:30.200 --> 0:04:32.880 And that point of light can be various colors, doesn't 0:04:32.880 --> 0:04:35.200 have to be you know, just pure white or whatever. 0:04:35.640 --> 0:04:38.799 But your your television screen, the image on the screen 0:04:38.920 --> 0:04:42.279 is made up of a collection of pixels, all of 0:04:42.360 --> 0:04:47.000 various colors, changing at a speed that's faster than we 0:04:47.040 --> 0:04:49.160 can detect with the naked eye. And that's what gives 0:04:49.240 --> 0:04:53.440 us the illusion of Hey, there's Matthew McConaughey, uh being 0:04:53.480 --> 0:04:57.800 awesome on my TV. Yeah. Yeah, each pixel has the 0:04:57.839 --> 0:05:02.560 capacity to be I mean basically red, green, or blue. Yeah, yeah, 0:05:02.560 --> 0:05:05.559 it's really what we're looking at, any combination of those really, 0:05:05.640 --> 0:05:07.960 and it's also, yeah, the intensity of the light behind 0:05:08.000 --> 0:05:11.920 it can help, uh indicate what color it's supposed to be. 0:05:12.400 --> 0:05:14.400 And it's the fact that we have so many that 0:05:14.440 --> 0:05:17.440 we can actually represent colors other than red, green, and blue. 0:05:17.480 --> 0:05:21.039 This is using the additive property of color to get 0:05:21.240 --> 0:05:23.880 various colors. So if you had red, green, and blue 0:05:24.000 --> 0:05:27.560 light and you shine them all on a central spot, 0:05:28.040 --> 0:05:30.320 the very center of that's going to look white. It's 0:05:30.360 --> 0:05:33.760 that additive property where red and blue overlap. That's where 0:05:33.760 --> 0:05:36.600 you're going to get the purples. And it's it's interesting 0:05:36.640 --> 0:05:39.520 because if you think of back to um, you know, 0:05:39.560 --> 0:05:42.599 the primary colors, you'd say, well, wait a minute, now, 0:05:43.120 --> 0:05:46.919 I remember there was like red, yellow, and blue. I 0:05:46.960 --> 0:05:49.040 don't remember green being in there, and it's all very 0:05:49.279 --> 0:05:52.440 about what about cyan and magenta? Well yeah, And that's 0:05:52.440 --> 0:05:54.880 the thing is that we're talking about different approaches like 0:05:55.040 --> 0:05:59.680 light based versus inc based, additive versus subtractive you know, 0:05:59.720 --> 0:06:01.400 they're there are a lot of different ways of looking 0:06:01.440 --> 0:06:04.480 at color. And it just turns out that with televisions 0:06:04.480 --> 0:06:06.280 we're talking about the r g B. I mean, you 0:06:06.400 --> 0:06:09.479 probably have seen r GB connectors for various types of 0:06:09.520 --> 0:06:13.960 televisions and displays. So now we've established we've got all 0:06:13.960 --> 0:06:17.560 these pixels. The each pixel is divided into subpixels. Typically 0:06:17.600 --> 0:06:20.599 that's red, green, and blue. Uh, and those are what 0:06:20.760 --> 0:06:23.600 will determine the color of the image that you see. 0:06:23.920 --> 0:06:26.560 But what makes the difference between Let's say I break 0:06:26.640 --> 0:06:29.320 up my old inns and I look and I go 0:06:29.400 --> 0:06:33.360 to play Super Mario World or Super Mario Brothers, which 0:06:33.440 --> 0:06:36.120 was the first one, Super Mario Brothers Brothers. You're right, yeah, 0:06:36.279 --> 0:06:38.880 So there we've got a Mario that if you look 0:06:38.920 --> 0:06:42.880 close as pretty clearly composed of some squares. There are 0:06:42.920 --> 0:06:46.200 individually colored squares, and if you zoom in wag in 0:06:46.279 --> 0:06:48.960 on him, he's kind of spiky, like he's got some 0:06:49.080 --> 0:06:52.360 hard corners. But if you go to the next generation 0:06:52.520 --> 0:06:55.800 and play Super Mario Brothers or Super Mario World, I 0:06:55.800 --> 0:06:59.600 guess then on Super nes suddenly Mario is much smoother. 0:07:00.400 --> 0:07:03.560 And then if you go to the next generation smoother still, right, 0:07:03.960 --> 0:07:07.040 what's going on this is because those pixels. Now in 0:07:07.120 --> 0:07:11.160 this case we're talking about the capacity of the device 0:07:11.320 --> 0:07:15.840 to output pixel count, not not your television, but the 0:07:16.520 --> 0:07:18.920 NES and s and e s and these cases the 0:07:19.040 --> 0:07:22.000 same kind of effect, right exactly. H It's you know, 0:07:22.080 --> 0:07:24.560 the size of the pixels matter because the larger the pixels, 0:07:24.600 --> 0:07:26.480 the more you're going to be able to detect the 0:07:26.560 --> 0:07:29.920 individual pixels. And you'll see those hard edges because pixels 0:07:30.000 --> 0:07:33.560 essentially a little square, and if those squares are large enough, 0:07:33.560 --> 0:07:36.880 you're gonna be able to detect detect the corners. Like 0:07:36.960 --> 0:07:39.120 you were talking about the The example I always give 0:07:39.240 --> 0:07:41.680 is that imagine that you are given a bunch of 0:07:41.880 --> 0:07:44.800 wooden blocks of different colors, and you're told to create 0:07:45.000 --> 0:07:48.040 a picture using those wooden blocks, like show a representation 0:07:48.080 --> 0:07:50.480 of a car. And you've got some blue wooden blocks 0:07:50.520 --> 0:07:52.160 and some black wooden blocks, and the black ones are 0:07:52.200 --> 0:07:53.640 gonna be the tires, and the blue ones are gonna 0:07:53.640 --> 0:07:56.480 be the car. But you only have twenty blocks total, 0:07:57.040 --> 0:08:00.160 or the image can only be twenty blocks large. It's 0:08:00.160 --> 0:08:03.000 gonna be a really blocky car, like straight out of 0:08:03.040 --> 0:08:06.520 the mid eighties. But if you wanted to have something 0:08:06.560 --> 0:08:09.760 that had a lot more kind of smooth contours. What 0:08:09.920 --> 0:08:12.480 you would want to do is have the size of 0:08:12.600 --> 0:08:16.800 those blocks and double their number, and now you can 0:08:16.880 --> 0:08:19.160 make that same picture, but you're using twice as many 0:08:19.240 --> 0:08:21.280 blocks that are half the size. It's gonna look a 0:08:21.320 --> 0:08:23.360 little better. You do that again. It's gonna look a 0:08:23.400 --> 0:08:25.760 little better. You do this enough, and the human eye 0:08:25.800 --> 0:08:28.480 will no longer be able to differentiate the edges of 0:08:28.600 --> 0:08:30.960 those tiny blocks because they're so small. It looks like 0:08:31.000 --> 0:08:36.000 a continuous image to us. That's the basis for television resolution. 0:08:36.080 --> 0:08:39.800 You want to have as tiny a pixel as you 0:08:39.880 --> 0:08:44.480 possibly can and a high concentration of them in order 0:08:44.600 --> 0:08:47.720 for the image on the screen to be a high resolution. 0:08:48.360 --> 0:08:51.920 Um So, technically we could say that a television's resolution 0:08:52.040 --> 0:08:55.760 is the number of pixels that are displayed on a screen. 0:08:56.120 --> 0:09:00.199 And this raises another interesting point, which is that you 0:09:00.320 --> 0:09:03.280 can have two different TVs of two different sizes at 0:09:03.320 --> 0:09:06.440 the same resolution. They're gonna have the same number of pixels. 0:09:06.679 --> 0:09:08.720 But that means that the pixels on the bigger TV 0:09:09.200 --> 0:09:11.719 have to be larger because they have more space to 0:09:11.800 --> 0:09:14.520 fill up. So if you have a forty inch high 0:09:14.760 --> 0:09:19.120 definition television ten a d P t V. Then you 0:09:19.240 --> 0:09:24.439 have a thousand eighty lines of pixels going across in 0:09:24.600 --> 0:09:27.839 one direction. And I'll talk more about the directions in 0:09:27.880 --> 0:09:29.800 a little bit. But let's say that you've got a 0:09:29.840 --> 0:09:33.040 ten A d P eighty inch television. Well, your eight 0:09:33.160 --> 0:09:36.000 inch TV is twice the size, I mean, at least 0:09:36.040 --> 0:09:38.439 on the diagonal of the forty inch It actually gets 0:09:38.440 --> 0:09:40.679 a little more complicated than that, but it has the 0:09:40.840 --> 0:09:43.640 same number of pixels as that forty inch TV. So 0:09:43.760 --> 0:09:47.479 it's possible that something that looks amazing on a relatively 0:09:47.600 --> 0:09:52.120 smaller TV doesn't look as amazing on a larger TV 0:09:52.360 --> 0:09:54.480 if they're both at the same resolution. You have to 0:09:54.640 --> 0:09:57.719 increase the resolution of the larger televisions to make it 0:09:58.000 --> 0:10:01.040 that make the quality remain the same, right, or you 0:10:01.160 --> 0:10:05.520 have to back up further away from the larger pixeled television. Yeah, 0:10:05.600 --> 0:10:08.720 this this raises another interesting point. We're gonna be nailing 0:10:08.800 --> 0:10:11.240 this sucker home as we go through this. The the 0:10:11.760 --> 0:10:15.079 quality of the image on a television is relative to 0:10:15.240 --> 0:10:18.719 many factors, the resolution of the television, the size of 0:10:18.760 --> 0:10:22.000 the television, and your viewing distance. Because the human eye, 0:10:22.000 --> 0:10:25.360 you know, our our our ability to pick out detail, 0:10:25.679 --> 0:10:29.840 decreases as distance increases, And of course for some of us, 0:10:30.080 --> 0:10:32.000 we have better vision than others. I used to have 0:10:32.080 --> 0:10:34.880 pretty crappy vision, and then I had laser surgery, and 0:10:34.960 --> 