|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
May 25th 04, 04:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Weldon wrote:
When images on a strip of film are projected onto a screen, the images are discrete, perhaps separated by a small blank interval, depending on the projector (one type has continuous film advance rather than intermittent, and uses a rotating prism syncronized with the film movement to project a single frame until the next moves into place.) I am aware of how a movie projector works. You missed the point. As for frame rate on a comuter monitor, there is absolutely no way for information to reach the screen faster than the frame rate of the monitor. No one said it could. If frame synch is turned off, and the frame generation rate allowed to exceed the monitor frame rate then GPU and CPU power is just being wasted because the extra will never reach the screen (to display at twice the monitor frame rate would mean that half the information is never displayed, and the GPU and CPU processing power would be better spent on increased image quality.) And then there would be the displacement with moving objects or a panning motion at some point in the displayed composite frame. The "frozen in time" effect is just as present in film as in CGI. After all, the exposure time can be varied in cinemaphotography to freeze any motion (the downside is that more sensitive film, a faster lens, increased scene illumination, and or "pushed" development must be used.) And what about CGI use in filmed movies ("Hell Boy", "Von Helsing", "Shreck II"?) You mean they weren't real? On the other hand I doubt they were generated real time on a PC. Those who report seeing a difference with computer display images when the computer frame rate is higher than the monitor display rate are either perceiving the "image tearing" you mention as meaningful screen action (indicating really short attention spans, really short) It indicates no such thing. Just as perceiving 'purple' from three phosphors, none of which are 'purple', doesn't 'indicate' you're damn fast at fourier calculations. or reacting to frame rate hype for 3-D accelerated adapter cards and games. Or maybe it is the aura of an impending seizure. I told you I had doubts about it but for you to just whimsically dismiss it, unless you have done the appropriate experiments, is a bit cavalier. You are looking solely at the 'mechanics' of the 'device' and, using that kind of analysis, it's also obvious that color television can't work because there isn't enough bandwidth for the color information, by an order of magnitude, and you simply can't reproduce the visible spectrum with 3 fixed wavelength phosphors. But it does work due to the peculiarities of the human eye and human perception. But I'm not going to 'argue' it with you because it isn't my theory and I'm not an expert on it. I simply note that there ARE people who say it makes a difference, based on experiments they've done, and they have a theory as to why. 
|
|
#12
May 25th 04, 05:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I didn't explain to you how movie projectors work, I just responded to your
description of the 'theory' and the errors in that 'theory' as you describe it. Evidently the expounders of that theory don't understand how movie projectors work, nor how the cameras work either. How the CGI composite images were generated has nothing with how they are currently displayed in cinemas. The point is that they are quite satisfying at 24 frames per seconds. And of course color television isn't impossible, and WHAT bandwidth? USA broadcast channels? Video amplifier bandwidth in television receivers? Red bandwidth? Green bandwidth? Blue bandwidth? Video bandwidth? In NTSC encoding, GREEN bandwidth is more than three times that of BLUE, something like 1.7 MHz to .5 MHz, with RED bandwidth falling somewhere in between. I don't whimiscally dismiss theory, it is bogus and I make fun of it, as it deserves. NTSC television, on the other hand, depends on valid theories that are confirmed, and depends on information that reaches the screen. The video game rate "theory" evidently depends on information that does not reach the screen. THAT is why I make fun of it. -- Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom For communication, replace "at" with the 'at sign' replace "mindjump" with "mindspring." replace "dot" with "." "David Maynard" wrote in message ... Phil Weldon wrote: When images on a strip of film are projected onto a screen, the images are discrete, perhaps separated by a small blank interval, depending on the projector (one type has continuous film advance rather than intermittent, and uses a rotating prism syncronized with the film movement to project a single frame until the next moves into place.) I am aware of how a movie projector works. You missed the point. As for frame rate on a comuter monitor, there is absolutely no way for information to reach the screen faster than the frame rate of the monitor. No one said it could. If frame synch is turned off, and the frame generation rate allowed to exceed the monitor frame rate then GPU and CPU power is just being wasted because the extra will never reach the screen (to display at twice the monitor frame rate would mean that half the information is never displayed, and the GPU and CPU processing power would be better spent on increased image quality.) And then there would be the displacement with moving objects or a panning motion at some point in the displayed composite frame. The "frozen in time" effect is just as present in film as in CGI. After all, the exposure time can be varied in cinemaphotography to freeze any motion (the downside is that more sensitive film, a faster lens, increased scene illumination, and or "pushed" development must be used.) And what about CGI use in filmed movies ("Hell Boy", "Von Helsing", "Shreck II"?) You mean they weren't real? On the other hand I doubt they were generated real time on a PC. Those who report seeing a difference with computer display images when the computer frame rate is higher than the monitor display rate are either perceiving the "image tearing" you mention as meaningful screen action (indicating really short attention spans, really short) It indicates no such thing. Just as perceiving 'purple' from three phosphors, none of which are 'purple', doesn't 'indicate' you're damn fast at fourier calculations. or reacting to frame rate hype for 3-D accelerated adapter cards and games. Or maybe it is the aura of an impending seizure. I told you I had doubts about it but for you to just whimsically dismiss it, unless you have done the appropriate experiments, is a bit cavalier. You are looking solely at the 'mechanics' of the 'device' and, using that kind of analysis, it's also obvious that color television can't work because there isn't enough bandwidth for the color information, by an order of magnitude, and you simply can't reproduce the visible spectrum with 3 fixed wavelength phosphors. But it does work due to the peculiarities of the human eye and human perception. But I'm not going to 'argue' it with you because it isn't my theory and I'm not an expert on it. I simply note that there ARE people who say it makes a difference, based on experiments they've done, and they have a theory as to why.
|
|
#13
May 25th 04, 10:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Phil Weldon wrote:
I didn't explain to you how movie projectors work, I didn't say you did. I said I know how they work, which includes your "rotating prism" explanation and the rest. I just responded to your description of the 'theory' and the errors in that 'theory' as you describe it. Evidently the expounders of that theory don't understand how movie projectors work, nor how the cameras work either. They understand it just fine. How the CGI composite images were generated has nothing with how they are currently displayed in cinemas. More appropriately, "how they are currently displayed" has nothing to do with how they are generated, which is the POINT of their theory: what happens BEFORE it's sent to display. The point is that they are quite satisfying at 24 frames per seconds. Which is irrelevant to the idea they proposed. And of course color television isn't impossible, Yes, of course. And I gave the reason why. and WHAT bandwidth? The color information, as I said. Makes no difference 'where' in the whole schlemiel we look, there is a LIMIT to how much color information can POSSIBLY be there because of how it's encoded. USA broadcast channels? Video amplifier bandwidth in television receivers? Red bandwidth? Green bandwidth? Blue bandwidth? Video bandwidth? In NTSC encoding, GREEN bandwidth is more than three times that of BLUE, something like 1.7 MHz to .5 MHz, with RED bandwidth falling somewhere in between. NTSC. The entire video bandwidth for luminance is 4.2 MHz. All of that is available for 'B&W'. For color, the chroma subcarrier is modulated on top of it at about 3.58Mhz and is comprised of two color information signals, I and Q, (since we can use those with the luminance to recreate 3 primary color signals). The I signal is bandwidth limited to about 1.5 MHz with the Q limited to about .6 Mhz. That's the 'best' you could get without the attendant phase and amplitude distortions resulting from broadcast transmission. (If you care, the I and Q are derived as follows" I = 0.74 (R'-Y) - 0.27 (B'-Y) = 0.60 R' - 0.28 G' - 0.32 B' Q = 0.48 (R'-Y) + 0.41 (B'-Y) = 0.21 R' - 0.52 G' + 0.31 B' ) Now, subtract a .6Mhz bandwidth signal from a 4.2 MHz bandwidth signal and the useful resulting signal is not going to contain any more resolution than the lower of the two bandwidths: .6 MHz (plus uncorrected high frequency luminance components, unless they're filtered out.) The result is that NTSC color resolution STINKS. Which is one reason why they make incredibly lousy PC monitors. But, as it turns out, the human eye is more sensitive to luminance information than it is to color so your mind's eye just doesn't give much of a tinker's dam about how positively dismal the color resolution is when viewing 'natural scenes' (as opposed to graphics/text) on a TV. I don't whimiscally dismiss theory, it is bogus and I make fun of it, as it deserves. That's exactly what they said about Goddard's stupid notion that rockets would work in the vacuum of space. NTSC television, on the other hand, depends on valid theories that are confirmed, and depends on information that reaches the screen. The video game rate "theory" evidently depends on information that does not reach the screen. THAT is why I make fun of it. Your 'humor' of it is based on a false premise then.
|
|
#15
May 25th 04, 04:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Working from your description of this "theory" of the effect of frame rates
higher than the monitor refresh rate, I repeat my criticism. It depends on information that does not reach the display. Color television is completely different matter. It depends on our perception of what DOES reach the display, rather than what DOES NOT reach the display, an important difference, and an example of what separates science from mysticism. I will though my back issues of the SMPT magazine, however, for mention of something that bears on this "theory." Anyway, the limitation of NTSC compared to PAL/SCAM is not so much resolution, but control of color distortion in the broadcast path. The vertical resolution increase that PAL/SECAM gains over NTSC is at the expense of lower temporal resolution. The horizontal resolution increase is at the is at the expense (for broadcast) of increased spectrum cost. Compare the number of television broadcast stations in the PAL/SECAM world with the number of television broadcast stations in the NTSC world. Now that decoding of HDTV type broadcasts is possible in television receivers, everything changes, and, like Richard Nixon, we won't have Never The Same Color to kick around any more (well, he did make a comeback... hopefully we'll be luckier with NTSC.) -- Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom For communication, replace "at" with the 'at sign' replace "mindjump" with "mindspring." replace "dot" with "." "David Maynard" wrote in message ... Phil Weldon wrote: I didn't explain to you how movie projectors work, I didn't say you did. I said I know how they work, which includes your "rotating prism" explanation and the rest. I just responded to your description of the 'theory' and the errors in that 'theory' as you describe it. Evidently the expounders of that theory don't understand how movie projectors work, nor how the cameras work either. They understand it just fine. How the CGI composite images were generated has nothing with how they are currently displayed in cinemas. More appropriately, "how they are currently displayed" has nothing to do with how they are generated, which is the POINT of their theory: what happens BEFORE it's sent to display. The point is that they are quite satisfying at 24 frames per seconds. Which is irrelevant to the idea they proposed. And of course color television isn't impossible, Yes, of course. And I gave the reason why. and WHAT bandwidth? The color information, as I said. Makes no difference 'where' in the whole schlemiel we look, there is a LIMIT to how much color information can POSSIBLY be there because of how it's encoded. USA broadcast channels? Video amplifier bandwidth in television receivers? Red bandwidth? Green bandwidth? Blue bandwidth? Video bandwidth? In NTSC encoding, GREEN bandwidth is more than three times that of BLUE, something like 1.7 MHz to .5 MHz, with RED bandwidth falling somewhere in between. NTSC. The entire video bandwidth for luminance is 4.2 MHz. All of that is available for 'B&W'. For color, the chroma subcarrier is modulated on top of it at about 3.58Mhz and is comprised of two color information signals, I and Q, (since we can use those with the luminance to recreate 3 primary color signals). The I signal is bandwidth limited to about 1.5 MHz with the Q limited to about .6 Mhz. That's the 'best' you could get without the attendant phase and amplitude distortions resulting from broadcast transmission. (If you care, the I and Q are derived as follows" I = 0.74 (R'-Y) - 0.27 (B'-Y) = 0.60 R' - 0.28 G' - 0.32 B' Q = 0.48 (R'-Y) + 0.41 (B'-Y) = 0.21 R' - 0.52 G' + 0.31 B' ) Now, subtract a .6Mhz bandwidth signal from a 4.2 MHz bandwidth signal and the useful resulting signal is not going to contain any more resolution than the lower of the two bandwidths: .6 MHz (plus uncorrected high frequency luminance components, unless they're filtered out.) The result is that NTSC color resolution STINKS. Which is one reason why they make incredibly lousy PC monitors. But, as it turns out, the human eye is more sensitive to luminance information than it is to color so your mind's eye just doesn't give much of a tinker's dam about how positively dismal the color resolution is when viewing 'natural scenes' (as opposed to graphics/text) on a TV. I don't whimiscally dismiss theory, it is bogus and I make fun of it, as it deserves. That's exactly what they said about Goddard's stupid notion that rockets would work in the vacuum of space. NTSC television, on the other hand, depends on valid theories that are confirmed, and depends on information that reaches the screen. The video game rate "theory" evidently depends on information that does not reach the screen. THAT is why I make fun of it. Your 'humor' of it is based on a false premise then.
