• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

120hz Movies: How can people watch this shit?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Walshicus

Member
Real 120hz footage would be fine. Motion interpolated footage just looks a bit weird - though I've seen it work okay with games.
 

dark_chris

Gold Member
Suikoguy said:
We're also stuck with blurry, juddery, slow-panning 24fps movies forever because (thanks to 60fps home video) people associate high framerates with camcorders and cheap sitcoms, and thus think good framerates look "fake".

This is true. I think this is great technology and love it. Screw the 3D fad going on, this is better. People are stuck in the past with it.
 
I'm confused about this - do you really measure the refresh rate of LCD:s in hertz? Because as far as I know it does not updated a certain amount of times per second, it only updates as the pixel changes as told by the source. The backlight is constantly on as opposed to an electron cannon. Is an LCDTV with 60 hertz capable of changing pixel colour 60 times per second?

And I doubt that the tvs with this function renders the movie 120 times per second? Seems a bit superfluous, 24 frames per second is standard after all and an increase over 60 fps seems redundant, and hard to accomplish with an algorithm cause then you'd have to add 4 frames per second.
 

Xeke

Banned
DeathNote said:
People keep calling it a "soap opera" effect. I don't know what that means. Is there a video showing the effect?

Also, my dad got a LCD listed at 120Hz, but it doesn't have a mode.

It's just as it sounds basically, looks like it's filmed on a camcorder and not film.
 
DeathNote said:
People keep calling it a "soap opera" effect. I don't know what that means. Is there a video showing the effect?

Also, my dad got a LCD listed at 120Hz, but it doesn't have a mode.

They call it a soap-opera effect because they are normally shot with a higher framerate. Movies are normally shot in 24 fps, which is quite low.
 

kevm3

Member
It's the dejudder effect on those televisions. Certain LCDs have it where you can adjust the settings to reduce motion blur, which I always put at 10 and to control the degree of the interpolation... It actually looks fantastic if you put the effect down low. Very smooth without that soap opera effect. It's only on those older LCDs where you couldn't shut it off or adjust the degree of the settings that it looks awful.
 
Yeah that shit was default turned on for my new HDTV. It made everything look like a cheap TV movie or whatever. When I turned it off I was able to enjoy it much more.

However, I do turn it on when playing PS1 and PS2 games. It makes things look really cool. FF VII runs especially slick IMO. But for movies it always gets shut off.
 

C.Dark.DN

Banned
Government-man said:
They call it a soap-opera effect because they are normally shot with a higher framerate. Movies are normally shot in 24 fps, which is quite low.
I can understand that not playing something in native mode would look weird. I only catch a soap rarely at my grandmas house on a SDTV. I'm getting the feeling people think the soaps look bad? But, wouldn't movies in a native higher frame rate look better?
 

Adam J.

Member
My friend bought a newer Samsung LCD last year that has this mode and I was curious to see what a game would look like with it turned on. I popped in Uncharted 1 and I must admit that it looks pretty cool...for like 5 minutes.
 

luoapp

Member
DeathNote said:
I can understand that not playing something in native mode would look weird. But, wouldn't movies in a native higher frame rate look better?

James Cameron once said he wishes movie industry can adopt new technology (like 120/240Hz) more quickly.
 

Miau

Neo Member
Pionee.gif


I can almost hear it saying, "Fuck that shit, filthy TV peasants".
 
DeathNote said:
I can understand that not playing something in native mode would look weird. But, wouldn't movies in a native higher frame rate look better?

Yes, they would look more natural and smooth - more real life. Unfortunately because of soap -operas people now associate that look with cheap. I have not tried this particular technology myself but would like to see a higher frame rate become standard in the movie industry. Don't know why this hasn't happened yet. Of course it is more expensive using more 35mm (or 70) film but shouldn't problem for big budget movies or digitally filmed.
 

