Standardizing Motion Resolution: "Milliseconds of motion resolution" (MPRT) better than "Lines of motion resolution" - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 72 Old 10-29-2013, 11:12 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elix View Post

Err... I am in trouble converting it into ms of motion blur. Does it mean those optomas outperform all other projectors in terms of motion resolution (except CRTs)? What number of "lines of motion resolution" equivalent would that be?
Yes, it does.

Typical 60 Hz LCD or DLP with black frames disabled/interpolation disabled -- about 16.7ms of persistence (even if GtG is only 1ms or 2ms)
Typical 120Hz LCD or DLP with black frame disabled/interpolation disabled -- about 8.3 of persistence
Adding black frames to 120Hz -- about 4.1ms of persistence (for 50%:50% dark:bright duty cycle).
I'm ignoring interpolation; as that's not good for gaming.

This translates to: During 1000 pixels/second motion (1 millisecond per 1 pixel), you get a minimum 16.7 pixels of enforced display motion blur (during eye tracking) during framerate=Hz motion during video games (full frame rates) for 60fps@60Hz on a sample-and-hold 60Hz. For 120Hz, that's 8.3 pixels. For 120Hz+traditional BFI, that's 4.1 pixels of motion blurring respectively. Note, that GtG curves (finite time that a pixel takes to transition from one color to another) will generally 'add' to persistence; so these numbers are ideal case scenario, assuming continuous light output. This is observed when doing motion tests such as www.testufo.com or PixPerAn, and observing the changes in motion blur trail length (this is observed with LightBoost monitors, see Photos of motion blur: 60Hz vs 120Hz vs LightBoost.

Black frames can vary away from 50%:50% duty cycle. For example, black frame insertion could be 3:1 ratio (dark 75% of the time, bright 25% of the time). Such black frame insertion ratios would reduce motion blur by 75% instead of 50%. Likewise, a 90%:10% dark:bright duty cycle would reduce tracking motion blur by 90%. (these numbers are only exact if black frame insertion is perfectly square-wave; generally it doesn't always necessarily reach these efficiencies. However, DLP's do highly efficient black frame insertion since they turn off pixels extremely fast.).

-- Most LCD/LCoS projectors don't use black frame insertion, so they generally more motion blur than DLP's.
-- CRT's generally have approximately ~1ms of persistence from the phosphor illuminate-and-decay cycle (less for shorter persistence, more for longer-persistence). Although not a squarewave persistence, the brightest part of the illumination cycle is often at sub-millisecond levels, so that part determines the human-perceived motion clarity. That's more than 15x sharper motion clarity than a 60Hz sample-and-hold LCD, so the bar is set extremely high for displays that attempt to match CRT motion clarity.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 72 Old 10-29-2013, 11:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
spacediver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Great paper from 2010 (open access) that has some useful figures:

(notice the difference in scales in the first figure - one is in microseconds, the other in milliseconds.



spacediver is online now  
post #63 of 72 Old 10-29-2013, 03:23 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Yes -- that's right, some CRT's illuminate-and-decay a few hundred microseconds (back to levels too dim to create significant stimulus), while other CRT's take a lot longer (~2ms). The Sony GDM-W900 CRT is one of the longer-persistence phosphors, taking ~2ms.

Also the LCD curves visually resemble an older 5ms LCD. The curves of a 1ms gaming LCD are more cliff-shaped than those, but still otherwise similar.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
post #64 of 72 Old 10-30-2013, 12:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Elix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dungeon, Pillar of Eyes
Posts: 1,215
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Mark, you have so much passion about this as I see almost each of your posts is long yet informative. How do you do this?) Keep it up. smile.gif

So, basically, Optoma GTs (720-760) are not as good as Lightboost monitors in terms of motion resolution? About 2-4 times more blur? And here I was aiming at ordering one for 3D gaming.
Maybe next year we'll see not only G-Sync monitors but G-Sync projector from Acer. smile.gif Looking forward for that.
Elix is offline  
post #65 of 72 Old 10-30-2013, 12:52 AM
Advanced Member
 
spacediver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Ok, in the images below, the green box with the arrow to its right is the one that is moving. Slightly above it are two adjacent objects separated by a black dashed line (this dashed line is not visible during the trial, but included here for illustration). The object on the right is the "base". By itself, it represents what the moving square would look like with zero motion blur. To its left is a static representation of a simulated blur trail. Using the indicated keys, the observer modulates the shape of this trail.

In each image, the top graph represents the function that describes the shape of this simulated trail. The observer uses the keys to modulate certain parameters of the function in real time. The function is then applied to the trail and changes its appearance in real time. When a match is made, the user presses a key to exit, and the output is the bottom graph. This represents the pixel decay function as inferred from the shape of the trail.

The top image uses a hybrid of two functions: an exponential function to describe the rapid decay of phosphor luminance, and a linear portion to describe its "tail". In reality the linear portion is actually more of a power law, but for ease of programming, I used a linear function. The user can adjust both the base of the exponential portion, and the slope of the linear portion.

The bottom image uses a cumulative normal distribution. Here, the two parameters are mean, and sigma. The mean is the X axis value at which Y = 50%. Sigma denotes the steepness of the curve. A sigma of 0 would essentially be a square wave. In the example shown here, the mean is 0.9, and sigma is 0.03 (relative to a function that goes from 0 to 1 along both axis).

Note that in both images, the displayed function is an actual representation of the displayed simulated trail. These trails, however, do not match what I actually visually perceived under these pixel speed conditions. I adjusted the parameters of the function to values that would easily illustrate what is going on.

Also note that during the trial, the graphs, arrows, etc. are not visible.

The hybrid function is probably more suited to describing a CRT display, while the cumulative norm may be more suitable for strobed backlight displays. I'm planning to add a third and fourth variable to the cumulative norm function. I've noticed that at least some strobed displays have a blur trail that is faint but at a fixed lower contrast relative to the object that's creating the trail. This creates a faint ghosting of the moving object. By allowing the user to change both the baseline of the function (so that instead of going from 0 to 100 luminance it can go from, say, 30 to 100), and the width of entire function (representing the width of the trail), I think the "step type" function can be more adequately characterized.

I also found that the halation effect made this task difficult on a CRT (this is when bright pixels create a glow around them), as it masks what is really going on in both the actual blur trail and the simulated blur trail. I think this sort of approach is better suited to stroboscopic displays.

I am fairly confident that if the appropriate function is found for a given display type, this approach might have success, especially with higher MPRTs (higher MPRTs means more visually extended blur trails, which means easier to match).

Hybrid:




Cumulative Norm:

spacediver is online now  
post #66 of 72 Old 10-31-2013, 09:23 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 173
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elix View Post

Mark, you have so much passion about this as I see almost each of your posts is long yet informative. How do you do this?) Keep it up. smile.gif

So, basically, Optoma GTs (720-760) are not as good as Lightboost monitors in terms of motion resolution? About 2-4 times more blur? And here I was aiming at ordering one for 3D gaming.
Maybe next year we'll see not only G-Sync monitors but G-Sync projector from Acer. smile.gif Looking forward for that.


You won't see lightboost projectors anytime soon because if you cut into ON time with BFI to gain OFF time, you also cut into the grayscale perfomance and that's going to hurt (going below 8 bits ).

You'd need significantly better light engine to make up for the loss of time spent dithering. Also , cycled colors won't allow stellar motion resolution either.

(Lack of subpixels on the other hand is a plus).
gain3 is offline  
post #67 of 72 Old 12-11-2013, 01:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ConnecTEDDD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 2,301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Liked: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rejhon View Post

-- Sony's Motionflow Impulse on certain Sony TV's (dramatic horserun ahead of all other LCD's). People have reported being surprised by the clarity of 60fps gaming on these.

Sony did it.., the mistake of the year... their 'smart' engineers decided to enable their interpollation algorithm (after the latest firmware updates) at 'Impulse' mode, and there is no way back.... you can't disable it now....OMG. frown.gif

Impulse mode was the only MotionFlow option where the Sony 4K had the best motion resolution from any other LED in the market, with NONE Interpolation.... sadly now.. Sony's Impulse mode features bad interpollation, large motion blur and this mode now is just a dimmed mode that noone will ever use... frown.gif


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

S/W: LightSpace CMS, SpaceMan ICC, SpaceMatch DCM, CalMAN 5, CalMAN RGB, ChromaPure, CalPC, ControlCAL
Meters: JETI Specbos 1211, Klein K-10A, i1PRO2, i1PRO, SpectraCAL C6, i1D3, C5
ConnecTEDDD is offline  
post #68 of 72 Old 12-12-2013, 06:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
John Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 10,617
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Perhaps outdated and out of place for this discussion, but here's how the video experts who wrote the Final Technical Report (1995) for the ATSC HD system summarized their testing of HD motion resolution: Table 2.3 shows target and measured static/dynamic resolutions for luma and chroma at 5 rpm for motion. Back in '01, I posted a simplified table of the measured resolutions, which now needs a "control A" for legibility with my Windows browser after the recent AVS archive processing; the old tech-report URL shown was discontinued, too. -- John


Edit: URL above for "Final Technical Report" replaces the outdated one at the bottom on the "simplified table" post (URL) also above.

Last edited by John Mason; 08-09-2014 at 11:10 AM. Reason: url update
John Mason is offline  
post #69 of 72 Old 12-12-2013, 05:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Doug Blackburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco - East Bay area
Posts: 3,453
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 226
No matter how much you post about this, no matter how long and informative posts are, it is still IMPOSSIBLE to characterize motion blur ON ANY video display, and especially on LCD displays, because the blur is different under different conditions.

Some combinations of colors blur more than others. Some combinations of luminance blur more than others. You could look at some content and see/measure very little blur, while other combinations would make you think the display has the worst blur on the planet.

So there is NO single number, not even six single numbers, that would characterize blur with any meaning no matter HOW it is measured.

And do you really care if one LCD display has 80% blur (not that it can be characterized by a single number) while another LCD display has 65% blur? Both suck and isn't that really the bottom line? EVERYBODY who is into video displays KNOWS that plasma has FAR less blur than LCD. And a lot of people may know that DLP has extremely low blur. So WHY BOTHER?????? You have "bad" blur from LCD, fairly good blur performance from plasma, and excellent blur performance from DLP. If LCD displays or projectors (frankly, I don't see much blur in LCoS digital cinema projectors and am not sure why since LCoS home theater projectors have PLENTY of blur, but then, LCoS cinema projectors do 3D without blur but home theater LCoS projectors still aren't completely ghost-free with 3D).

To characterize blur you'd need to measure 100%, 75%, 50%, 25% and 10% versions against at a minimum the 6 primary and complimentary colors and those primary and complimentary colors would also have to be measured at 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and 10% plus you'd have to do black/gray/white evaluations against black/gray/white and against the primary and complimentary colors also at 100, 75, 50, and 10. And you'd have to do the colors moving against stationary black/gray/white fields. The math makes my head hurt. But this would take something like 960 measurements to characterize a display's blur but that's so much data it's meaningless. All you need to know about this topic is what technology is not good, what tech is moderately good, and what tech is the best. That's pretty easy to figure out in 10 or 15 minutes of looking at the motion patterns that come with Display Mate with Motion. Does anybody really care if something sucks "80" or something sucks "65"? They both suck and if neither one is good enough for you, get some other display tech that doesn't have so much blur.

Hard to understand why this subject keeps going on and on when it doesn't really mean much. We can SEE whether a display has blur well enough to tell if it ia bad good or excellent. And you really don't need anything more than the motion patterns in DisplayMate with Motion or maybe on the Spears & Munsil version 2 disc to tell if a display is bad, good, or excellent.

"Movies is magic..." Van Dyke Parks
THX Certified Professional Video Calibration
ISF -- HAA --
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Widescreen Review -- Home Theater & Sound
Doug Blackburn is offline  
post #70 of 72 Old 05-17-2014, 06:09 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Bumping this due to recent persistence talk, especially for OLED displays including Oculus Development Kit 2. I've made an edit:

Edit as of June 2014: Industry has started talking about persistence more often recently. "Milliseconds of persistence" is another way to describe "milliseconds of motion resolution", since it's the same number..

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
post #71 of 72 Old 05-17-2014, 06:21 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

So there is NO single number, not even six single numbers, that would characterize blur with any meaning no matter HOW it is measured.
Oh, I agree that it's not as simple as a single number! smile.gif
But my point is: Using "milliseconds of motion resolution" is still a superior number than "Lines of Motion Resolution"

Let's look at it; Contrast ratio can be contentious too, as a lot of 5000:1 VA LCDs have only that contrast ratio for the screen centre, and for projectors you've got ambient light backscatter interfering with effective contrast ratio, and the human vision only has a narrow dynamic range (witness inability to see darker blacks during very bright scenes, 500:1 becomes pratically indistinguishable from 5000:1). Contrast ratio is not a perfect unified number considering these factors, and neither is a motion blur number, but it doesn't make it completely invalid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

EVERYBODY who is into video displays KNOWS that plasma has FAR less blur than LCD.
That's not an accurate blanket statement to make in 2014, as there are now outliers. I have helped some manufacturers lower the persistence of their LCDs. BENQ made my persistence-adjustment utility (Blur Busters Strobe Utility) an official BENQ-authorized 3rd party utility (see BENQ press release mentioning my app). For end of May, TomsHardware is publishing an article covering my app (under a BENQ monitor review), and other websites already write about the recent dramatic motion clarity innovations already.

Also, more parties recognize the work Blur Busters has done, including some TV testing websites such as RTings (also see RTing's motion blur photography, scroll down for my credit for the test technique). They have adopted my motion blur measurement invention, with really good real-world photography that visually compares accurately to what the human eye saw in motion tests (not too different from DisplayMate scrolling-photo tests). So, being the inventor of some motion tests that are already commercially used, and having actually helped LCD manufacturers lower motion blur, It seems you're apparently quite dismissive of what I'm talking about here. One can certainly recognize audiophiles exist, and not everyone is an audiophile. And one can certainly recognize videophiles exist, and not everyone is a videophile. And amongst us, there are motion clarity nuts (e.g. people who love plasma motion clarity or CRT clarity) and have successfully found ways to bring it to the computer desktop in a computer monitor.

The new strobe-backlight gaming LCD displays have lower persistence than plasma phosphor. Those LCD computer monitors have far less motion blur than plasma at the same motionspeeds. Several new brand names of strobe backlights have arrived after "LightBoost" (2.4ms persistence) since my last post in this thread, including
"EIZO Turbo240" (2.3ms persistence, found in Eizo FG2421 computer monitor)
"NVIDIA ULMB" (2.0ms persistence, found in GSYNC monitors)
"BENQ Blur Reduction" (adjustable 0.5ms to 5.0ms, found in XL2411Z, XL2420Z, and XL2720Z).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

Hard to understand why this subject keeps going on and on when it doesn't really mean much. We can SEE whether a display has blur well enough to tell if it ia bad good or excellent. And you really don't need anything more than the motion patterns in DisplayMate with Motion or maybe on the Spears & Munsil version 2 disc to tell if a display is bad, good, or excellent.
The above forementioned new strobe-LCD monitors have less motion blur than plasma (sharper moving photo in DisplayMate Motion Bitmaps Edition and also with www.testufo.com/photo ). Faster-scrolling text is more easily readable on the new strobe gaming LCDs that just came out in the last six months alone -- on some of these LCDs, I can now even read 8-point computer text scrolling at 3000 pixels/second -- you can't even do that on plasma.

Also, you can see the people posting at Blur Busters Forums contains many people confirming better motion clarity on certain new gaming LCD computer monitors than on plasma displays (forums.blurbusters.com only launched recently, and already now contains tons of posts raving about the improved motion clarity of the newly released strobed LCDs). And various places on the Internet (e.g. reddit talk, do Ctrl+F and find "lightboost") have hundreds of users who talk about how amazing LightBoost is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

And a lot of people may know that DLP has extremely low blur. So WHY BOTHER?????? You have "bad" blur from LCD, fairly good blur performance from plasma, and excellent blur performance from DLP. If LCD displays or projectors (frankly, I don't see much blur in LCoS digital cinema projectors and am not sure why since LCoS home theater projectors have PLENTY of blur, but then, LCoS cinema projectors do 3D without blur but home theater LCoS projectors still aren't completely ghost-free with 3D).
These technologies are perfectly fine at common video motionspeeds (6.5ppf, in the case of the FPD monoscope), but a lot of the material we use, such as video gaming, run at far faster motionspeeds than FPD. In this case, it becomes easy to tell apart 1ms versus 2ms versus 4ms persistence.

Motion blur is more easily seen at faster motionspeeds (sports broadcasts and video games) including first person shooters, which use crisper graphics at closer viewing distances than for television and video. No compression or source based blur either. So the differences in motion clarity becomes more dramatic at motionspeeds far faster than FPD monoscope at 6.5ppf, a common motion blur number that is more awful than using milliseconds of motion blur. Single pixel details are fully resolvable at >1000pixels/second moving photo/moving text tests, while tests similar tomFPD remains 1080/1200 lines of motion resolution even when motion clarity often quadruples in fast material (e.g. 32ppf or 2000pixels/sec representative of fast game scrolling/panning/strafing/turning). The millisecond numbers (of motion blur/persistence, not of GtG transition) more corresponds to observed motion clarity than does for the old FPD style tests! So, you see where I am getting at, "Milliseconds of motion resolution" is still a superior motion blur number than "Lines of Motion Resolution"

The gaming industry spends more money than the hollywood industry, and we have a subsegment of people who seek the upmost high-spec gaming systems (e.g. spending several thousands on gaming theatre equivalents). Categorically dismissing motion blur as importance among the large numbers of us motion clarity nuts that exists in niche (e.g. reddit PC Master Race, overclock.ru / overclock.net, twitch.tv, blur busters forums, etc) is like categorically dismissing the existence of the videophile niche in the home theater market, and the existence of audiophiles niche in the audio markets. Some of us spend thousands of dollars on our gaming systems, like you spend thousand of dollars on custom home theater rooms. So it's quite rude to dismiss the importance of us, even if our audience do not hang out in videophile forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Blackburn View Post

To characterize blur you'd need to measure 100%, 75%, 50%, 25% and 10% versions against at a minimum the 6 primary and complimentary colors and those primary and complimentary colors would also have to be measured at 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and 10% plus you'd have to do black/gray/white evaluations against black/gray/white and against the primary and complimentary colors also at 100, 75, 50, and 10. And you'd have to do the colors moving against stationary black/gray/white fields.
You are right smile.gif
...BUT this point still stands:
"Milliseconds of motion resolution" is still a superior motion blur number than "Lines of Motion Resolution"

Both have the same problems you describe, but the former is still more objective because resolution/motionspeed doesn't affect "milliseconds of motion resolution" like they can interfere/affect "lines of motion resolution". You can clearly agree that, even with disdain for numbers-based motion blur measurements, that still, fewer variables fudge around "milliseconds of motion resolution" than fudge around "lines of motion resolution"

See this chart, which gives accurate approximations within a small error margin (excludes GtG asymmetries such as coronas or odd-color ghosting/multiimage effects, which is ultra faint with LightBoost). Multiple motion tests have confirmed such.
motion_blur_from_persistence.png

Obviously, as you can see from the Rtings real world display motion blur photography, motion blurring and ghosting looks very different from different display to display (e.g. Corona effects) and they use a different numbers scale, so there is a subjective factor. However, the average amount of motion blur rounds off pretty well at the macro granularity like 1ms vs 2ms vs 4ms etc, as 1ms persistenceight is more than an order of magnitude less motion blur than 16.7ms persistence. However, the more squarewave the strobe is (e.g. Rolling scan OLED like Oculus DK2, as well as recent gaming LCD strobe backlights) where the GtG transitions become invisible, the more exactly the persistence match the charts.
Elix likes this.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
post #72 of 72 Old 05-17-2014, 09:52 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Created a new, separate motion-blur-related thread:
Accurately Photographing Motion Blur: simple pursuit camera setup -- now adopted by HDTV reviewer
Quote:
Here's some excellent motion blur photography utilizing an invention of my own. The pursuit camera invention costs as little as $200 to setup -- just a camera rail & an off-the-shelf camera -- or the only-slightly-more-costly setup photographed below. This is the world's most inexpensive accurate pursuit camera for motion blur measurement, made possible by a pursuit-camera tracking-accuracy-verification temporal test pattern I invented.

Stationary cameras don't accurately capture display motion blur during eye-tracking situations. Thus, pursuit camera tracking of on-screen motion is a vastly far more accurate approximation of eye-tracking of on-screen motion. It makes possible a greater degree of objective comparative display motion blur analysis than stationary camera photography of displays.



RTings' test method, based on my setup, is quite simple. Rather than a UFO (which Blur Busters uses in motion tests), they use an RTings logo graphic scrolling left-to-right at 960 pixels/second (moderately fast motion). The motion itself creates motion blur, which is thus accurately captured by pursuit camera (camera-tracking as an approximate equivalence of eye-tracking). Scientific papers (example: "MPRT pursuit camera" on Google Scholar) have long used the pursuit camera technique scientific measurement of motion blur. However, pursuit cameras were not cheap enough for websites/bloggers to use until a simple invention permitted easy verification of tracking accuracy via a temporal test pattern.

Sony W800B, interpolation disabled

Sony W800B, interpolation enabled

Sony W800B in Motionflow Impulse Mode

Obviously, as you can see there's the LCD GtG pixel transition slowness showing up in the images (the GtG effects is the ghosting / multi-image effect occuring at the left edge behind the motion blurring) that's occuring independently of the persistence-based motion blurring. GtG artifacts is not the same as persistence-based motion blurring. It is already quite obvious, that the persistence-based motion blur out-dominates GtG-based artifacts, at least during the 960 pixels/second motionspeed (representative of fast motion, like sports and videogames) on this display.

The motion blur seen in these captures, is pretty accurately representative of blurring seen in low-blur source material of similar crispness at similar motionspeeds running at framerates matching refreshrates (e.g. fast-camera-shutter sports broadcasts, or playing 60fps video games, or computer use such as 60fps text smooth-scrolling, etc). These motionspeeds are far faster than the typical 6.5ppf used in FPD monoscope and similar tests, so motion blur issues stands out far more, which is important to motion clarity lovers (e.g. CRT, fast plasma, etc), much as video is to videophiles and audio is to audiophiles.

A group of researchers are now about to work on a scientific paper within a year -- writing about my pursuit camera technique (yep -- peer reviewed), so this will be the first real science paper I'm mentioned in, as they were very impressed at what I have done -- my pursuit camera setup cost only $200 to build from scratch -- and outperformed a $50,000 commercial rig.

Related reading:
Elix likes this.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
Reply Display Calibration

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off