[opendtv] Re: ClearLCD adaptive dual-pulse
- From: Jeroen Stessen <jeroen.stessen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:00:44 +0100
Hi,
Adam Costello wrote:
Jeroen Stessen <jeroen.stessen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Well, some plasmas come reasonably close, but not quite,
> I hadn't heard that. Do you know which ones?
Some brand with a "P", but not ours, and I don't want to tell...
> All the explanations of plasma TV that I've seen suggest that
> the subfields are spread across most of the frame-time.
Yes, but if you can concentrate all the heavy weighted subfields
early (or late) in the frame, within a few milliseconds, then the
motion portrayal will improve. The flicker will increase too, so
this can only be attempted at 60 Hz (not 50).
> It's amazing to contemplate a display that can fabricate 96 (= 120 - 24)
> two-megapixel in-between frames per second.
That's the easy part. The hard part is extracting reliable motion
vectors 24 times per second from the available data, while not
creating too much latency in the video path (lip sync problem).
Running the upconverter at 300 MHz is no issue these days.
>> Have you read paper 54.4 from the same SID 2006 ?!
> I'm not a member of SID (I'm not in the display business at all).
> I could buy the paper for $15, but that seems a little steep for one
paper
> (ten pages?), and I doubt any of that money would go to any of the
> people who wrote, reviewed, or edited the paper. Where would that money
> go, and for what?
Why, to the Society of course. They're not a charity...
> How is restricting access to research results helping these industries?)
If you pay then they'll lift the restrictions... I pay.
>> Further reduction is only relevant for moving images that are sharper
>> than what the typical movie producer delivers.
> People use their home displays to watch things other than movies.
> Do television cameras also use long shutters?
Yes, but not as long as movie cameras, since they don't have to
compensate for motion judder due to frame repetition 24->48 fps.
But if they make the shutter time too short then you'll see
"strobing" artefacts, moving objects seem to appear in different
places. It's the same as when a live scene is illuminated by a
stroboscope. The sensation of smooth motion is lost.
> What about live TV, where you don't have as much control over
> the shots? What about sports--wouldn't you want a fast shutter
> for that?
You would have to keep a sensible relation between the shutter time
and the frame period, so the frame rate should increase too.
> And then there's computer-generated video (games) where the
> camera is imaginary and by default has an infinitely fast shutter.
They can simulate a slow shutter. This is actually easy, because
as Dr. Klompenhouwer has illustrated in his PhD Thesis, temporal
integration plus eye tracking translates to spatial lowpass
filtering. And such filtering is easily applied (or inverted...).
On ***The Tech Retreat*** I will speak about wide color gamut.
http://www.hpaonline.com/mc/page.do?sitePageId=40946
That will be another argument that LCD is really here to stay.
Greetings,
-- Jeroen
+-------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
| From: Jeroen H. Stessen | E-mail: Jeroen.Stessen@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Building: SFJ-5.22 Eindhoven | Deptmt.: Philips Applied Technologies |
| Phone: ++31.40.2732739 | Visiting & mail address: Glaslaan 2 |
| Mobile: ++31.6.44680021 | NL 5616 LW Eindhoven, the Netherlands |
| Skype: callto:jeroen.stessen | Website: http://www.apptech.philips.com/
|
+-------------------------------+------------------------------------------+
Other related posts:
