> No. FIR filtering (usualy called linear/cubic blend in this context) > is one method. There are others that use the optical flow or try to emulate > the scaning and afterglow behaviour of interlaced CRT devices (aka TVs). > > > I first note that > > what you have just said is awful is one specific case of this general > > method. I presume that you would do odd frame 1 & even frame 1, then > > even frame 1 & odd frame 2, and then odd frame 2 & even frame 2, etc. > > s/frame/field/ > > That only works if, and only if, the display device is 100% synchronized > to the video stream. And you need to decrease the luminance of the > field that you show a second time to half or a quater of its original > luminance to get the right effect, otherwise you'll get horrible > combing. That's BTW basically the "emulation" algorithm i mentioned > above.
Does decreasing the luminance to 1/2 or 1/4 look better than reducing it all the way to black? Black would more closely emulate an interlaced CRT display which interlaced video is designed for, right? http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-parameters.html See photos on page 2. > > > Interlacing is needed for all TV based systems because they operate > > > in a (surprise!) interlaced mode, showing half frames (fields) at > > > double rate. Traditional CRT TVs are interlaced, but what about the newer LCD, plasma, DLP, ... TVs? > > Actually, my new TV displays 480p and 720p and these signals are > > broadcast along with 1080p (and the old NTSC 480i analog). > > > > The 720p advocates say that progressive is better, but I find serious > > motion artifacts that I don't see with 1080i. Go figure. What kind of display is it? CRT? LCD? plasma? DLP? ... 720p should have 60 full frames per second, vs 60 fields for 1080i. (50 in Europe, I suppose.) If you see more motion artifacts with 720p than with 1080i, something is wrong. Could you be seeing compression artifacts? Scaling artifacts? Display artifacts? Most LCDs are not fast enough, so the faster rate could make things worse instead of better. > > OTOH, I haven't looked into LCD monitors that much so I don't know if > > they only accept certain fixed frequencies or if they accept variable > > frequency sync input over a range like most current CRT monitors do. > > LCDs are usualy 60Hz fixed frequency. Yes. They might be faster in the future. http://www.behardware.com/articles/641-1/1rst-lcd-at-100-hz-the-end-of-afterglow.html _______________________________________________ Open-hardware mailing list Open-hardware@duskglow.com http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-hardware
