h a l f b a k e r yIf ever there was a time we needed a bowlologist, it's now.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Dogs don't watch TV.
Why? Because TV is a series of still images. The images are flat,
instead of 3D. The images don't smell. The images show things that
are much smaller than they really are. In extremis, the images are
even devoid of colour.
But we humans are adaptable. We get used
to the flickeriness. We
get used to the flatness, the lack of smell, the shrunkennes, and
even the lack of colour.
I contend that, with a little effort, we'd get used to things being
broadcast at double speed. This would make room for twice as many
programs as are currently broadcast.
"Bad Influence" - the Datablast
http://www.youtube....watch?v=dSGFG95vEfc
Back in the 90s, there was a computer & video games based show on UK TV called Bad Influence. During the end credits, it ran together text & images at higher frame rates. The idea was that you could tape the show (or just the "datablast") and then see the stuff at your own leisure. [Jinbish, Mar 06 2011]
[link]
|
| |
//twice as many programs// Type, or token? I betcha the
result would be a small increase in the number of new
programs, and a very large increase in the number of reruns. |
|
| |
In any case, isn't this is already being done, selectively, when
linking or transitional segments deemed
insufficiently exciting are sped up? |
|
| |
I think double speed might be a bit of a coarse means of compression. Really you want a means of compression which shows the broadcast at a speed inversely proportional to the semantic content. |
|
| |
Let's not focus only on the temporal plane for redundancy:
with high resolution screens, you could display 4 or more
lower resolution programmes at the same time. |
|
| |
Perhaps by overlaying them, one atop the other, but the bottommost atop the dark reflected image of portly you, slumped vacant on the couch, a glistening bulb of saliva working its quiet way out of the corner of your mouth. |
|
| |
TV should work in a similar way to the newsreaders' auto-cue. The faster you watch, the faster the programme is broadcast. |
|
| |
Obligatory "If only they would do this just for the commercials" |
|
| |
Oh god. I woke up this morning and thought I'd dreamed
posting this idea. Then I remembered I actually had, and
thought I'd delete it before anyone noticed. And now there
are annotations and it would be rude. |
|
| |
I have at least boned it, by way of self-chastisement. |
|
| |
Isn't this the equivalent of running it at ~15 frames/sec?
Maybe you could just interleave a second program, instead
of running "fast" programs back to back |
|
| |
MB, Sir. The tedium of actual typing is obviously left to the servants, who have failed to inform you that they have taken the liberty. |
|
| |
Why not have a split screen and run two programmes at normal speed? Eye movement detection would allocate the sound channel according to your attention. |
|
| |
I think you're being a bit hasty there in assuming
that the majority of Halfbakers don't ordinarily have
an abraded nose and a splitting headache. |
|
| |
I’ve actually tried this with one specific show. I
watched 30 or so episodes of the anime Naruto
Shippuden at mostly 2x speed, but 3x and 1.5x at
some parts. I did it because I had already watched
those episodes long ago, but wanted to rewatch
them so I could watch the newer episodes. |
|
| |
It worked fine – most of the time, I could understand
everything as fast as necessary. However, what I
watched has some differences from normal
television: |
|
| |
• as I said, I had already watched it before |
|
| |
• it has subtitles (and audio in a language I don’t understand), and reading is faster than listening |
|
| |
• the show has to stretch itself to fit into 23 minutes, so it is overly slow and dramatic at times, which is why I had the idea to
speed it up in the first place. |
|
| |
• I watched it on my computer, so if I ever missed a part, I could pause it and rewind easily, and maybe watch it slower the next
time around. If a part was really dragging on, I also sometimes changed the speed to 3x. (I used Quicktime Players’ speed slider.) |
|
| |
I predict that if normal television was broadcast at
double speed, viewers would have trouble
transitioning between watching shows and real life –
real life would seem strangely slow for a few minutes
afterward. This prediction is based on my experience
of what sometimes happens when I finish a long
period of playing video games (a little like the Tetris
Effect). |
|
| |
[+] why not? then if you have the inkling...you can watch them in slo-mo! |
|
| |
If they could bother to remove the annoying white
flashes that seem to permeate TV broadcasts,
especially movie ads, that would cut at least 20
percent. |
|
| |
Ian - in these straightened economic circumstances, I don't
see how carpet-bombing Macclesfield can be considered a
good idea. Taking into account the damage to buildings,
infrastructure and services, such a policy could cause
hundreds of pounds worth of damage. |
|
| |
Oops - sorry IanT. I really liked the TV show. Well, it was no GamesMaster, but it was still good. I'm never one for accompanying magazines, though, so I am quite happy to support you in your hatred against them. |
|
| |
This can be simulated by getting really drunk. |
|
| |
You can also time travel. |
|
| |
1- Say goodbye to all your friends,
2- Pack your bags,
3- Drink a bottle of tequila,
4- Wake up 1 day in the future. |
|
| |