23-05-2017, 08:13 AM
If we'd gone for a system with low refresh rate I'm pretty sure people would have come up with ideas to reduce the problem. Nowadays it's trivial with framestores to flash each frame on the screen 2 or more times. Cinema did it with a multiblade shutter. You can do it with longer persistence phosphors at the expense of motion blur. Perhaps this is more acceptable than motion judder? Perhaps somebody might have come up with a clever phosphor with non-exponential decay characteristics. As it is, I thnk most phosphors have a complex decay that isn't true exponential.
Many things killed the Baird system, not least because it was almost impossible to produce good programmes with it. Without those nobody would watch.
TV took the "live broadcast" route", akin to radio. Paul Marshall has argued that it needn't have gone that way. Baird's backers had massive cinema interests so it could have been a way to deliver movies to the home, a bit like like we now have with Netflix. Baird's telecine was well suited to that.
Many things killed the Baird system, not least because it was almost impossible to produce good programmes with it. Without those nobody would watch.
TV took the "live broadcast" route", akin to radio. Paul Marshall has argued that it needn't have gone that way. Baird's backers had massive cinema interests so it could have been a way to deliver movies to the home, a bit like like we now have with Netflix. Baird's telecine was well suited to that.
www.borinsky.co.uk Jeffrey Borinsky www.becg.tv
