BBC HD vs ITV1 HD

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
news
In article , jamie powell
writes

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...

It was circular because it relied on the same term in your response that
you were asked to explain.

No it didn't.

Yes it did!

No it didn't.

The fact is that you can't explain how these are recognised at all, let
alone in any consistent and reliable manner in any reasonable
computational power.

I've already explained how they're recognised. It's a very simple job to
recognise them.

I doubt that you even understand how image recognition is implemented!

I understand perfectly how image recognition is implemented.


Precisely my point: you DO see them on LCDs and plasma sometimes, hence
the thread and the question of how detection of interlaced material is
achieved! Where else do you think people would have become so familiar
with the effect if not on a progressive display panel fed with
interlaced
video?

If ever you do see them on LCDs and Plasma TVs, it's not because the image
processor hasn't detected them - it's because the set isn't very good at
deinterlacing to remove all of them. This is very rare though.

What rubbish. It certainly isn't rare, which is why everyone has seen
them.

It's not rubbish. It is very rare.


Lest we forget that you didn't even know "mice teeth" were also produced
by
movement in the vertical axis until I corrected you.

You don't, you see missing and duplicated lines.

See, this is just plain wrong

No it isn't, you need motion with a horizontal component of any image
content to produce mice teeth.

No you don't. That is just plain wrong.



The "mice teeth" effect never varies

Yes they do. Slow movement produces very little difference between the
interlaced fields, resulting in small "mice teeth", whilst fast movement
creates a large difference and hence large "mice teeth". In extremis, no
image motion at all results in NO mice teeth at all. The amount of image
motion is clearly re;ated to the amount of mice teeth, hence it is NOT a
consistent effect.

The characteristics of the actual "tearing" aka the "mice teeth" never
change. None of the things you've listed are relevant to this. The effect is
unique, and it's either present or it's not.


Nope, my method happens.

Only in your dreams!

No, it happens in reality.


Otherwise, we await the URL & citation - its quite simple to prove your
claim if you have any credibility.

So answer the question!

I've answered the question perfectly. Go educate yourself about the basics
before re-reading my posts.

I have re-read most of your rubbish several times to see if you answered
the question and I missed it in the rest of your dross. I didn't, you
haven't and you certainly haven't said anything that suggests I have
anything to learn from you.

What I've said is neither dross nor rubbish. You just haven't got a clue
what you're talking about.


You are clearly just an immature troll, as someone suggested earlier in
the thread.

You're clearly just a clueless sad case who can't stand being humiliated in
front of his imaginary audience of Kennedy McEwen fans, hence your desperate
cover-up attempt.

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , jamie powell
writes
snip
You are clearly just an immature troll, as someone suggested earlier
in the thread.

Careful, being nasty to Jamie is probably child abuse.
--
There is no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.

"jamie powell" wrote in message
...

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message


No it didn't.

Yes it did!

No it didn't.


Excuse me but is the right thread for an argument?.. If so I'd like the
Five-Guinea one please.

In message , Java Jive
writes:
On Thu, 7 May 2009 00:45:02 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

When you say "switch it through to the display", though, surely that's a
sequential operation

No, it would have to be a parallel operation.

Surely, either:

each pixel in the display corresponds to a RAM location

or

the pixels are individually refreshed, relying on some inherent memory
property of the display (I don't think this is the case).

In either case, they _can't_ all be written at once. Even for a binary
(black or white only) display, that would require as many wires to the
display (or RAM chip) as there are pixels - i. e. over a million for a
reasonably HD display. This is not the case!

Thus some sort of sequential refresh _must_ be going on.

- i. e. all the pixels must update one at a time,
however fast; as such, I can't see why it needs to be rushed, why not
just update them at the same rate the information comes in (with
processing delay).

There'd be little or no point in buffering at all in that case, you'd
just update the screen sequentially directly from the signal.
[]
That, indeed, was what I was thinking.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Smith & Wesson...the original point and click interface
(Stolen from another .sig)

Java Jive wrote:
Yes, as it still seems to be rumbling on a little, I'll probably wait
to see what else this discussion brings to the surface, and then
update the page, clarifying also that the photo we're discussing was
of the 22" LCD.

On Mon, 04 May 2009 11:48:27 +0100, Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL
wrote:
Probably best, JJ. You can say that it applies in some cases, but you're
still not convinced it applies in all cases.

I wonder if it would be easier to see/show the artifacts with a proper
test DVD. I found a free one here -

http://www.burosch.de/shop/shop_content.php?coID=119

It's just a normal ISO despite being .ndm

Looking on my PC the pendulum and text tests look perfect for testing
for de-interlacing.

Reading a doc about my graphics card I notice that it uses a xillion
chip (as used in STBs etc.) and that it filters horizontal lines for
interlaced outputs to avoid flicker - I wonder whether other digital
boxes do similar things and if the composite source for your test may
have already been modified. This is the doc for Ref.

http://ati.amd.com/technology/avivo/...r_v2_final.pdf


I did a bit more searching around and found another spec sheet, this
time from broadcom that mentions motion adaptive per pixel deinterlacing .
http://www.broadcom.com/collateral/pb/3551-PB02-R.pdf

As for how they do it there are quite a lot of hits on google scholar
for motion adaptive interlac some link to full pdfs, but most are just
citations.