0:10:39.200 now my vision is normal. It's not great like it's 0:10:39.280 --> 0:10:44.560 it's it's essentially which is you know, considered normal vision. Um, 0:10:45.520 --> 0:10:48.960 so that's that's definitely a factor. All of those things 0:10:49.040 --> 0:10:53.640 are factors. So even the technological aspect of this is 0:10:54.240 --> 0:10:58.120 somewhat um mediated by the fact of how far away, 0:10:58.240 --> 0:11:01.080 like our physical surroundings, how far away we are from 0:11:01.120 --> 0:11:05.360 that television. If the TV is eighty inches and it's 0:11:05.480 --> 0:11:07.720 high resolution, like the same as that forty inch TV, 0:11:07.880 --> 0:11:09.880 but we're twice as far away from it as we 0:11:09.960 --> 0:11:13.720 were from our forty inch televisions, then things kind of look, Okay, 0:11:14.679 --> 0:11:17.400 that's rough numbers. I mean, that's not exactly the case, 0:11:17.480 --> 0:11:20.400 but it's it's you know, you get the idea. So, yeah, 0:11:20.600 --> 0:11:22.280 this is this is all stuff we have to take 0:11:22.360 --> 0:11:26.600 into account. So let's kind of look at what resolution 0:11:26.760 --> 0:11:29.680 really means. Now in the old days, we're talking about 0:11:30.480 --> 0:11:33.120 within height. I mean, we still are talking about within height, 0:11:33.200 --> 0:11:36.240 but the designation has changed a little bit. So the 0:11:36.360 --> 0:11:38.800 unit of measurement is the pixel. And if you were 0:11:38.840 --> 0:11:42.720 looking at a nineteen twenty by ten eight screen, that's 0:11:42.800 --> 0:11:47.679 one thousand pixels wide or number of vertical lines of 0:11:47.920 --> 0:11:51.920 pixels by one thousand eighty pixels tall, or a number 0:11:51.960 --> 0:11:56.079 of horizontal lines of pixels. And that's the resolution for 0:11:56.120 --> 0:11:59.000 a ten a d P screen. Uh. So the ten 0:11:59.080 --> 0:12:02.680 eight is all of those horizontal lines. That's important because 0:12:02.720 --> 0:12:04.720 when we get to four K, we no longer look 0:12:04.760 --> 0:12:08.120 at horizontal lines. We look at vertical lines because of course, 0:12:08.200 --> 0:12:11.199 we need to make this more confusing. Um that's my 0:12:11.280 --> 0:12:14.079 favorite thing about technology. Yeah, it's like when we decide 0:12:14.160 --> 0:12:16.320 the standard needs to be flip flopped, and we need 0:12:16.400 --> 0:12:18.000 to talk about this other number because if we talked 0:12:18.000 --> 0:12:21.080 about the first number, it wouldn't be as uh fascinating 0:12:21.160 --> 0:12:25.600 and exciting because it wouldn't be as big anyway. Uh. 0:12:26.200 --> 0:12:29.480 The reason for the difference, obviously, is that our televisions 0:12:29.480 --> 0:12:32.520 are wider than they are tall. So this has been 0:12:32.559 --> 0:12:35.199 the case for ages, although of course the aspect ratio 0:12:35.320 --> 0:12:37.199 has changed. We'll talk about that in a second. So 0:12:38.040 --> 0:12:42.359 let's start with standard resolution. There's still channels that broadcasting 0:12:42.440 --> 0:12:45.400 standard resolution. There are televisions that are displaying it in 0:12:45.480 --> 0:12:48.199 standard resolution resolution. You might have a standard resolution TV 0:12:48.280 --> 0:12:53.200 in your home. UM, in the United States, standards resolution 0:12:53.240 --> 0:12:57.360 television is at four eight interlaced lines of resolution or 0:12:57.440 --> 0:13:00.240 four A d I, and that uses a standard called 0:13:00.320 --> 0:13:04.319 in T s C, So that's technically seven four pixels 0:13:04.600 --> 0:13:09.080 by pixels. Now, in Europe they used the PAL system 0:13:09.160 --> 0:13:13.400 p L and that is five seventies six I. So 0:13:14.080 --> 0:13:18.160 technically the European UH televisions were a slightly higher resolution 0:13:18.240 --> 0:13:22.160 than the North American ones. Um, both of these are interlaced. 0:13:22.240 --> 0:13:26.040 That's different from progressive. I'm not going to go into that. Yeah, 0:13:26.080 --> 0:13:28.319 we'll just barely touch on it because that gets that's 0:13:28.320 --> 0:13:32.920 almost an entire episode all on its own. UM. So 0:13:33.160 --> 0:13:35.959 then we moved to high definition resolution. Now, do you 0:13:36.000 --> 0:13:41.439 guys remember when HDTV was first coming out? Yeah pretty much. Yeah, 0:13:41.520 --> 0:13:44.319 I remember it because I remember when it first came out. 0:13:44.760 --> 0:13:49.480 HD televisions were and they were crazy expensive like they were. 0:13:49.679 --> 0:13:52.120 They were an order of magnitude more expensive than your 0:13:52.160 --> 0:13:54.319 average televisions. And of course this is also still in 0:13:54.400 --> 0:13:57.439 the era of the big TVs, right, like not not 0:13:57.559 --> 0:14:03.760 the flat screens. They still television still had tubes in them. Yeah, 0:14:04.120 --> 0:14:07.079 I still have a television like that. Actually, I have 0:14:07.600 --> 0:14:12.200 one in storage. I don't have one actively being used 0:14:12.240 --> 0:14:15.559 as a television or display on my laptops, though I 0:14:16.040 --> 0:14:18.920 had one that I'm pretty sure Rachel made me get 0:14:19.160 --> 0:14:23.480 rid of together. Well, my only VHS player is attached 0:14:23.720 --> 0:14:28.400 to it. You're killing me here, forward thinking and Lawrence 0:14:28.560 --> 0:14:31.280 enjoying her entertainment on clay tablets. This is a weird 0:14:31.320 --> 0:14:34.600 discussion for me because my favorite way of enjoying a 0:14:34.680 --> 0:14:38.120 piece of visual media is a third generation VHS tape 0:14:38.200 --> 0:14:40.760 of something from the eighties. Yeah, there are plenty of 0:14:40.840 --> 0:14:43.920 YouTube videos that are directly taken from that kind of content. 0:14:44.280 --> 0:14:46.320 I know because I watched one just the other day. 0:14:46.920 --> 0:14:50.120 Computers are Humans? Are Computers are people too? Was the 0:14:50.200 --> 0:14:53.120 name of the program forty six minutes. Okay, but so 0:14:53.360 --> 0:14:56.160 but so high deaf. Yes, this is where we start 0:14:56.240 --> 0:15:00.920 off with twenty Uh that was the resolution and high 0:15:01.000 --> 0:15:05.760 definition we saw, which is one thousand pixels by pixels. 0:15:06.480 --> 0:15:10.560 And that's that's a really decent resolution if your television 0:15:10.840 --> 0:15:14.200 is you know, for the inches or smaller um, I 0:15:14.280 --> 0:15:16.680 mean it's it's not terrible for larger than that. But 0:15:16.800 --> 0:15:20.440 that's really where where it's sweet spot was but then 0:15:20.480 --> 0:15:24.960 you also had nine, which was the you know ten 0:15:25.040 --> 0:15:27.440 a d P or I whether it was progressive or 0:15:27.520 --> 0:15:31.720 interlaced um and yeah, a quickside note on what exactly 0:15:31.800 --> 0:15:35.240 that means. Um Interlaced is the classic way that a 0:15:35.320 --> 0:15:37.720 screen updates its image. Okay, it was kind of a 0:15:37.880 --> 0:15:41.440 clever way for screen makers to get around the fact 0:15:41.560 --> 0:15:45.880 that they had this kind of relatively poor energy efficiency 0:15:46.120 --> 0:15:51.080 and and poor speed, uh like just just technological programmable 0:15:51.200 --> 0:15:54.960 speed of these older screens, um and and so uh 0:15:55.840 --> 0:15:58.400 like we were talking about the screens. Pixels are coated 0:15:58.440 --> 0:16:03.040 as horizontal lines, and the odd numbered lines would refresh first, 0:16:03.280 --> 0:16:06.760 then the even numbered lines would refresh. So the full 0:16:06.840 --> 0:16:10.360 screen would refresh as as relatively slowly as thirty times 0:16:10.400 --> 0:16:13.120 a second, which sounds fast when you say that something 0:16:13.240 --> 0:16:15.640 happens thirty times a second, but really your your vision 0:16:16.280 --> 0:16:20.320 is absorbing a lot faster than that. So yeah, so 0:16:20.400 --> 0:16:23.560 what we're saying here is that each of these is refreshing, 0:16:24.200 --> 0:16:26.840 uh like, you know, twice as fast, but the full 0:16:27.200 --> 0:16:31.600 the full screen you're getta get thirty because or maybe 0:16:31.640 --> 0:16:34.000 half as time is anyway, you're getting the full screen 0:16:34.120 --> 0:16:37.320 at thirty times a second because it's showing you half 0:16:37.400 --> 0:16:40.320 of the image. It's just every other line. Uh. And 0:16:40.440 --> 0:16:44.280 then it it switches very very very quickly. Uh. And 0:16:44.360 --> 0:16:47.760 then progressive scan screens are capable of refreshing the entire 0:16:47.960 --> 0:16:51.480 image at once, um, which means that the image updates 0:16:51.640 --> 0:16:54.440 twice as fast as an interlaced screens. Right, and so 0:16:54.600 --> 0:16:58.120 you get um, you know, better image quality for things 0:16:58.200 --> 0:17:00.640 that have a lot of fast moving action and yeah, yeah, 0:17:00.680 --> 0:17:03.200 especially in action scenes, it looks so much smoother. Yeah. 0:17:03.480 --> 0:17:06.960 So uh that's why you know, back in the HD 0:17:07.200 --> 0:17:10.080 days when people were shopping for televisions and ten a 0:17:10.160 --> 0:17:12.800 DP became kind of a standard because at first it 0:17:12.920 --> 0:17:15.080 was one of those things that was a premium like 0:17:15.200 --> 0:17:17.679 you know, you can find ten a d i uh 0:17:17.880 --> 0:17:21.119 television sets, but Tina Tina ADP were more expensive and 0:17:21.240 --> 0:17:24.760 more rare. Um. Now they are pretty much the standard 0:17:24.840 --> 0:17:29.840 for any h D that's above like. Um, now we 0:17:30.000 --> 0:17:33.480 get to what is being pushed as the news standard, 0:17:33.880 --> 0:17:36.520 something that's entering into the mainstream. And we, like I 0:17:36.600 --> 0:17:40.960 said before, we've seen this creep into uh television series 0:17:41.240 --> 0:17:44.240 for a while, like vary the various series offered by 0:17:44.280 --> 0:17:47.879 various manufacturers but now it's like that's the main thing 0:17:48.000 --> 0:17:50.600 that's being put onto store shelves, and that's four K. 0:17:51.720 --> 0:17:55.960 So four K is a type of ultra high definition. 