Re: Sony rethinks flat screen focus
- From: Java Jive <java@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:55:13 +0000
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:08:19 +0000, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Very true.
You appear to have misunderstood the point of his post, which I read
as saying that his CRT *does* cause blurring.
The point is an interlaced video signal has to be in some way
'processed' to be presented on an LCD or plasma.
To able to say categorically that any given artifact was introduced
either by the way interlaced material is displayed on an LCD as
opposed to a CRT, or by the way motion is displayed on an LCD as
opposed to a CRT, you have to show, while keeping all other parameters
such as the size of the TVs constant:
1) That the artifact was not in the source material to begin with;
2) That it only appears on the LCD;
3) Further, for an artifact to be introduced by motion, it mustn't be
present when the picture is paused.
I have just spent the afternoon comparing images on two
similarly-sized TVs, one a CRT, the other an LCD. Every single
artifact that I saw, on re-cueing and pausing the picture, proved to
be in the source material. Further, while all were reproduced
faithfully by the LCD, many were almost completely lost on the CRT.
The reason more artifacts appear on the LCD is simply because it is
reproducing the signal fed to it more faithfully.
The two TVs were a Panasonic TX-15LT2 LCD 385mm TV and a Sony
KV-16WT1U 365mm CRT TV. As the latter unfortunately does not accept
RGB, the tests were done feeding them both CV. The sources were
standard definition video streams recorded by my Dreambox FTA
satellite receiver, "Dive Caribbean" with Tanya Streeter and "Wild
Caribbean: Hurricane Hell".
However, while I had no problems seeing the differences myself, I had
a great many trying to capture them on camera for the benefit of those
who might have been inclined to view them dispassionately ...
To start with, I don't have the high-speed video equipment that would
be required to rule on whether motion artifacts are being introduced
by either technology, so I could only investigate with any scientific
reproducibility the still pictures arising when the stream is paused.
However the differences between the two display technologies under
these conditions were marked enough to convince me that, in the
absence of high speed video evidence, the still evidence constituted
an adequate explanation on its own. That is, the invention without
supporting evidence of any further explanation would be superfluous
and therefore unscientific - the simplest explanation arising out of
the evidence available is the one most scientifically acceptable.
Even with stills, there are major problems ...
1) You have to take RAW images, otherwise any differences between the
two technologies would be eclipsed by jpeg artifacts, but the TIFs
arising out of the RAWs I took this afternoon are each about 22MB in
size, at least two would be needed for a comparison, and that's too
big for my webspace*, while the photosite I subscribe to will only
accept jpegs, and may even compress them further if it thinks they are
too big! So where to publish the results?
2) The shutter speed needs to be at longest 1/100s in order to sample
a single frame from a video running at 50fps. At this speed, my Canon
S40 camera's maximum film speed equivalent, ISO 400, and maximum
aperture, F8, give an adequate exposure for the CRT, though I
frequently had to take several shots to avoid the refresh process, but
the exposure is too low for the dimmer LCD, so detail that I had no
problem seeing on the LCD screen is lost by the camera.
So you'll just have to take my word for it - if you choose not to,
don't come bleating here about it until at least you've had the
decency to try to capture the results of a similar experiment
yourself, and really, you should try to go better: if you have access
to broadcast quality monitors, what about HS video cameras? If you're
that confident, why not supply the evidence to put the matter beyond
doubt?
* http://www.macfarlane.macfh.co.uk, where I publish my creative work
(web redirection link pointing to wherever my current ISP hosts my
site).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Sony rethinks flat screen focus
- From: Mark Carver
- Re: Sony rethinks flat screen focus
- Prev by Date: Re: New Television
- Next by Date: Re: New Television
- Previous by thread: Re: Bush PVR EPG problem
- Next by thread: Re: Sony rethinks flat screen focus
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