It seems like the newest TVs are going beyond de-interlacing to
interpolating full frames - This presentation does say how it's done
sort of - phase plane correlation.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...inal080103.pdf

On Mon, 11 May 2009 00:56:33 +0100, Andy Furniss
wrote:

I wonder if it would be easier to see/show the artifacts with a proper
test DVD. I found a free one here -

http://www.burosch.de/shop/shop_content.php?coID=119

It's just a normal ISO despite being .ndm

Looking on my PC the pendulum and text tests look perfect for testing
for de-interlacing.

But it's a DVD, which are usually, though they don't have to be,
progressive. Are you sure the tests actually contain any interlaced
video?

I wonder whether other digital
boxes do similar things and if the composite source for your test may
have already been modified.

*Very* unlikely, it's an old Pace *analogue* satellite receiver dating
from Sky's analogue days.

I did a bit more searching around and found another spec sheet, this
time from broadcom that mentions motion adaptive per pixel deinterlacing .
http://www.broadcom.com/collateral/pb/3551-PB02-R.pdf

As for how they do it there are quite a lot of hits on google scholar
for motion adaptive interlac some link to full pdfs, but most are just
citations.

It seems like the newest TVs are going beyond de-interlacing to
interpolating full frames - This presentation does say how it's done
sort of - phase plane correlation.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...inal080103.pdf

I'm a bit busy with the TV aerial alignment page just now, but I
promise to take a look at these before rewriting my web page.

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use the
contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html

On Sun, 10 May 2009 09:33:27 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Even for a binary
(black or white only) display, that would require as many wires to the
display (or RAM chip) as there are pixels - i. e. over a million for a
reasonably HD display. This is not the case!

No indeed, but the LCD panel itself comes with its own driver
circuitry, here's a functional diagram of one. Note, it's not the one
for my display, which I would have preferred but I couldn't find out
what mine uses, so it's just one I picked literally at random from a
page full of links (-: and, unlike Andy, I'll be nice to you and save
you trawling through it all by telling you the relevant page number in
advance, it's 11 :-) ...
http://beyondinfinite.com/lcd/Librar...154EW08_V0.pdf
The question is how exactly that works. Note from the description of
data transfer further on that as each pixel's data is fed bit
sequentially sometimes down different wires, it *has* to store
*something*! The question is: how much? Does it store until each
pixel is complete, and then latch it through, or until each line is
complete and latch that through, which I suppose must be another
possibility, or until each vertical field is complete, and latch
through, or until each frame is complete, and latch through?

Note another aspect of these specs which I first noticed in the first
link from Andy. IIRC, most of the TVs mentioned there had a response
time of 4ms, but I noticed one of 12ms - not one to buy! This
particular randomly chosen panel has a total of 8ms rise and fall,
which to me seems rather slow for HD. If KM's explanation of all my
photos is really the correct one, then response time's a much more
convincing explanation of why than arguing probabilities.

There'd be little or no point in buffering at all in that case, you'd
just update the screen sequentially directly from the signal.

That, indeed, was what I was thinking.

And in that case the signal *for sure* would *not* be deinterlaced!

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use the
contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html

In article , jamie powell
writes

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
news

In extremis, no
image motion at all results in NO mice teeth at all. The amount of image
motion is clearly re;ated to the amount of mice teeth, hence it is NOT a
consistent effect.

The characteristics of the actual "tearing" aka the "mice teeth" never
change. None of the things you've listed are relevant to this. The effect is
unique, and it's either present or it's not.

No motion: no mice-teeth. They clearly do change!


No, it happens in reality.

we await the URL & citation - its quite simple to prove your
claim if you have any credibility.

No URL. No citations.

You're clearly just a clueless sad case who can't stand being humiliated in
front of his imaginary audience of Kennedy McEwen fans, hence your desperate
cover-up attempt.

You really are one screwed up spoiled little child. You've made some
claims which you have been unable to explain and now you can't even come
up with a single URL or citation which even comes close to supporting
them. The best you can do is resort to personal attacks on anyone that
requests proof.

One thing you should try to get past your over-inflated ego is that I
have no need of either audience or fan club. Its just you and me and a
few frustrated readers who are vainly hoping for some information. If
you spent half as much time actually contributing factual evidence as
you have insulting anyone that challenges your myopic view of the world,
this discussion would have reached a meaningful conclusion a week ago.
As it is, you have spent a week demonstrating what someone noted after
your first post in this thread: you can't interact positively -
something that you appear to have brought to your online persona from
real life. You need serious help, young man, and it certainly isn't the
type of help you will get here.

Bye - I'll pop in from time to time to see if you ever did come up with
any evidence for your claims, but I expect you'll still just be shouting
abuse.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...

