revolverjgw
Member
I've never seen something like this in person. Is there a way to watch comparisons on youtube or something?
-
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?
- Thread starter Barkley's Justice
- Start date
- Status
Memphis Reigns
Member
I really think the only way this feature should be enabled is for live TV (Sports, News, National Geographic type stuff). However movies obviously should not use this feature. However, for some reason I would not mind seeing animated movies with this feature on. Its going to be interesting if James Cameron does do the next AVATAR films in 48 fps.
Games always look better the higher the framerate in my opinion. So if they can get it to look right with the faster paced games, I'd be all for it.
Games always look better the higher the framerate in my opinion. So if they can get it to look right with the faster paced games, I'd be all for it.
Drinky Crow
Banned
24 fps needs to die
Dreams-Visions
Member
yes.UrokeJoe said:
some have separate controlls for the motion smoothing and the dejuddering. some combine them into one menu item to be enabled or disabled in some way. I prefer the former, as I like more control over my experience.
timetokill
Banned
Arrested Development looks CRAZY with this on, I feel like I'm in the room with them... pretty awesome :lol
TheKaeptain
Banned
Read past the first post on the first page.-Winnie- said:
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
LotR is far superior with the jerky panning shots that currently clog the movies up instead of smooth ones...MattKeil said:
Makes sense.
With some of the better model of samsungs, you ahve the option to adjust settings. Motion interpolation on those tvs are divded into 'motion blur reduction' and 'dejudder' I believe it is. Motion Blur reduction should always be set to 10. Dejudder is the factor that creates the 'soap opera' effect, especially if turned up high. It should either be set to off or to a low level such as 2 or 3. For certain programs, such as nature or sports, a bit of dejudder is very welcome. It helps out during huge pans on nature programs a great deal. For movies, you should probably turn it off.
Yup cant stand it, it would work if it looked like that all the time, but its just so hideously noticeable most of the time because it switches back and forth. Although one thing does confuse me, are all TVs being advertised as 120Hz or 240Hz, etc, just 60hz TVs with a motionplus type thing?
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I can't stand MotionPlus--it makes older movies look extremely weird. I first encountered the technology at a friend's house with Robocop and I thought his copy of the movie was playing at like 1.5x speed or something. Most people I know don't even notice it, though. I have the technology on my current main TV and I tried to show a couple of friends the difference by switching it from "high" to "off" over and over again, but most of them just couldn't tell the difference even though it was like night and day to me.
I don't mind it for some console games, though. Unfortunately it can often was some weird artifacting problems (very noticeable in Red Dead Redemption).
I don't mind it for some console games, though. Unfortunately it can often was some weird artifacting problems (very noticeable in Red Dead Redemption).
PetriP-TNT
Member
240hz supremacy. It looks four times better
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Raistlin said:
And who the fuck are you?
Also, I thought you were "out"? Hurry up and get out.
Luke - I am your fatherZefah said:
But it's so hard in the face of such antics.
Common courtesy to to make at least some attempt to know what's being discussed in the thread. As others have pointed out, there is a stream of posters since that bump that obviously haven't read beyond the OP.
That is why I think this should be locked. If no one is bothering to actually read the thread, but are instead regurgitating the FUD we covered months ago ... why keep it open? The thread has obviously failed as any sort of useful discussion on the topic.
Shit, I bet a number of the posters didn't even bother reading the OP ... and instead just read the title.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Raistlin said:
You don't need to know how the technology works in order to know that you don't like it's effect on your TV's picture.
I read the OP again. I don't see how agreeing with the OP's sentiment that having TV's set to utilize motion interpolation technology makes most movies look worse is a bad reply worth of getting the thread locked.
No one has explained shit in this thread. I'm pointing this out so a saviour can actually enlighten.
Is 120hz = 60fps?
When it comes to gaming, I refuse to believe anyone without an ulterior agenda can prefer anything other than 60fps. The fluidity is divine and when it's consistent, chaotic scenes are a beauty (Smash Bros Brawl is beautiful only because it keeps up a 60fps even when among dozens of explosions). Soap operas look (but mostly feel) trashy, but a solid 60fps in a game is a contributing factor to realism. Thus why I wonder if this 120hz terminology people keep throwing around is actually equivalent to 60fps, because I can't wrap my head around how it can bring so many benefits to a game but look like trash in a movie.
Is 120hz = 60fps?