0:17:56.160 --> 0:17:58.760 That's weird because I feel like I saw somewhere online 0:17:58.800 --> 0:18:02.879 that ultra high definite is actually different than four K. UH. 0:18:03.320 --> 0:18:07.359 You know, uh D has also has also been used 0:18:07.440 --> 0:18:10.720 to describe everything from two K to eight K. But 0:18:12.040 --> 0:18:15.679 uh part of the issue is also there are conflicting 0:18:16.040 --> 0:18:22.200 approaches to compressing and streaming uh D content. We'll talk 0:18:22.240 --> 0:18:24.760 about that towards the end. One of the things that's 0:18:24.760 --> 0:18:29.199 actually kind of indicative that this is still the very 0:18:29.280 --> 0:18:33.080 early days for ultra high definition UM. But you know, 0:18:34.200 --> 0:18:38.560 the the industry standard for four K is four thousand, 0:18:38.680 --> 0:18:43.000 ninety six by two thousand, one hundred sixty. However, u 0:18:43.200 --> 0:18:46.320 h D is actually three thousand, eight hundred forty by 0:18:46.359 --> 0:18:49.280 two thousand, one hundred sixty, so it's slightly lower than 0:18:49.400 --> 0:18:53.200 actual four K. Now, the reason why it's called four 0:18:53.280 --> 0:18:55.800 K is that if you do the math and you 0:18:55.920 --> 0:19:00.240 multiply the numbers of a ten eighty HD television and 0:19:00.359 --> 0:19:02.560 you you you multiply those together, and then you multiply 0:19:02.680 --> 0:19:05.359 that by four you have the same number of pixels 0:19:05.440 --> 0:19:09.440 in a four k uh D television, So it's four 0:19:09.560 --> 0:19:12.720 times the number of pixels even though it's not four 0:19:12.920 --> 0:19:17.480 thousand lines of pixels. Yeah. So so this is where 0:19:17.560 --> 0:19:20.440 this terminology really gets confusing, right, because one, it's four times, 0:19:20.480 --> 0:19:22.960 but it's not four k in the sense that, you know, 0:19:23.000 --> 0:19:25.440 instead of one thousand eighty horizontal lines, now you have 0:19:25.520 --> 0:19:28.840 four thousand horizontal lines. And to make it even more confusing, 0:19:28.960 --> 0:19:32.000 we're not talking horizontal lines anymore. We're talking vertical lines. 0:19:33.000 --> 0:19:35.560 We're talking about how wide the TV is, not how 0:19:35.720 --> 0:19:39.520 tall the TV is. And so, instead of taking the 0:19:39.720 --> 0:19:43.399 second number of that ratio, which is what we had 0:19:43.440 --> 0:19:46.680 been doing, you know, remember nine, now we're taking the 0:19:46.760 --> 0:19:50.040 first number, so the three thousand, hundred forty instead of 0:19:50.200 --> 0:19:53.600 the two thousand, one hundred sixty. Now do you think 0:19:53.600 --> 0:19:57.240 that this is a marketing ploy in order to get 0:19:57.320 --> 0:20:00.560 people excited about that bigger number. I think so, simply 0:20:00.600 --> 0:20:03.080 because maybe it's one of those deals that one it 0:20:03.119 --> 0:20:05.119 gets people more excited because it's a bigger number. To 0:20:05.880 --> 0:20:09.960 calling something twenty one six d P instead of four k, 0:20:10.840 --> 0:20:14.879 it starts getting really unwieldy as well. I think they 0:20:14.880 --> 0:20:17.800 should term it in terms of the number of photons 0:20:17.920 --> 0:20:21.080 that are being employed on each screen. I mean that 0:20:21.119 --> 0:20:23.000 would be a big number. I'd buy that. Well, you 0:20:23.400 --> 0:20:25.880 gotta multiply the two numbers together, your tone Abountain, Yeah, 0:20:26.040 --> 0:20:28.520 well that's a big number. Well, then you'd really like 0:20:28.640 --> 0:20:33.399 eight K. A K has four times the number of 0:20:33.520 --> 0:20:37.400 pixels as four K, not twice four times the number. 0:20:37.480 --> 0:20:40.920 Because the the individual numbers seven thousand, six hundred eighty 0:20:41.040 --> 0:20:44.000 by four thousand, three hundred twenty, I mean that when 0:20:44.040 --> 0:20:46.639 you multiply them together, you will get four times the 0:20:46.720 --> 0:20:50.959 number of pixels from a four KTV or sixteen times 0:20:51.040 --> 0:20:53.760 the number of pixels you would find in a ten 0:20:54.000 --> 0:20:56.240 D H D cent. I'm not sure that this is 0:20:56.320 --> 0:20:59.920 how multiplication works. I would like to let the tell 0:21:00.040 --> 0:21:07.200 vision industry now that eight is not Yeah. Yeah, I 0:21:07.560 --> 0:21:09.760 just just putting that out there. I mean, I know, 0:21:10.200 --> 0:21:12.119 I mean, I think what I can say is I 0:21:12.160 --> 0:21:15.679 can see why there's confusion in the consumer marketplace because 0:21:15.800 --> 0:21:18.520 none of the numbers really make intuitive sense. I think 0:21:18.560 --> 0:21:20.800 it's all because these are the ways that the industry 0:21:20.840 --> 0:21:24.000 has agreed to market these sets, and that I mean, 0:21:24.400 --> 0:21:28.440 the numbers are meaningful, but it's just that you know, 0:21:28.520 --> 0:21:30.840 it takes them digging to figure out what exactly they 0:21:31.040 --> 0:21:33.320 do mean. I'm just saying, if I had had the 0:21:33.359 --> 0:21:35.800 opportunity like I would have totally called the next step 0:21:35.880 --> 0:21:41.240 up sixteen K, because again, anyway, sixteen nobody asked me. 0:21:41.760 --> 0:21:46.640 Shockingly enough, I am not the earworm in any television industry. 0:21:46.880 --> 0:21:49.199 I'm guessing that the eight K is supposed to mean 0:21:49.280 --> 0:21:52.800 the number of vertical lines of pixels, but even then 0:21:53.000 --> 0:21:56.880 it's being um, it's it's it's rounding up because it's 0:21:56.920 --> 0:22:01.080 not eight thousand, it's seven thousand, six eighty, but seven 0:22:01.119 --> 0:22:04.040 point six K or seven point seven K if you 0:22:04.080 --> 0:22:05.800 want to just round up to the tent All right, 0:22:05.880 --> 0:22:09.080 So why does all of this matter? I mean, if 0:22:09.080 --> 0:22:12.639 the numbers are meaningful, what do they mean? Okay, So 0:22:13.359 --> 0:22:14.760 there are a couple of things we have to take 0:22:14.800 --> 0:22:16.920 into account. One of them is that they're meaningful in 0:22:17.000 --> 0:22:20.240 the sense that a higher resolution set can't has the 0:22:20.280 --> 0:22:25.720 potential of showing you many more subtle gradations of focus, 0:22:26.080 --> 0:22:28.560 so that you can actually see a lot more detail 0:22:28.760 --> 0:22:32.480 in images that your television simply was not capable of 0:22:32.560 --> 0:22:35.280 showing before. And this could be a big deal if 0:22:35.359 --> 0:22:38.560 you are a filmmaker. Um, it actually can mean be 0:22:38.680 --> 0:22:41.240 a big deal for a couple of different reasons. But 0:22:41.640 --> 0:22:44.800 the big one is that if I want to tell 0:22:44.880 --> 0:22:47.800 a story and I'm using the visual medium of film 0:22:47.960 --> 0:22:50.840 or video or whatever, and I know that my audience 0:22:50.920 --> 0:22:54.119 is going to be viewing this on televisions in the future, 0:22:54.520 --> 0:22:56.960 I want those TVs to have the resolution that is 0:22:56.960 --> 0:23:00.320 going to be capable of translating the visual ls my 0:23:00.400 --> 0:23:04.680 story as accurately as possible, especially if I'm the kind 0:23:04.840 --> 0:23:08.840 of filmmaker that really relies on on imagery to get 0:23:08.880 --> 0:23:12.600 across emotional impact or an important element of the plot. 0:23:13.400 --> 0:23:16.080 One of those things where you can maybe because the 0:23:16.119 --> 0:23:19.240 way the focus of the shot it has been uh composed, 0:23:19.720 --> 0:23:22.720 you see an element in that you might not even 0:23:22.840 --> 0:23:25.920 consciously identify, but it is an important part of the story. 0:23:26.000 --> 0:23:29.240 And then later you think, oh, yeah, I remember seeing 0:23:29.320 --> 0:23:33.359 that that shelf they wound up using later. Right. That 0:23:33.720 --> 0:23:35.480 goes back to the rule of if you have a 0:23:35.680 --> 0:23:38.000 rifle mounted on the wall, then at some point a 0:23:38.119 --> 0:23:41.800 character has to fire that rifle. Yeah, I believe that's right. 