Any tricks to reduc motion blur?

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:56:10 -0800 (PST), stoneattic
wrote:

I've only had my HDTV (Samsung LN-T4661F) for a few days but the
motion blur is driving me crazy. I see it on every LCD TV I look at.
Since it seems like it's me and not LCD TVs in general, has anyone
else experienced this and found a way around it? Certain lighting?
Glass? Drinking heavily?

I think I've got it, too. As I make it, the blur is introduced in the
filming, compression, and decompression. Some clever tv's can hide it
from you, but it's mostly not the display's problem.

You can get used to anything after a while, so buck up there, cowboy.

J.

On Dec 20, 4:57*pm, stoneattic wrote:
I wasn't overly impressed with the plasmas at Circuit City, but like I
mentioned, I don't trust their feed to give me a real taste of these
TVs.
- Show quoted text -

Nor should you - most places like Best Buy and Circuit City keep their
plasmas in "Vivid" mode, also known as "torch" mode.
This is why you should never buy a floor model plasma. It will never
have been broken in properly.
Ask them to hook up a Blu-ray player and set the plasma to "Cinema" or
"Standard" and you'll get a better idea of how good the set is.

Wes Newell wrote:

The cause of motion blur can be many things. Don't just blame the TV
technology. Most newer LCD's don't contribute much to it. It's mainly
introduced during filming. I get it on CRT"s that have 0 response times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV_blur


Well said. Having ninphan's narrow-minded view/hang-up with plasma
technology is not for me. (Gary Merson's 1080i deinterlacing losses and
cadence pull-down shenanigans have little to do with panel pixel
technology - it's the chipset processing prior to pixel choreography).

Stoneattic is using cable/satellite feeds, sees motion blur, ignores all
the hairy electronic processing (xtra compression sat/cable and
down-conversion for his SD tv test) and solely places all blame on panel
technology.

LCD does have its limits, but it's the "happening" technology. It's
where most of the action is for newer, faster chipsets and memory. Fast
LCDs just might be showing more clearly the weakness still inherent in
the electronics.

we live in exciting times,
winf

On Dec 20, 7:10 pm, "Richard Harison" wrote:
"CJT" wrote in message

And how much would a 32' CRT weigh?


Ours is 156 lbs. I'll be hauling it to the recycling place
next week some time (free for Sony products). In ours the
green channel is out (an old Sony XBR set). Our
TH-58PZ750U replacement is sitting in its box,
hopefully installed this weekend. It's lighter despite
its size (only 141 lbs!). It's articulating wallmount is about
60 lbs though. :-)

On Dec 21, 7:58 am, Winfield wrote:

LCD does have its limits, but it's the "happening" technology.

Yup, it is the most cost effective solution for smaller panels and
with the incredible competition (almost always won on price, which
is how Vizio leaped into first place so quickly) it's where the action
is.
Most everything else (OLED, plasma, etc) are only fighting for the
high-end niche areas in terms of the long run. DLP's are probably
the LCD's main "enemy". As larger and larger glass is handled in
LCD factories, the LCD can move economically into larger and larger
sized panels. LED backlighting for LCDs and laser light sources for
DLP and other projection technologies should continue the march
forward. They need to start going 3D soon though.

On Dec 21, 2:09*pm, Anoni Moose wrote:
On Dec 21, 7:58 am, Winfield wrote:



LCD does have its limits, but it's the "happening" technology.

Yup, it is the most cost effective solution for smaller panels and
with the incredible competition (almost always won on price, which
is how Vizio leaped into first place so quickly) it's where the action
is.
Most everything else (OLED, plasma, etc) are only fighting for the
high-end niche areas in terms of the long run. *DLP's are probably
the LCD's main "enemy". *As larger and larger glass is handled in
LCD factories, the LCD can move economically into larger and larger
sized panels. *LED backlighting for LCDs and laser light sources for
DLP and other projection technologies should continue the march
forward. *They need to start going 3D soon though.

I'm not sure how a 42" 1080p Viera at $1199 could be considered to be
seeking the "niche" crowd.

Winfield wrote:
Wes Newell wrote:

The cause of motion blur can be many things. Don't just blame the TV
technology. Most newer LCD's don't contribute much to it. It's mainly
introduced during filming. I get it on CRT"s that have 0 response times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV_blur


Well said. Having ninphan's narrow-minded view/hang-up with plasma
technology is not for me. (Gary Merson's 1080i deinterlacing losses and
cadence pull-down shenanigans have little to do with panel pixel
technology - it's the chipset processing prior to pixel choreography).

