"CD's are digital, which limits their dynamic range"
No. In fact, some CD players used to come with discs intended to demonstrate the huge dynamic range of discs. My Sony portable came with Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms, one of the earlier full-digital releases; it was noted for its dynamic range.
Also, fake frames inserted into material shot at a lower frame rate can't "improve" quality. It's a gimmick. SHOOTING at a higher frame rate? Sure, that improves motion quality.
On a side note: Almost all the popular music you hear today on streaming services and on "remastered" albums has been destroyed with dynamic compression to make it "louder." Many engineers cite the early '90s as the peak of mastering quality. So don't act as though people objecting to "new" things are automatically wrong.
The dynamic-compression problem is so severe, widespread, and yet under-recognized that I don't think music will ever recover. I have 45s from the '80s that sound way better than "remastered" digital releases today. And that has nothing to do with "vinyl vs. digital." It's about everyone having access to devices capable of incredible fidelity today, and nothing but ruined trash to play on them.
even "room" sound is nothing but bookshelf sized speakers. i miss my towers with a 12"-18" sub, a 8"-10" mid, and a 1"-2" tweeter. i cried a bit having to get rid of those.
And in fact... it was, decades ago. Even stock Ford CD players had a "Compress" button on them, in case you were listening to classical while driving in a noisy car. Easy solution that didn't ruin generations' worth of music.
> No. In fact, some CD players used to come with discs intended to demonstrate the huge dynamic range of discs.
They appear to be mocking the belief that vinyls have more dynamic range based on the italic text.
So I'm mocking the die-hards who think the old technology is better. Because even though the vinyl-lovers have a point in theory, in practice they're just wrong.
I assert the same is true here. I assert that most people prefer interpolation in both space and time to "preserving the original content". If you play a DVD on your 4k television, do you really want big perfectly rectangular blocks where the pixel boundaries are? And do you want those staying exactly the same for 33ms and then jumping to the next set of square blocks? Cuz that's the original content. I think most people would prefer to have something intelligently try to infer what the original content likely was before it got sampled (in space and time). Then you get smooth edges and smooth motion.
Feel free to disagree with me. Important people do - I know there are big names in cinema who think 24fps is the best for some reason and it hurts their extremely well trained eyes to see smoother motion. But any gamer will tell you that higher frame rates look more realistic and natural and just better. I like my tv's frame interpolation because it looks smooth and buttery to me.
But I assert my opinion (that having software interpolate both space and time) is what most people in the world prefer, which is why the tv makers do it.