Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!agate!eris!doug
From: doug@eris (Doug Merritt)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Fixing flicker, & future frame rate issues
Message-ID: <8930@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 19 Apr 88 07:03:56 GMT
References: <2839@crash.cts.com>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: doug@eris.UUCP (Doug Merritt)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 28
Summary: Clarifying jitter/flicker vs. motion jerk

In article <2839@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes:
>        Someone had concluded that in order to remove "jitter"  [ ... ]
>      it would be necessary to interpolate intermediate
>      fields using specialized hardware.  Note however, that since the frame
>      rate is so high, the "jitter" will be imperceptable and at any given
>      time two full fields will appear to be displayed at once with no
>      flicker.

1) Let's not get into the "jitter" vs. "flicker" terminology that
Bryan suggested. Although I disagree (because I don't see how
they differ), I don't think it's important to pursue.

2) Flicker is not equivalent to motion jerkiness. My comments about
field interpolation applied to motion jerkiness. Your comments above
apply to flicker (jitter, whatever). We're talking about two different
things. In regard to flicker/jitter, you're quite right. But that
doesn't apply to smoothing true object motion.

>Even though the images will in fact be moving in a stuttering
>      manner to the viewer it will appear as smooth motion.

Whether this statement is true or not depends purely on the speed
of object motion versus the object redraw time (which is related
to the frame rate, since you can't redraw an object coherently in
less than one frame/field time).
	Doug Merritt		doug@mica.berkeley.edu (ucbvax!mica!doug)
			or	ucbvax!unisoft!certes!doug
			or	sun.com!cup.portal.com!doug-merritt