Ian Jackson wrote:

But does 100Hz refresh really smooth out jerky motion? I though that its
main virtue was that it eliminated the last vestiges of 25/50 cycle
flicker.

No, I didn't mean to imply that it did. As you say, it eliminates the
50Hz refresh flicker, which I've always had a problem with and which
becomes much less tolerable as the screen area gets larger.

--
SteveT

I may be making ridiculous assertions. I am not a television engineer or
designer, but I know what I see.
I spent nearly 30 years in the television & hi-fi trade so saw a lot of
televisions. Thankfully I left some 16 years ago!
CRT & analogue recording / broadacting may not have been perfect, but I
think some adavantages over the current digital systems and flat panels.
Motion judder became noiticeable to me, on CRT, many years ago. I suspect
because of broadcasting moving from analogue video tape to digital systems.
I remember Philips bringing out 100Hz twenty odd years ago, never made a
difference because the same frame was just being repeated perhaps ?
Motion judder is often put down as an intentional 'filmic effect'. I suspect
the truth is to reduce bitrates, more compression to take up less hard disc
space - the result - more motion judder + other bad effects.
Digital is pretty good now for still photography, but is it really good
enough yet for moving pictures at top quality ? Apart from bitrates,
compression etc., does all that circuitry, encoding, decoding operate fast
enough ?
And yes, I do find digital projection in cimemas inferior to film. The
motion judder is far worse on action.
However, I will concede that not everyone notices, unless it is pointed out.
Overheard a lady in Comet today who has an old CRT and was talking to the
salesman remarking that all the pictures were inferior to her CRT.
I kept quiet !!


"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Ian Jackson wrote:

But does 100Hz refresh really smooth out jerky motion? I though that its
main virtue was that it eliminated the last vestiges of 25/50 cycle
flicker.

No, I didn't mean to imply that it did. As you say, it eliminates the
50Hz refresh flicker, which I've always had a problem with and which
becomes much less tolerable as the screen area gets larger.

--
SteveT

Stefan wrote:

I may be making ridiculous assertions. I am not a television engineer
or designer, but I know what I see. I spent nearly 30 years in the
television & hi-fi trade so saw a lot of televisions. Thankfully I
left some 16 years ago! CRT & analogue recording / broadacting may
not have been perfect, but I think some adavantages over the current
digital systems and flat panels. Motion judder became noiticeable to
me, on CRT, many years ago. I suspect because of broadcasting moving
from analogue video tape to digital systems. I remember Philips
bringing out 100Hz twenty odd years ago, never made a difference
because the same frame was just being repeated perhaps ? Motion
judder is often put down as an intentional 'filmic effect'. I suspect
the truth is to reduce bitrates, more compression to take up less
hard disc space - the result - more motion judder + other bad
effects. Digital is pretty good now for still photography, but is it
really good enough yet for moving pictures at top quality ? Apart
from bitrates, compression etc., does all that circuitry, encoding,
decoding operate fast enough ? And yes, I do find digital projection
in cimemas inferior to film. The motion judder is far worse on
action. However, I will concede that not everyone notices, unless it
is pointed out. Overheard a lady in Comet today who has an old CRT
and was talking to the salesman remarking that all the pictures were
inferior to her CRT. I kept quiet !!

I don't have your experience of 'the industry', but I watch TV a lot!

We just swapped our old single scart connected 32" CRT Samsung TV for a
40" 1080p SmartTV UE40D5520 .. and the immediate difference is
phenomenal to say the least.

For 2 days we ran them side-by-side as the wife wasn't convinced it was
an upgrade .. She watches a lot of sports, mainly running etc as she's
a jogger/half-marathon runner, and as such movement is something that
she takes seriously on TV.

We would have moved the old one out within 10 minutes once she'd seen
how good the new TV was, but took a couple of days 'just to be sure'.

We've experienced no judder, completely fluid motion, brighter display,
darker blacks, generally a fantastic upgrade .. which we mostly went
for for the HD so we could use the sons Xbox for films and games!

