Video Synchronization Testing Part II

In a previous post, I analyzed a video synchronization test from a recent video installation, and suggested that although the synchronization between screens was not perfect, it was certainly satisfactory, and as good as might be expected given the design of the system. Now, lets see why.

When a multi-screen video system is in proper sync, each video frame begins at exactly the same time. A system that draws at 60fps will draw each frame in approximately 16.67 milliseconds. During those 16ms, an LCD display will update all of the pixels on screen from top to bottom. We will call the moving line across which the pixels are updated the Raster Line. In this slow-motion test video, you can see video frames alternating between full black and full white, updated from top to bottom. The screens are mounted in portrait orientation, which is why the updates happen right to left:

Many of the screens seem to be updating together, but some do not. This is because the system does not include dedicated hardware to ensure that the signals are in sync, so many of the displays begin their updates at different time. The system is frame-synchronized, meaning that all displays begin a raster sync within one raster-pass of each other. It just isn’t raster-synchronized.

If the displays were indeed raster-synchronized, we might represent their signals like so:


In an otherwise black video, Display 1 flashes a single frame (Frame 1 / F1) of white, followed by a flash of white on Display 2 in Frame 2. In slow-motion, we would see the raster line, represented here as diagonal lines, move across bother displays in sync, like two Tangueros walking together across a dance floor. The red line represents the particular pass of the raster line at which both displays transition from Frame 1 to Frame 2. In all of these illustrations, the red line indicates a pass of the raster line, or a switch between frames, that in a frame-synchronized system would occur at exactly the same time.

It is important to keep in mind that in this system, video is provided at 30fps, so each frame of video is essentially drawn twice in two consecutive passes of the raster line. This cannot be seen on screen as no change occurs in any of the pixels, but we can see it in our illustration as the diagonal line separating F1a and F1b, the two rendered passes of video Frame 1.

In our system, of course, the raster lines are not synchronized between displays. So even when we intend for both displays to flash white at the same time, it is possible that one display might begin a raster pass at the very end of another’s pass of the same frame:


We can certainly hope that the raster lines of any two average displays are nearly synchronized, but in observance of Murphey’s Law, we must always assume the worst case, as indicated above in Displays 1 and 2. Here, we can see that although the frames might be in sync, with all rasters commencing within 17ms of each other, we will expect to see the raster on Display 2 commence just at the end of that of Display 1. This kind of behavior can be seen in our test video on the third and fourth columns, with the raster seeming to pass smoothly from one display to the other. In truth, any case in which two rasters start more than 16.67ms apart from each other demonstrates an imperfect frame sync, but for simplicity we will just say that the worst case in one in which they commence 17ms apart, as illustrated above in Displays 1 and 2.

So, what might this look like in a case where we see flashes in two consecutive video frames on two separate displays in a worst-case scenario?


In the case of Displays 1 and 4, we have a point in time, Time X, at which both displays are entirely black. In the case of Displays 2 and 3, at Time X we see both displays entirely white. We still consider them to be in sync, and we should not consider these anomalies to indicate a failure of the synchronization mechanism.

There is a minor issue in the test video that does bear mentioning. The flashes move through four rows of white in each column. There are extremely brief moments during which you might notice a touch of white that is visible in the first and third row. This should be obvious after repeated viewing. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to demonstrate why, even in a worst case scenario, this should not be observed if the frame synchronization mechanism is working properly. (<sarcasm>Yeah, right.</sarcasm>) So why am I not concerned? Because it is the nature of LCD display pixels to take some time to switch from full white to full black. Typical response times for the particular displays in this system are specified as 9ms, which means that after the raster line passes and updates a pixel from black to white, it may take an average of 9ms (more than half a raster pass) for that pixel to fully change. I say “Average” because white-to-black and black-to-white transitions are usually slightly different, and the spec will mention only the average of the two. If the response time was an ideal zero ms, our raster line would be crisp and clear in our slow-motion capture, but in reality it is not. The raster line is blurry because after it passes, the pixels take time to change between black and white. We can expect that some pixels might remain white for a brief time after we expect them to go dark, resulting in this subtle observable discrepancy.

What does all this mean? It means that in a slow-motion test video of 24 synchronized displays, we observe nothing to suggest that the synchronization mechanism isn’t performing as well as we could hope for. To the viewer, the synchronization is true, and we deem the project a success.

Video Synchronization Testing

For a recent project, 3byte developed custom graphics software for a 36-screen video wall. This required some kind of synchronization mechanism with which to keep the various screens in sync.  There are dedicated hardware devices like the nVidia G-Sync card that make this sort of thing really simple. However, this project involved driving four video display from each of our graphics workstations, and we ran into trouble with these cards during initial testing. Instead, we developed our own sync mechanism that runs over the local network.

To test our synchronization, we loaded up a video file that would make the quality of the sync really obvious. Breaking the video vertically into four quarters, on each frame of the video we flash a white rectangle in one of the quarter regions. Like so:

Really, it works better with some good PsyTrance. But what is actually happening? Whatever it is, it’s happening too fast to determine with the naked eye. So I picked up a Casio Exilim EX-FS10 and shot the system at 1000fps:

Far more interesting. The resolution of the video is not great, but it shows us what we need to know.

First of all, you will notice the scrolling of the video from right to left. The screens are actually mounted in portrait orientation, to the motion that you see is actual a top-to-bottom scroll as far as the display is concerned. These LCD displays refresh the pixels on screen 60 times every second, but they don’t all update at the same time. The display updates the pixels line by line from top to bottom, each line updating left to right. This makes sense when we consider that analog and digital video signals order pixel data in this way, just like reading a page of a book. At regular speed, a screen refresh seems instantaneous, but at high speed, we can see the way the screen transitions from black to white one line at a time. This scrolling line across which the pixels are updated we might call the Raster, or the Raster Position.

In this system, the timing of each display’s Raster Line is determined by the graphics card in the computer. Whenever the card says “start drawing the next frame… NOW!” the monitor locks in with that signal and starts the Raster Line at the top of the screen. Had we G-Sync cards for this system, we could tell the graphics cards to chant their “NOW” mantras in unison, and in slow motion we would see the Raster Lines of all the displays being drawn in perfect synchronization. As you can see in the video above, this is not the case for our system, where the lines are updated on different displays at slightly different times. This difference between displays is so subtle that it is never noticed by a viewer. The question is, are the correct frames being drawn on each pass of the Raster?

This system supports source video playback at 30fps, but the displays update at 60fps. Each source video frame is doubled on screen, so a single frame of white flash in our source video will be drawn white in two consecutive passes of the Raster Line on the display. In the slow-motion video, we see the raster line update each screen, then a pause while the subsequent Raster pass draws another frame of white (no change) before moving on the to next source video frame.

If you look at the third and fourth columns of displays, you will see that the Raster seems almost to move straight across from the fourth to the third as it updates the two columns together. Of course this is only an illusion, as the Raster does not sync between frames. What we are actually seeing is one display in column three that seems to be lagging behind column four by almost a full 17ms Raster pass. (I say 17ms because that is just about the amount of time it takes to refresh a display at 60fps.) This is not ideal, but in a system with no dedicated sync hardware, it is not surprising, and not a deal-breaker. It means that at 30fps, these screens are within a half-frame of perfect sync, which is nearly undetectable to the eye.

In Part II, I provide an analysis of the best possible sync performance for a network-synchronized video system. I  explain why the 17ms discrepancy in the video above falls within the tolerances of this system. We are quite pleased with the performance of our synchronization mechanism, and believe that it rivals or surpasses that of other industry-standard network-sync video systems. Next chance I get, I’ll run a similar test on a Dataton Watchout system and let you all know how it goes. Stay tuned.