C.Dark.DN

Banned
Government-man said:
Yes, they would look more natural and smooth - more real life. Unfortunately because of soap -operas people now associate that look with cheap. I have not tried this particular technology myself but would like to see a higher frame rate become standard in the movie industry. Don't know why this hasn't happened yet. Of course it is more expensive using more 35mm (or 70) film but shouldn't problem for big budget movies or digitally filmed.
What's the technical reason soaps make higher frame rate look cheap? Quality of camera and home television limitations?
 

Xeke

Banned
DeathNote said:
What's the technical reason soaps make higher frame rate look cheap? Quality of camera and home television limitations?

You just have to see it, it's hard to explain. Soap operas are filmed on basically camcorders and they have a higher frame rate than film so it makes it look like that.
 
DeathNote said:
What's the technical reason soaps make higher frame rate look cheap? Quality of camera and home television limitations?

No, I guess its simply that they (and home camcorders) are the ones who were first in introducing those high frame rates. And soap operas usually apply some kind of blurring filter which maybe people are reminded of when trying this computer generated frames, I don't know since I haven't seen it personally.
 

DonMigs85

Member
Yeah, it looks terrible, as if your movie is running at 1.5 to 2x faster. And real life doesn't look like that at all, since motionplus doesn't have blur or anything.
It's little more than a gimmick to help sell more TVs, although now they all focus on 3D instead.
 

beat

Member
Suikoguy said:
We're also stuck with blurry, juddery, slow-panning 24fps movies forever because (thanks to 60fps home video) people associate high framerates with camcorders and cheap sitcoms, and thus think good framerates look "fake".
I generally like XKCD, but Munroe was way off base there.

http://prolost.com/blog/2009/2/24/slumdog-millionaire.html

Slumdog Millionaire winning the Oscar for Cinematography last night is meaningful to me in two nerdy ways.

[...]

But mostly what I love about Slumdog winning is the clips played all throughout the Academy Awards ceremonies. Of course the awards show highlights only the most emotionally resonant moments of the film (there are so many to choose from, it is a magnificent movie). And those emotional moments, almost without exception, featured key shots captured at 12 frames per second (or less) and double-printed for a staccato, dreamy feel.

That's right, in order to enhance the emotion, director Danny Boyle and cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle showed less. They showed less and communicated more.

[...]

Any TV you buy today will probably have that infernal motion smoothing turned on by default, so that you can enjoy your favorite films re-imaged as if they were PBS specials from 1983. Nobody seems to remember that audiences wouldn't accept video frame rates in dramatic narrative entertainment. We didn't want our cinema to look like soap operas before 24p HD cameras, and we don't now.

[...]

So television engineers and home theater nerds with nothing better to do, please stop trying to find ways to make movies more like reality. As you can see from this year's cinematography Oscar winner, film is at its best when it is unmistakeably unreal.
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
I originally thought this was some hideous Blu-ray feature, since every in-person demonstration I saw used motion interpolation. That really put me off the whole thing for a while.

Watching anything with that motion interpolation is a crime. Now, I'm not necessarily opposed to movies using higher framerates in the future (though I have no particular desire to see it pursued), but I sure as hell don't want my TV artificially smoothing out the picture in a way the creators never intended.
 

NekoFever

Member
r.gun said:
And for the record, it's beyond me how movies can still be filmed at 24p... how is that acceptable in this day and age where we have TV's and projectors with a significantly higher refresh rate!?
Because films aren't filmed for television?

There are a number of issues that would prevent it anyway. Every cinema in the world is set up for 24fps, cameras with a faster speed would be louder (a big issue with IMAX cameras, which is why The Dark Knight only used them for action scenes), it would drive up the cost of CGI because they'd be rendering for many more frames, and a lot of directors and film fans simply like the 'filmic' look.
 

AVclub

Junior Member
It blows my mind that people are turned off to stuff on their TV looking more real. Isn't the whole point of HD that our entertainment looks like we're seeing it through a window and not through a 24 frame per second slide show?

Why are nerds constantly upgrading their video cards to achieve higher frame rates in video games, but hate it when their tv shows and movies have a higher framerate?

I really like motion plus (or whatever you want to call it). My friend has it and I can't wait to get a TV that supports it. It's true that this mode makes it easier to see fake shit in movies, but the technology exists to fake things much better in Hollywood. So if they want us to buy the tech, then they should be working to make their products look better on it.
 

Xeke

Banned
AVclub said:
It blows my mind that people are turned off to stuff on their TV looking more real. Isn't the whole point of HD that our entertainment looks like we're seeing it through a window and not through a 24 frame per second slide show?

Why are nerds constantly upgrading their video cards to achieve higher frame rates in video games, but hate it when their tv shows and movies have a higher framerate?

I really like motion plus (or whatever you want to call it). My friend has it and I can't wait to get a TV that supports it. It's true that this mode makes it easier to see fake shit in movies, but the technology exists to fake things much better in Hollywood. So if they want us to buy the tech, then they should be working to make their products look better on it.

I don't want my TV making up frames that don't exist.
 
I had no idea so many people hated 120hz. I walked into the Sony store one day and they had the ending of Rocky 6 playing. I was like, "WTF is going on with the motion? It's like faster than normal movies or something?"

Are movies suppose to be like that?
 

Hilbert

Deep into his 30th decade
DeathNote said:
How does video game FPS work? Do they make it where 100+ FPS are really there, and if you only get 60 it's good enough for most people?

Animation algorithms tend to take in the framerate and adjust the animation frames to match.
 

DonMigs85

Member
DeathNote said:
How does video game FPS work? Do they make it where 100+ FPS exist, and if you only get 60 it's good enough for most people?
100FPS+ is a measure of system/GPU performance, and they say the human eye can't really perceive a difference if you go over 60FPS (unlike flies, which can see far more "fps")
 
Saw this once in store with Star Trek playing. It was hilarious, instead of a movie it looks more like a movie set, and the characters looked like actors trying to act. I would totally turn on Auto Motion Plus just for the lols.
 

DonMigs85

Member
Sir Fragula said:
Your brain does it...
err, he means frames that aren't actually stored on the Blu-Ray or movie file, or frames that aren't generated by the actual PC or game console.
 
So this is what I was seeing when I watched The Pacific at a friend's house. I was wondering why some of the movements looked real, while the image I saw on my tv looked more cinematic.
 

jonremedy

Member
I'm a big proponent of capturing things in higher refresh rates, but interpolation needs to DIAF. Another thing that just needs to go: Interlacing. Fuck you, interlacing.
 
Hilbert said:
Animation algorithms tend to take in the framerate and adjust the animation frames to match.

Its quite hilarious on some PC ports where they still have 30fps animations to match up with 60fps game.
 

Hilbert

Deep into his 30th decade
Sir Fragula said:
True. But then it's a matter of you wanting the process to be better, not absent.

It seems like since everyone compares it to soap operas which use a technology that does not make up frames, it must be doing something right.

On a personal note, I turn it off, sometimes turning it on for computer animated movies like wall-e.
 

Futureman

Member
As a visual artist interested in film/video, I like 24p because it DOESN'T look like reality. That doesn't mean HD is the irrelevant. I want 24p HD. The IMAGE is HD while the motion is more dream/fantasy like.
 

C.Dark.DN

Banned
Futureman said:
As a visual artist interested in film/video, I like 24p because it DOESN'T look like reality. That doesn't mean HD is the irrelevant. I want 24p HD. The IMAGE is HD while the motion is more dream/fantasy like.
Couldn't high quality cameras and post processing still make it look dream/fantasy like?
 

Irish

Member
I like that non-filmy look when this stuff is turned on. I always wondered why all the In-store TVs looked a hell of a lot more vibrant than mine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom