Posibility of 'true' analog video

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Carrman, Nov 11, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Carrman

    Carrman Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Toronto
    This concept came up during a discussion last night.

    I was explaining the difference between analog and digital audio to a friend. I often compare digital audio being a collection of 'snap shots' similar to how still images on film are shown rapidly to fool our eyes.

    This got me thinking, in both analog and digital video systems, we are always dealing with frames per second. We don't have 'true' analog video systems which capture pure motion without divisions, which is primarily how analog audio works.

    If you've ever witnessed high frame rate video (60fps or more) the fluidity of motion can seem unnatural or distracting.

    Makes me wonder if a true motion or 'frameless' video capture and reproduction system would be possible in the future?
     
  2. Schoolmaster Bones

    Schoolmaster Bones Poe's Lawyer

    Location:
    ‎The Midwest
    Sadly, this misconception will never die.
     
  3. Carrman

    Carrman Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Toronto
    What's the misconception? Do you think it's a poor analogy?
     
  4. Chris DeVoe

    Chris DeVoe RIP Vickie Mapes Williams (aka Equipoise)

    If we ever have a get-together I'll be the one wearing the T-shirt with Nyquist Was Right on it.
     
  5. head_unit

    head_unit Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles CA USA
    I get where the analogy comes from, but actually it's apples and oranges, not the same kind of thing at all. Audio samples are reproducing something one-dimensional: output voltage. Video by contrast is reproducing four (?) dimensions: the 2D picture, plus color and brightness. Or something like that.

    The Nyquist Theorem says that proper sampling and playback can reconstruct sound perfectly.* The audio samples are NOT snapshots, they are being used to recreate something continuous. In video, it is literally a snapshot, recorded and reproduced frame-by-frame. Or line-by-line in the old scanned systems. There is no continuous video system, though your thread raises and interesting concept-could such a thing be made?

    *which in real systems can mean pretty darn close, noting that the sound of a "digital" player still depends on the analog section and power supplies etc., in addition to good digital implementation.
     
    Dan C and Chris DeVoe like this.
  6. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Well, HFR (120fps) systems already exist now. Even the human eye has a frame rate, estimated at roughly 100fps. The question is whether you really want to reproduce a frame rate that high, and whether it's practical or economical to do so. There's a lotta stuff where you can say, "sure, you can do that, but should you do that?"

    I'd point to the failure of director Ang Lee's two 120fps films, Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk and the recent Gemini Man, as evidence that audiences don't give a **** about frame rate. It's really about story and characters and all that stuff. (I found Gemini Man to be oft-putting for a lot of reasons.)

    The industry seems to be getting behind bigger, brighter pictures with a wider color range more than they are a higher frame rate. Anything is possible, but a good movie with a big, bright picture can still work and entertain a wide audience, both at home and in theaters.
     
  7. 60fps stuff does bug me a bit, but is that simply because I'm not used to it? Or something else?

    I suspect someone who grew up only experiencing 120fps reproduction wouldn't know any different, and as a result, I suspect(?) that wouldn't bother them one bit.

    No idea really, though. All conjecture on my part.
     
    listner_matt and Chris DeVoe like this.
  8. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    I think you can make a point that -- for audio or video -- digital at its highest level is going to out perform what analog can do. There are certain aspects of capturing the signal that start off as analog: a camera has to have a glass lens, and a sound recorder has to have a microphone. But from there on, a lot of the signal path can be digital, and there are positive aspects of digital (at a very high level) that are technically much better in measurements than analog.

    On the other hand, I know filmmakers that like to use older "vintage" lenses because they feel it softens the "digital look" of the cameras a bit more, and I think that's a valid creative choice. It's not that dissimilar from how some people use vintage tube microphones for recording sessions, because they have a specific sound.
     
  9. ajax25

    ajax25 Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Jersey
    The audio samples ARE snapshots. They are sampled at a certain rate and stored as discrete data points. They are reproduced as a continuous wave form (accurate at least for the frequencies less than 1/2 the sample rate). Other tricks are used to filter out frequencies above 1/2 the sample rate which can’t be reproduced accurately. This wave form is not exactly the sound that originally existed but is close enough based on our auditory abilities.

    Don’t know if there is a similar situation with video, but if you sample at a sufficient rate and play back at a sufficient rate (based on our visual abilities) you can achieve the same thing.
     
  10. head_unit

    head_unit Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles CA USA
    Ah, the semantic webs we weave. I was using "snapshots" in a literal visual sense. Yes, from a sampling perspective, audio bits are indeed a kind of "snapshot" but what I meant was that audio is sampling one dimension whereas video has many. Video is not playing back continously, it is shown in the same snapshots/frames that were captured in the first place. So the two systems to me are very different. (Makes me wonder if you could actually make a sampled analog TV system, i.e. with no frame rate but rather a continous picture. I wonder if you could do that with OLED or some other kind of device would be needed, to wax and want the brightness and colors continously). I guess in the extreme you could say that the "D/A converter" is the human visual processing system?

    I also have wondered what would happen if you had lossless video. I don't think that exists??? As we've gotten more bandwidth for video I've wondered if for example you go to 8k with compression would we actually be better off with uncompressed 4k (that's kind of a fake example just for illustration). It's like are we better off with CD, or with 24/96 MP3 or such?
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
  11. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US

    Most of us myopics over age of 40 can’t see the 4K difference. Lol. But virtual reality. Ab. That’s a whole new game. I played “Super Hot” the other day and loved it. It’s like the 8-bit version of what’s to come. In vr.
     
  12. elaterium

    elaterium Forum Resident

    There is an Australian company that actually produces black and white video on vinyl records. It’s all analog. There’s one by Motörhead I know.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
  13. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

    Perhaps if there’s ever full motion holography as depicted in movies (Superman and the chess board in StarWars), that’ll be a continuous motion “video” system.

    I wonder if video has frames just because film HAD to have frames and because of how CRTs had to scan. If the image sensor is producing electricity as it’s being exposed to light, why can’t that electricity be recorded continuously if it was played back on a video monitor that converted that electricity back to an image continuously. I’m not even high right now. :D
     
  14. I think the Billy Lynn's movie was boring but its picture quality with 4K, HDR at 60 fps looks outstanding. I think High Frame Vide is a great step forward,not behind. Motion is smoother,more life-like, but I guess people are used to the judder of 24 fps.
    I wasn't born yet (I was born in 1974) so all my memories of TV are in color, I wonder if when color TV was introduced people complaint about it looking weird. Certainly early color TV cameras rendered weird color, and TRC's of the time may have had something to do also.
     
    chilinvilin and Chris DeVoe like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine