Hacker News Reader

Comment by Angostura | Hacker News Reader

I understand and agree with what you are saying, but I think your preference for motion interpolation is quite unusual.

Perhaps it is a preference that will change with generations.

View on HN

Probably not, young people watch most of their content on phones/etc, not big TVs with motion interpolation.

This is absolutely the case with all of the nieces/nephews that I know. They prefer that they see the majority of, tablets, which 81% of kids have these days [1].

[1] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

That number is a pretty high--looking at your link, living in a house with a tablet isn't the same as having a tablet. I have tablet from work but my kids don't use it or any other. BTW that's really cool that you could direct the highlighting in the URL like that. If it's not specific to census.gov, what is that called? What level of the stack is interpreting it?

Its at the JS layer from what I can see:

#:~:text=In 2021%2C 81%25 of households,17 years old — owned tablets.

That query fragment is what triggered it, which means theres some Javascript taking that in and highlighting whats on the page

It's a Chrome feature: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/17/22389519/google-feature-c...

Neat! I learned something new :) Thanks

Someone tell the film industry, so that they stop lighting and color-grading the movies and TV shows for ultrabright, turbo-HDR-enabled expensive TVs - almost no one has those, and even those who do mostly watch on their phones. Maybe if the industry gets that memo, we'll once again have films and shows in which one can actually see what's happening.

I’d rather my films be graded for home theater use than phone use. HDR TVs these days are basically all TVs. Why should we all take a step back in quality when the hardware to view it decently is more affordable than it’s ever been? I don’t care how Oppenheimer looks on your phone I know Nolan would care even less.

Because who has home theater? I'd think it was mostly killed by the Internet, streaming, and the overall trend of cable-cutting, ditching TVs, and switching to computer and laptop screens for one's entertainment.

(I guess at some point this must have reversed everywhere except the bubble myself and my friends and acquaintances live in...)

I have a home theater. I don't know how big the market is, but you can buy receivers from a half dozen manufacturers (Denon, Yamaha, Sony, Onkyo as well as a bunch of speciality brands), digital projectors (Epson, Sony, JVC, BenQ and also a bunch of speciality brands), and all manner of ancillary items (sound proofing, audio treatments, theater seating, etc).

/r/hometheater/ has nearly a million members.

https://www.avsforum.com/ is pretty active.

TVs are still getting larger and they've recently crossed the 100" in size.

So yeah, there's a least a few dozen of us!

I personally, have a 100” dropdown screen, ust projector and a Sonos surround. This last month, I helped my work buddy shop some deals and got him a 75” Dolby Vision TV and surround sound system with sub for $1200. These are affordable things.

Lots of people have TVs, not many are seriously watching Netflix on their phones (maybe their laptops) but generally on their TVs in the evening.

> I understand and agree with what you are saying, but I think your preference for motion interpolation is quite unusual.

The number of TVs that have it enabled by default seems to indicate otherwise. I'm not saying that the manufacturers are correct, necessarily, but I don't think they would go through the effort if they didn't think enough people wanted it.

Or: it just "shows" better when they're demo'ing the TV to a potential customer, not unlike the hyper-saturated nature footage they use to get you to look at their TV and not the one next to it.

I don't buy that. Why would motion interpolation look better in the store than it does in your own home?

I think it’s because of the content used for it. Some things do look better. But movies absolutely do not.

Because the store chooses to show footage for which it is optimized, not a movie. But there's also the consideration that it looks better at first sight when you walk past it, than it does when you watch a whole movie looking straight at it.

They are in fact quite incorrect. These poor upscale features are horrors crafted in the early days of post-processing nightmares. Half of it was pitched to make football games appear more real. They all murder the soul of the film and jack up delay. The industry even had to invent a synchronized audio mechanism to compensate for the summoning of these Eldridge horrors. What I don’t mind are modern upscalers which look very nice on expensive sets. Other modern features like HDR are also lovely because they focus on reproducing the movie with vibrant lighting. Anyhow, one summer working in a television station will improve your acuity for these things. You might even come to understand how these old creations will be the downfall of civilization. As an aside, do not forget to surgically remove samba tv from any android set with adb.

Just as the people who design google maps navigation don't drive, the people who design parental control features for google and apple surely don't have kids, and the PMs who choose to turn on motion interpolation by default likely don't watch movies on their TVs.

Major, shockingly obtuse sensibility gaps are sadly the norm today in product management.

It seems the side effect of treating customers as users in the classical sense, is the cross-industry adoption of the mantra, "don't get high on your own supply".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com