Coast - awful filmic effect

Jukka Aho wrote:

Alan Pemberton wrote:

Why couldn't an lcd say display a 50i source as one field followed
by the next?

The concepts of scanning, refreshing and 'fields' fall apart with flat
screens. In order to display a range of brightnesses bits of the
screen are turned on and off, and the contents updated, ad hoc.
That's one of the reasons movement looks a mess.

I've been toying with the idea that interlaced scanning (and the
non-ideal focusing of the electron beam in a CRT-based set, with the
"hot spot" spanning over multiple picture elements on the screen) could
be simulated on a SED display matrix.

What would happen if a progressive display where to simply display the
two fields of an interlaced display (ie, every other line) for 1/50
second each? A sort-of progressive interlacing?

Would that provide a better approximation to a CRT in a non-complex way,
or just display a mess?

James

James Sargent wrote:

What would happen if a progressive display where to simply display the
two fields of an interlaced display (ie, every other line) for 1/50
second each? A sort-of progressive interlacing?

Would that provide a better approximation to a CRT in a non-complex
way, or just display a mess?

It's different from how a CRT would display the same image, but of
course, it could work just fine.

Note, however, that the method you suggest implies the same thing as the
more complicated "scanning" method: the previous field - in-between the
scanlines of the field that is currently being shown on the screen -
must fade away to black. If it was retained on the screen, you would
start seeing combing artifacts.

Moreover, even if your method does not "scan" the image on the screen, I
think that the overlap in the scanline structure would need to be
simulated in the method you suggest just as well. The "hot spot" of the
electron beam is a bit on the thick side: scanlines in one field, when
drawn on a CRT-based tv screen, partially overlap the locations of the
scanlines in the previous field. (In other words, the gaps between the
scanlines in a single field are not as thick as the scanlines
themselves.)

See, for example, these mock-up single-field Amiga screens (at the
bottom of the page) where I've tried to simulate that effect:

http://www.iki.fi/znark/video/modes/

You can see the original graphics data by clicking on the images.

This simulation was done by interpolating the original image data
vertically by a 2x factor, with the "nearest neighbour" method, and then
dimming every other line. (It certainly looks more accurate and
"Amiga-like" to me that way than by just making every other line
completely black.)

--
znark

"Jukka Aho" wrote:

James Sargent wrote:

What would happen if a progressive display where to simply display the
two fields of an interlaced display (ie, every other line) for 1/50
second each? A sort-of progressive interlacing?
...

Note, however, that the method you suggest implies the same thing as the
more complicated "scanning" method: the previous field - in-between the
scanlines of the field that is currently being shown on the screen -
must fade away to black. If it was retained on the screen, you would
start seeing combing artifacts.

Also... Putting in black lines for the field not being displayed would
work with LCD and plasma screens, but that'd cut the brightness by half
even though the display would consume (almost) as much power as when
fully illuminated.

--
Dave Farrance

Dave Farrance wrote:

Also... Putting in black lines for the field not being displayed would
work with LCD and plasma screens, but that'd cut the brightness by
half even though the display would consume (almost) as much power as
when fully illuminated.

But as explained in my previous message, those lines probably shouldn't
be totally black if we're trying to emulate a CRT, since the CRT
scanlines tend to be thicker than the gaps between them. If the "gap"
lines were merely fainter duplicates of the lines above or below, the
net result would perhaps be more like a 25% reduction in brightness.

I must say LCD panels are quite awkward and backwards technology: you're
trying to produce huge amounts of bright (back)light which you are
subsequently trying to suppress with liquid crystals. It's a pretty
moronic system, really.

--
znark

In message
o.uk.invalid, Alan
Pemberton writes

It's the same when you chew something crunchy while staring at a crt
display. The picture breaks up quite badly.

Chocolate-coated frogs are best to observe this phenomenon. It also
works with Dutch or Belgians.

"Albatross! Get your albatross!"
"What flavour are they?"
"They're bleedin' albatross flavoured!"

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, Alan Pemberton typed this :
(snip)

It's the same when you chew something crunchy while staring at a crt
display. The picture breaks up quite badly.

Could that be due to little bits of your Topic bar spattering on the
screen?
Keeping the mouth shut during eating might have an enormous effect on
picture quality.

HTH
--
Roger Hunt

Bill Wright wrote:

That's it exactly. the phosphors used in TV CRTs have such a short
persistence, they might as well have zero persisitence. It's persistence
of vision (in the eye itself) that does the 'frame storage'.

Simple proof can be obtained by photographing the TV screen using a fast
shutter.

Persistence of vision varies from person to person, and I have known people
find their new TV set very flickery. If you go into a shop where there's a
large display of TVs you can demonstrate to yourself that persistence of
vision is less in the peripheral areas of the visual field.

Someone told me once that cats have an extremely low persistence of vision,
if so then they must think humans are mad, staring at a band of light inside
that box in the corner of the room for hours on end ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Mark Carver wrote:

Someone told me once that cats have an extremely low persistence of
vision, if so then they must think humans are mad, staring at a band
of light inside that box in the corner of the room for hours on end ?

http://schnarff.com/pics/Marbury-CatTV1.jpg
http://pets.webshots.com/photo/2481059650087862133mHbCVe
http://www.marinhumanesociety.org/Images/LeftImage/CatTV.jpg

--
znark

" wrote
in ups.com:

Subject: Coast - awful filmic effect
From: "
Newsgroups:
uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast

Alan Pemberton wrote:
Michael Rozdoba wrote:

In that case I'd like to ask one question. For material shot
interlaced intended to be played back on a device which handles
interlaced material (such as a CRT), I can see why you'd want to
keep the material that way in many if not all cases. Rendering it
on the display, due to the temporal blurring of the phosphors, will
effectively merge the fields.

NO! Nothing to do with phosphors. A crt produces a bright spot of
light moving very quickly which the eye and brain interpret as a dim
two dimensional moving picture. No (or very little) storage or
integration gets done on the screen.

...as you can see very clearly if you point a video camera at a CRT
and set the shutter speed faster than 1/50th of a second!

You're forgetting that photographic equipment doesn't enjoy the wonderful
contrast range of the human eye. See below.

There is a great explanation showing why this is a great way of
reproducing moving pictures. If your eye tracks the motion on-screen,
a single clear image hits the back of your eye. Compare this with LCD
technology, where the "always on" nature of the image means any eye
movement simply smears the image on the back of your eye.

Found the link I was looking for...
http://www.poynton.com/papers/Motion...yal/index.html
or
http://www.poynton.com/PDFs/Motion_portrayal.pdf
(same content in both links - relevant section near the end)

It makes a superficially plausible story, but I suspect that's all it is
- a story. Quite a lot of the second half of it doesn't stand up under
close examination. Although there are two academic references to papers
by Japanese researchers, it's not clear what information comes from those
papers, and what is speculation by Poynton, and as I could find neither
paper online, unfortunately I can't check, which I think needs to be
done.

Phosphor luminescence decay can be modeled as the sum of several
exponential and power-law curves and levels off into a gradual decline
after an initial precipitous decay. Although, despite a great deal of
searching, I have not been able to find, free on-line, a characteristic
curve for any of the P22 (XX?) compounds widely used in CRTs, on purely
theoretical grounds I believe the graph of CRT decay shown as Figure 13
to be, at best, highly misleading in that firstly, it does not have a
meaningful vertical scale, and secondly, that it is shown as decaying to
zero, which is theoretically impossible.

However, I don't actually need the characteristic curve. The term
persistence when applied to phosphors has a specific, mathematical
meaning: it's the time taken for the luminescence to decay to 10% of its
starting value. It is NOT the time taken to fade away to nothing (that
would be infinite) NOR even the time taken for luminescence to become
invisible to the eye or any other detector. I get the impression that
many do not understand this fundamental point.

If the initial excitation is strong enough, the substance can still be
emitting light long after its persistence period has expired, and this
happens in a normal CRT TV. Here is photographic proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Refresh_scan.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...fresh_scan.jpg

If you consider that the human eye has considerably more contrast range
than ordinary photographic equipment, and that this was shot at f/1.6 and
1/3000s, yet the *entire* picture, even the oldest part of it just below
the refresh line, is discernible as two people, the very top of the right
hand one's head having beeen just been refreshed, then there can be no
doubt that even the faintest parts of the picture would have been visible
to the eye.

But I fell to thinking that this was rather an unnatural situation,
because the exposure is so low, and wondering whether it would be
possible to perform the same sort of test closer to normal exposures.

I set my still camera (Canon PowerShot S40) to manual mode, ISO400,
1/100s (so that I could capture the field refresh process), pointed it
outside, and chose an aperture of f/8 as giving a reasonably exposed
daylight shot. The focus was set to infinity. This is the result.

http://tinyurl.com/y68b86
... standing in for ...
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/CRT-
LCD/BaselineOutdoors.jpg

I then took all the following at a distance of, and focussed to, 12", but
all other settings on the camera remained the same. That implies that
the exposure in every case has been proved to be suitable for a normal
view for the human eye.

First, a Panasonic TX-15LT2 LCD TV. By comparison with outdoors, the
picture is somewhat under-exposed and therefore must be dimmer, but this
was not noticeable to me viewing it, presumably through auto adjustment
of the pupil:

http://tinyurl.com/yxgmhg
... standing in for ...
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...RT-LCD/LCD.jpg

Then I took a whole series of pictures of a similarly sized CRT showing
the same picture, a Sony KV-16WT1U (the only one I still have, I normally
use it for CCTV). That part of the current field that was refreshed
during exposure was well-exposed, as one would expect. Here is an
example:

http://tinyurl.com/vf6so
... standing in for ...
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...urrentScan.jpg

Further, as with the Wikipedia shot, even the previous field is still
discernible, as he

http://tinyurl.com/y72mv9
... standing in for ...
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...rviousScan.jpg

So we have one photo taken at very low exposure that nevertheless shows
detectable light coming from the previous field, and another taken at an
everyday 'human' exposure showing the same thing. Taken all together,
these photos:

1) Prove that the phosphors in two typical example CRTs emit detectable
light from one field refresh at least until neighbouring lines in the
next field are refreshed.
2) Strongly suggest that the level of light they emit is sufficient to
be visible to the human eye throughout most if not all of one field
refresh cycle.

However, what I think is genuinely debatable, and neither these photos
nor speculation are going to resolve this, is how much of the sensation
of seeing the picture is due to the initial very bright but very small
excitation area currently beeing refreshed, and how much due to the much
greater area of gradual fading until the next excitation.

Going back to CP ...

I then have no problems with the capture characteristics, the big
problems start with the section "Capture and display interactions" which
entirely hinges on his understanding of the way we perceive motion, and
as I suspect this is flawed, I suspect the whole section is likewise.

What I am certain of is that at least some of his interpretations not
only do not make sense, but also go in part against known research, as
described here ...

http://tinyurl.com/rcnn3
... standing in for ...
http://www.uca.edu/org/ccsmi/ccsmi/c...0Revisited.htm

Consider his interpretation of how we see film and the associated
diagram, Figure 19 ...

He claims that we see an interpolated second image of the object due to
the second showing of each frame. Like many before him, he is confusing
motion perception and flicker perception:

From the article linked above:

"""
It is only with hindsight that the problem seems to divide into such
clearly separable categories -- the fusing of the flickering light,
called flicker fusion in the literature of perceptual psychology, and the
appearance of motion which is referred to as apparent motion. Early
writers, without the benifit of hindsight, continually confused the two
issues.
"""

The sole purpose of the second showing of each frame is to reduce
flicker, it plays no part in motion detection.

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

And it's a very good thing that it doesn't, as is obvious if we follow
his misunderstanding to its logical conclusion.

Figure 19 is an idealisation of a simple object in motion which I analyse
here in ASCII art (which needs a fixed font, if your newsreader garbles
it, cut'n'paste it into Notepad or equivalent) where X marks the object
and - the background, but with the important difference that I include
where the eye would have to be looking (I) in order to see the object
where he claims it would appear to be:

First showing of frame 1:

-----Actual---------------
-----XXXXX---------------
-----XXXXX---------------
-------I-----------------

|--------|

Second showing of frame 1, which being, as we know, actually exactly the
same as the first, means that the eye would have to track to the left in
order to see the second image in the position displaced to the right that
Poynton claims for it:


-----Act'lPoynton-------------
-----xxxxxXXXXX---------------
-----xxxxxXXXXX---------------
--I-----------------

|--------|

First showing of frame 2:

---------------Actual--------------
---------------XXXXX---------------
---------------XXXXX---------------
-----------------I-----------------

|--------|

.... etc.

So you can see that his ideas imply that in order to see what he claims,
every frame the eye would have to backtrack half a frame's worth of
movement then forwards one and a half frame's worth of movement! A far
simpler, more coherent, and more convincing explanation, AFAIAA
compatible with research findings, would be this:

First showing of frame 1

-----Actual--------------
-----XXXXX---------------
-----XXXXX---------------
-------I-----------------

|--------|

Second showing of frame 1

-----Actual--------------
-----XXXXX---------------
-----XXXXX---------------
-------I-----------------

|--------|

First showing of frame 2

---------------Actual--------------
---------------XXXXX---------------
---------------XXXXX---------------
-----------------I-----------------

|--------|

.... etc.

If his interpretation of how we see film seems contrived, I don't find
his interpretation of how we see video much more convincing.

For one thing, the only time I have ever seen smeared video on an LCD was
on a 1990s laptop, where the problem was simply that the update rate of
the pixels in the display was insufficient to track movement. I have yet
to see a recent LCD TV or even a laptop that shows any such problem, so I
am not even convinced that there is any real difference between CRTs and
modern LCDs to explain.

For another, this statement is misleading: "A CRT has a very short flash:
the persistence of the phosphor is a negligible fraction of the frame
time." - but, as we have seen, persistence is not the same thing as
luminescence, light is emitted from one field refresh to the next field
refresh.

If someone really wants to get to the bottom of whether there is any real
difference between the two technologies wrt motion tracking, then I think
something like the following experiment would be required ...

Get a representative number of clips of a simple object moving across a
patterned field of view at different speeds. Analyse the position of the
object so that you know where it will be in each frame, and then display
the clips on various types of display, tracking it with a movie and/or
video camera under the control of a mechanism programmed with the known
position of the object, and obtaining coherent pictures by choice of
exposure settings and by linking the camera shutter to the frame
mechanism of the display, eg: the flyback signal.

If there was measurably more smearing from any one type of display
technology, then that would be an independent, reproducible, scientific
test that would put the matter beyond doubt, but CP's seemingly rather
speculative article with its identifiable errors, and the unscientific
regurgitation of it as though it were fact that has happened here, do
not.

I am sure this will bring down a storm of protest from the CRT diehards
here, but unless someone comes up with *new* *evidence* that I haven't
already seen and covered above, I shall ignore it all.

Java Jive wrote:

[long analysis about CRT refresh, phosphors, etc.]

I am sure this will bring down a storm of protest from the CRT
diehards here, but unless someone comes up with *new* *evidence* that
I haven't already seen and covered above, I shall ignore it all.

Since this thread was originally posted both to "uk.tech.broadcast" and
"uk.tech.digital-tv", but your analysis wasn't, I'm reposting it here in
its entirety to both groups so that those in uk.tech.broadcast can also
read and comment on it:

--- 8 --- Java Jive's post begins --- 8 ---

" wrote
in ups.com:

Subject: Coast - awful filmic effect
From: "
Newsgroups:
uk.tech.digital-tv,uk.tech.broadcast

Alan Pemberton wrote:
Michael Rozdoba wrote:

In that case I'd like to ask one question. For material shot
interlaced intended to be played back on a device which handles
interlaced material (such as a CRT), I can see why you'd want to
keep the material that way in many if not all cases. Rendering it
on the display, due to the temporal blurring of the phosphors, will
effectively merge the fields.

NO! Nothing to do with phosphors. A crt produces a bright spot of
light moving very quickly which the eye and brain interpret as a dim
two dimensional moving picture. No (or very little) storage or
integration gets done on the screen.

...as you can see very clearly if you point a video camera at a CRT
and set the shutter speed faster than 1/50th of a second!

You're forgetting that photographic equipment doesn't enjoy the
wonderful
contrast range of the human eye. See below.

There is a great explanation showing why this is a great way of
reproducing moving pictures. If your eye tracks the motion on-screen,
a single clear image hits the back of your eye. Compare this with LCD
technology, where the "always on" nature of the image means any eye
movement simply smears the image on the back of your eye.

Found the link I was looking for...
http://www.poynton.com/papers/Motion...yal/index.html
or
http://www.poynton.com/PDFs/Motion_portrayal.pdf
(same content in both links - relevant section near the end)

It makes a superficially plausible story, but I suspect that's all it is
- a story. Quite a lot of the second half of it doesn't stand up under
close examination. Although there are two academic references to papers
by Japanese researchers, it's not clear what information comes from
those
papers, and what is speculation by Poynton, and as I could find neither
paper online, unfortunately I can't check, which I think needs to be
done.

Phosphor luminescence decay can be modeled as the sum of several
exponential and power-law curves and levels off into a gradual decline
after an initial precipitous decay. Although, despite a great deal of
searching, I have not been able to find, free on-line, a characteristic
curve for any of the P22 (XX?) compounds widely used in CRTs, on purely
theoretical grounds I believe the graph of CRT decay shown as Figure 13
to be, at best, highly misleading in that firstly, it does not have a
meaningful vertical scale, and secondly, that it is shown as decaying to
zero, which is theoretically impossible.

However, I don't actually need the characteristic curve. The term
persistence when applied to phosphors has a specific, mathematical
meaning: it's the time taken for the luminescence to decay to 10% of its
starting value. It is NOT the time taken to fade away to nothing (that
would be infinite) NOR even the time taken for luminescence to become
invisible to the eye or any other detector. I get the impression that
many do not understand this fundamental point.

If the initial excitation is strong enough, the substance can still be
emitting light long after its persistence period has expired, and this
happens in a normal CRT TV. Here is photographic proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Refresh_scan.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...fresh_scan.jpg

If you consider that the human eye has considerably more contrast range
than ordinary photographic equipment, and that this was shot at f/1.6
and
1/3000s, yet the *entire* picture, even the oldest part of it just below
the refresh line, is discernible as two people, the very top of the
right
hand one's head having beeen just been refreshed, then there can be no
doubt that even the faintest parts of the picture would have been
visible
to the eye.

But I fell to thinking that this was rather an unnatural situation,
because the exposure is so low, and wondering whether it would be
possible to perform the same sort of test closer to normal exposures.

I set my still camera (Canon PowerShot S40) to manual mode, ISO400,
1/100s (so that I could capture the field refresh process), pointed it
outside, and chose an aperture of f/8 as giving a reasonably exposed
daylight shot. The focus was set to infinity. This is the result.

http://tinyurl.com/y68b86
... standing in for ...
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/CRT-
LCD/BaselineOutdoors.jpg

I then took all the following at a distance of, and focussed to, 12",
but
all other settings on the camera remained the same. That implies that
the exposure in every case has been proved to be suitable for a normal
view for the human eye.

First, a Panasonic TX-15LT2 LCD TV. By comparison with outdoors, the
picture is somewhat under-exposed and therefore must be dimmer, but this
was not noticeable to me viewing it, presumably through auto adjustment
of the pupil:

http://tinyurl.com/yxgmhg
... standing in for ...
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...RT-LCD/LCD.jpg

Then I took a whole series of pictures of a similarly sized CRT showing
the same picture, a Sony KV-16WT1U (the only one I still have, I
normally
use it for CCTV). That part of the current field that was refreshed
during exposure was well-exposed, as one would expect. Here is an
example:

http://tinyurl.com/vf6so
... standing in for ...
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...urrentScan.jpg

Further, as with the Wikipedia shot, even the previous field is still
discernible, as he

http://tinyurl.com/y72mv9
... standing in for ...
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c2...rviousScan.jpg

So we have one photo taken at very low exposure that nevertheless shows
detectable light coming from the previous field, and another taken at an
everyday 'human' exposure showing the same thing. Taken all together,
these photos:

1) Prove that the phosphors in two typical example CRTs emit detectable
light from one field refresh at least until neighbouring lines in the
next field are refreshed.
2) Strongly suggest that the level of light they emit is sufficient to
be visible to the human eye throughout most if not all of one field
refresh cycle.

However, what I think is genuinely debatable, and neither these photos
nor speculation are going to resolve this, is how much of the sensation
of seeing the picture is due to the initial very bright but very small
excitation area currently beeing refreshed, and how much due to the much
greater area of gradual fading until the next excitation.

Going back to CP ...

I then have no problems with the capture characteristics, the big
problems start with the section "Capture and display interactions" which
entirely hinges on his understanding of the way we perceive motion, and
as I suspect this is flawed, I suspect the whole section is likewise.

What I am certain of is that at least some of his interpretations not
only do not make sense, but also go in part against known research, as
described here ...

http://tinyurl.com/rcnn3
... standing in for ...
http://www.uca.edu/org/ccsmi/ccsmi/c...0Revisited.htm

Consider his interpretation of how we see film and the associated
diagram, Figure 19 ...

He claims that we see an interpolated second image of the object due to
the second showing of each frame. Like many before him, he is confusing
motion perception and flicker perception:

From the article linked above:

"""
It is only with hindsight that the problem seems to divide into such
clearly separable categories -- the fusing of the flickering light,
called flicker fusion in the literature of perceptual psychology, and
the
appearance of motion which is referred to as apparent motion. Early
writers, without the benifit of hindsight, continually confused the two
issues.
"""

The sole purpose of the second showing of each frame is to reduce
flicker, it plays no part in motion detection.

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

And it's a very good thing that it doesn't, as is obvious if we follow
his misunderstanding to its logical conclusion.

Figure 19 is an idealisation of a simple object in motion which I
analyse
here in ASCII art (which needs a fixed font, if your newsreader garbles
it, cut'n'paste it into Notepad or equivalent) where X marks the object
and - the background, but with the important difference that I include
where the eye would have to be looking (I) in order to see the object
where he claims it would appear to be:

First showing of frame 1:

-----Actual---------------
-----XXXXX---------------
-----XXXXX---------------
-------I-----------------

|--------|

Second showing of frame 1, which being, as we know, actually exactly the
same as the first, means that the eye would have to track to the left in
order to see the second image in the position displaced to the right
that
Poynton claims for it:


-----Act'lPoynton-------------
-----xxxxxXXXXX---------------
-----xxxxxXXXXX---------------
--I-----------------

|--------|

First showing of frame 2:

---------------Actual--------------
---------------XXXXX---------------
---------------XXXXX---------------
-----------------I-----------------

|--------|

.... etc.

So you can see that his ideas imply that in order to see what he claims,
every frame the eye would have to backtrack half a frame's worth of
movement then forwards one and a half frame's worth of movement! A far
simpler, more coherent, and more convincing explanation, AFAIAA
compatible with research findings, would be this:

First showing of frame 1

-----Actual--------------
-----XXXXX---------------
-----XXXXX---------------
-------I-----------------

|--------|

Second showing of frame 1

-----Actual--------------
-----XXXXX---------------
-----XXXXX---------------
-------I-----------------

|--------|

First showing of frame 2

---------------Actual--------------
---------------XXXXX---------------
---------------XXXXX---------------
-----------------I-----------------

|--------|

.... etc.

If his interpretation of how we see film seems contrived, I don't find
his interpretation of how we see video much more convincing.

For one thing, the only time I have ever seen smeared video on an LCD
was
on a 1990s laptop, where the problem was simply that the update rate of
the pixels in the display was insufficient to track movement. I have
yet
to see a recent LCD TV or even a laptop that shows any such problem, so
I
am not even convinced that there is any real difference between CRTs and
modern LCDs to explain.

For another, this statement is misleading: "A CRT has a very short
flash:
the persistence of the phosphor is a negligible fraction of the frame
time." - but, as we have seen, persistence is not the same thing as
luminescence, light is emitted from one field refresh to the next field
refresh.

If someone really wants to get to the bottom of whether there is any
real
difference between the two technologies wrt motion tracking, then I
think
something like the following experiment would be required ...

Get a representative number of clips of a simple object moving across a
patterned field of view at different speeds. Analyse the position of
the
object so that you know where it will be in each frame, and then display
the clips on various types of display, tracking it with a movie and/or
video camera under the control of a mechanism programmed with the known
position of the object, and obtaining coherent pictures by choice of
exposure settings and by linking the camera shutter to the frame
mechanism of the display, eg: the flyback signal.

If there was measurably more smearing from any one type of display
technology, then that would be an independent, reproducible, scientific
test that would put the matter beyond doubt, but CP's seemingly rather
speculative article with its identifiable errors, and the unscientific
regurgitation of it as though it were fact that has happened here, do
not.

I am sure this will bring down a storm of protest from the CRT diehards
here, but unless someone comes up with *new* *evidence* that I haven't
already seen and covered above, I shall ignore it all.

--- 8 --- Java Jive's post ends --- 8 ---

--
znark