No motion: no mice-teeth. They clearly do change!

The characteristics of the actual "tearing" aka the "mice teeth" never
change.
The effect is unique, and it's either present or it's not.



No URL. No citations.

The point you're arguing about is so ridiculously simplistic and elementary,
that there should be absolutely no need to cite anything. As I said
previously, I'm not here to spoonfeed you in the basics of LCD TV image
processing.


You really are one screwed up spoiled little child. You've made some
claims which you have been unable to explain and now you can't even come
up with a single URL or citation which even comes close to supporting
them.
The best you can do is resort to personal attacks on anyone that requests
proof.

One thing you should try to get past your over-inflated ego is that I have
no need of either audience or fan club. Its just you and me and a few
frustrated readers who are vainly hoping for some information. If you
spent half as much time actually contributing factual evidence as you have
insulting anyone that challenges your myopic view of the world, this
discussion would have reached a meaningful conclusion a week ago. As it
is, you have spent a week demonstrating what someone noted after your
first post in this thread: you can't interact positively - something that
you appear to have brought to your online persona from real life. You
need serious help, young man, and it certainly isn't the type of help you
will get here.

You're quacking again - I shan't be taken in by any of this drivel.
What I said on the issue we were discussing is factually correct, whereas
what you said was completely wrong.
My interaction with you - in the face of your quackery, arrogance,
aggression and general cluelessness, was considerably more positive than you
deserved.
Oh and, unsurprisingly, I view the last sentence you've written above in
exactly the same light as the rest of your bull****.


Bye - I'll pop in from time to time to see if you ever did come up with
any evidence for your claims, but I expect you'll still just be shouting
abuse.

You're finally leaving - excellent - make sure you close the door quietly on
your way out, and keep tail firmly between legs.

In message , Java Jive
writes:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 09:33:27 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Even for a binary
(black or white only) display, that would require as many wires to the
display (or RAM chip) as there are pixels - i. e. over a million for a
reasonably HD display. This is not the case!

No indeed, but the LCD panel itself comes with its own driver
circuitry, here's a functional diagram of one. Note, it's not the one
for my display, which I would have preferred but I couldn't find out
what mine uses, so it's just one I picked literally at random from a
page full of links (-: and, unlike Andy, I'll be nice to you and save
you trawling through it all by telling you the relevant page number in
advance, it's 11 :-) ...
http://beyondinfinite.com/lcd/Librar...154EW08_V0.pdf

Thanks (-:.

BUT: even if the drive circuitry is part of the panel, there still
aren't a million wires between that circuitry and the panel!

The question is how exactly that works. Note from the description of
data transfer further on that as each pixel's data is fed bit
sequentially sometimes down different wires, it *has* to store

What do you mean by "it": the actual pixel?

*something*! The question is: how much? Does it store until each
pixel is complete, and then latch it through, or until each line is
complete and latch that through, which I suppose must be another
possibility, or until each vertical field is complete, and latch
through, or until each frame is complete, and latch through?

From that, I think you must mean "the drive circuitry" when you say
"it".

But you're just moving the question along one stage, from the RAM (if
any) in the image processing circuitry to the "drive circuitry" (the "X
driver" and the "Y driver" devices). There is still no way - talking
about the actual matrix of pixels now - that a complete frame could be
"latched through" at once: at most one line (or column) could be written
at once.

Note another aspect of these specs which I first noticed in the first
link from Andy. IIRC, most of the TVs mentioned there had a response
time of 4ms, but I noticed one of 12ms - not one to buy! This

Depends what is meant by the 12 ms. If it's something like time to drop
to 10% brightness from full (or come up to 90% from black), then I'd
agree it is probably not good for something that refreshes individual
pixels at 100 Hz (10 ms), and _arguably_ not for 50 Hz (20 ms) since
even 10% might still be visible. For 25 Hz individual pixel refresh -
which is what you get in SD interlaced video - I'd say it was probably
OK. (Certainly not good for a computer display with 70-100 Hz frame
rate.)

particular randomly chosen panel has a total of 8ms rise and fall,
which to me seems rather slow for HD. If KM's explanation of all my

Well, whether it's HD or not doesn't _intrinsically_ link to the
response time, though since HD often _does_ have the potential for 50Hz
(or higher) non-interlaced refresh (given suitable source material),
it'd be best to avoid a 12 ms panel.

photos is really the correct one, then response time's a much more
convincing explanation of why than arguing probabilities.

There'd be little or no point in buffering at all in that case, you'd
just update the screen sequentially directly from the signal.

That, indeed, was what I was thinking.

And in that case the signal *for sure* would *not* be deinterlaced!
[]
Indeed. I can see little point in deinterlacing - for an interlaced
source, I mean - for a display type where the actual light source does
not flicker, which it doesn't (at anything related to the refresh rate,
anyway) in the case of an LCD with a backlight. (Interesting thought - I
suppose in that respect, _plasma_ displays _are_ more like an old CRT. I
think.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

I'm in shape ... round's a shape isn't it?