Brian Butterworth wrote: > This one, can't go around praising a document and not linking to it, > terrible form... > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp169.shtml
There was a cinema standard that called Showscan that ran at 60 instead of 24fps for similar reasons. And IMAX do a thing called IMAX HD that runs at 48fps. These systems both require a lot of lighting, and a lot of film stock to shoot, so I don't think they are likely to be popular, except in special cases like theme-park ride-films. I wonder if highly shuttered video produces better results on TVs that do motion compensated 100Hz stuff. E.g. if you delivered them 25p but with the shutter open for 10ms rather than 40ms, they will be able to make a much better job of the motion compensation, producing something very close to true 100Hz video, but with no need for extra bandwidth or changes to the transmission chain over what we have already. Should broadcasters consider shooting with this kind of TV in mind? Another thought I had was what about capturing motion separately to the picture, at a lower spatial, but higher temporal resolution. Perhaps using a strobed infra-red ilumination to generate smething like MPEG P & B frames, and a full colour camera to generate I frames at a low frame rate. Robert (Jamie) Munro
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
