Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

TV Programmers Seek the Elusive Dog Market

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the what-does-your-fish-read? dept.

Television 199

HonorPoncaCityDotCom writes "Stanley Coren reports that a number of new television stations are providing programming specifically designed for dogs and while many people report that their dogs completely ignore what is visible on television, with modern resolution and quicker imaging, more dogs have become potential television viewers. The increase in dog viewership is primarily attributed to the way the dog's eye works. The image on a standard television screen is updated 60 times per second and since a human's flicker fusion frequency is only 55 Hz, the image appears continuous and the gradually changing images give us the illusion of movement. However dogs can discern flickers at up to 80 Hz so with the increased availability of high-resolution digital screens that are refreshed at a much higher rate, the images are less likely to appear to be flickering to the canine eye. Presentation factors are also an issue. Dogs are most likely to respond to images that have been captured at the eye level of a dog with a low camera angle where there are moving things like animals or birds. But even if that requirement is fulfilled, most dogs do not watch television because the TV is normally placed at a comfortable eye level for human beings and dogs do tend not to scan upward, and therefore do not notice the TV images. All of which brings us to DogTV, the first cable network to deliver 24-hour programming for dogs that lets you flip on the channel while you go out for the day as your pet is stimulated, entertained and relaxed. 'If the dog wasn't enjoying it, he would find something else to do, like nibble on the end of a sofa,' says veterinarian Ann E. Hohenhaus."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

dog TV (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284123)

I hope there are a lot of bitches on TV.

Re:dog TV (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year ago | (#44284437)

I think that'll be the new dog pr0n channel, but it'd likely flop (dogs are driven by smell in that department, not sight. Also, a neutered dog isn't likely to care at all.)

I'm just curious as to what they consider "eye level" for the typical dog, though - the eyes on my Dachshunds (aka the 'low-rider dobermans') are a helluva lot closer to the ground than those of a Great Dane.

Re:dog TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44285009)

dog TV would probably be less bitches and more intelligence than most current programs ;)

why ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284133)

they dont have any money and cant ell their owner buy me this

Re:why ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284165)

they dont have any money and cant ell their owner buy me this

Are you kidding?

There are many people out there who treat their dogs like children - some even BETTER than their children.

If Poopsie starts pawing and barking at the new Lexus, you can bet Poopsie will be getting a new Lexus.

Re:why ? (1)

Golddess (1361003) | about a year ago | (#44285325)

I was about to comment that people aren't likely to keep it on the dog channel once they get home, and thus the Lexus commercials that Poopsie sees when you are home won't be the same that can get her attention. But then I realized that the kinds of people you are referring to, probably would have a TV completely dedicated to Poopsie, such that the owner need not disturb Poopsie to watch what they want to watch.

Re:why ? (3, Insightful)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about a year ago | (#44284247)

Presumably advertisements on the show would be seen by the pet-owners who would then be more likely to purchase the advertised product. I assume that the type of people who would buy this for their pets - the "hard-core" dog-owners, as it were - are also the sort to buy "premium" dog food for $15.00 per can, or diamond-studded dog collars or whatever, so there is probably money to be made in that market.

It's unfortunate, however, that nowadays everything has to be justified by an explanation on how it can be monetized. Admittedly, it costs money to run a cable station but it would be nice to sometimes see somebody go "Fuck it, I just love dogs so what the hell; let's give them cable!"

Re:why ? (2, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44284395)

If it were pitched as a premium channel or similar add-on to basic cable, you could also go the 'buy this unless you hate your dog and want it to suffer while you neglect it home, alone and afraid, and probably peeing on your sofa!' angle.

Heck, just look at the success of that 'Baby Einstein' dreck: somewhere between fuck-all and overtly negative effects(once somebody actually bothered to do some research, well after the selling had started) and they still moved a zillion units by telling parents that plunking their little spawn in front of the TV could be done without guilt.

Re:why ? (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#44284427)

Nah, the commercials will be 60 second clips of whatever is located at nose height at PetsMart. Woofer goes with owner to store, recalls the images flickering within its canine brain. This triggers a Pavlovian reflex, Woofer grabs the chewy thing and promptly drools on it (You drool on it, you buy it)

Re:why ? (2)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about a year ago | (#44284603)

I admit, I LOLed.

(You drool on it, you buy it)

Sadly, not the policy at the local Walmart...

Re:why ? (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year ago | (#44285071)

That and Dogs are not really visual animals like Humans are.

Sure the dog can see what is on TV but he really doesn't care that much, unless it makes a noise that he finds interesting. My Dog responds to the barking of Real Dogs (Not Synthesized ones) and to the sound of the Door Bell. However other than that he has no interests. If the TV gave off smells, the dog may be more interested. However I wouldn't like a TV that gives off smells my Dog likes.

Re:why ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44285493)

My Lab watches TV frequently in very short chunks. If there is no action he loses interest pretty quick. My wife told me he watched TV and I though she was kidding

entertaining? (2, Funny)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44284155)

well.. maybe the dog is compelled to keep an eye on the evil trans dimensional window so that no baddies come in through it.

otoh, maybe that's good times for a dog..

Re:entertaining? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284333)

I've had lots of dogs but never saw one watch TV. Cats, however, like nature shows.

Re:entertaining? (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year ago | (#44284481)

I've had lots of dogs but never saw one watch TV. Cats, however, like nature shows.

Same story here. The dogs don't give a damn what's on TV, even if I'm playing a FPS on the thing with the screen refresh cranked to maximum (~120 Hz, I think).

Now the cat? She goes apeshit when she sees a bird on the thing.

Re:entertaining? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284627)

My dog was weirdly interested in Red Dead Redemption, especially when there were wolves and dogs onscreen.

Re:entertaining? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year ago | (#44285079)

Did you have sound up? I bet is more interesting in the sound of the barking.

Re:entertaining? (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44285527)

I have a lab mix whom I've caught watching news programs on a few occasions (not just sitting on the couch looking in the general direction of the television, but actually watching the news - following movements on screen, etc.).

Of course, this is the same dog who will sit next to people and stare at them with his muzzle less than an inch from their faces, panic barks at rabbits in the neighbor's yard (pretty sure he's trying to warn them about our cat), tries to play with the lawnmower, and generally fears nothing. In other words, he's friggin' weird.

YMMV.

Re:entertaining? (1)

RoccamOccam (953524) | about a year ago | (#44284547)

My dog gets very excited about people running on screen (but only sometimes). Also, she sometimes gets very interested in people standing around talking to each other. I can't figure out the pattern. But, whenever she does get interested, she grabs a toy and tries to present it to the people on screen (she's a golden retriever) and she whines or does her playful growl.

Re:entertaining? (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about a year ago | (#44285301)

I've seen a dog watch TV, though she had a pretty short attention span. The best part is what she was watching and what was happening; it was perfect. It was a nature show about wolves, and there was a pack and an "outsider" wolf. I shit you not: my dog started growling at the outsider! Something about its posture, I guess.

Re:entertaining? (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year ago | (#44284643)

Pff, the real danger is the large trans dimensional window in all of the owners' sleeping rooms. There's always another dog trying to get in whenever my pup would enter the room.

Seriously though, never had my dogs care that much about the TV. Maybe a little but nothing much.

But as puppies, watching them react to mirrors was hilarious! Depending on the dog, they'd treat the reflection like an intruder or perhaps immediately take them to be a new new friend. In either case it would be a hyped up reaction.

TV's though? Meh, maybe some dialog or sound effects would get their attention but that's about it.

Aquarium Chanel (5, Interesting)

HappyHead (11389) | about a year ago | (#44284161)

My dog always liked the Aquarium Chanel on satellite. It would keep him occupied for hours if I was going out - he'd still be sitting there watching the fish going back and forth, occasionally looking around behind the TV to try and find them.

Ad supported? (3, Interesting)

TWX (665546) | about a year ago | (#44284163)

Okay, I'm curious as to how the business model for this works. Aren't most TV networks ad-supported? If the human isn't really paying attention to the TV then the human isn't going to really pay attention to the ads, and obviously the pet doesn't have the ability to make financial transactions on their own, and unlike kids' TV programming, can't nag the human into buying things for them...

$5.99/month - $9.99/month (3, Informative)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#44284197)

monthly cost varies by cable provider and is between $5.99/month - $9.99/month (or $9.99 for the online streaming service and Roku)

Directv will have it for $5.99

Re:Ad supported? (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#44284293)

From skimming the site I think it's subsription based. Speaking as a human, I was entertained by the sample clips [dogtv.com] . Also note that the image is in color which suggests to me that this is geared at least partly toward the owners.
Come to think of it, this may be an even bigger hit with students than the Teletubbies were back in the '90s. Perfect for a stoned afternoon on the couch.

Re:Ad supported? (1)

tuck182 (43130) | about a year ago | (#44285545)

Also note that the image is in color which suggests to me that this is geared at least partly toward the owners.

Dogs aren't color blind in the "they can only see in black and white" sense that most people think. Their range of color perception is more limited than humans', but they still can perceive colors.

According to the DogTV faq, they'd messed around with the color and contrast of the images so they're more apparent to dogs.

Re:Ad supported? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#44285647)

From skimming the site I think it's subsription based. Speaking as a human, I was entertained by the sample clips. Also note that the image is in color which suggests to me that this is geared at least partly toward the owners.

Dogs, despite common belief, don't see in just black and white. They do have limited color vision (usually limited to blue and yellow) as well. Of course, recording in color means the differences in color vision is narrowed down.

Anyhow, I had dogs that reacted to dogs on TV (even upscaled SD programming of dogs). One other one I had just loved watched TV with motion on it). Of course, this was on an older 60Hz TV...

Re:Ad supported? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284397)

Okay, I'm curious as to how the business model for this works. Aren't most TV networks ad-supported? If the human isn't really paying attention to the TV then the human isn't going to really pay attention to the ads, and obviously the pet doesn't have the ability to make financial transactions on their own, and unlike kids' TV programming, can't nag the human into buying things for them...

Was this problem really that challenging to you? Or was it your dog that wrote the post?

yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284169)

...except my dog barks at any animal seen on the screen...i don't need more ads targeted to her.

Or destroy the TV (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284177)

The reasons given sound reasonable, but there's a reason people don't mount TVs on the floor with dogs around. One show with a cat or squirrel, and that TV is toast.

wealth brings stupidity (-1, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44284179)

I could tell the country lost perspective on pets during hurricane Katrina, when people being rescued were whining their curs weren't being allowed on helicopters, and our idiot officials promised more sensitivity to pets in future disaster rescues. Of course, anyone with two neurons to rub together knows the proper solution to some moron who won't let go of their pet to be rescued is to shoot the damn animal and fling its carcass away, then subdue the ingrate for rescuing. Pets are expendable beasts in an emergency.

Re:wealth brings stupidity (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284225)

Yeah, you're a real tough guy there. I bet you just kill peoples and doesn't afraid of anything, eh?

Fucking sociopaths like you should be kept away from civilization, for the safety of the real people.

Re:wealth brings stupidity (0)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44284385)

you are the sociopath, valuing some animal you judge as "cute" over humans safety. rescue chopper is no place for loose animals, disaster rescue is no time to be wasting time on beasts. you have no perspective on reality

Re:wealth brings stupidity (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284483)

Oddly enough, there's a difference between insisting that animals be brought onto a rescue helicopter (what you're accusing me of doing despite me never having done so) and acting like an asshole with no empathy (ie: what you are doing) - your complete lack of empathy is demonstrated quite clearly in your use of phrases like "shoot the damn animal and fling its carcass away, then subdue the ingrate for rescuing", and "were whining their curs weren't being allowed".

You're subhuman filth with no perspective on humanity, and you should not be allowed anywhere near people, as you're likely to cause a riot when someone you've deliberately offended (to make yourself feel superior) very correctly and appropriately punches you in the face for being an asshole.

Re:wealth brings stupidity (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#44284501)

Oh give it up, I think you might have some issues along these lines.

Even the Coast Guard figured it out a while back. It used to be they wouldn't rescue animals off boats. Then people stayed with the animals and the CG got some bad press. Now they'll winch off dogs and cats along with people.

Funny, more people would rather rescue animals than fellow humans. Just what does that say about our species?

Re:wealth brings stupidity (-1)

Lost Race (681080) | about a year ago | (#44285141)

It says we're not all complete bigots. Some of us might really transcend brute nature, red in tooth and claw.

Re:wealth brings stupidity (1)

stdarg (456557) | about a year ago | (#44285207)

Funny, more people would rather rescue animals than fellow humans. Just what does that say about our species?

I think it's a combination of beliefs. People can rescue themselves, especially from human-created problems, and the people who can't rescue themselves are often "broken" in a way that other people can't help (or don't know how). Animals can't rescue themselves from human-created problems (from invading their habitats to not spaying and neutering pets) and often respond very well to human help.

I mean not in all situations (wouldn't apply to your Coast Guard example, or natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina) but it explains why some people might donate to a "save the whales" fund but not donate to "save the starving children" funds. There usually is a large volunteer/donation response to natural disasters that affect humans.

Re:wealth brings stupidity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284613)

So you're mentally ill and take that out on others. Big deal.

Re:wealth brings stupidity (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284265)

Thank you so much for your loving and compassionate viewpoint.

Re:wealth brings stupidity (1, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44284355)

yes, I have love and compassion for human life over anything else. but apparently you don't think the risk of stressed animal in fear of its life in cockpit of helicopter to human life is any issue, because some animals are so cute and cuddly. How about my neighbor's six foot python and rattlesnake, can he bring them in rescue chopper?

Re:wealth brings stupidity (3, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#44284537)

Like I said, give it up. Helicopter pilots have winched off many a 'wild, stressed animal'. You put it in a cage, you put a muzzle on it, you strap it down somewhere.

Exactly what you would do with the stressed, out of control human that you've just winched off the tree.

And no, if you want to take your snakes, you're on your own. We're in it for the cutes.

Humans can be rational at times, but it certainly isn't their default condition.

Re:wealth brings stupidity (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284323)

And assholes like you are why we hate other humans so much we'd rather stay with the cat.

Re:wealth brings stupidity (4, Interesting)

tibit (1762298) | about a year ago | (#44284467)

Because, of course, helicopters are cat-allergic, right? The rotor sneezes and disintegrates as soon as a cat comes anywhere near.

In other words, get a grip. Not all emergencies are alike. If you have a small pet in your arms, there's no reason at all for the rescuers to tell you to forgo it. Heck, what you're arguing is pretty much life over quality of life. Yeah, we'll rescue you at any cost, but $DEITY forbid the rescuee has a living thing with them to comfort them. Being displaced in an emergency is obviously no biggie for you and you will stomach it like a big boy, right? You should have rotten for a couple of weeks at the superdome with all the other "ingrates" to get a humanistic perspective.

If it was an emergency where the rest of my immediate family would be already dead, and I had a choice of being rescued with our cat or perishing with him, I'd probably choose the latter. Say what you will, but our cat always knows when there's something wrong with one of us, and he sometimes works quite hard at comforting us. When my wife got back from a C-section, the cat would walk directly across her scar, massaging it. He kept at it for weeks. Nobody prompted it, it didn't see the scar directly, and so on. He just knew what to do. I have plenty of other examples like that. Just because it's not human doesn't mean it's life is worthless. Just to preempt what might be coming: no, I'm not freeing any lab monkeys, thank you very much, it'd be a retarded thing to do. Neither is our cat a "member" of our family. He's our cat. He gets his food and water, his vet check-ups, has a few small toys [kittyhooch.com] , and is kept indoors. He treats us with care, and we do the same, but we don't go overboard. He scratches a couple of designated dining room chairs, we don't have any pet furniture.

Re:wealth brings stupidity (2)

stdarg (456557) | about a year ago | (#44285233)

He scratches a couple of designated dining room chairs, we don't have any pet furniture.

I bet he's the one who designated those chairs though :)

Re:wealth brings stupidity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284475)

Well done getting all the kneejerk reactions.

Re:wealth brings stupidity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284575)

Fuck you too.

Your governement is downright stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44285001)

It has been known for a long time that some people would rather die with their pet than give them up. And they realize that... now ? Woot. Next time they spy on us, they should try to ask the NSA to download copy of sociologic study on people and pet. maybe they'll then learn something of importance for once.

Re:wealth brings stupidity (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44285273)

My choice would be to save the cat or dog and shoot you, flinging your worthless carcass away. The cat or dog has probably led a more worthwhile life and made a more positive contribution (in fact some viruses are probably more useful than you).

wrong (2, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44284203)

"The image on a standard television screen is updated 60 times per second"
I'm fairly certain that all US broadcast TV is around 27 FPS and non-HD cable is the same and there's no way satellite wastes bandwidth on high FPS. I think only HD is 60FPS. Just because an LCD is refreshing at 60 or 120Hz doesn't mean that's what the tower or cable company is sending.

Also, dog TV is a stupid idea. The last thing I want is my dog ramming and clawing to death my expensive television.

Fill disclosure: I don't actually have a dog or a TV. I'm allergic and live in an apartment and I use a tuner card on my PC.

Re:wrong (1)

sunami (751539) | about a year ago | (#44284539)

The flicker issue is dependent on how often the screen refreshes, not how often the image changes.

Re:wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284587)

The video stream is at 27 FPS (actually, 29.97), but the screen is updated at ~60Hz. The screen and video signal do not have to be refreshed at the exact same rate. NTSC, the analog standard in the US, is refreshed at 59.94 Hz. The issue the summary is talking about is the problem of dogs not being able to see a coherent image on a CRT refreshed at 60Hz, since they need a faster refresh rate to see the image and not the individual scan lines.

Mind you, for an LCD display it doesn't matter how fast it is refreshed, the image won't flicker anyways. It's only a problem for CRTs (and DLP-based projectors, I think, although I'm not sure if it's an actual issue).

Re:wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284685)

"The image on a standard television screen..."

wrong

No, I am pretty sure they are right. It is you that misread and implied that they were meaning the recorded transmission was at a lower FPS.

A standard TV screen in the US most certainly does refresh at 60FPS regardless of the signal. That is what was said and only that, nothing else.

Why do people do this? Why do people misread something, comment with wild accusations instead of, you know, RE-READING?
Come on now. Please.

My dog already watches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284241)

Any time a bear , dog, elephant or dear shows, my dog is right there growling and barking.
Started happening after our last cable update.
No interest in Housewives however.

Re:My dog already watches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284399)

My dog watches several programs but has little interest in ads. Programs that have long ads puts the dog to sleep. Once we received a credit card application in the mail addressed to my dogs' name (true story). We considered using a paw print and applying but didn't. Now it would have been useful to buy crap shown on doggie ads.

And now (4, Funny)

kryliss (72493) | about a year ago | (#44284249)

a word from our sponser.

Woof woof woof bark bark howl bark bark bark growl woof woof woof wimper pant pant pant woof bark bark bark hooooooooowwwwwwwwwllllllll Purina!!

Re:And now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284345)

The real tech behind DogTV: the subliminal messaging that makes dogs go nuts for the chosen treat?

But what about the Cats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284257)

Cats demand the Laser Pointer Channel!

Re:But what about the Cats? (1)

plover (150551) | about a year ago | (#44285423)

There's an iPad app for cats. It's a dot that moves around on a black screen, and responds to the touch of a paw.

So a laser pointer channel would probably be a big hit. For six minutes, until Fluffy gets bored. Hope you didn't pay for the 2-year subscription!

Meanwhile, Rome burns... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284271)

Give us bread and circuses, and make sure our animals are distracted so they can't alert us to the downfall of civilization.

This truly is the decline of the American Empire.

Re:Meanwhile, Rome burns... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44284461)

I'm pretty sure it was geese that provided warnings of incipient threats to the empire(though it was the republic, at the time)...

Re:Meanwhile, Rome burns... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#44284585)

Give us bread and circuses, and make sure our animals are distracted so they can't alert us to the downfall of civilization.

This truly is the decline of the American Empire.

Wait. What?

We just elected two utter bozos to the Presidency and a whole herd of idiots, fools and felons to Congress. You're worried about a television program? That caters to dogs?

Pick up the nearest block of wood and whap yourself upside the head with it a few times. See if that helps.

Re:Meanwhile, Rome burns... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284667)

make sure our animals are distracted so they can't alert us to the downfall of civilization.

You realize they did that years ago, and we completely ignored them, right? I mean, if we're not going to pay any attention to the warning, why not at least entertain them while we're going down?

Here is the news adapted for dogs (2, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#44284305)

Good evening. Here is the news for dogs. No dogs were involved in an accident on the M1 today when a lorry carrying high-octane fuel was in collision with a bollard. That's a bollard and not a dog. A spokesman for dogs said he was glad no dogs were involved. The Minister of Technology today met the three Russian leaders to discuss a £4 million airliner deal. None of them lay in their crates, chased their own tails, or ate any of the nice raw beef yum, yum. That's the end of the news, now our program for dogs continues with part three of 'A Tale of Two Cities', specially adapted for dogs by Joey.

another inaccuracy (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44284351)

The flicker fusion amount isn't a number. A DLP projector at 120Hz will drive me crazy but 240Hz is less noticeable. A CRT set to 60Hz will just about make my eyes bleed but 75Hz won't. An LCD set to 60Hz looks like a smooth motion to me. DLP merges RGB with a noticeable dark gap between them. CRTs have a high amount of luminosity difference between the frames so it's more noticeable. LCDs are very subtle and can get away with a lower Hz without humans noticing it. So not only is it different between people but it's different depending on how different color or brightness-wise the frames actually are.

Re:another inaccuracy (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44284541)

With the exception of the (distinctly expensive) 3-element DLP systems, the frequency is a bit of a lie.

In a single DLP setup, you only have one mirror array, of whatever resolution, which can attenuate each pixel more or less. That alone would only get you a greyscale image, so they toss a color wheel(and it is a literal wheel, the psychedelic seizurevision effect that occurs if the wheel or its drive motor are encumbered by dust or debris and start spinning out of sync with the rest of the system is something to see...) in the beampath and every third frame is R, G, or B, with your eye supposed to be doing the addition(and it mostly works, though your peripheral vision will likely pick up the effect, being more motion sensitive than central vision).

A 3-element unit has 3 DLPs, each with a fixed color filter, and simultaneous RGB output, and should look markedly less odd for the same nominal frequency.

Re:another inaccuracy (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#44284599)

It''s not a number. OK, what is it? A vegetable?

Re:another inaccuracy (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44284935)

It's called a "range." You may have learned about it in 4th grade math.

Re:another inaccuracy (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44284945)

The flicker fusion amount isn't a number. A DLP projector at 120Hz will drive me crazy but 240Hz is less noticeable. A CRT set to 60Hz will just about make my eyes bleed but 75Hz won't. An LCD set to 60Hz looks like a smooth motion to me. DLP merges RGB with a noticeable dark gap between them. CRTs have a high amount of luminosity difference between the frames so it's more noticeable. LCDs are very subtle and can get away with a lower Hz without humans noticing it. So not only is it different between people but it's different depending on how different color or brightness-wise the frames actually are.

That is actually because LCDs have a separate frequency for the backlight, which is much higher than the picture frame rate.

Also see Ask Slashdot: Does LED Backlight PWM Drive You Crazy? [slashdot.org]

I showed a clip to my dog (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284367)

Here are his comments:

Bow wow. Bow wow. Woof-woof-woof. Grrrr. Bow wow! Bow wow! Grrrrrrrrrr... Bark! Bark! Bark! Bow wow! Bow wow! Woof! Bow wow. Bow wow. Woof-woof-woof. Grrrr. Bow wow! Bow wow! Bark! Bark! Bark! Bow wow! Grrrrrr! Bark! Bow wow! Bow wow! Woof! Bow wow. Bow wow. Woof-woof-woof. Grrrr. Bow wow! Bow wow! Bark! Bark! Bark! Bow wow!

And then after 11:00 PM... (5, Funny)

kaizendojo (956951) | about a year ago | (#44284425)

it becomes DogTV - "After Dark"... featuring the Humping Things Show and Hot Bitches in Heat.

Flicker fusion bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284439)

The only flicker in modern TFT displays (note: NOT Plasma screens) comes from the back-light, but otherwise, TFT screens have been essentially flicker free as long as they exist. Unless they can deliver programs that deliver at least 80 frames per second, the whole argument about "fluid motion" is one big pile of bullshit.

The sole exception might be TVs that have some kind of motion enhancement, that interpolates the "missing" frames and produces a higher frame rate that way. In almost all cases I've seen it, it sucks, but maybe dogs take this for real...

