Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
It's the thought that counts.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                 

Broadcast all TV at double speed

You'll get used to it.
  (+12, -4)(+12, -4)
(+12, -4)
  [vote for,
against]

Dogs don't watch TV.

Why? Because TV is a series of still images. The images are flat, instead of 3D. The images don't smell. The images show things that are much smaller than they really are. In extremis, the images are even devoid of colour.

But we humans are adaptable. We get used to the flickeriness. We get used to the flatness, the lack of smell, the shrunkennes, and even the lack of colour.

I contend that, with a little effort, we'd get used to things being broadcast at double speed. This would make room for twice as many programs as are currently broadcast.

MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 24 2011

"Bad Influence" - the Datablast http://www.youtube....watch?v=dSGFG95vEfc
Back in the 90s, there was a computer & video games based show on UK TV called Bad Influence. During the end credits, it ran together text & images at higher frame rates. The idea was that you could tape the show (or just the "datablast") and then see the stuff at your own leisure. [Jinbish, Mar 06 2011]

[link]






       //twice as many programs// Type, or token? I betcha the result would be a small increase in the number of new programs, and a very large increase in the number of reruns.   

       In any case, isn't this is already being done, selectively, when linking or transitional segments deemed insufficiently exciting are sped up?
mouseposture, Feb 24 2011
  

       A lot of daytime television should be compressible down to less than one bit.
Ian Tindale, Feb 25 2011
  

       I think double speed might be a bit of a coarse means of compression. Really you want a means of compression which shows the broadcast at a speed inversely proportional to the semantic content.
hippo, Feb 25 2011
  

       Let's not focus only on the temporal plane for redundancy: with high resolution screens, you could display 4 or more lower resolution programmes at the same time.
Jinbish, Feb 25 2011
  

       Perhaps by overlaying them, one atop the other, but the bottommost atop the dark reflected image of portly you, slumped vacant on the couch, a glistening bulb of saliva working its quiet way out of the corner of your mouth.
calum, Feb 25 2011
  

       TV should work in a similar way to the newsreaders' auto-cue. The faster you watch, the faster the programme is broadcast.
DrBob, Feb 25 2011
  

       Baked. And works. MTV
pashute, Feb 25 2011
  

       Obligatory "If only they would do this just for the commercials"
phundug, Feb 25 2011
  

       Oh god. I woke up this morning and thought I'd dreamed posting this idea. Then I remembered I actually had, and thought I'd delete it before anyone noticed. And now there are annotations and it would be rude.   

       I have at least boned it, by way of self-chastisement.
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 25 2011
  

       They both have.
MaxwellBuchanan, Feb 25 2011
  

       Isn't this the equivalent of running it at ~15 frames/sec? Maybe you could just interleave a second program, instead of running "fast" programs back to back
tjhenry, Feb 27 2011
  

       MB, Sir. The tedium of actual typing is obviously left to the servants, who have failed to inform you that they have taken the liberty.
Ling, Feb 27 2011
  

       Why not have a split screen and run two programmes at normal speed? Eye movement detection would allocate the sound channel according to your attention.
xenzag, Feb 27 2011
  

       I think you're being a bit hasty there in assuming that the majority of Halfbakers don't ordinarily have an abraded nose and a splitting headache.
hippo, Feb 27 2011
  

       I’ve actually tried this with one specific show. I watched 30 or so episodes of the anime Naruto Shippuden at mostly 2x speed, but 3x and 1.5x at some parts. I did it because I had already watched those episodes long ago, but wanted to rewatch them so I could watch the newer episodes.   

       It worked fine – most of the time, I could understand everything as fast as necessary. However, what I watched has some differences from normal television:   

       • as I said, I had already watched it before   

       • it has subtitles (and audio in a language I don’t understand), and reading is faster than listening   

       • the show has to stretch itself to fit into 23 minutes, so it is overly slow and dramatic at times, which is why I had the idea to speed it up in the first place.   

       • I watched it on my computer, so if I ever missed a part, I could pause it and rewind easily, and maybe watch it slower the next time around. If a part was really dragging on, I also sometimes changed the speed to 3x. (I used Quicktime Players’ speed slider.)   

       I predict that if normal television was broadcast at double speed, viewers would have trouble transitioning between watching shows and real life – real life would seem strangely slow for a few minutes afterward. This prediction is based on my experience of what sometimes happens when I finish a long period of playing video games (a little like the Tetris Effect).
Rory O'Kane, Feb 28 2011
  

       [+] why not? then if you have the inkling...you can watch them in slo-mo!
xandram, Feb 28 2011
  

       If they could bother to remove the annoying white flashes that seem to permeate TV broadcasts, especially movie ads, that would cut at least 20 percent.
RayfordSteele, Feb 28 2011
  

       I listened to a Malcolm Gladwell audio book once, a few years ago. The only way I could tolerate it was to set my iPod (back in the days before my iPod was stolen along with my camera, 20mm lens and a pair of trainers) to play at double rate (which, due to modern technology, doesn’t pitch- shift, but merely takes half the time to plough through the pointlessness which would otherwise result in an enduring impression of “oh get on with it you tedious… hang on, why are you even telling me any of this stuff anyway? I’m sure I was slightly smarter before I started listening to this nonsense” type of feeling).
Ian Tindale, Feb 28 2011
  

       Jinbish, - don’t remind me of that (in your link). I was the launch art editor of the associated magazine of the same name, which was one of the most botched, over-regulated, autocratic dictatorial and mismanaged design environments I’ve ever had to tell them to shove it up their collective arses before storming out. I absolutely hated the whole project and by the end of my involvement, also everyone I worked with and worked for, and still hope they all die horribly along with all their relatives in avoidable fires, drownings, road traffic accidents and falling buildings. And I hate Macclesfield, as a result, and hope it gets carpet bombed during my lifetime.
Ian Tindale, Mar 06 2011
  

       Ian - in these straightened economic circumstances, I don't see how carpet-bombing Macclesfield can be considered a good idea. Taking into account the damage to buildings, infrastructure and services, such a policy could cause hundreds of pounds worth of damage.
MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 06 2011
  

       Okay, rug bombing then.
Ian Tindale, Mar 06 2011
  

       Oops - sorry IanT. I really liked the TV show. Well, it was no GamesMaster, but it was still good. I'm never one for accompanying magazines, though, so I am quite happy to support you in your hatred against them.
Jinbish, Mar 06 2011
  

       This can be simulated by getting really drunk.   

       You can also time travel.   

       1- Say goodbye to all your friends, 2- Pack your bags, 3- Drink a bottle of tequila, 4- Wake up 1 day in the future.
doctorremulac3, Mar 06 2011
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle