rswyan
Super Star Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2004
- Messages
- 11,332
- Location
- Northeast Ohio
- Tractor
- Kubota B2910, Cub Cadet Pro Z 154S, Simplicity 18 CFC, Cub Cadet 782
MikePA,
None taken.
Here's the real deal: People viewing static (non-moving) images on a TV have an attention span of probably about 2 seconds .... unless the item is something they are specifically interested in and then you might have double or triple that if you are lucky. ......... after that you've lost them.
People expect video to have motion or change - something has to be going on - otherwise they lose interest very, very quickly. Next time you flick on the TV observe that there is almost always something going on in the frame - whether it be motion of the objects .... or panning and/or zooming of the camera - there is almost always some motion .... even if it's only slight.
Another problem is that alot of the text is designed to be displayed on a computer screen - not a TV. It's small and very fine. Computer monitors and TV screens are very different animals - even though they appear to be very similar. Most computer monitors have inherently more resolution (1024 x 768 pixels and higher) than a standard definition TV screen (around 720 x 486)
Additionally, the way a computer monitor draws the image on the screen is vastly different than a TV. A computer monitor's electron gun starts at the top and fires left to right, then goes down one line or row and fires left to right, repeating itself for all lines (768 as an example) from top to bottom ... and then does it again, about 60 times per second. A TV does similar - except that it skips every other line or row until it gets to the bottom and then it comes back up to the top and draws all the lines that it skipped on the first pass. This is what is known as interlaced video. Computer monitors use non-interlaced video.
Interlaced video is problematic for thin horizontal lines and very fine text (IIRC, the standard guideline for text to be displayed and readable on a TV is 18pt and larger.) What happens is that they will appear to vibrate or "buzz" on a TV set - therefore you just don't include them in your designs.
....... cause it may look very different than it does on a computer monitor.
Another thing is the NTSC colorspace - it's not the same as a computer, which can display a larger colorspace. It is possible to use NTSC illegal colors - many programs will allow you to do that - but it creates some interesting phenomena with both video and audio. It's easy enough to handle if you know to filter your colors so that they are legal.
The above are a few of the techincal details that one should be aware of when designing for video.
None taken.
Yup, I understand.
You are correct - the problem is the static content .... although not for the reason that you posit. I suspect Mike inventories multiples of any given item and any permanent changes in inventory mix could be fairly easily updated on the DVD.
Here's the real deal: People viewing static (non-moving) images on a TV have an attention span of probably about 2 seconds .... unless the item is something they are specifically interested in and then you might have double or triple that if you are lucky.
......... after that you've lost them.People expect video to have motion or change - something has to be going on - otherwise they lose interest very, very quickly. Next time you flick on the TV observe that there is almost always something going on in the frame - whether it be motion of the objects .... or panning and/or zooming of the camera - there is almost always some motion .... even if it's only slight.
Yup. A standard definition TV screen has a 4:3 aspect ratio - 4 units wide by 3 units high. The webpages do not follow this aspect ratio (simply because they weren't designed to - and in fact the aspect ratio of the webpages is somewhat changable, due to the nature of HTML and the way it will reflow text depending on the size of the browser window.)
Another problem is that alot of the text is designed to be displayed on a computer screen - not a TV. It's small and very fine. Computer monitors and TV screens are very different animals - even though they appear to be very similar. Most computer monitors have inherently more resolution (1024 x 768 pixels and higher) than a standard definition TV screen (around 720 x 486)
Additionally, the way a computer monitor draws the image on the screen is vastly different than a TV. A computer monitor's electron gun starts at the top and fires left to right, then goes down one line or row and fires left to right, repeating itself for all lines (768 as an example) from top to bottom ... and then does it again, about 60 times per second. A TV does similar - except that it skips every other line or row until it gets to the bottom and then it comes back up to the top and draws all the lines that it skipped on the first pass. This is what is known as interlaced video. Computer monitors use non-interlaced video.
Interlaced video is problematic for thin horizontal lines and very fine text (IIRC, the standard guideline for text to be displayed and readable on a TV is 18pt and larger.) What happens is that they will appear to vibrate or "buzz" on a TV set - therefore you just don't include them in your designs.
I'm afraid that I can't view it as I'm on a Mac right at the moment ..... I'm sure it looks nice. I have one question though - did you look at it on a TV ?
....... cause it may look very different than it does on a computer monitor.Another thing is the NTSC colorspace - it's not the same as a computer, which can display a larger colorspace. It is possible to use NTSC illegal colors - many programs will allow you to do that - but it creates some interesting phenomena with both video and audio. It's easy enough to handle if you know to filter your colors so that they are legal.
The above are a few of the techincal details that one should be aware of when designing for video.