0:23:41.880 --> 0:23:44.080 I think you're right. So yeah, but this is this 0:23:44.280 --> 0:23:46.880 is one of those things like we just can't get 0:23:46.920 --> 0:23:50.200 the resolution to see guns well. Just the point being 0:23:50.280 --> 0:23:53.520 that if you if you are taking the artistry of 0:23:53.640 --> 0:23:58.879 visual storytelling too as far as far as you can technologically, 0:23:59.040 --> 0:24:01.800 then you need to know that your audience has the 0:24:01.840 --> 0:24:05.240 capability of actually seeing them. When I go through the trouble, 0:24:05.480 --> 0:24:07.399 I'd say, what it seems to allow for to me 0:24:07.600 --> 0:24:11.320 is a lot of added subtlety. Yes, not so much 0:24:11.520 --> 0:24:14.800 that you're going to be able to see big new 0:24:14.920 --> 0:24:17.440 plot points, but no, no, but well, I mean or 0:24:17.520 --> 0:24:19.440 an actor's performance. I mean, if you've gone to the 0:24:19.480 --> 0:24:22.960 trouble of getting a good actor and lighting them well, 0:24:23.440 --> 0:24:26.879 then being able to see that the subtleties in uh 0:24:27.520 --> 0:24:31.720 Walter White's face when he's having a complete mental breakdown beautiful. 0:24:31.800 --> 0:24:34.080 I mean, these are these are things that they can 0:24:34.240 --> 0:24:37.520 even if it's not like important to the plot, it 0:24:37.600 --> 0:24:41.640 could be important to the emotional impact of something makers made. Yeah. 0:24:41.680 --> 0:24:43.840 I I agree you will probably be able to see 0:24:43.920 --> 0:24:46.560 the image better and that that's a good thing. But 0:24:46.760 --> 0:24:48.679 on top of that, it also means that we can 0:24:48.760 --> 0:24:53.840 get bigger TVs without without a decrease in quality, because 0:24:54.000 --> 0:24:57.720 with the with these these tinier pixels with higher resolution, 0:24:57.800 --> 0:25:00.280 with more pixels in the in the frame, you can 0:25:00.359 --> 0:25:06.080 go larger without having a perceptible decrease in image quality. 0:25:06.280 --> 0:25:08.440 You know, this just now made me wonder, and I 0:25:08.520 --> 0:25:10.680 didn't bring this up before the podcast because I just 0:25:10.760 --> 0:25:13.320 thought of it. Yeah, I wonder if this could lead 0:25:13.480 --> 0:25:19.959 to pixels ever replacing projection in movie theaters, so essentially 0:25:20.040 --> 0:25:24.159 having a giant digital television or display, rather than a 0:25:24.280 --> 0:25:28.000 screen upon which it reflects the light, you would have 0:25:28.080 --> 0:25:30.960 one that's actually acting as a giant TV. I'm not 0:25:31.040 --> 0:25:33.840 saying I think that should happen, the technology would have 0:25:33.960 --> 0:25:38.440 to advance really significantly, like incredibly significant. Yeah, because we 0:25:38.520 --> 0:25:41.760 don't have a resolution of television. First of all, uh, 0:25:42.359 --> 0:25:45.560 I know a lot of filmmakers who are still lamenting 0:25:45.640 --> 0:25:48.399 the death of film because film itself already has an 0:25:48.440 --> 0:25:51.879 effective resolution much higher than what our digital representation is 0:25:51.960 --> 0:25:55.760 capable of showing. But secondly, yeah, when you're talking about 0:25:55.800 --> 0:25:58.879 the size of a movie screen, even something like eight K, 0:25:59.119 --> 0:26:03.119 which is hard to even imagine on the scale of 0:26:03.160 --> 0:26:07.399 a regular TV, is not gonna be sufficient for the 0:26:07.560 --> 0:26:11.320 size of a movie screen. Um. That being said, you know, 0:26:11.640 --> 0:26:14.800 we are able to buy bigger and bigger televisions as 0:26:14.880 --> 0:26:17.720 prices go down. You know, the manufacturing processes get better, 0:26:17.880 --> 0:26:21.720 the materials get cheaper. Uh, the adoption gets larger, and 0:26:22.000 --> 0:26:24.760 we start seeing prices come down. There are people who 0:26:24.840 --> 0:26:28.040 have pretty big TVs and they're not necessarily increasing the 0:26:28.160 --> 0:26:31.879 distance there their viewing distance. If you were increasing your 0:26:31.920 --> 0:26:35.920 viewing distance, then you know those two elements together, the 0:26:35.960 --> 0:26:38.440 higher resolution and the increased viewing distance would mean that 0:26:38.760 --> 0:26:42.960 you would think your image quality was fantastic. Right, But 0:26:43.080 --> 0:26:45.920 we're sitting closer and closer. So if you have a 0:26:46.040 --> 0:26:53.240 huge television, a living rooms have not gotten bigger to accommodate. No, 0:26:53.480 --> 0:26:56.480 my mine certainly has not increased in size. Uh. Yeah, 0:26:56.520 --> 0:26:57.760 So if we get a big If I get a 0:26:57.880 --> 0:27:01.119 larger television and I'm sitting the same distance it's away, uh, 0:27:01.200 --> 0:27:03.800 and it and the pixels aren't small enough, I will 0:27:03.840 --> 0:27:06.879 start to notice I can like see where the little 0:27:06.960 --> 0:27:09.920 differences are if and that can be distracting. So, but 0:27:10.200 --> 0:27:14.000 I mean, it's it's most important that I don't know. 0:27:14.960 --> 0:27:17.560 Tony Stark is life size on your screen? Yeah? No, 0:27:17.640 --> 0:27:20.480 I want I want every human head on my TV 0:27:20.560 --> 0:27:23.119 screen to be larger than a real human head. I 0:27:23.200 --> 0:27:25.320 want to be able to pose it and stand next 0:27:25.359 --> 0:27:29.000 to the screen and tell who I'm shorter than. Oh, 0:27:29.240 --> 0:27:33.760 now see this would be important for Holidack technology. That's true. 0:27:34.000 --> 0:27:36.080 That's true. We got a thing needs to be life size. 0:27:36.760 --> 0:27:38.440 We've got always go. Yeah, you wouldn't want to have 0:27:38.600 --> 0:27:40.840 like all of the holiday figures to look like Mario 0:27:41.000 --> 0:27:44.040 from Super Mario Brothers. Would just be really distracting. Or 0:27:44.119 --> 0:27:46.760 even everything just be like seven eighths size. It would 0:27:46.800 --> 0:27:50.000 be real weird, Like that would be creepy. Everyone's slightly 0:27:50.040 --> 0:27:52.040 shorter than they need to be. But that's how real 0:27:52.160 --> 0:27:55.159 movie stars actually are. If you see them their seventh 0:27:55.400 --> 0:27:59.480 seven eighths of what you predicted. Yeah, that's true. I 0:27:59.600 --> 0:28:04.480 was in movie and uh that was huge. It's enormous, 0:28:05.200 --> 0:28:07.680 and I actually this is all true. I was in 0:28:07.760 --> 0:28:09.639 a film and I turned to my wife after they 0:28:09.760 --> 0:28:12.440 showed my entrance and I said, I think I just 0:28:12.560 --> 0:28:16.960 scared myself. Uh yeah, it was not. It was not 0:28:17.000 --> 0:28:19.040 an accurate representation of who I am. Is what I'm 0:28:19.080 --> 0:28:22.480 getting at. So there are other things that matter besides resolution, 0:28:22.600 --> 0:28:25.560 and we definitely need to mention them because a lot 0:28:25.640 --> 0:28:30.280 of just like with cameras, where people start to really 0:28:31.400 --> 0:28:34.440 pun intended focus on how many megapixels there are in 0:28:34.520 --> 0:28:38.320 a digital camera, as ever not intended. Sometimes they slip 0:28:38.360 --> 0:28:40.800 out and I didn't realize I was making one. This 0:28:40.920 --> 0:28:45.920 time I stopped and acknowledged it. But yeah, megapixel count 0:28:46.000 --> 0:28:48.600 in a camera is important, but it's not the most 0:28:48.800 --> 0:28:51.760 or the only factor. Like you know, you gotta worry 0:28:51.760 --> 0:28:54.160 about lenses and all this other stuff and the quality 0:28:54.200 --> 0:28:56.760 of the sensor everything like that same sort of thing 0:28:56.880 --> 0:29:00.960 is true with televisions. The resolution isn't is not the 0:29:01.080 --> 0:29:04.280 only factor you have to consider. So one thing is 0:29:04.400 --> 0:29:08.880 color reproduction. How well does the television accurately reproduce the 0:29:08.960 --> 0:29:12.080 colors that are being displayed. So if you've got a 0:29:12.160 --> 0:29:15.200 television with really good color reproduction, then you know that 0:29:15.480 --> 0:29:19.160 you're seeing about as close to what was captured in 0:29:19.240 --> 0:29:22.560 the original device, whether it was film or video or whatever, 0:29:23.000 --> 0:29:25.800 as you can possibly get. I sometimes get the sense 0:29:25.880 --> 0:29:28.040 if you ever go into a store and look at 0:29:28.080 --> 0:29:30.800 all the TVs they're trying to sell that on those 0:29:30.880 --> 0:29:34.160 display models, they turn the color saturation way up to 0:29:34.280 --> 0:29:36.880 try to like or I don't maybe it's the contrast, 0:29:36.960 --> 0:29:39.840 it's something they do something to try to boost the 0:29:40.000 --> 0:29:42.960 intensity of the image. Well, you know, you're in a 0:29:43.920 --> 0:29:47.520 brightly lit environment with florescent lights, so it's not an 0:29:47.560 --> 0:29:49.840 ideal viewing experience. It's not the way most of us 0:29:49.880 --> 0:29:52.920 would be watching at home. You know, at home we 0:29:53.200 --> 0:29:56.920 often will have you know, we might have florescent lights 0:29:56.960 --> 0:29:59.280 as since we might be using those as light bulbs. 0:29:59.320 --> 0:30:01.200 But a lot of people like to watch and deem 0:30:01.320 --> 0:30:05.320 viewing conditions, and in order to get across the quality 0:30:05.360 --> 0:30:09.360 of a screen, they calibrate those to be as uh 0:30:09.600 --> 0:30:12.880 impactful as possible within the store experience. The other question 0:30:12.960 --> 0:30:17.280 to ask is are they calibrating them all fairly or 0:30:17.400 --> 0:30:20.880 are they boosting some of the more expensive units so 0:30:21.080 --> 0:30:23.280 that you would look at those and say, well, clearly, 0:30:23.400 --> 0:30:26.160 this one's better than this cheap one down here, so 0:30:26.280 --> 0:30:28.400 I obviously need to get this one, which they have 0:30:28.680 --> 0:30:32.880 done the television equivalent of applying an Instagram filtered two. Yeah, 0:30:33.240 --> 0:30:37.040 it's it's actually you know, there are entire blogs out 0:30:37.080 --> 0:30:42.320 there about various stores that have, uh have tweaked settings 0:30:42.560 --> 0:30:44.680 so that they give an unfair advantage to some of 0:30:44.720 --> 0:30:48.280 the higher end models than the lower ones, even if 0:30:48.520 --> 0:30:54.120 the actual differences are you know, negligible to the average viewer. 0:30:54.560 --> 0:30:58.120 Now that being said that, you know, there are TVs 0:30:58.160 --> 0:31:00.280 that are of higher quality than others and you can 0:31:00.320 --> 0:31:02.920 actually see it. Yeah, I don't. So I don't mean 0:31:02.960 --> 0:31:05.400 to suggest that all televisions are the same and that 0:31:05.480 --> 0:31:08.520 you're being cheated if you go to one of these stores. 0:31:08.560 --> 0:31:11.280 It's just one of those things that has been reported. Um. 0:31:11.440 --> 0:31:14.680 And and obviously unless you're there when they're calibrating the television, 0:31:14.720 --> 0:31:16.600 you can't really be sure. And you should keep in 0:31:16.680 --> 0:31:19.040 mind that the experience you get in the store is 0:31:19.120 --> 0:31:21.480 not necessarily what you're gonna get at home until you 0:31:21.600 --> 0:31:25.280 calibrate your television for your home viewing environment, right, And 0:31:25.400 --> 0:31:28.840 and that calibration, yes, so it includes the color reproduction 0:31:29.240 --> 0:31:31.440 and then also the contrast, which is another thing that 0:31:31.560 --> 0:31:35.000 Joe just mentioned. Yeah. Contrast is the difference between the 0:31:35.360 --> 0:31:38.640 brightest white colors on your TV and the darkest black 0:31:38.720 --> 0:31:43.040 colors on your TV. Uh. And here's we're gonna enter 0:31:43.120 --> 0:31:48.200 into another hazy element of the world of TV. And 0:31:48.360 --> 0:31:51.880 that's you probably have seen contrast ratios like so many 0:31:51.960 --> 0:31:55.000 thousand to one and you wonder what they mean, so 0:31:55.160 --> 0:32:00.360 does everybody else, Because there's not a standardized lang blodge 0:32:00.360 --> 0:32:02.880 here when it comes to contrast. Contrast is a real thing. 0:32:03.520 --> 0:32:06.280 You know, there are differences between the brightest and the 0:32:06.400 --> 0:32:09.280 darkest colors, and you want that just that you want 0:32:09.320 --> 0:32:11.360 that difference to be as great as possible, so that 0:32:11.480 --> 0:32:15.600 you can have as many different subtle variations as possible 0:32:15.720 --> 0:32:18.280 for that television to display to give you the the 0:32:18.480 --> 0:32:24.280 greatest range of potential images. But there's no agreed upon 0:32:24.520 --> 0:32:29.880 standard way of saying this, so comparing one television versus 0:32:29.960 --> 0:32:33.240 another is really hard to do. Even within a single 0:32:33.360 --> 0:32:37.920 manufacturer's series of televisions. It's hard to do, let alone 0:32:38.280 --> 0:32:41.600 different manufacturers. So just something to keep in mind, contrast 0:32:41.720 --> 0:32:43.600 is important. Then usually you can kind of tell that 0:32:43.800 --> 0:32:46.440 just from you know, if you want to watch, you know, 0:32:46.560 --> 0:32:49.920 have something really dark, put onto the TV, something that 0:32:49.960 --> 0:32:54.080 has loved scenes that are shot in dim or dark conditions, 0:32:54.640 --> 0:32:58.040 like any Batman movie, And if you can't make out 0:32:58.160 --> 0:33:01.040 the details the contrast, it's probably not that good. But 0:33:01.120 --> 0:33:02.960 if the contrast is really good, then you can start 0:33:03.040 --> 0:33:06.480 to see these details, all of those shades of black. Yeah, 0:33:06.840 --> 0:33:13.239 from deepest darkest black to just you know, my daily despair. Yeah. Well, 0:33:13.280 --> 0:33:17.600 I have a question about aspect ratio. Are all the 0:33:17.720 --> 0:33:20.840 televisions that are being made today pretty much the same 0:33:21.040 --> 0:33:24.680 in terms of how they're physically framing the screen. Because 0:33:24.720 --> 0:33:28.080 those old blocky TVs, you know, your your CRT TV, 0:33:28.280 --> 0:33:31.560 your monitor had that that old four by three framing. 0:33:31.640 --> 0:33:34.800 And if you watch any movie made in wide screen, 0:33:35.000 --> 0:33:39.120 as most good movies are, they'd have this letterboxing format 0:33:39.200 --> 0:33:41.400 and have black bars on the top and the bottom, 0:33:41.440 --> 0:33:43.080 and then you've got your uncles saying, how do you 0:33:43.120 --> 0:33:47.280 get rid of them black bars on the screen. But 0:33:47.440 --> 0:33:50.240 it seems like most TVs I see these days are 0:33:50.840 --> 0:33:54.160 in the wide screen format. Are there any differences in 0:33:54.400 --> 0:33:57.760 how they frame the screen? Yes? Actually, so there's the 0:33:57.880 --> 0:34:01.520 sixteen by nine is the standard. Uh so sixteen by 0:34:01.640 --> 0:34:04.560 nine standard definition because there are standard definition channels that 0:34:04.800 --> 0:34:08.879 will um broadcast in sixteen by nine. It's interesting because 0:34:08.920 --> 0:34:14.200 they they stitched together two four by threes, uh to 0:34:14.400 --> 0:34:18.320 make that properly, properly, there's actually a split, not that 0:34:18.440 --> 0:34:21.759 it's perceptible, but that's the way behind the scenes that's 0:34:21.800 --> 0:34:24.759 working now. The sixteen by nine. The interesting thing there 0:34:25.800 --> 0:34:29.640 is it still not quite the aspect ratio that we 0:34:29.719 --> 0:34:33.040 get with feature films. So when we watch a feature 0:34:33.080 --> 0:34:37.200 film on on a wide screen television. Either there still 0:34:37.280 --> 0:34:39.360 needs to be a little bit of letterboxing, maybe not 0:34:39.480 --> 0:34:41.440 so much that you would really notice, might just be 0:34:41.560 --> 0:34:45.040 a tiny sliver at the top and bottom, or you're 0:34:45.239 --> 0:34:48.040 getting some of the image cut off. Um. I don't 0:34:48.040 --> 0:34:49.919 know if you guys ever had to watch a pan 0:34:50.040 --> 0:34:53.280 and scan version of a film. Oh, those are the worst. 0:34:54.280 --> 0:34:56.840 Those are literally the worst. Yeah. I remember the old 0:34:57.080 --> 0:35:01.799 version of Halloween that is turned into a pan and scan, 0:35:01.960 --> 0:35:05.040 the Mike Myers John Carpenter movie. Yeah, I think, well 0:35:05.160 --> 0:35:07.200 I think it was Halloween. I'm pretty sure it was. 0:35:07.280 --> 0:35:09.000 It could have been another movie. But anyway, what I 0:35:09.080 --> 0:35:13.200 remember is there are musical stings timed to when you 0:35:13.360 --> 0:35:16.600 see the shadow of the killer pass into the frame 0:35:16.680 --> 0:35:19.879 of the camera. But in the in the standard version 0:35:19.960 --> 0:35:22.560 that you could get on your VHS tape, you didn't 0:35:22.600 --> 0:35:25.279 see the shadow, so there just suddenly be a sting 0:35:25.400 --> 0:35:29.680 and nothing happened. Yeah, I saw. I remember the same 0:35:29.760 --> 0:35:32.080 thing with a lot of my favorite movies, like uh, 0:35:32.880 --> 0:35:35.960 there were a lot of of I'm a huge musical fan. 0:35:36.200 --> 0:35:37.960 There were a lot of big musicals that were made 0:35:38.600 --> 0:35:41.560 that use like super wide screen format, like the pan 0:35:41.640 --> 0:35:45.480 of vision type stuff, which was particularly awful for pan 0:35:45.560 --> 0:35:48.080 and scan because you would have uh they would frame 0:35:48.160 --> 0:35:50.880 it so that you would have two major characters on screen, 0:35:51.000 --> 0:35:53.279 but there'd be a third character in the scene who 0:35:53.320 --> 0:35:55.800 you'd hear but never see because they had to figure 0:35:55.840 --> 0:35:58.320 out where are they going to put the focus digitally 0:35:58.960 --> 0:36:01.680 after the fact. Uh. Well, the sixteen by nine means 0:36:01.719 --> 0:36:03.480 that we don't need to worry about that as much. 0:36:03.800 --> 0:36:06.160 It's still, like I said, not quite the ratio that 0:36:06.239 --> 0:36:08.600 we get with feature films these days, but it's way 0:36:08.760 --> 0:36:12.880 closer than four by three. So obviously that is really important. 