Again does anyone suffer stress from digital TV, sight is our primary sense so it should follow that we also get visual stress with digital broadcasts....
![5e6116694147369871eda4b177afec9ad0dce249c30070c34952716e7d639098[1].jpg](/community/data/attachments/515/515697-57a7e71c0d3ff97f3ce68674949d1928.jpg?hash=V6fnHA0_-X)
High resolution digital TV must be particularly stressful for aging female TV presenters.
Yes, it is. We ran into that problem a lot with the switch to HD cameras. The makeup artists have learned to deal with it, and the "Skin Detail" settings in the camera are an important tool. 
I get stressed when low bit rate TV encoders can't cope with moving pictures. Two particular examples:
1. Armistice Day service in Royal Albert Hall (not something I usually watch, but) when the 'poppy petals' come floating down at the end they were each changed into a square - it couldn't cope with so much random motion.
2. Football - when the camera pans to follow the action, the grass field turns into a smooth billiard table, and sometimes the ball (when moving fast) appears to have quantum properties.
These are not of course problems with digital as such, but digital as we have to suffer it due to broadcasters thinking we don't care about picture quality - or perhaps broadcasters trying to push us to HD so we can recover most of the quality of analogue? Digital TV is quite good at displaying still pictures, but that can be limiting for drama, documentaries etc.
1. Armistice Day service in Royal Albert Hall (not something I usually watch, but) when the 'poppy petals' come floating down at the end they were each changed into a square - it couldn't cope with so much random motion.
2. Football - when the camera pans to follow the action, the grass field turns into a smooth billiard table, and sometimes the ball (when moving fast) appears to have quantum properties.
These are not of course problems with digital as such, but digital as we have to suffer it due to broadcasters thinking we don't care about picture quality - or perhaps broadcasters trying to push us to HD so we can recover most of the quality of analogue? Digital TV is quite good at displaying still pictures, but that can be limiting for drama, documentaries etc.
Yes, it is. We ran into that problem a lot with the switch to HD cameras. The makeup artists have learned to deal with it, and the "Skin Detail" settings in the camera are an important tool.
Soften skin in Lightroom... LOL gets quite a lot of use these days especially when I use the Sigma 50mm f1.4 art...
I would be interested in what the make up artists have had to do, I know badly applied make up now sticks out like a sore thumb.
It's amazing how bad digital broadcast looks if you get close to the screen. Or in the examples cited above, no need to be close. I work with uncompressed video straight out of the camera and it's stunning. Even right up close it looks as good as still photo of the same resolution. Sometimes even better, because the motion adds information.
Even 192K MP3 does not destroy audio the way digital broadcast does.
Even 192K MP3 does not destroy audio the way digital broadcast does.
Nature programs on catch up TV with flocks of birds or grass swirling on the savannah absolutely horrendous especially when you use a wireless link, hard wired is an improvement, it bugs me as well especially as I watch lots of these programs. On sky HD programs not a problem, this is a bandwidth problem as you stated not digital as such. I have noticed differences on different channels and find some non HD channels very bad. This is worse if you have a 4K TV the up scaling from non HD channels can be pretty bad especially if the screen is too close.
The other problem with movement was analogue images were often slightly blurred due to the nature of the recording, digital pictures are often still image quality so can look like a series of stills when played back especially if the bandwidth is low.
But then we watched a real video the other day... interesting and did show how far we have come when digital is done correctly.
SONY broadcast cameras, even the old standard def ones, have a built in Skin Tone filter that is remarkable if you use it right. Basically it softens a range of colors and tones that are skin. It can remove blemishes, freckles, spots and so on, but leave hair, eyebrows, beards, etc sharp. In real time. The filter has many tweaks, but works well enough if you just use the cursor to pick a flesh tone of the subject's face. No need for filters in front of the lens, like in the old days with Doris Day or Barbara Walters. 🙂
I don't know what the details of what makeup artists have learned to do with HD, but I see the results. Smooth and natural.
IME, digital HD video beats the old analog in every way. Uncompressed, it is smoother and more natural than SD every was. It has better tonal range and does not have the harsh edge enhancements that were built into standard def analog and early digital cameras. Yes, good analog SD right out of the camera into a broadcast CRT monitor was a thing of beauty, but high end HD is even better.
Interesting regarding the Sony kit, my old Hi8 is Sony, 22 years old and still going, though not used very much these days...
I would imagine the reds and oranges are reduced in intensity, one of the first things I do when editing pics of our girls or other females friends, its amazing how that and a bit of softening can improve things.
I'll look into the make up as I am studying posing, make up etc. for portraits, amazing stuff that you don't realise.
Cheers for the info.
I would imagine the reds and oranges are reduced in intensity, one of the first things I do when editing pics of our girls or other females friends, its amazing how that and a bit of softening can improve things.
I'll look into the make up as I am studying posing, make up etc. for portraits, amazing stuff that you don't realise.
Cheers for the info.
I do remember being wowed in about 1990 looking at a broadcast feed straight into a BBC standard monitor. The tour guide apologised for the colour cast, which apparantly takes a few weeks before you can spot. 625 line analogue was pretty good before it hit the transmission network!
My pet peeve with digital broadcast is explosions on films which just pixelate. At least the HD feeds have allowed more bandwidth. And was pleasantly suprised that my tv receiver supports full HD, despite reviews at the time saying it didn't. At first I suspected that they turn up the saturation on HD vs SD to make it look better, but comparisons show its just the higher res makes my rubbish colour setup look worse 🙂. I miss the test card.
My pet peeve with digital broadcast is explosions on films which just pixelate. At least the HD feeds have allowed more bandwidth. And was pleasantly suprised that my tv receiver supports full HD, despite reviews at the time saying it didn't. At first I suspected that they turn up the saturation on HD vs SD to make it look better, but comparisons show its just the higher res makes my rubbish colour setup look worse 🙂. I miss the test card.
To return to the Original Topic, the fatigue of digital sources. I've heard it, I've fixed it, I'm happy.
These are just my experiences over the past few decades, take them for what you will.
I learned a long time ago that is isn't the 44.1K or 48K sample rate, it isn't the 16 bit linear word, it isn't even most DACs. The problem and the annoyance is mostly too much HF energy. That's the crux of it.
30 years ago we found that even modest (cheap) CD players could sound good - remember Gold Star? 😉 The digital section is not difficult to get right, but the following analog section is easy to get wrong. Using a better analog section gives great results.
When I was able to do FFT analysis I found that D/A circuits plagued by an unpleasant digital edge shared a characteristic. Significant high order distortion. Often that did not appear with a sine signal below 1K, but was usually obvious with signals 2K and above. Using a circuit that does not generate those overtones leads to a smoother, less annoying more "analog" sound.
Flat response. It's not all it's cracked up to be. If your system, including speakers and room, has a near flat response in the HF, it will be fatiguing. That's measured at the listening position, not at 1M. Roll off the top end and a lot of the digititus goes away. Cheap trick, but it works. For example, I stream Pandora via Bluetooth to my old Clairtone console. A compressed web stream over compressed Bluetooth should sound like pure poop, right? Nope. The console has very little top end, just a big mellow sound. No digital harshness. Just right for noisy vinyl, hissy FM and now - compressed digital. No top end, no harshness. Modern Hi-Fi sounds very fake to me, and much too bright.
Recordings. If you look at a spectrum plot of modern recordings, especially pop, they are very treble heavy compared to older recordings. It's a fad, a style, a way to get more "detail." Some remasters suffer this fate. I don't like it and it hurts my ears.
As you can see, all the things I mentioned have to do with HF energy, and too much of it. In the old days most of our sources, recordings and playback gear struggled to reproduce the top octave. But digital sources and modern electronics don't struggle, they can give you all the HF energy you could ever want. But do you really want it? I do not.
These are just my experiences over the past few decades, take them for what you will.
I learned a long time ago that is isn't the 44.1K or 48K sample rate, it isn't the 16 bit linear word, it isn't even most DACs. The problem and the annoyance is mostly too much HF energy. That's the crux of it.
30 years ago we found that even modest (cheap) CD players could sound good - remember Gold Star? 😉 The digital section is not difficult to get right, but the following analog section is easy to get wrong. Using a better analog section gives great results.
When I was able to do FFT analysis I found that D/A circuits plagued by an unpleasant digital edge shared a characteristic. Significant high order distortion. Often that did not appear with a sine signal below 1K, but was usually obvious with signals 2K and above. Using a circuit that does not generate those overtones leads to a smoother, less annoying more "analog" sound.
Flat response. It's not all it's cracked up to be. If your system, including speakers and room, has a near flat response in the HF, it will be fatiguing. That's measured at the listening position, not at 1M. Roll off the top end and a lot of the digititus goes away. Cheap trick, but it works. For example, I stream Pandora via Bluetooth to my old Clairtone console. A compressed web stream over compressed Bluetooth should sound like pure poop, right? Nope. The console has very little top end, just a big mellow sound. No digital harshness. Just right for noisy vinyl, hissy FM and now - compressed digital. No top end, no harshness. Modern Hi-Fi sounds very fake to me, and much too bright.
Recordings. If you look at a spectrum plot of modern recordings, especially pop, they are very treble heavy compared to older recordings. It's a fad, a style, a way to get more "detail." Some remasters suffer this fate. I don't like it and it hurts my ears.
As you can see, all the things I mentioned have to do with HF energy, and too much of it. In the old days most of our sources, recordings and playback gear struggled to reproduce the top octave. But digital sources and modern electronics don't struggle, they can give you all the HF energy you could ever want. But do you really want it? I do not.
Beliefs are stressful:
By example, just examine the difference in response and enjoyment of someone doing an activity they think is dangerous and someone who believes it's absolutely fine! The latter will enjoy it and be relaxed, the former will flake out and have to stop because of the constant, flinching stress.
I've never experienced fatigue from digital alone, whilst I have experienced fatigue from a poor system whether it was playing back digital or vinyl.. often with the overly-bright modern type of system Pano mentions above!
By example, just examine the difference in response and enjoyment of someone doing an activity they think is dangerous and someone who believes it's absolutely fine! The latter will enjoy it and be relaxed, the former will flake out and have to stop because of the constant, flinching stress.
I've never experienced fatigue from digital alone, whilst I have experienced fatigue from a poor system whether it was playing back digital or vinyl.. often with the overly-bright modern type of system Pano mentions above!
Last edited:
Spooky, I was thinking of bringing this up and the fact that, for those of us old enough to remember the 'digital ready' stickers on everything. LP playback systems had less top end and the speakers were often tipped up to compensate. Also as Pano mentioned, the whole drive for flat in room response.
A tilt control would deal with this. Peter Walker was right.
Another thought extending from Pano's post: In the studio, many high frequency transients wouldn't survive the analogue tape recording process and so bright mic-pres and other outboard gear wouldn't cause any trouble on the recording.
Bring in digital recording and this outboard gear could often have its shortcomings revealed (even if they were very very strong in other areas).
First human instinct in such a situation is to blame what you've just changed, the analogue medium for the digital one.. "That's the sound of digital! Isn't it full of detail! " I'm sure people will have proclaimed when listening to the ragged HF transients of their studio outboard gear, completely unaware where it was coming from but convinced it was good - change is often initially appealing.
Bring in digital recording and this outboard gear could often have its shortcomings revealed (even if they were very very strong in other areas).
First human instinct in such a situation is to blame what you've just changed, the analogue medium for the digital one.. "That's the sound of digital! Isn't it full of detail! " I'm sure people will have proclaimed when listening to the ragged HF transients of their studio outboard gear, completely unaware where it was coming from but convinced it was good - change is often initially appealing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.