Stoneattic is using cable/satellite feeds, sees motion blur, ignores all
the hairy electronic processing (xtra compression sat/cable and
down-conversion for his SD tv test) and solely places all blame on panel
technology.

LCD does have its limits, but it's the "happening" technology. It's
where most of the action is for newer, faster chipsets and memory. Fast
LCDs just might be showing more clearly the weakness still inherent in
the electronics.

we live in exciting times,
winf


Agree that processing, well matched to the
display characteristics, is the key to
excellence in HDTV for action sports.

Thanks for making the post -- Wes's post wasn't
picked up by my news provider. Good Wikipedia
rundown on some visual basics. Dr. Edwin Land
would have been proud! Remember though that
CRTs had/have both latency and persistence.

One factor I've noticed is that fast sports
action from 720p sources seems better rendered
on our 1080p/120 display than does de-interlaced
1080i action content. This is probably a chipset
& firmware effect and one more thing to assess
in selecting an HDTV. (Assuming one is opting
for something other than the $1299 panel at
Wal-Mart or Costco.)

That said, I think there may be even greater
effects from what goes on in the production and
transmission chains. It will probably consume
most of 2008 to get those issues squared away.
I find that CBS Sports has poor switching
between cameras during *some* of their events.
This shows up as momentary pixelization that is
affecting a very small chunk of the image area
for just a frame or two. Those errors are quite
annoying on our 120Hz LCoS display but are
invisible on our older Panasonic ED panel. (so,
faster isn't always helpful.)

Good news is that lip-sync has improved markedly
since 2005.

Things will be better during 2009 when the
production chain can move entirely to DTV and
leave analog to the Cable and Satellite folks.

Happy New Year everyone.

--
pj

"Anoni Moose" wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 7:10 pm, "Richard Harison" wrote:
"CJT" wrote in message

And how much would a 32' CRT weigh?


Ours is 156 lbs. I'll be hauling it to the recycling place
next week some time (free for Sony products). In ours the
green channel is out (an old Sony XBR set). Our
TH-58PZ750U replacement is sitting in its box,
hopefully installed this weekend. It's lighter despite
its size (only 141 lbs!). It's articulating wallmount is about
60 lbs though. :-)


Was making a joke...a previous poster mentioned a set of 32' when he meant
32"

--
All the Best,
Richard Harison

On Dec 21, 10:58*am, Winfield wrote:
Wes Newell wrote:
The cause of motion blur can be many things. Don't just blame the TV
technology. Most newer LCD's don't contribute much to it. It's mainly
introduced during filming. I get it on CRT"s that have 0 response times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV_blur

Well said. *Having ninphan's narrow-minded view/hang-up with plasma
technology is not for me. *(Gary Merson's 1080i deinterlacing losses and
cadence pull-down shenanigans have little to do with panel pixel
technology - it's the chipset processing prior to pixel choreography).

Stoneattic is using cable/satellite feeds, sees motion blur, ignores all
the hairy electronic processing (xtra compression sat/cable and
down-conversion for his SD tv test) and solely places all blame on panel
technology.

LCD does have its limits, but it's the "happening" technology. *It's
where most of the action is for newer, faster chipsets and memory. *Fast
LCDs just might be showing more clearly the weakness still inherent in
the electronics.

* *we live in exciting times,
* * * * winf

Yet the 60Hz LED LCD from Samsung tested better for motion resolution
than all the 120Hz "faster" panels tested all year.
:-o
You mention that the chipsets are important then dismiss 3:2 cadence
and deinterlacing, which are all done by the chipsets. Seems a little
incongruent to me.
The fact of the matter is that plasma can shut off each single pixel
while the closest LCD has come is Samsung's new "Smart Dimming"
technology in the LED sets.
Anytime you put an LCD next to a plasma, the plasma will win single-
handedly. It is the most exciting display technology there is, unless
you plan to watch most of your programs in your sunroom, which the
person of even sub-average intelligence should know is a no-no.

On Dec 21, 2:09*pm, Anoni Moose wrote:
On Dec 21, 7:58 am, Winfield wrote:



LCD does have its limits, but it's the "happening" technology.

Yup, it is the most cost effective solution for smaller panels and
with the incredible competition (almost always won on price, which
is how Vizio leaped into first place so quickly) it's where the action
is.

Vizio only leapt into first place for Q2/07, Sharp took that title
back by the end of Q3/07.