[argyllcms] Re: ArgyllCMS V1.3.6 Released
- From: János, Tóth F. <janos666@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 04:26:50 +0100
Sorry, it seems my earlier email got lost.
But you figured it out anyway. :)
Yes, this is indeed reasonable. Moreover, I am happy if:
1: the PDP uses the extra refreshes to offer finer dithering
2: The ArgyllCMS code can handle this nicely
But the refresh measurements of a different PDP were slightly
different from what I expected. I can't post the log now (it was
included in the lost email but I am not at home now) but as I remember
it was ~30ms in 60Hz mode where I would expect ~17 or ~33.
Can I override this manually? (Set it to the closest theoretical value...)
2012/3/20, Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> János, Tóth F. wrote:
>> A different PDP from anoter manufacturer measured close to 42ms with
>> 23.976Hz input.
>> According to the spec sheet, it displays 24Hz at 96Hz (otherwise the
>> screen would flicker like hell).
>>
>> But the reading felt more consistent on this PDP.
>>
>> What kind of data can I collect to investigate this further?
>> (If there is anything to investigate - I am not sure what that number
>> really means, I am just guessing...)
>
> Hi,
> sorry, it's not clear to me exactly what you are
> referring to. If you mean the i1d3 refresh mode, then the
> measured refresh period will be the longest one found above
> 20Hz (==50 msec). This errs on the conservative side and allows
> for possible sub-harmonics in (say) a temporal dithering pattern.
> As long as the measurement period (integration time) is a multiple
> of the actual refresh period, it will have better repeatability than
> a measurement period that isn't matched. So a 96Hz refresh
> would be expected to result in a refresh period measurement
> of 41.66 msec, rather than the true refresh period of 10.4167 msec.
>
> Graeme Gill.
>
>
Other related posts:
