Settling time on receiver chips can stabilize framing to some degree. It is similar to the jitter problem with digital audio.
The eye can apparently see this, as video is a thing built up out of a very complex scenario for a very complex device called the human eye.
Eyes, like ears and brains, are an individual difference package. One can see and hear and ruminate differently than another. IQ, earQ and EyeQ? Yes, a known set of parameters. Differences in all. If one can see it and another can't... but that latter one can move numbers around on paper, well, that's not a solution to an astute observation. It's denial via the tool at hand. Dogmatism piles rolled forward.
There are reams of articles about how HDMI improvement aspects of any kind can’t possibly be true.... but not one whit of it goes after anything other than a paper based number analysis of engineered hardware... and bits being bits.
None of that... takes into account the other 50-60-80% of the over arching complexity of the scenario. You know, all the real world stuff.
It’s more like an angrily and confusingly asked question - than an answer to anything. (just hit it with the hammer you’ve got)
The monkey, prior to the development of the tool? He’s still in there, at the root of it all, in humans. Still angrily banging the coconut against the rock. The development and application of intelligence is core to the act of getting past that.
The eye can apparently see this, as video is a thing built up out of a very complex scenario for a very complex device called the human eye.
Eyes, like ears and brains, are an individual difference package. One can see and hear and ruminate differently than another. IQ, earQ and EyeQ? Yes, a known set of parameters. Differences in all. If one can see it and another can't... but that latter one can move numbers around on paper, well, that's not a solution to an astute observation. It's denial via the tool at hand. Dogmatism piles rolled forward.
There are reams of articles about how HDMI improvement aspects of any kind can’t possibly be true.... but not one whit of it goes after anything other than a paper based number analysis of engineered hardware... and bits being bits.
None of that... takes into account the other 50-60-80% of the over arching complexity of the scenario. You know, all the real world stuff.
It’s more like an angrily and confusingly asked question - than an answer to anything. (just hit it with the hammer you’ve got)
The monkey, prior to the development of the tool? He’s still in there, at the root of it all, in humans. Still angrily banging the coconut against the rock. The development and application of intelligence is core to the act of getting past that.