Steve Backshall - Nature's Microworlds - 2 Serengeti.mp4, b01l4906

[Owen Smith]

I have read it, and it does discuss the issue I raised. 50p is not necessarily 50p when your display has finish motion interpolating it (or not as the case may be). Just because people don't come away from an article agreeing with you completely does not mean they did not read and understand it.

I spent 5 years working in the IPTV industry, watching customers butcher image quality so they could squeeze another TV stream down an ADSL line. I do know what I'm talking about.

The article failed to mention the angle subtended at the eye. Pixel resolution is partly about whether you can see them. Sit a mile away and you can only see one apparent pixel. Sit next to a 60 inch TV and you can see all the pixels, and you need a higher frame rate to not perceive flicker due to the greater angle subtended at the eye.

Also sensitivity to flicker varies with different people. I am very sensitive to it. Back in the days of CRT monitors as the size of the displays went up and the persistence of the phosphors went down over the years (to satisfy gamers who insisted on no visible motion blur) I kept having to push frame rates up. By the time I was on a 19 inch monitor at the end of the the CRT era the phosphor persistence was so damned short that anything less than 120Hz refresh would give me splitting headaches and as a computer programmer that isn't good. The "sample and hold" nature of LCDs saved me from this, they are a godsend.

-- 
Owen Smith <owen.smith at cantab.net>
Cambridge, UK

> On 9 Apr 2018, at 21:48, Tony Quinn <tony at tqvideo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Read the John  Watkinson article.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> get_iplayer mailing list
> get_iplayer at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/get_iplayer