[Had a bit of a crash course reading up on ADPC and MPRT]
The APDC motion resolution patterns (sine burst) are available online IIRC. The FPD benchmark disc has these as well IIRC.
xrox, thanks for explaining, and thanks for pointing out the precedents of tracking-camera tests.
This is an excellent start to motion resolution testing in the last few years, though the motion test pattern should be measured differently for everyday consumers -- "X lines of motion resolution" have been a quote I've read in reviews. I feel this is mostly meaningless to Average Consumers when it's tied to a specific benchmark that's (on average) hard to obtain...
FPD benchmark disc and sinebursts are a good start, but motion resolution measurements measured from that disc is generally not directly comparable to motion resolution measurements made through other methods (e.g. non-APDC patterns, etc). Also FPD is a disc created by a specific group (plasma), although it is usable for all other technologies. Various factors makes standardized motion resolution comparisions difficult, if you're tied motion resolution benchmarking to just one disc.
I believe that a simpler motion resolution measurement standard, "Measured Motion Equivalence Ratio" (MER) is much simpler -- "MER 240" would be equal to a scientifically ideal 240fps@240Hz on sample-and-hold display, or scientifically ideal 1/240sec impulses on a impulse-driven display. And it scales better (beyond "1080 lines of motion resolution"), and is resolution-independent (while sinebursts are more resolution-dependent). People are already familiar with refresh rate, and "Hz" - with all the manufacturer hype (600 Hz subfield, Clear Motion Ratio 960, etc), so the MER (as a measured motion blur equivalent of such numbers), is more useful and display/resolution independent. Even only testing a few different motion tests, I've found that many different kinds of motion test patterns can be used to calculate an MER value. WIth MER, anybody can invent proprietary or standard moving test patterns (disc based or software application based) that yield a standardized MER value that can be compared between different displays, regardless of technology and resolution.
I am putting together a standards document (a very rough draft) and contacting some key people at the moment, to try and trailblaze such a simpler standard more accessible to mainstream. I just recently obtained a membership to Society for Information Display, to help assist in this matter, and in researching my options. I've got experience writing standards documents (Such as my XMPP Extension XEP-0301
for an instant messaging feature on XMPP networks, over 400 hours spent on this document over the last 2 years through standards collaboration.) so my existing standards-document experience will help me along here. There's been a lot of work done before me, but a lot of it is too complex, or requires a very specific test, etc. The MER standard that I've come up with is a more generic method of measuring motion blur -- MER is just simply pixels-per-second of motion movement, divided by pixels-of-motion-blur-trail. Completely independent of test pattern, completely independent of display resolution, future proof motion resolution measurement standard.
Meanwhile, I've been trying to obtain a copy of the FPD benchmark disc [or original-high-bitrate video files, if they're legally available publicly] -- to determine if it can also be used for the "Measured Motion Equivalence Ratio" method of measurement. I want to test all kinds of motion discs to see how their motion test patterns can be converted into a MER value. It takes only a quick 5 minute PixPerAn (chase benchmark) to quickly calculate a MER value for your display, and I'd like to find out if FPD benchmark disc, and whether existing APDC patterns, are also usable to calculate a MER value too. Where can I get an FPD disc? Also, similar discs such as this one
is out of print, and they don't show up on eBay, so obviously, these test patterns aren't that easy to obtain. Fortunately, my MER is measurable from more types of test patterns than just a very specific APDC-pattern, making motion-blur-measurements more accessible. (This does not preclude ability to create proprietary test patterns to earn money off from -- people can invent better mousetraps -- such as better/more accurate MER-measurements from a proprietary test patterns that allows human eye to measure MER more accurately than existing tests such as PixPerAn chase test.)
In addition, are existing APDC patterns used to calculate exact MPRT values, too? If so, that's good news for MER, because MER is actually the inverse of MPRT (MER = 1000 / MPRT value), though the honest MPRT eqiuvalents needs to account for the impulse-drive (so a 2ms 60Hz LCD actually should really be a MPRT of 16ms due to sample-and-hold effect, and 1000/16ms = a MER of 60). The problem with honest MPRT measurements like those -- "16ms" -- gets confused too often with pixel persistence -- "2ms" -- by consumers, so it is not really a useful benchmark for comparing products for Joe Consumer. Thus, the MER standard I am developing, is a lot more useful for everyday mainstream blog readers, because MER numbers are universal; CRT/plasma/LCD/DLP/etc compatible -- and easy to compare to the refresh-rate-equivalence numbers quoted by manufacturers.
Also, 6.5 pixels per frame suggested in the APDC standard is way too slow for future display technologies (I hope that they have much faster rates available); my strobed-backlight display (250W in a 24" LCD) will be remaining fully sharp at 16ppf -- more than twice as fast as the APDC pattern. My motion benchmark will be more realistic for video game players, and first-person shooter videogames utilize faster motion than 6.5 pixels per frame, and some trained-eye videogamers can still detect extremely minor motion blur even on CRT too (phosphor ghosting effect) -- that requires at least 20-30 pixels per frame in order to be easily detectable. Also, MER (the number I am developing) can be measured from a moving test pattern running at any speed that the human eye can track at. Video games are a more aggressive test of motion blur than a lot of digital video (e.g. slower shutter speeds masking display motion blur, over-compression artifacts adding blurriness that masks display motion blur, etc), and I am a video gamer, and today's MPRT/APDC tests has generally been inadequate for this audience.
MPRT and ADPC numbers are good and useful for advanced readers and display industry professionals, but are mostly meaningless to everyday readers (my family members and my friends), people keep asking "is that a 240 Hz display?" when they don't really know two different 240Hz displays may actually have very different MER's (e.g. one of them may actually have a MER closer to 140 and another has a MER closer to 200). People can understand MER better when it's a honest number directly compared to "Hz" and "refresh rate" numbers, directly compared to the numbers shown at Best Buy ("CMR 960" "Sony XR 480", "SPS 240", etc...) Even my friends/family likes the idea of a "honest measured verification" number that can be directly compared to manufacturer claimed numbers of "120" "240" "480" "960" "600" "1600" "2500" etc... That's what the Measured Motion Equivalence Ratio (MER) is -- a motion benchmark number accessible to everyday readers.
(P.S. I am looking for additional peer reviewers for my MER standardization. I have an early draft document in progress, that I may eventually submit to a standards organization within a year. Or if you know of anyone standardizing a MER-like number, please refer me to them. Contact me by PM or email.)
CNET and HDTv test have used this for measurements AFAIK
I think some companies are selling tracking camera systems now as well.
Any that sells such systems for $1000 or less? Most systems I've found are beyond the range of blogger budgets, etc. I've found a builder quote that puts me in the ballpark.