|
|
#16
May 25th 04, 11:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Phil Weldon wrote:
Working from your description of this "theory" of the effect of frame rates higher than the monitor refresh rate, I repeat my criticism. It depends on information that does not reach the display. No, it doesn't. Color television is completely different matter. It depends on our perception of what DOES reach the display, rather than what DOES NOT reach the display, an important difference, and an example of what separates science from mysticism. I will though my back issues of the SMPT magazine, however, for mention of something that bears on this "theory." I would agree if your assumption were correct, but it's not. Anyway, the limitation of NTSC compared to PAL/SCAM is not so much resolution, but control of color distortion in the broadcast path. If the point had been a comparison of NTSC vs PAL/SECAM you'd be correct but the point wasn't a comparison. The point was the inherent poor resolution of the color information. PAL/SECAM also transmit low bandwidth color information but the modulation techniques compensate for broadcast anomalies better, at the expense of more complicated circuitry and more expensive TV sets. However, they depend on the same 'tricks of the eye' to work. The vertical resolution increase that PAL/SECAM gains over NTSC is at the expense of lower temporal resolution. The horizontal resolution increase is at the is at the expense (for broadcast) of increased spectrum cost. Compare the number of television broadcast stations in the PAL/SECAM world with the number of television broadcast stations in the NTSC world. Now that decoding of HDTV type broadcasts is possible in television receivers, everything changes, and, like Richard Nixon, we won't have Never The Same Color to kick around any more (well, he did make a comeback... hopefully we'll be luckier with NTSC.) The point had nothing to do with comparing various TV formats. The point was that the human eye 'compensates' for the sketchy pictorial information and 'interprets' it into a 'reasonable' representation. That pictorial information does not have to be 'technically correct', or even 'good', because the human eye does peculiar things of it's own in turning it into "what you (think you) see."
|
|
#17
May 26th 04, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What, then, do any of your points have to do with sending more frames to
the display device than can be displayed, which, I thought, was the contention of this "theory". I agree, NTSC, PAL, and SECAM have nothing to do with the contention EXCEPT for the fact that broadcast television depends on perception of information that DOES reach the screen, NOT on information that DOES NOT reach the screen, as your explanation of the "theory" of excess frame rate indicates. Or maybe I have misinterpreted your explantation, in which case more discussion is fruitless unless you can clarify. I hope the "theory" is not just that the CAPABILITY of frame rates far beyond the display presentation frame rate indicate excess capacity to handle peak graphics processing requirements well above the average graphics processing requirements. If that is the contention, then I don't think ANYONE would differ. -- Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom For communication, replace "at" with the 'at sign' replace "mindjump" with "mindspring." replace "dot" with "." "David Maynard" wrote in message ... Phil Weldon wrote: Working from your description of this "theory" of the effect of frame rates higher than the monitor refresh rate, I repeat my criticism. It depends on information that does not reach the display. No, it doesn't. Color television is completely different matter. It depends on our perception of what DOES reach the display, rather than what DOES NOT reach the display, an important difference, and an example of what separates science from mysticism. I will though my back issues of the SMPT magazine, however, for mention of something that bears on this "theory." I would agree if your assumption were correct, but it's not. Anyway, the limitation of NTSC compared to PAL/SCAM is not so much resolution, but control of color distortion in the broadcast path. If the point had been a comparison of NTSC vs PAL/SECAM you'd be correct but the point wasn't a comparison. The point was the inherent poor resolution of the color information. PAL/SECAM also transmit low bandwidth color information but the modulation techniques compensate for broadcast anomalies better, at the expense of more complicated circuitry and more expensive TV sets. However, they depend on the same 'tricks of the eye' to work. The vertical resolution increase that PAL/SECAM gains over NTSC is at the expense of lower temporal resolution. The horizontal resolution increase is at the is at the expense (for broadcast) of increased spectrum cost. Compare the number of television broadcast stations in the PAL/SECAM world with the number of television broadcast stations in the NTSC world. Now that decoding of HDTV type broadcasts is possible in television receivers, everything changes, and, like Richard Nixon, we won't have Never The Same Color to kick around any more (well, he did make a comeback... hopefully we'll be luckier with NTSC.) The point had nothing to do with comparing various TV formats. The point was that the human eye 'compensates' for the sketchy pictorial information and 'interprets' it into a 'reasonable' representation. That pictorial information does not have to be 'technically correct', or even 'good', because the human eye does peculiar things of it's own in turning it into "what you (think you) see."
