[ashlar]

See my other post: Since there is no such thing as interlacing where pulldown minimizes jitter how come my '60 Hz display rate' produces tear-free and jitter free video?

Something does not add up.

Also note that I am using VFR just in case you presumed that there is some fancy logic in the NVidia card that adjusted to signal changes (which would be fancy indeed).

Look, first off I don't want to sound patronizing or anything. It's just that I have banged my head on this for months and months, before XBMC was even involved.

Tearing is a different thing. Tearing happens when the videocard sends a new frame "not in synch" with the display. This leads to tearing. This is what v-synch attempts to prevent.

Jitter, stutter, judder... those are words that are in various situations used to indicate different problems.

But in your case, at 60Hz, there is simply no way that you are getting a properly smooth playback from 24fps material. You will see 2 even frames and three odd frames, 2 even frames and three odd frames, reapeat. Take 24 frames in a second. 12 get reproduced twice, 12 get reproduce thrice. 24+36=60.

That looks smooth but, on slow pans, it can be seen that it's not perfectly smooth. To some people this is more evident, to others it's almost invisible. But the judder is there, it's just impossible to eliminate it.

At 24Hz or multiples, instead, you get 1-1-1 cadence or 2-2-2 or 3-3-3. That is smooth, as in movie theatres.

[rernst]

Look, first off I don't want to sound patronizing or anything. It's just that I have banged my head on this for months and months, before XBMC was even involved.

Tearing is a different thing. Tearing happens when the videocard sends a new frame "not in synch" with the display. This leads to tearing. This is what v-synch attempts to prevent.

Jitter, stutter, judder... those are words that are in various situations used to indicate different problems.

But in your case, at 60Hz, there is simply no way that you are getting a properly smooth playback from 24fps material. You will see 2 even frames and three odd frames, 2 even frames and three odd frames, reapeat. Take 24 frames in a second. 12 get reproduced twice, 12 get reproduce thrice. 24+36=60.

That looks smooth but, on slow pans, it can be seen that it's not perfectly smooth. To some people this is more evident, to others it's almost invisible. But the judder is there, it's just impossible to eliminate it.

At 24Hz or multiples, instead, you get 1-1-1 cadence or 2-2-2 or 3-3-3. That is smooth, as in movie theatres.

Ok, I rest my case, there is something to what you say. I read:
------------------
Among a handful of picture improvement technologies, Toshiba’s Clear Frame™ 120 Hz processing stands out as one of the more interesting advancements on this particular HDTV. Clear Frame uses motion adaptive interpolation to insert an intermediate frame between each of the 60 frames per second found on traditional HDTV broadcasts, thereby reducing motion trails of fast moving images. Combine this with Toshiba’s "Film Stabilization" feature which smoothes out "judder" in film-based source material and you’ve got an LCD flat panel that’s poised to challenge plasma as the picture reproduction champ. Is it successful? Read on to find out.
--------------------
http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/Toshib...1347.shtml
--------------------
I am baffled at this fundamental flaw in LCD TVs. I was always under the impression that they were somewhat superior to Plasmas but it sounds they are worse in this regard. In particular, even the above technology cannot render proper VFR. LCDs suck.

The fact that I have Plasmas explains why I have smooth motion:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...741AASOaGU

Plasmas do not need the frame rate as the article explains. Boy, am I glad I didn't shell out the *extra* money for an LCD.

[ashlar]

Plasmas do not need the frame rate as the article explains. Boy, am I glad I didn't shell out the *extra* money for an LCD.

Ok, now I understand where you are coming from. You should not confuse response time with refresh rate.

Plasmas have faster response times than LCDs. Much faster. The response time is the time it takes for a single pixel to change color. It's measured in a variety of ways (usually done in a way that makes displays look better than they really are) but for LCDs it's still measured in milliseconds, while plasmas have better response times by an order of magnitude (from what I remember).

This is why LCDs tend to have motion blur and lose out big time in moving resolution tests, because with the blur comes a loss in resolution once things are moving fast.

But what the post you linked is saying is NOT that plasmas don't have refresh rates. They have refresh rates. Which is simply the amount of frames that the display shows in a second. If it's a straight multiple of the material watched you have smooth playback. If not, compromises have to be made, such as the 3:2 trick used to display 24fps material at 60Hz.

[rernst]

Ok, now I understand where you are coming from. You should not confuse response time with refresh rate.

Plasmas have faster response times than LCDs. Much faster. The response time is the time it takes for a single pixel to change color. It's measured in a variety of ways (usually done in a way that makes displays look better than they really are) but for LCDs it's still measured in milliseconds, while plasmas have better response times by an order of magnitude (from what I remember).

This is why LCDs tend to have motion blur and lose out big time in moving resolution tests, because with the blur comes a loss in resolution once things are moving fast.

But what the post you linked is saying is NOT that plasmas don't have refresh rates. They have refresh rates. Which is simply the amount of frames that the display shows in a second. If it's a straight multiple of the material watched you have smooth playback. If not, compromises have to be made, such as the 3:2 trick used to display 24fps material at 60Hz.

Yes, I think this is all now coming together. If you have one of the newer Plasmas the video card might communicate frame rate (?). I sort-of read this in the article. In this sentence: "But DO NOT infer that 120 Hz on plasma HDTVs is required to compensate for motion blur or judder.".

The reason, the author goes on to explain, is the fact that Plasmas have much higher native resolution (900 lines).

Anyhow, I think I am sufficiently confused at this point that I will retreat to the point that *somehow, some way* this video setting produces a much better picture for me. The fact about the tearing with 'No' vsync remains. Also, the fact about the jidder with 'always' remains. I mean, it is obvious even to the untrained eye. What is exactly occurring with the video driver setting remains somewhat as a mystery to me.

It seems that there are variations on the theme for 'refresh rates', TV types, driver logic(?) and what not. In the end experimenting sounds like the way to go.

[ashlar]

The reason, the author goes on to explain, is the fact that Plasmas have much higher native resolution (900 lines).

I have read that. And what the author is saying is different. Let's take a 1080p LCD display and 1080p plasma display. Both have a native resolution of 1920x1080 pixels. The same native resolution.

The problem for the LCD panel is that once images start moving fast, as in sports or action movies, the native blur that comes from the not so fast response time diminishes the perceived resolution, in a substantial way. You can't perceive detail where there is blur, can you?

[m0gwai]

I almost crap my pants... and for this? *sadface*