The Future of our TV's what we will be seeing

[mykil]

I was watching a program on National geographic channel a few nights ago on some amazing realities we are going to see in the near future, but one in particular really thru me for a loop. The one thing was the idea that the TV’s coming out in the near future we will be watching will be better than real life, as in better than what our eyes can see in real life, the picture will look better on TV that in real life. How is this possible? How is it even passable to even attempt to see better on a TV than it is in normal everyday life? Does this make any sense?

[podfish]

In one sense it of course doesn't - your eyes (and brain) are still involved in seeing the TV. But when there's a TV (and more importantly, a camera and a computer) in between your eyes and 'real life' a lot can happen. Most obvious are magnification and slow-motion or time-lapse effects. Plus a camera can go where your eyes can't, like above the atmosphere or deep into the ocean.
I have no idea why they think this is new and somehow special, though. Maybe because it'll be more ubiquitous now that cameras and computers are cheap, or could even built-in to your eyeball.

... How is it even passable to even attempt to see better on a TV than it is in normal everyday life? Does this make any sense?

[mykil]

Hmmm I see where you are going but in my mind if it is better than real life it is animation or just something that is not real. I do like the idea of the magnification thou and do see clearly what you are saying there. With HD, which BTW I have not seen yet, to cheap, err frugal, but to watch nature in something that appears to be better than what I can see it in real life has got to not make sense. WE have come a long ways in creating a better sense of reality since way back in time via Black and White Television, but for me to look at the TV and then tilt my head to the right and see the real object in real time looking back and seeing the TV looking better just boggles the mind. I can see cameras picking up more in color and detail than the naked eye but how can we even attempt to see past this is the real question, if we can see it on the TV we can see it in real life. This has to make sense, so there for it cannot be. Although I am sure it is somehow…

[Dram]

with freeze frame control I can be watching someoneone on tv that I like and I've come to a feel of that person, but then when I freeze frames, I see things in expressions that can change my feel for that person than what I had built in my mind.

so what significance I can find is all that is there, but my senses and perceptions are what limit me to seeing it?

Hmmm I see where you are going but in my mind if it is better than real life it is animation or just something that is not real. I do like the idea of the magnification thou and do see clearly what you are saying there. With HD, which BTW I have not seen yet, to cheap, err frugal, but to watch nature in something that appears to be better than what I can see it in real life has got to not make sense. WE have come a long ways in creating a better sense of reality since way back in time via Black and White Television, but for me to look at the TV and then tilt my head to the right and see the real object in real time looking back and seeing the TV looking better just boggles the mind. I can see cameras picking up more in color and detail than the naked eye but how can we even attempt to see past this is the real question, if we can see it on the TV we can see it in real life. This has to make sense, so there for it cannot be. Although I am sure it is somehow…

[hales]

Mykil, tv and other digital technology inevitably changes how we see, hear, and otherwise sense our environments. I don't know about you, but my vision is not as good as it used to be, so my glasses are a piece of technology that makes it possible to see better than I "normally" or "naturally" would, ie: I can read in dimmer light or I can read smaller print than I otherwise would. My ears are not totally functional, either; one ear has a substantial hearing loss, so if I had hearing aids, or even earbuds from my iPod, they would help me to hear "better".. and better headphones or hearing aid technology would translate to better sound transmission.

No doubt you realize that what you perceive as light in your own brain is derived from nerve impulses, which are translated from light hitting the back of your eyeball, after being refracted by the lens of your eyes, etc.. and that light had to be reflected by some object or emitted by somme energy source. So what we think we perceive, is always NOT the object itself , but is brain info mediated through light or sound waves in the atmosphere, and translated through our bodies' imperfect and limited sensory apparatus, as well as different parts of the nervous system and brain.

In my youth I took hallucinogens.. dude, they were fun! I LIKE seeing things in High-def! Brighter colors, more vivid, and stuff MOVES! Actually, I came to the conclusion that I had to stop doing that stuff, as I wanted to find a natural way to get high, and if possible, stay high, instead of becoming more dependent on drugs.

I stopped doing those kinds of drugs in the late 70s, and I still kinda miss that sensuously vivid visual experience. As a 55 year old dude, I have more recently slipped into two other addictions, watching TV and interacting with my computer. Why? Because I am highly visual, I like to look at things and I like to be overstimulated. I'm just like that rat pushing the bar for more pleasure stimulus. I was thinking today about how little I get back from my computer and tv, most of the time, but sometimes it really leads to something tasty or satisfying! So i am coming home and logging on, every night that I have no social plans, or other commitments.

What I am getting to, in this round-about way, is that TV can certainly become extremely vivid and intense, with magnification, intense editing, color enhancement, filtering, etc.. in addition, man, it is totally possible for subliminal content to intensify the effect of the already addictive nature of visual and auditory stimulation in TV format.. with the right sound system and audio technology, and the right type of screen and content, you might as well be on a drug trip, ie, and enhanced, jacked-up version of "reality".

With modern digital animation, it's possible to actually simulate reality, without using real people.. and this trend will continue to develop, no doubt. In a sense, btw, Mykil NOTHING on TV is REAL! This is important, in fact, nothing you perceive is real, it's just an interpretation of a small bandwidth of light and sound, etc.. as i said in an earlier paragraph.. I think this is pretty obvious, when you think about it. We only see a small amount of the light that surrounds us, our senses of smell and touch, likewise only capture a certain amount of information from our reality that is available to a dog or cat, for instance.

Another point I want to make, since I am on my soap box, is that every new technology changes how we experience reality, once we have adapted to using it.. did you see the movie "Being There"? If not, I highly recommend this classic Peter Sellers movie. His character, "Chance" is raised in an isolated situation to adulthood, and his only connection to the outside world is the TV.. then he has to go out and interact with "real" life..

The scene I was thinking of is one where he has an unpleasant confrontation on the street, with a gang, and tries to "change the channel" with a remote control he was used to using to control his experience in "the old man's" house, where he grew up, and emerged as a middle aged man..

I have had that strong impulse to "hit rewind", or "pause".. that comes purely from having had that physical/mental/emotional experience of being able to control content by using some kind of remote control device, button, etc.. it's a very empowering feeling, although it is generally virtual and not "real".. still we have a neural version of the experience stored in our brain's memories and "it" can not really tell the difference.. a book could be written about this if it hasn't already.. Actually, I think Phillip K. Dick was a master of this kind of fiction. I think he wrote a book or short story called "Only Apparently Real".

I think I'll send this post and see if anyone else is interested.. once again, Mykil, you prove to be really good at provoking some kind of response.. I hope it's interesting to you at least.. ; )

Thanks for the challenge.. ; )

Scott.

Hmmm I see where you are going but in my mind if it is better than real life it is animation or just something that is not real. I do like the idea of the magnification thou and do see clearly what you are saying there. With HD, which BTW I have not seen yet, to cheap, err frugal, but to watch nature in something that appears to be better than what I can see it in real life has got to not make sense. WE have come a long ways in creating a better sense of reality since way back in time via Black and White Television, but for me to look at the TV and then tilt my head to the right and see the real object in real time looking back and seeing the TV looking better just boggles the mind. I can see cameras picking up more in color and detail than the naked eye but how can we even attempt to see past this is the real question, if we can see it on the TV we can see it in real life. This has to make sense, so there for it cannot be. Although I am sure it is somehow…