When it comes to gaming, I refuse to believe anyone without an ulterior agenda can prefer anything other than 60fps. The fluidity is divine and when it's consistent, chaotic scenes are a beauty (Smash Bros Brawl is beautiful only because it keeps up a 60fps even when among dozens of explosions). Soap operas look (but mostly feel) trashy, but a solid 60fps in a game is a contributing factor to realism. Thus why I wonder if this 120hz terminology people keep throwing around is actually equivalent to 60fps, because I can't wrap my head around how it can bring so many benefits to a game but look like trash in a movie.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Koodo said:
60fps is objectively superior to anything lesser. You can make the same artistic decisions in a 60fps environment as that of a 30fps or lower.
See You Next Wednesday
Banned
polyh3dron said:
Not true, the 240hz ones give a rock solid 60fps without drops. I saw it demoed with some games & it convinced me to save up for one.
CurlySaysX
Banned
Sony's motionflow on standard settings is pretty nice and subtle, and games such as Motorstorm with motionflow look insane.
I don't mind interpolation (at a reduced setting mind you, I don't really like it full on) - which as people have pointed out, is really what is being discussed. I like seeing, or at least seeming to see, more of the image. I find it less comfortable now to watch footage in a lower frame rate, especially when a film has some quick panning shot and everything in the background just blurs over until the camera comes to a stop. My eyes try to focus on something in the blur but can't, it's just tiring. Plus, interpolation on my samsung has finally made the bourne supremacy watchable for me. Before it used to just give me a headache. Now I can kinda follow what's happening on the screen. A little. All the comments about it looking cheap are bullshit though - that is entirely based on the associations you've personally made with various forms of media - higher rate = tv = cheap - for most people. It has no objective meaning outside of that in terms of quality.
Dreams-Visions
Member
no, they're 2 different things.Koodo said:
"Hz" (and the greater increase of them in LCD televisions) allow whatever image that is on the screen to refresh x times per second. the more times an image refreshes, the less the motion blur you have affecting the picture. so the Hz (refresh rate) is important for when you're watching sports, news tickers sliding across the bottom of your screen, and other things moving quickly. the Hz measurement will not affect the framerate of a film or show, but it can help to make sure that said framerate appears as clean on your television as possible.
"fps" is a measure of how many frames per second whatever you're watching was recorded at. the higher, the smoother. this is particularly noticable during camera pans. this is a mutually exclusive measure issue from the Hz. Hz (again, refresh rate) just does its best to clean up the motion of the fps of the film you're watching.
Most films continue to be recorded at 24fps/30fps due to tradition, director preferences and cost.
maybe this answers your question? you want more Hz to make sure your picture is crisp when whatever you're watching is in motion. The higher the better. But Hz do not have any impact on the fps. if you're watching a 24fps film on a 400Hz television, it will still have some of that chop when the picture pans...it will just be a much crisper chop.
motion smoothing technology works to kinda tween the motion in between actual frames to create an effect of actually having a higher framerate (fps). it actually makes lower fps content appear as much as 2x its original framerate, causing what looks more like a handicam video (super smooth). current technology and implementations of this still creates some lag moments where it stutters before smoothing out. and it doesn't always look good.
I'm sure someone will correct any places where I misspoke.
$0.02
layzie1989
Member
Hey, I like it.
MisterAnderson
Member
My god when I see EVERY FUCKING TV in Best Buy or Fry's with this SHITTY mode on, it makes me want to knock over every magazine rack in the store.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
I don't know if this has been covered, but that feature is for specific purposes.
If you're watching a film, the frames are not crisp, but they correspond with motion blur to give your brain information about movement because each frame represents exposing film to light for 1/24th of a second. So obviously if a TV is creating new frames, this multiplies the object tracking ability and your brain registers that extra smoothness, but it is also recreating the motion blur from the lower framerate. This causes a surreal effect between solid object movement information and movement information from blur and your brain kinda says WTF SO FAKE.
However, if there is very little motion blur because, say... it's a sporting event filmed with digital cameras at 60fps, then all it's doing is making things easier to track and it looks good. I've seen some new films and special TV events that looked really choppy because they used digital cameras but still only recorded at standard film framerates, each frame capturing like 1000th of a second or whatever. It's horrible because there is no motion blur to mask the lack of frames, so those movies and programs would benefit from the feature.
These principles are also what makes "shaky cam" in films completely unbearable. They are trying to recreate a camcorder feel, but with far fewer frames. Since it is the camera moving rather than the objects, all this rash movement causes blur on everything and makes it a hassle for your brain to track anything. This isn't a problem with real life personal footage, because those cameras are designed for tracking things clearly at higher speeds as a remedy to the erratic motion of hand movement.