|
|
#18
May 26th 04, 01:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Phil Weldon wrote:
What, then, do any of your points have to do with sending more frames to the display device than can be displayed, which, I thought, was the contention of this "theory". No, and it's obvious to even the most casual observer that you can't 'send more frames than can be displayed' but you're so obsessed with insisting that is 'the theory' that you won't give it 2 seconds of thought. One idea we had talked about before you jumped on this 'things that are never seen' bandwagon was a frame consisting partly of one and partly of the next, caused by the generated frame rate being faster than the display frame rate. And while you seem to be absolutely convinced the observer is demented I can imagine the eye 'integrating' the effect just as it does other 'fragmented' information in conventional TV images. Whether it does, or not, I don't know as I've never done any experiments with it. I agree, NTSC, PAL, and SECAM have nothing to do with the contention EXCEPT for the fact that broadcast television depends on perception of information that DOES reach the screen, NOT on information that DOES NOT reach the screen, as your explanation of the "theory" of excess frame rate indicates. No, it doesn't, regardless of how many times you repeat it and I repeat that it doesn't. Or maybe I have misinterpreted your explantation, in which case more discussion is fruitless unless you can clarify. I hope the "theory" is not just that the CAPABILITY of frame rates far beyond the display presentation frame rate indicate excess capacity to handle peak graphics processing requirements well above the average graphics processing requirements. If that is the contention, then I don't think ANYONE would differ.
|
|
#19
May 26th 04, 04:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, I am neither obsessed nor on a bandwagon. Why don't you restate the
"theory" (which you made clear is not yours) to clarify the discussion. We've been talking past each other. Perception of video images, both analog has been exhaustivly studied, there really isn't anything "new" about video games that hasn't been studied in developing digital compression and display of moving images. -- Phil Weldon, pweldonatmindjumpdotcom For communication, replace "at" with the 'at sign' replace "mindjump" with "mindspring." replace "dot" with "." "David Maynard" wrote in message ... Phil Weldon wrote: What, then, do any of your points have to do with sending more frames to the display device than can be displayed, which, I thought, was the contention of this "theory". No, and it's obvious to even the most casual observer that you can't 'send more frames than can be displayed' but you're so obsessed with insisting that is 'the theory' that you won't give it 2 seconds of thought. One idea we had talked about before you jumped on this 'things that are never seen' bandwagon was a frame consisting partly of one and partly of the next, caused by the generated frame rate being faster than the display frame rate. And while you seem to be absolutely convinced the observer is demented I can imagine the eye 'integrating' the effect just as it does other 'fragmented' information in conventional TV images. Whether it does, or not, I don't know as I've never done any experiments with it. I agree, NTSC, PAL, and SECAM have nothing to do with the contention EXCEPT for the fact that broadcast television depends on perception of information that DOES reach the screen, NOT on information that DOES NOT reach the screen, as your explanation of the "theory" of excess frame rate indicates. No, it doesn't, regardless of how many times you repeat it and I repeat that it doesn't. Or maybe I have misinterpreted your explantation, in which case more discussion is fruitless unless you can clarify. I hope the "theory" is not just that the CAPABILITY of frame rates far beyond the display presentation frame rate indicate excess capacity to handle peak graphics processing requirements well above the average graphics processing requirements. If that is the contention, then I don't think ANYONE would differ.
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Radeon 9800 Pro and Mobile barton at 2.5ghz good match ?? | The Other Guy. | General | 3 | November 19th 04 04:03 AM |
| ATI Radeon 9800 Pro installation error | Ben C | General | 4 | October 21st 04 11:55 PM |
| Overclocking ATI Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro video card? | Cyde Weys | General | 3 | July 21st 04 11:18 PM |
| Water-cooled 865PE + Radeon 9800 XT = rocketship . . . pulls a Challenger | Ben Morehead | Overclocking | 7 | October 30th 03 10:48 AM |
| Overclocking Radeon 9800 Pro? | Ulf Stahl | Overclocking | 3 | August 23rd 03 08:42 AM |
Linear Mode