0:36:13.000 --> 0:36:15.839 I don't know of anyone who's making a television set 0:36:15.960 --> 0:36:20.399 that's not sixteen by nine. Um, is that the next 0:36:20.520 --> 0:36:23.319 retro craze. It's like you've got people into vinyl, You've 0:36:23.360 --> 0:36:26.319 got people into four by three TVs. Well, there there 0:36:26.400 --> 0:36:31.240 are displays that aren't that do not conform to sixteen 0:36:31.280 --> 0:36:34.440 by nine, but they're displays, not TVs, so there's a 0:36:34.560 --> 0:36:37.920 there's a difference there. Display is meant to show specific 0:36:38.000 --> 0:36:42.400 proprietary content made for that display, as opposed to a 0:36:42.520 --> 0:36:45.760 general purpose device that's going to bring in all sorts 0:36:45.800 --> 0:36:49.759 of content from various places. Uh So, there are some 0:36:49.920 --> 0:36:53.200 other like I alluded to some challenges when it comes 0:36:53.320 --> 0:36:57.359 to making content for these types of displays, these types 0:36:57.400 --> 0:37:00.160 of television's. Uh, you know, we talked about how it 0:37:00.560 --> 0:37:04.279 is a boon for storytellers because now they know that 0:37:04.840 --> 0:37:08.480 the work they put into telling this tale with visual, 0:37:09.560 --> 0:37:15.399 astounding imagery can actually be consumed properly. But it also 0:37:15.520 --> 0:37:22.320 means that any you know, scuffs and scrapes and maybe 0:37:23.080 --> 0:37:28.160 subpar costuming choices can be seen much more easily too, 0:37:28.800 --> 0:37:31.920 shiny foreheads, for example. This is something that actually we 0:37:32.200 --> 0:37:36.440 sitting around this table are are relatively familiar with because uh, 0:37:36.800 --> 0:37:40.520 they shoot here in the office on four K cameras. Yeah, 0:37:40.920 --> 0:37:45.760 and so I've got powder in my backpack, I've got makeup. 0:37:45.920 --> 0:37:47.920 I'm not ashamed to say it. You know, this was 0:37:48.000 --> 0:37:51.880 a thing that came up, not not with resolution as 0:37:51.920 --> 0:37:55.279 far as I recall, but with frame rate. About when 0:37:55.360 --> 0:37:58.080 the first Hobbit movie was released and it was showed 0:37:58.120 --> 0:38:01.520 at the advanced frame rate. I can't remember how many 0:38:02.719 --> 0:38:05.600 frames per second, and so that was a different issue, 0:38:05.680 --> 0:38:08.719 but it was another way of seeing a more realistic 0:38:08.920 --> 0:38:11.160 version of what happened in front of the camera. And 0:38:11.239 --> 0:38:13.400 I remember lots of reviewers I never saw it in 0:38:13.840 --> 0:38:17.480 frames per second, but I remember lots of reviewers complaining 0:38:18.160 --> 0:38:21.800 and what they were saying the movie. For some reason, 0:38:22.040 --> 0:38:24.920 this way of filming the movie and and playing it 0:38:25.040 --> 0:38:29.320 back makes everything look fake. The props look like props, 0:38:29.520 --> 0:38:33.520 the costumes look like costumes. It looks like a community 0:38:33.640 --> 0:38:37.080 theater production. I I've heard it called the Mexican soap 0:38:37.120 --> 0:38:40.320 opera effect. That's really what I've heard it as. But 0:38:40.480 --> 0:38:42.160 when I saw it, the thing I thought was, it 0:38:42.200 --> 0:38:45.400 feels like I'm really there, not in Middle Earth, but 0:38:45.520 --> 0:38:48.040 on a movie set. Yeah, it makes me feel like 0:38:48.160 --> 0:38:50.399 I'm actually And that's one of the things about these 0:38:50.560 --> 0:38:53.279 these ultra high definition televisions too, is that it can 0:38:53.400 --> 0:38:56.560 feel like you're looking through a window. One of the 0:38:56.680 --> 0:39:00.200 scenes that I saw was just simply a tree out 0:39:00.239 --> 0:39:03.879 in the field, and it looks like you're looking through 0:39:04.000 --> 0:39:06.359 a window at an actual tree. It does not, I mean, 0:39:06.440 --> 0:39:10.360 it's it's very close to giving it depth to the 0:39:10.400 --> 0:39:12.800 point where it's it's not three D, but the clarity 0:39:12.960 --> 0:39:15.960 is so amazing that you're getting almost an illusion of 0:39:16.080 --> 0:39:19.479 depth just from the clarity, which is pretty phenomenal because 0:39:19.520 --> 0:39:21.480 you know, three D did not take off the way 0:39:21.680 --> 0:39:25.359 television manufacturers really hoping it would. And you also bring 0:39:25.480 --> 0:39:27.640 up something else that I should have mentioned with the 0:39:27.680 --> 0:39:30.279 other elements that are important with your television, which is 0:39:30.360 --> 0:39:34.320 refresh rate. So refresh rate that's how how often that 0:39:34.600 --> 0:39:38.719 screen is refreshed every second. And so you find a 0:39:38.800 --> 0:39:42.920 lot that are in one two hurts these days, and uh, 0:39:43.080 --> 0:39:45.960 those TVs are supposed to reduce motion blur, but it 0:39:46.080 --> 0:39:49.640 also can kind of give this sort of surreal effect 0:39:49.800 --> 0:39:52.480 to certain types of content. It's great for things like sports. 0:39:52.640 --> 0:39:55.200 I mean, it looks amazing, but it can almost look 0:39:55.239 --> 0:39:57.279 like a like a video game. To me personally, it 0:39:57.400 --> 0:40:00.440 looks like something digital when it was when it was practical, 0:40:00.520 --> 0:40:05.680 when it was three dimensional people hanging out. Yeah, it's 0:40:05.680 --> 0:40:08.560 confirmed a lot of my suspicions about certain Hollywood personalities 0:40:08.560 --> 0:40:12.600 that I've thought were digital. Uh, now it's exactly right. 0:40:12.680 --> 0:40:14.560 And some people have just said, well, this is just 0:40:14.800 --> 0:40:17.640 the way things are going to change, and it's just like, 0:40:18.080 --> 0:40:19.759 you know, I just have to get used to it. Yeah, 0:40:19.800 --> 0:40:20.960 it's just one of those things where we're in a 0:40:21.040 --> 0:40:24.879 transition transition right now. It's just as when film went 0:40:25.000 --> 0:40:27.759 from black and white to color or sound was first incorporated. 0:40:27.840 --> 0:40:31.600 These were moments of transition, and if you live through them, 0:40:31.920 --> 0:40:34.279 they seem very odd. But if you are from the 0:40:34.360 --> 0:40:36.960 generation where that has now become the standard, that's just 0:40:37.800 --> 0:40:40.240 that's the normal thing, and everything before it just looks weird. 0:40:40.800 --> 0:40:43.320 So we just happened to be living through that transition. 0:40:43.760 --> 0:40:49.080 You know, I wonder at what point resolution stops mattering? Like, 0:40:49.239 --> 0:40:52.440 at what point is the resolution of a TV screen 0:40:52.680 --> 0:40:55.920 so good that it really is no different than looking 0:40:56.000 --> 0:40:58.800 at the same thing without a camera and and a 0:40:58.920 --> 0:41:02.520 digital medium in queen And Yeah, so you know, kind 0:41:02.600 --> 0:41:04.880 of along the lines of what I was saying earlier, 0:41:04.960 --> 0:41:06.560 like like, are we in the future going to have 0:41:06.760 --> 0:41:09.839 like thirty two K televisions? Right? Will it be an 0:41:09.840 --> 0:41:12.680 appreciable difference for our eyeballs? Because you've had people who 0:41:12.719 --> 0:41:15.239 have said that they looked at two cave versus four K, 0:41:15.520 --> 0:41:17.800 or four cave versus eight K, and they say, I 0:41:17.880 --> 0:41:21.959 can't really detect a difference. Uh, this is dependent upon 0:41:22.560 --> 0:41:25.759 lots of factors, the ones that we've mentioned before. So 0:41:26.440 --> 0:41:29.080 there's not a simple answer, right, I can't tell you 0:41:29.280 --> 0:41:33.439 that at sixteen K we will reach pixel saturation where 0:41:34.000 --> 0:41:36.759 it won't matter if we add anymore because that's too 0:41:36.840 --> 0:41:39.080 simple an answer. It's actually a little more complicated than that. 0:41:39.520 --> 0:41:42.400 One thing we need to remember is that the resolution 0:41:42.520 --> 0:41:46.240 also depends upon the pixel density, so the pixel size 0:41:46.239 --> 0:41:50.279 and the pixel density, and that again depends upon not 0:41:50.440 --> 0:41:54.400 just the resolution but the screen size. So pixel density 0:41:54.440 --> 0:41:58.040 of a forty in ultra high definition TV is greater 0:41:58.200 --> 0:42:01.439 than an eight inch all for high definition TV because 0:42:01.480 --> 0:42:03.480 the eight inches larger, so the pixels are spread out 0:42:03.520 --> 0:42:06.439 a little more, they're less dense. So we talk about 0:42:06.520 --> 0:42:11.520 density by p p I or pixels per inch. Uh. 0:42:12.040 --> 0:42:16.000 And if you are looking at various products on the 0:42:16.239 --> 0:42:18.759 on the market, you're gonna see a lot of variation here, 0:42:18.840 --> 0:42:21.160 and again it's all gonna depend upon the size of 0:42:21.239 --> 0:42:25.640 the screen and its resolution. Offset printing is three hundred 0:42:25.680 --> 0:42:28.320 dots per inch, so dots would be the equivalent of 0:42:28.400 --> 0:42:31.880 pixels in this sense. The dots are the individual elements 0:42:31.920 --> 0:42:35.200 that make up a printed image. Pixels would be a 0:42:35.320 --> 0:42:40.080 displayed image on a television. Uh So if offset printing 0:42:40.200 --> 0:42:43.560 requires three hundred dots per inch to be considered, uh, 0:42:44.200 --> 0:42:46.480 you know that that's the standard. Yeah, it's good. It's 0:42:46.520 --> 0:42:49.480 gonna be a good clarity. What would be a good 0:42:49.520 --> 0:42:54.120 one for displays. Well, the iPhone six plus has a 0:42:54.200 --> 0:43:00.279 resolution of four hundred and one pixels per inch. Difference. Yeah, well, 0:43:00.440 --> 0:43:03.080 it's just just the way it works out. It's resolution, 0:43:03.160 --> 0:43:05.279 but four hundred and one pixels per inch, and of 0:43:05.360 --> 0:43:09.000 course you're holding that at between ten and twenty inches 0:43:09.000 --> 0:43:11.759 away from your face. Ideally you don't have it right 0:43:11.840 --> 0:43:13.600 up on your eyeballs, but you also don't have it 0:43:13.680 --> 0:43:17.640 across the room. So you can't just say, well, four 0:43:17.880 --> 0:43:20.600 d one pixels per inch because that all depends upon again, 0:43:21.160 --> 0:43:24.080 how far away you are. So pixel density will depend 0:43:24.280 --> 0:43:26.920 upon the resolution the size of the screen. So a 0:43:27.000 --> 0:43:30.360 sixty five inch Ultra high definition television will have a 0:43:30.560 --> 0:43:33.600 p p I of about sixty seven point seven eight. 