To me all this is really obvious and I can't even remember where I learned it. I might have just passively figured it out by common sense according to what I know about the mechanics of cameras. It's kind of strange to me how ignorant people are about what is actually physically happening when film is captured and how your brain functions upon viewing.
If you're watching a film, the frames are not crisp, but they correspond with motion blur to give your brain information about movement because each frame represents exposing film to light for 1/24th of a second. So obviously if a TV is creating new frames, this multiplies the object tracking ability and your brain registers that extra smoothness, but it is also recreating the motion blur from the lower framerate. This causes a surreal effect between solid object movement information and movement information from blur and your brain kinda says WTF SO FAKE.
However, if there is very little motion blur because, say... it's a sporting event filmed with digital cameras at 60fps, then all it's doing is making things easier to track and it looks good. I've seen some new films and special TV events that looked really choppy because they used digital cameras but still only recorded at standard film framerates, each frame capturing like 1000th of a second or whatever. It's horrible because there is no motion blur to mask the lack of frames, so those movies and programs would benefit from the feature.
These principles are also what makes "shaky cam" in films completely unbearable. They are trying to recreate a camcorder feel, but with far fewer frames. Since it is the camera moving rather than the objects, all this rash movement causes blur on everything and makes it a hassle for your brain to track anything. This isn't a problem with real life personal footage, because those cameras are designed for tracking things clearly at higher speeds as a remedy to the erratic motion of hand movement.
To me all this is really obvious and I can't even remember where I learned it. I might have just passively figured it out by common sense according to what I know about the mechanics of cameras. It's kind of strange to me how ignorant people are about what is actually physically happening when film is captured and how your brain functions upon viewing.
Baron Doggystyle von Woof
Member
I saw Alice in Wonderland like this. It's really shitty.
I can understand how this is good with nature and sport video's.
I can understand how this is good with nature and sport video's.
Choppasmith
Member
Glad to know this feature's optional on newer TVs. I just saw it once at a Best Buy playing PotC Dead Man's Chest and it just looked totally bizarre and surreal to me.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Good to know. I learn something new on GAF everyday
going to try a sensible question.
Note: I hate 120Hz 'look' for movies. Should be displayed as shot.
Now - IMAX is shot at a faster framerate right? And James Cameron has often said how he'd like to increase the frame rate for a better cinema experience - higher framerate is more important than higher resolution.
So... if you went to the cinema to watch 'transformers 4' shot at a native 60fps (completely hypothetical number) would it also have that 'soap opera look' because it has a higher than 'normal' frame rate?
i.e is the effect simply your brain seeing 'TV' where it expects to see 'movie'? If all movies from now on were shot and shown at 60fps, would you eventually get used to it and that would become normal?
Note: I hate 120Hz 'look' for movies. Should be displayed as shot.
Now - IMAX is shot at a faster framerate right? And James Cameron has often said how he'd like to increase the frame rate for a better cinema experience - higher framerate is more important than higher resolution.
So... if you went to the cinema to watch 'transformers 4' shot at a native 60fps (completely hypothetical number) would it also have that 'soap opera look' because it has a higher than 'normal' frame rate?
i.e is the effect simply your brain seeing 'TV' where it expects to see 'movie'? If all movies from now on were shot and shown at 60fps, would you eventually get used to it and that would become normal?
Alx
Member
Like most people today, I dislike how movies look with high framerates. But I wonder how much of it is an acquired taste. Sure low framerate looks more fictional, but maybe our brain labels it as such because it's been fed fictions at 24 fps for years.
If you're purely rational, 100/120 fps is more realistic, more fluid, closer to reality... so it's a better format for a video stream. It feels strange (for us) but it's technically better. And I suppose that you could still "emulate" a lower framerate on a high fps stream.
If you're purely rational, 100/120 fps is more realistic, more fluid, closer to reality... so it's a better format for a video stream. It feels strange (for us) but it's technically better. And I suppose that you could still "emulate" a lower framerate on a high fps stream.
Fallout-NL
Member
dark10x said:
Yeah, it constantly seems to be catching up causing the speed to be all over the place. It also creates a weird outline around moving objects. It sucks.
Gram Negative Cocci
Member
I thought this feature was what the higher resolutions were all about. Knowing that it isn't makes me not see what the big flipping deal about hd ever was.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked