Craig Birkmaier wrote: > At 10:32 AM -0500 12/9/09, Hunold, Ken wrote: >> Looks we've started up the old 720p/1080i argument again (in just a >> slightly different form.) This "church bus" has been joined by many and >> is racing downhill at an ever-increasing rate of speed. >> >> Let me try to divert the discussion into a "run-away truck" emergency >> off-ramp, of sorts, by suggesting that 60 Hz is not a high enough frame >> rate for football (either American or "metric") regardless of how you >> slice the picture. To me, there is no advantage for either a blurry >> 1280x720 frame or a blurry 1920x540 field. The minimum frame rate seems >> to be 3x the frame or related field rate (150/180 Hz.) Evidence to >> support this can be found in the 3x "Super Motion" system from the >> 1980's (Super Slo-mo to some) and some of the higher frame rate versions >> being employed on sports broadcasts today. > > We pushed very hard for a more versatile family of frame rates when > the ATSC standard was developed. We even got Polaroid to build a > 1280x720@72P camera to demonstrate the superiority of 72P over > 59.94P. An interesting side note is that 36P actually works quite > well for many applications, providing motion continuity that is far > superior to 24P. More important, a 72P display did a much better job > with 24P film source (triple shutter versus 3:2 pulldown), could > present 36P with double shutter, and 72P native looked MUCH better > with slo mo than 60P. > > As Ken suggests, temporal oversamplng has many benefits, especially > for slo motion replays. But it is not yet feasible to deliver these > higher frame rates to the consumer, nor is it necessary. THere are > limits to how much information a human observer can process too. 72P > is more than adequate for real time video, and the sharpness of > individual frames is good enough for many slo-mo applications. But > Super Motion also has a place if you want to watch the rotation of the > seams on a baseball traveling at 90 MPH. > > Regards > Craig > I kind of suspect that new codecs will evolve over time that present video much more like video games than the current codecs that just display a linear succession of frames. Morphing and moving objects will persist for many display frames, rotating, accelerating, growing, shrinking, and undergoing various changes in lighting conditions. Under that scenario we will probably find that further increasing the display frame rate does not even appreciably increase the bit rate at all, at least for scenes with fairly well behaved rapidly moving but recognizable objects. Original capture at 100's or even 1000's of frames / second will be a bit hard but after some massive number crunching the near losslessly compressed video won't really grow much with frame rate increases. I recommend it for future studio masters. (Once we finally figure out how to do it) ;-) - Tom ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.