Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippyDSM
*naws on youer head* uuu haz bwains!! =^0^=
Care to go over contrast ratio ?
So tvs(LCD/plasma) are basically sold on theoretical limits that are not quit fully implemented in broadcast or film?
Heh no wonder I am not hell bent on a 1200$ new TV.
|
Its funny, since it works both ways. Movie film has in theory a very high resolution, that is still not quite matched with 1080p. Then again this highly depends on how well the whole filming equipuement is, how much light they had and so on (the less light, the more noise/grain).
But fps-wise movie films are inferior to what is technically possible on high end display devices with 1080i. Then again, who owns a high end display device?
Most TVs these days are HD ready (means they don't even display the full HD spec resolution), and those that are full HD still have difficulties with response times. At the moment you have the choice of either taking a TN-panel which has a decent fps capability but a bad contrast ratio (and therefore limited colors). Or a PVA-panel which offers a good contrast ratio (more colors) but is limited in the fps capability, since it has lower response times in contrast to TN panels. (MVA and IPS excluded here to make the whole issue less complex)
The good thing is, that the low response times are not visible as hard cuts in the frames but more like a temporaly smoothed image... means it blurs when the motion is high.
Of special interest here is the time a pixel needs to turn white from completely black (which is often the faster value) and the opposit to that, when a pixel turns from white to black. The time the pixel needs to do that in a decent way defines the response time. Why the word "decent" you might ask... well the pixel is not required to turn completely black, just black enough to reach a certain contrast ratio that is defined for a display device. If the testers really waited until the pixel is completely black they need to wait a long time (like minutes or hours).
But I guess I should not further go into details here... otherwise this answer turns out just too boring.
edit: just to close the loop and finally come back to the 24fps movie film...
The 24fps movie film does the blurring thing once things become too fast for it. That way it still looks like okay when it is in movement. But it will look blurry in a still capture. Most of the display devices these days are not capable to clearly outperform the movie film in this aspect. Thus it doesn't matter if the source is blurry.
Once the display devices become better, it will make a difference if something just looks fast because it is blurred along the way it moves, or if it looks fast because it is displayed rather sharp and uses high fps to not look like it is jittering over the screen. The improvement in quality can only come with the improvement in the base material and the display devices.