0:43:33.680 --> 0:43:37.440 And you're thinking, whoa, the iPhone six plus is at 0:43:37.480 --> 0:43:41.239 four and one and a a u h D television 0:43:41.440 --> 0:43:44.040 is at sixty seven point seven eight. But you are 0:43:44.200 --> 0:43:48.279 not standing I hope ten to twenty inches away from 0:43:48.400 --> 0:43:53.040 that sixty five inch television. Your your several feet further back, 0:43:53.160 --> 0:43:57.480 and so that density matters less because of the viewing distance. 0:43:57.880 --> 0:44:00.960 So you have to take into account the pixel density, 0:44:01.160 --> 0:44:03.400 the size of the screen, how far away you are, 0:44:03.800 --> 0:44:06.160 the size of the screen will determine the pixel density, 0:44:06.200 --> 0:44:09.000 but that also determines how far away you're gonna sit. Right, 0:44:09.080 --> 0:44:13.440 you're gonna sit further away, presumably from an enormous screen 0:44:13.520 --> 0:44:15.719 than you would from a smaller screen. You know, I 0:44:15.840 --> 0:44:18.719 wonder if it's always going to remain a thing that 0:44:19.080 --> 0:44:22.600 we like to sit across the room from a screen 0:44:22.719 --> 0:44:25.880 we're watching, because that's sort of the standard with television, 0:44:25.960 --> 0:44:28.680 and I think it it comes from movie theaters and 0:44:28.840 --> 0:44:32.120 from times when a household might have one television. But 0:44:32.280 --> 0:44:36.120 more and more I'm noticing in myself and and the 0:44:36.239 --> 0:44:39.000 way other people do things. We're watching things on devices 0:44:39.120 --> 0:44:42.160 that are right in front of our faces. A greater 0:44:42.280 --> 0:44:45.040 percentage all the time of the stuff we watched is 0:44:45.200 --> 0:44:48.719 viewed individually. And of course I still watch stuff on 0:44:48.840 --> 0:44:52.160 a screen across the room on TV, like with my 0:44:52.280 --> 0:44:55.200 wife Rachel, when we're watching something together, and that's kind 0:44:55.200 --> 0:44:59.480 of social. But I wonder if we'd reached the point where, well, 0:44:59.520 --> 0:45:01.799 maybe we just sitting next to each other and both 0:45:01.880 --> 0:45:05.400 watch it on a device at the same time, you know, 0:45:05.480 --> 0:45:07.680 I I don't know. I don't know what the future 0:45:07.719 --> 0:45:09.880 holds for that, but that sounds kind of silly to 0:45:10.000 --> 0:45:11.959 us now, But would it be silly in the same 0:45:12.080 --> 0:45:14.880 way that if you told somebody from the nineteen eighties 0:45:14.960 --> 0:45:18.920 that everybody would have their own individual telephone that they 0:45:18.920 --> 0:45:22.280 would have for themselves and not share with the house. 0:45:22.880 --> 0:45:26.080 I think it also depends upon the content you're watching 0:45:26.280 --> 0:45:29.799 and the experience you want to have. For example, if 0:45:29.840 --> 0:45:33.080 I'm watching a big spectacle film, I generally want it 0:45:33.239 --> 0:45:35.680 on my bigger screen TV. I want to have that 0:45:35.800 --> 0:45:39.719 experience of seeing those big moments and being caught up 0:45:39.760 --> 0:45:43.560 in that and and uh, it's a little harder for 0:45:43.640 --> 0:45:45.919 me to appreciate on a smaller screen. Now. That also 0:45:45.960 --> 0:45:49.239 could be a generational thing. But there are there's plenty 0:45:49.280 --> 0:45:51.560 of content I like to watch on a small screen, 0:45:51.640 --> 0:45:54.840 but it doesn't tend to be the spectacle type stuff 0:45:54.880 --> 0:45:57.320 or the stuff where there's a lot of uh like 0:45:57.719 --> 0:46:02.239 complex cinematography. Uh. That being said, one of the things 0:46:02.320 --> 0:46:04.879 I read about was that if you hit about five 0:46:05.000 --> 0:46:08.600 hundred pixels per inch on a distance of about twenty inches, 0:46:09.120 --> 0:46:13.240 that's pretty much the limit for the average person's ability 0:46:13.400 --> 0:46:17.879 to differentiate the quality of the image. Like anything more 0:46:17.920 --> 0:46:20.239 than that would be a waste because you wouldn't be 0:46:20.280 --> 0:46:23.920 able to perceive it. So the equivalent of five hundred 0:46:23.960 --> 0:46:27.320 pixels per inch at whatever distance you are from the 0:46:28.000 --> 0:46:30.759 screen would be that would be the same limit. But 0:46:30.840 --> 0:46:32.799 that's the problem is that it depends upon how far 0:46:32.880 --> 0:46:35.600 away you are, right, So if you're six ft away 0:46:35.640 --> 0:46:38.720 as opposed to twenty inches, you don't need five hundred 0:46:38.760 --> 0:46:42.040 pixels per inch. It may be significantly lower than that. 0:46:42.800 --> 0:46:45.600 And once you reach that level for whatever distance you're at, 0:46:46.480 --> 0:46:48.759 there's no need to go higher. Not that that won't 0:46:48.840 --> 0:46:52.120 stop manufacturers. I imagine they will continue to do it, 0:46:53.080 --> 0:46:55.840 but um, but at that point you you will literally 0:46:56.040 --> 0:46:59.160 be unable to perceive the distance the difference, right, not 0:46:59.239 --> 0:47:02.279 the distance, but the difference in the two. UM. I 0:47:02.320 --> 0:47:05.759 don't know. Maybe maybe other kinds of technologies will fall 0:47:06.520 --> 0:47:12.640 more into focus as the U as U as the 0:47:12.880 --> 0:47:16.720 pixel issue has kind of worked out, Maybe the color 0:47:17.200 --> 0:47:21.680 issue or contrast or frame rate frame rate will become 0:47:21.719 --> 0:47:23.560 the new big things. Yeah, no, I'm sure those will 0:47:23.600 --> 0:47:25.600 all be elements of it. I mean, obviously the three 0:47:25.719 --> 0:47:28.440 D didn't really take off, and I can understand why. 0:47:28.480 --> 0:47:31.000 I mean, I don't want to have yet another thing 0:47:31.719 --> 0:47:33.840 to keep up with, just to watch television, nor do 0:47:33.960 --> 0:47:36.800 I think all of TV benefits from that depth. I 0:47:36.840 --> 0:47:38.680 don't really want to watch like Orange, just The New 0:47:38.760 --> 0:47:41.799 Black and three D. You have any desire to do that, Yeah, 0:47:41.800 --> 0:47:43.920 there's I guess they're idiots like me who don't want 0:47:43.920 --> 0:47:48.480 to watch anything. Actually, I'm okay if the three If 0:47:48.520 --> 0:47:50.759 the three D was built in as part of the 0:47:50.840 --> 0:47:53.600 storytelling from the beginning and it and it provides a 0:47:53.760 --> 0:47:57.560 useful element to the story, Uh, then I'm fine. It's 0:47:57.600 --> 0:48:00.279 the same thing. Like I could say, I've in joyed 0:48:00.360 --> 0:48:04.480 plays that have had minimal sets, but I've also enjoyed 0:48:04.480 --> 0:48:08.440 plays that I have had incredibly complex sets. And to 0:48:08.560 --> 0:48:13.920 me understand what you're saying, Yeah, but maybe you just 0:48:14.080 --> 0:48:17.600 haven't experienced the right film yet. That's always possible. To 0:48:17.680 --> 0:48:19.920 be fair, I do not go see films in three D. Yeah, 0:48:20.120 --> 0:48:22.560 I just haven't met the right three D yet. But 0:48:23.960 --> 0:48:27.239 either way, I definitely wouldn't want to have to keep 0:48:27.320 --> 0:48:29.279 up with I mean, it's hard enough for me to 0:48:29.360 --> 0:48:32.560 keep up with a single remote in my house and 0:48:32.640 --> 0:48:35.040 I only have one because I've got one smart remote 0:48:35.080 --> 0:48:38.399 that controls everything, and yet it's never where I thought 0:48:38.480 --> 0:48:41.880 it was. Uh, and uh, I'm sure there's a gremlin 0:48:41.920 --> 0:48:44.160 that just moves the remote when we're not home, But 0:48:44.520 --> 0:48:48.839 I would hate to think like Becca's never home when 0:48:48.880 --> 0:48:52.319 I'm not home, it's me I break into his house 0:48:52.400 --> 0:48:54.640 to mess with his head. Should have given you that key? 0:48:55.400 --> 0:48:58.560 Uh yeah, So this is um. I don't think three 0:48:58.640 --> 0:49:01.680 D will ever really hit like saturation in the in 0:49:01.760 --> 0:49:04.720 the consumer market. But but that's the sort of stuff 0:49:04.719 --> 0:49:07.640 we'll see once we hit the saturation resolution where you 0:49:07.760 --> 0:49:09.520 really can't go any higher and have it make a 0:49:09.600 --> 0:49:12.520 meaningful difference. There's going to have to be something else, 0:49:13.520 --> 0:49:16.520 you know. I wondered before we came in whether there 0:49:16.560 --> 0:49:19.560 would ever be a trend back to any kind of 0:49:20.160 --> 0:49:26.719 analog way of receiving visual media, so so closer to 0:49:26.800 --> 0:49:30.640 a film experience and not a digital television experience, right, 0:49:30.719 --> 0:49:33.040 because you can look at projected film that way. So 0:49:33.239 --> 0:49:37.200 it's you know, you've you've captured the images on film 0:49:37.400 --> 0:49:41.440 through through shining the light on a photoreactive surface, and 0:49:41.520 --> 0:49:44.120 then you just shine light back through a copy of that, 0:49:44.640 --> 0:49:49.080 and it's all sort of an analog to analog experience basically, right. 