Metabog
Newbie
Posts: 2
Registered: 01-11 |
Sorry for the bump, but I really wanted to add something to this.
Just like with audio, the bigger the sampling rate is, the better the overall quality you will have, even if the criteria for "good" is met. I don't have a lot of experience with graphics, but I'm decent with audio signal processing, so here's how I see this:
There's a rule that in order to capture a signal without any aliasing, you need to capture it at twice the maximum frequency component (i.e. if it's music, you need to go up to the human hearing range, hence 22050hz * 2 = 44100hz, the classic sample rate you see on audio CD). But how can you account for the fact that in most professional equipment, you can go way way way way higher than that? It's not just psychological. When you're generating audio rather than sampling, you have to make sure you are sampling fast enough to pick up things you're generating on the fly that might go over the Nyquist rate (your max frequency), and also, for example, if you pitch shift some audio, distort something, etc. All the audio frequencies that exceed the limit actually magically reflect back into the audio part as aliasing, even though it's technically outside your hearing range. There are lots of weird phenomena like this.
As far as I know, your frame rate is a similar sampling effect, and your eyes and visual cortex also do a similar thing, and aliasing also occurs in images (I think both "time aliasing", like when you see a wheel turn the wrong way due to low framerate, and problems from compression, such as Moire patterns). You can stick around 30fps, which is as much as your eyes can see, but you have to think about what happens to things that happen too fast, because they may still cause a change in the image.
Also, hi guys.
|
01-09-10 15:56 