Here Comes Canine Prime Time (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#44284443)

7pm - How I met your Rover (CBS)
8pm - CSI: Cat Scene Investigation (NBC)
9pm - Bitch Swap (LifeTime)
10pm - WooWoo Scooby Doo (Hustler HD)

Re:Here Comes Canine Prime Time (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#44284507)

What time will Game of Bones be on?

my dog stares at the TV (2)

gordona (121157) | about a year ago | (#44284453)

My pooch will stare at our 42" LED screen. He goes crazy when a talking head appears and stares back at him. The dog doesn't like strangers staring at him. He also reacts to other animals on the screen and cartoon characters. Sometimes he'll run around to the other side of the wall on which the TV is mounted as if he is looking for something behind the TV/wall as if the TV were a window to the other side of the wall. And no, the dog is not on drugs (neither am I).

Try it (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44284457)

"Stanley Coren reports that a number of new television stations are providing programming specifically designed for dogs"

Correction: The stations are specifically designed for dog owners, just like bacon-flavored chews. See also TV shows to educate babies.

Not a joke? (2, Insightful)

nozzo (851371) | about a year ago | (#44284499)

I checked, it's not April 1st.

I don't know what to say about dog TV.

Probably an improvement in TV (3, Funny)

Tridus (79566) | about a year ago | (#44284503)

I guess the dogs are too smart to watch the crapfest channels like TLC, so we need better channels to cater to them.

55hz? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284505)

Humans can easily discern 200hz or more.

Slashdot Seek the Elusive Geek Market (1)

discord5 (798235) | about a year ago | (#44284517)

discord5 reports that slashdot is attempting to provide articles specifically designed for geek and while many people report that their geeks completely ignore what is visible on slashdot, with modern HTML5 and AJAX, more geeks have become potential slashdot readers.

The increase in geek readership is primarily attributed to the way the geek's eye works. The buildup of a standard webpage is updated once per click and since a human's maximum clicking frequency is only 55 Hz, the webpage appears continuous and the gradually changing webpages give us the illusion of content. However geeks can discern content at up to 80 Hz so with the increased availability of highly dynamic AJAX webpages that are refreshed at a much higher rate, the content is less likely to appear to be interesting to the geeks eye.

Presentation factors are also an issue. Geeks are most likely to respond to images that have been captured at the eye level of a geek with a low camera angle from the basement where there are moving things like das Blinkenlichte. But even if that requirement is fulfilled, most geeks do not read slashdot because the website has become devoid of actual content despite it's high rate AJAX updates and rounded corners.

And now, an article about the Dog Network, as irrelevant to geeks as sharks are to the Fonz... Eyyyyyy.

Now if you'll excuse me, my compiling is done, and I'm not even going to bother reading the article which at best can only be described as interesting... no wait, the other one... TEDIOUS

More intelligent than TV for humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284525)

At least watching this probably won't make you stupider, as most programming for humans seems to do.

dogs dont see RGB (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284569)

Wont work - dogs don't see color in terms of red, green, and blue like how people see (and thus how we encode color).

Dogs aren't interested in what's on tv because it's just blobs to them.

I call BS (1)

codeButcher (223668) | about a year ago | (#44284611)

But even if that requirement is fulfilled, most dogs do not watch television

I say their reasoning is wishful thinking. There are a lot of dogs who are too intelligent to get drawn into watching TV.

What next? News for dogs, stuff that is edible?

Cat Videos (1)

Anonymous Codger (96717) | about a year ago | (#44284745)

Years ago my wife bought a VHS tape that was intended to entertain cats. It was all videos of squirrels, birds, and other prey moving around and making sounds. One of our two cats ignored it, but the other was fascinated. He could watch the entire one-hour tape without getting bored. He would occasionally try to move around behind the TV to get a better vantage point. At first he would often swat at the images on the screen, but he learned fairly quickly that he couldn't catch them that way.

What's next? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year ago | (#44284785)

..."Dancing with Cats"?

Absolutely unimportant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284801)

The deal with screens seeming "flickery" to animals has not been relevant for years. For a long time we have adopted LCD technology or other similar flat means of displaying images, which do not flicker physically by nature as a CRT television does, when this research was done. Perhaps an LCD backlit with pulse-width-modulated LEDs may produce some flicker, but animals (including dogs) have been able to see our televisions for years.

This is goatSex (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284819)

join In especialLly Copy a 17 Meg file

"animals or birds"? (2)

gardyloo (512791) | about a year ago | (#44284835)

If I'd just smelled the latest rumor that there are birds in my neighborhood which are NOT animals, I'd be on the lookout for them, too!

Re:"animals or birds"? (1)

Covalent (1001277) | about a year ago | (#44284997)

This was exactly what I was thinking. I hear this all the time as "Animals and Insects". And then I find myself yelling at the TV: "They are multicellular mobile heterotrophs!"

And then I remember what a sad sad nerd I am.

55hz? bs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44284989)

That's rubbish. If human flicker fusion was 55 hz you couldn't watch movies, frame rate 24 hz.
Investigative journalism is dead, just report any bs you see on twitter or facebook.
Next up, Is Your Dog Psychic?

Re:55hz? bs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44285021)

it's closer to 14~16 hz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

Remember "Scrooged"? (2, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year ago | (#44284993)

Talk about life imitating art.

"If only I could fire that poor son of a bitch" -- Frank Cross (Bill Murray), in response to exec Robert Mitchum's "suggestion" to create programs appealing to dogs and cats.

Bump up the frame rate for humans too (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#44285029)

Instead of the next moar-pixelz video standard, I'd like to see the frame rate kicked up a notch. The 60fps game streams are wonderfully fluid to watch at twitch.tv, for example.

This is a really, really *bad* idea (3, Interesting)

bradley13 (1118935) | about a year ago | (#44285063)

Quick, hold up your hand if you laughed when your puppy first encountered a mirror! It's hilarious: "OMG there's another dog in the room". Depending on the dog, they will be fooled once, twice, maybe three times - that's it. Afterwards they realize that there's nothing there, and ignore it. It's the same for television. We have a herding dog, and the first time he saw animals on television (I think it was sheep), "OMG, I gotta go herd". Second time, he looked and then yawned. He didn't look a third time. Anyone who pays attention to their animals will have seen this. They know what's real and what's not. Things that are not real are not interesting.

There are already far too many dog owners who think that dogs are like furniture: there when you want them, and otherwise they can be ignored. Dogs need activity, they need interaction with their owners, they need a job to do (especially the working breeds). This stupid idea is going to make bad dog owners even worse: They will think they've done something to keep their dog busy, and will feel even less obligated to actually take proper care of their animals.

fluorescent lighting (4, Insightful)

jjeffries (17675) | about a year ago | (#44285125)

Being able to discern flickers at 80hz probably makes fluorescent lighting annoying as fuck.

Mine just needs sound (2)

stabiesoft (733417) | about a year ago | (#44285161)

Is there a cheaper plan with just audio? My dog doesn't pay any attention to the images, but if he hears a dog bark on the show, he cocks his head to figure out where it is coming from. In reality I would never buy a channel specifically for him. I think it is far better to actually walk him once or twice a day getting both of us some exercise and let him wander the yard whenever he wants. For him and I imagine many other canines, its almost all about smell. He can smell a rat in a tree at night, smell. At first when he would be barking at 10 at night, I'd be thinking, what. Then I get a flashlight and sure enough a pair of beady eyes would look back at me 10 feet up in the tree. Its nothing short of amazing.

Finally I can be a responsible dog owner! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44285245)

I've been wondering how I could get more use out of my old CRT television sets... Now I can sit a whole bunch of dogs in front of them with this 'programing' on! I always wanted to be a dog baby sitter but it's so hot outside and it's hard for me to talk since the foot surgery I had from my diabetes. But now I don't have to walk them and I can sit around and watch my soaps on my new HD flatscreen! And the best part is, It will be my new high tech dog sitting service! People are going to pay me!

Whatever is shown on DogTV... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year ago | (#44285469)

...will probably be better than most network / basic-cable shows.

Smell-o-vision (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44285517)

Forget the video, dogs have an acute sense of smell. Ripe road kill will have them clustered around the TV all day long.

What about the TV. (1)

Daas (620469) | about a year ago | (#44285547)

I'm sure it's a lovely idea until you come back home and your TV has become an interactive chewing tool...

Probably already bundled... (1)

SDrag0n (532175) | about a year ago | (#44285651)

This is probably bundled in with other important stuff like MTV and Ice Road Truckers 35. Exactly the reason I decided to cut the cable (or the satellite etc.)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?