0:49:49.640 --> 0:49:51.839 I I kind of hope so, because I I really 0:49:52.040 --> 0:49:55.040 enjoy projection in a in a home sense, it's a 0:49:55.120 --> 0:49:57.880 lot more difficult to set up because you have to 0:49:58.120 --> 0:50:02.520 create the screen and the uh, the setup. But right, yeah, 0:50:02.719 --> 0:50:06.279 it's it's something that I feel like I like better. 0:50:06.480 --> 0:50:08.640 But I'm not sure if I would actually be able 0:50:08.680 --> 0:50:11.279 to tell the difference. I can't be positive it's not 0:50:11.440 --> 0:50:14.759 just some kind of like idea based preference. Well, if 0:50:14.800 --> 0:50:17.200 we ever get to a world where film projection is 0:50:17.280 --> 0:50:20.400 just completely abandoned, that means we don't get any more 0:50:20.520 --> 0:50:24.560 Quentin Tarantino movies because he refuses to shoot on digital. Yeah, 0:50:25.160 --> 0:50:27.920 and he doesn't like digital conversion. I I do. I 0:50:28.480 --> 0:50:30.920 blame Quentin Tarantino for for a lot of things that 0:50:31.040 --> 0:50:33.520 he says and does. But but but I really agree 0:50:33.600 --> 0:50:35.680 with him on on that one. I still personally have 0:50:35.760 --> 0:50:40.160 a very nostalgic concept of a film versus digital. Yeah. 0:50:40.239 --> 0:50:42.600 I do love I mean, I do love film, I 0:50:42.719 --> 0:50:46.759 really do. I also appreciate digital projection as well, but 0:50:47.280 --> 0:50:49.720 I can see the benefits and the and the pros 0:50:49.800 --> 0:50:52.520 and cons of both. The thing the other thing we 0:50:52.600 --> 0:50:55.440 talked about, Joe was just the idea of could there 0:50:55.480 --> 0:50:59.839 be some other technology that eventually supplants the way where 0:50:59.880 --> 0:51:03.480 you using display technology right now, something beyond the pixel 0:51:04.040 --> 0:51:07.919 approach to displaying images, And we don't know of any 0:51:08.120 --> 0:51:10.719 I haven't found any examples of anything like that, though 0:51:10.760 --> 0:51:12.920 there may be something out there I don't know about. 0:51:13.880 --> 0:51:16.719 If you if you've ever heard of a future analog 0:51:17.000 --> 0:51:21.080 or even just you know, any non pixel based display 0:51:21.160 --> 0:51:23.480 technology that that could be coming in the future, we'd 0:51:23.480 --> 0:51:26.719 love to hear about it. Yeah. The uh, the way 0:51:26.840 --> 0:51:31.160 I look at is that I think pixel based technology 0:51:31.239 --> 0:51:33.000 is going to be around for the near future, but 0:51:33.440 --> 0:51:35.960 who knows, Maybe in twenty years will be looking back 0:51:36.040 --> 0:51:38.440 and saying, well, this antiquated way that we were, you know, 0:51:38.600 --> 0:51:42.080 displaying technology, and now that we have this amazing color 0:51:42.200 --> 0:51:46.359 morph screen technology, why would anyone have ever used pixels? Yeah, 0:51:46.400 --> 0:51:49.360 the screen itself is able to create the images and 0:51:49.440 --> 0:51:52.520 there's nothing else that's you know whatever, we know, we 0:51:52.600 --> 0:51:54.759 don't know. There's no way of us to know. And Joe, 0:51:54.800 --> 0:51:56.640 you made a very good point when we had this 0:51:56.719 --> 0:52:01.239 discussion earlier, pointing out that if the technology we're using 0:52:01.280 --> 0:52:05.359 today continues to be reliable and cheap, then it's gonna 0:52:05.440 --> 0:52:08.200 stick around for a really long time, even if we 0:52:08.320 --> 0:52:10.600 come up with alternatives. Oh yeah, Like it will take 0:52:10.640 --> 0:52:14.360 a while for anyone to adopt a news standard considering 0:52:14.400 --> 0:52:17.480 that this one is so well established. Yeah. I mean, 0:52:17.719 --> 0:52:20.719 if you can have screens that are they just look 0:52:20.800 --> 0:52:24.759 fantastic and they're pretty cheap, and they're they're using technology 0:52:24.880 --> 0:52:27.080 we already have, it's gonna be hard for something to 0:52:27.320 --> 0:52:30.680 upset that system. Even if you can make the case 0:52:30.719 --> 0:52:33.719 then no, it really does capture more the nuance of light, 0:52:33.960 --> 0:52:37.000 and you know, it's it's more like actually looking through 0:52:37.000 --> 0:52:41.799 a window. It only costs five thousand dollars more. Maybe 0:52:41.840 --> 0:52:44.560 it'll just be a window and and actors will come 0:52:44.600 --> 0:52:48.839 in and act behind the window and we call it TV. Ah. 0:52:49.600 --> 0:52:51.160 I mean that would explain I think that once we 0:52:51.200 --> 0:52:55.520 get like cloning like end and rapid aging under underway. 0:52:55.640 --> 0:52:57.920 I was just thinking that totally would explain why Crispin 0:52:57.960 --> 0:53:01.680 Glovers hiding out in the closet in my house. That 0:53:01.800 --> 0:53:04.160 would that would be a good reason. It would make 0:53:04.200 --> 0:53:05.560 it a lot easier for me to go to sleep 0:53:05.560 --> 0:53:08.959 at night, if that's actually the real reason. Anyway. Uh. Yeah, 0:53:09.360 --> 0:53:12.359 the biggest and most high resolution television that I saw 0:53:12.560 --> 0:53:17.399 while I was at c e S was at eight KO. Yeah, 0:53:17.520 --> 0:53:20.839 what did that look like pretty? It's pretty? Ya, I mean, 0:53:21.200 --> 0:53:25.520 is is enormous. I can't imagine like my house went 0:53:25.880 --> 0:53:28.400 hold on. Sorry to interrupt you, but what did you 0:53:28.560 --> 0:53:31.000 watch on it? Was it one of those beauty I 0:53:31.280 --> 0:53:34.360 I candy reels or yeah, what I would want to 0:53:34.400 --> 0:53:37.319 see on it is an old VHS tape from TV 0:53:37.520 --> 0:53:39.920 of an episode of night Rider. I'll look at the 0:53:40.040 --> 0:53:43.560 tracking marks on this. It's amazing the high resolution of 0:53:43.760 --> 0:53:46.640 of how badly this thing was out of out of whack. 0:53:46.840 --> 0:53:49.600 If you can't make night Rider taped off TV look good, 0:53:49.719 --> 0:53:52.680 what can you do? I don't you know, they're not 0:53:52.800 --> 0:53:57.600 miracle workers. The future again is night Rider. I'm just 0:53:57.719 --> 0:54:02.600 having the voice of Kit going through my head. Um. Also, 0:54:02.719 --> 0:54:05.319 the he was John Adams in seventeen seventy six. It's 0:54:05.320 --> 0:54:08.400 not exactly the same. Yeah, also appeared as a car 0:54:08.760 --> 0:54:13.080 very weird anyway. So yeah, that wraps up this discussion 0:54:13.080 --> 0:54:21.200 about Congress my goal. Yeah it was weird. Um So yeah, guys, 0:54:21.280 --> 0:54:23.240 that wraps up this kind of discussion about the future 0:54:23.280 --> 0:54:26.880 of resolution and televisions and what we are looking at 0:54:26.960 --> 0:54:29.560 in the near term. I'm interested to hear what you 0:54:29.640 --> 0:54:33.719 guys think about this. Do you think that two K, 0:54:34.000 --> 0:54:35.840 four K, eight K. Do you think all of that 0:54:36.160 --> 0:54:40.719 has actual payoff? Do you think of it as being like? 0:54:40.840 --> 0:54:44.400 Are are you incapable of perceiving a change in the quality? 0:54:44.880 --> 0:54:46.879 I used to be that way, but now I really 0:54:47.000 --> 0:54:49.080 can At least I can tell the difference between HD 0:54:49.160 --> 0:54:52.239 and four K. I could certainly tell that difference um 0:54:52.680 --> 0:54:55.320 with the larger screens between four K and eight K, 0:54:55.480 --> 0:54:59.239 I can tell a difference uh smaller screen four K 0:54:59.440 --> 0:55:02.120 versus large screen a K harder for me to tell 0:55:02.160 --> 0:55:06.120 the difference, But my visual visual acuity may not be 0:55:06.200 --> 0:55:09.439 as good as yours. So curiously here If you guys 0:55:09.480 --> 0:55:11.560 have had any experience with that, what you think about it, 0:55:12.120 --> 0:55:14.080 or if you have any other questions or comments, you 0:55:14.160 --> 0:55:17.280 can write to us. Our email just is FW Thinking 0:55:17.640 --> 0:55:20.400 at how Stuff Works dot com and we've had a 0:55:20.480 --> 0:55:23.000 lot of people right in and we're really thankful for 0:55:23.080 --> 0:55:27.200 that and we want more, so please keep sending us messages. 0:55:27.800 --> 0:55:30.600 Remember you can also get in touch with us at Twitter, 0:55:30.960 --> 0:55:34.000 Google Plus, and Facebook. On Twitter and Google Plus, we 0:55:34.040 --> 0:55:37.279 are FW thinking. Search for FW thinking on Facebook. We'll 0:55:37.320 --> 0:55:39.560 pop right up. Leave us a message. We would love 0:55:39.640 --> 0:55:41.440 to hear from you and we'll talk to you again 0:55:42.040 --> 0:55:49.440 really soon. For more on this topic in the future 0:55:49.480 --> 0:56:02.239 of technology, I'll visit forward thinking dot Com, brought to 0:56:02.280 --> 0:56:04.720 you by Toyota. Let's Go Places,