However, we've also since found that connecting the ethernet to the TV
means we now don't need to stream via the xbox, the SmartTV bit
connects absolutely seamlessly to the home network, and the only thing
I've not sussed yet is the audio stream from mobile phone videos!


--
Paul - xxx
"You know, all I wanna do is race .. and all I wanna do is win"
Mark Cavendish, World Champion 2011.

Paul - xxx wrote:

We've experienced no judder, completely fluid motion, brighter display,
darker blacks, generally a fantastic upgrade .. which we mostly went
for for the HD so we could use the sons Xbox for films and games!

That is pretty much my experience, with a couple of minor differences.

Motion judder is still a problem for me unless the TV has some sort of
motion smoothing (which many, even fairly cheap ones, do these days).

Flicker is a problem for me on plasmas. I loved my 50" Panny but in
the end I had to sell it (at a big loss, of course) because I just
couldn't bear the refresh flicker (don't believe the "600Hz" ********
on the sticker - it's misleading and doesn't refer to the refresh
rate).

The motion smoothing on the Panny was fine.

So now I've got a 55" Sony LCD, which has good (but not perfect)
smoothing and zero flicker. Happy at last.

The two big issues for me with CRTs were focus and convergence. I've
played with plenty and never, not once, managed to get either perfect
across the whole screen. Especially convergence - it's a nightmare.
It's also extremely nerve-wracking sticking your hand deep into the
innards of a large CRT TV when it's switched on.

--
SteveT

Steve Thackery wrote:

Paul - xxx wrote:

We've experienced no judder, completely fluid motion, brighter
display, darker blacks, generally a fantastic upgrade .. which we
mostly went for for the HD so we could use the sons Xbox for films
and games!

That is pretty much my experience, with a couple of minor differences.

Motion judder is still a problem for me unless the TV has some sort
of motion smoothing (which many, even fairly cheap ones, do these
days).

Flicker is a problem for me on plasmas. I loved my 50" Panny but in
the end I had to sell it (at a big loss, of course) because I just
couldn't bear the refresh flicker (don't believe the "600Hz" ********
on the sticker - it's misleading and doesn't refer to the refresh
rate).

The motion smoothing on the Panny was fine.

Heh, in the shop, Currys, we saw 'our' Tv side-by-side with an
equivalent Plasma TV, and it knocked spots off it .. the plasma, I
think, would actually give me a headache!

So now I've got a 55" Sony LCD, which has good (but not perfect)
smoothing and zero flicker. Happy at last.

I don't have a large enough room for a really large TV .. we thought
40" was going to be too big, in fact it's not, but it's close!
Interestingly, the TV as a whole is roughly the same dimensional sizes
as the old CRT with a 32" screen .. and about 3 tons lighter too ..

We used my sons 22" (I think) HP Monitor/TV for a while, full HD etc,
and it was that which finally decided us to go for a new TV. Certainly
the smaller sizes reduce the chances of those kind of issues, but at
the obvious expense of size .. and we all want bigger!!

--
Paul - xxx
"You know, all I wanna do is race .. and all I wanna do is win"
Mark Cavendish, World Champion 2011.

Paul - xxx wrote:

I don't have a large enough room for a really large TV .. we thought
40" was going to be too big, in fact it's not, but it's close!

Mine's quite a small room. If you look at the recommended viewing
distances for HD TV, it's amazing how big a screen you can have for a
given viewing distance without discerning the individual pixels.

In fact, that's how I worked it out: how big should the TV be before I
can discern the pixels at my anticipated viewing distance. The answer
came out far bigger than I can afford, so I went for the 55" as it was
right at the top of my budget.

I can sit little more than 2 metres away and two things strike me:

1/ I still can't discern the pixels (due to my eyesight being less than
theoretically perfect)

2/ It STILL fills up a smaller field of view than an average cinema
screen from about half way back along the seats.

Dammit - looks like I'll have to save up for a projector... :-)

--
SteveT

Steve Thackery wrote:

Paul - xxx wrote:

I don't have a large enough room for a really large TV .. we thought
40" was going to be too big, in fact it's not, but it's close!

Mine's quite a small room. If you look at the recommended viewing
distances for HD TV, it's amazing how big a screen you can have for a
given viewing distance without discerning the individual pixels.

In fact, that's how I worked it out: how big should the TV be before
I can discern the pixels at my anticipated viewing distance. The
answer came out far bigger than I can afford, so I went for the 55"
as it was right at the top of my budget.

I can sit little more than 2 metres away and two things strike me:

1/ I still can't discern the pixels (due to my eyesight being less
than theoretically perfect)

2/ It STILL fills up a smaller field of view than an average cinema
screen from about half way back along the seats.

Dammit - looks like I'll have to save up for a projector... :-)

Our room is 6-7 m long by about 4 wide, with seating along one side and
about 4m away from the TV which is in a corner .. it's the smallest
'front room' we've ever lived in ..

I don't worry about whether I can see the pixels, I just find it harder
to 'take in' all that's happening on a larger screen, hence why I
thought even a 40" would be too large! Caertainly when game playing
larger ought to be better, but in reality you're focussing on a small
area and using peripheral vision for the rest of the gameplay.

Mined ewe, when it comes to, say, Frozen Planet in HD then the bigger
the better ..

--
Paul - xxx
"You know, all I wanna do is race .. and all I wanna do is win"
Mark Cavendish, World Champion 2011.

Paul - xxx wrote:

I don't worry about whether I can see the pixels, I just find it harder
to 'take in' all that's happening on a larger screen,

That's an interesting point. Regardless of whether the screen is close
enough to discern the pixels, I find my eyes are much busier with a
large screen, just taking in the picture.

Bearing in mind that my eyes move a lot when viewing the real world, it
doesn't bother me that much.

On the other hand, rapid camera movements are much more disturbing on a
big screen, presumably because in normal life my head doesn't move
around so much as a hand-held camera, and also because my brain has its
own, powerful, motion compensation algorithms so the world doesn't go
crazy whenever I move my head or eyes. That algorithm can't kick in
when it's a camera whizzing around, rather than my own head.

For what it's worth, I DETEST WITH A VENGEANCE the modern "shaky
camera" techniques. I love the roving camera, but it has to be smooth,
not shaky. Some of the finest moving camera work - in my opinion - was
seen in ER and The West Wing.

Some of the worst is shaky-camera-for-the-sake-of-it. The most
disastrous for me was a news report. The reporter was standing on a
patch of rough ground speaking at the camera. For no good reason at
all, the camera operator walked back and forth in an arc of about 90
degrees in front of the reporter, so the reporter had to slowly turn
his head left and right to keep looking at the camera.

Even worse, the ground was so uneven the damn camera was shaking and
wobbling to the point where the whole thing just looked absurd,
distracting and utterly pointless.

I like change and innovation, but why do we lack the wisdom to discern
whether a particular change is for the better or worse?

Surely we should constantly strive to throw up new ideas, and then
adopt the good ones. NOT adopt the bad ones as well.

--
SteveT

On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 20:21:22 GMT, Steve Thackery
wrote:

Some of the finest moving camera work - in my opinion - was
seen in ER and The West Wing.

I remember thinking "how do they do that" at the time. I now think
they used gyroscopes to stabilize the aim. That technique seems to
have gone out of fashion.

Steve

--
Neural network software applications, help and support.

Neural Network Software. www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com

Steve Thackery wrote:

On the other hand, rapid camera movements are much more disturbing on
a big screen, presumably because in normal life my head doesn't move
around so much as a hand-held camera, and also because my brain has
its own, powerful, motion compensation algorithms so the world
doesn't go crazy whenever I move my head or eyes. That algorithm
can't kick in when it's a camera whizzing around, rather than my own
head.

Heh, now you mention it ..

I like change and innovation, but why do we lack the wisdom to
discern whether a particular change is for the better or worse?

Surely we should constantly strive to throw up new ideas, and then
adopt the good ones. NOT adopt the bad ones as well.

Absolutely. Just 'cos you can, doesn't mean you should, though I guess
that's also very subjective, one mans headache is someone else's piece
of art!

--
Paul - xxx
"You know, all I wanna do is race .. and all I wanna do is win"
Mark Cavendish, World Champion 2011.