Re: Brain teaser: Would 300 Hz TV solve the European - US compatibility problem?

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:33:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:50:12 +0300) it happened Paul Keinanen
<keinanen@xxxxxx> wrote in <vh3ib5p6vvuk0io84l7gs25uscfam8k757@xxxxxxx>:

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:33:51 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Working on defeating that Mantis...
The question: how to display a 50Hz camera on a 60 Hz monitor,
without any frame skipping, and without large frame stores (say memory).
So 50 Hz versus 60 Hz,
The first common product is 300.
Refresh rates are going up all the time on LCDs...

Solution:
A LCD with 300 Hz V sync.

How about it?

From video compression point of view, the main interest is generating
good quality motion vectors and then it is trivial to display a video
at say 137.731 Hz frame rate.

Yes interpolation works, but only so much.

If you look at mpeg2 encoded material frame by frame,
then some of those interpolated frames look like well eh... crap.

If the original video camera used the full 1/50 s or 1/60 s
integration time, any rapid motion would cause motion blur in the
video output. Making good quality motion vectors for compression would
be hard or impossible.

A much shorter integration would be needed for generation of good
motion vectors and hence sharp regeneration at the display.

Paul


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast