-
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
Iced_Eagle
Member
I totally hate it that effect. Don't know how anyone could watch anything like that. It makes everything feel so fake.
Yep - it's like how people get used to seeing 4:3 signal stretched to 16:9 TV as "normal" (takes about a week of viewing).mrklaw said:
Which is why frame-interpolation on TVs being on by default is a good thing. It's training the masses to expect higher FPS so eventually we may actually get 60fps+ as standard in Movie theaters.
sixteen-bit
Member
24 fps for life
except videogames lol
except videogames lol
Shin Johnpv
Member
StuBurns said:
Its not going to happen. Right now doing films, specially Visual FX heavy, or animated ones, at 60fps is just way way way too time consuming and costly.
Simon Belmont
Banned
I call it the 'soap opera' button on my Teevee.
BotoxAgent
Member
Shin Johnpv said:
CGI effects in 60fps in IMAX resolution would be gdlk :lol
SuicideUZI
Member
The amount of people in here who think 120hz is the same thing as interpolation is making me sick.LCfiner said:
I suppose it's due to bad marketing tho, when they have the demos running that show interpolation on and off it always says something like "120hz motion plus on" or whatever.
The effect that the OP hates has nothing to do with 120hz therefor the thread title isn't even right. it's just a feature in most 120hz sets that can be turned on or off, but the tv always has the same 120hz refresh rate either way.
Zefah said:
blarg. Read more than the OP. That's my point.
The useful info in this thread is getting lost in the noise. There has also been numerous other threads on the topic. I digress - I'll crap out some of the details below.
That answer is no ... or at least not necessarily.Koodo said:
What's being lost in the circle of doom here is:
- 120Hz refresh in-and-of-itself doesn't mean anything in terms of motion. Equating 120Hz to the 'soap opera effect' is a complete fallacy (to make things easier, lets call that effect SOE for short). Refresh and framerate are not the same thing. Refresh purely refers to the frequency in which the display redraws. 120Hz TV can display 30fps content. It simply repeats the frames 4 times each, etc. Think of the refresh rate as more of a maximum available framerate - or more accurately a definition of frame hold-times. I'll get into that.
- One category of post-processing possible with 120Hz refreshes is dedicated to improving temporal resolution. There are a million names used for it, but the point is to lower the hold time of the image*. This typically uses black frame or contrast-adjusted frame insertion. Neither of which cause SOE. The only negative it can produce is a loss of brightness.
- Where SOE comes from is frame interpolation. This is used to de-judder the image (and also improves temporal resolution as a side-effect since it is lowering the hold time). As a high level example of what is happening here ... pretend the original content has frames that go like this: A..B..C..D. What frame interpolation could do is display this as A.AB.B.BC.C.CD.C. Look at it as inserting new frames between the originals in order to blend between them. It appears to increase the framerate.
Where people seem to really get lost in that last one is that basically every manufacturer does it differently (I should note that generating the motion vectors, etc. to do things right is not nearly as simple as the 'blended' frames example implies), and most TV's offer numerous configuration for said algorithm(s). It is quite possible that someone could have one of the low settings on, and you wouldn't even necessarily notice it. There would be no SOE, but if you watched it side-by-side with a normal TV you would see the reduction in judder, etc.
Pursuant to your main question, yes interpolation can be used to give the appearance of a higher framerate. However by definition it would induce lag since it is a purely post-processing effect. It needs to wait for the two consecutive frames, and only then can it generate the in between frame(s) and start displaying things. It is inherently buffering data. For something like an RPG, that's fine. For action games, not so much. It should also be pointed out that many algorithms can be finicky when handling fluctuating framerates. Even if it does handle them well, the frame drops can become more apparent with interpolation.
* Hold time refers to how long a given frame is displayed before the next is shown. The issue here is that LCD (and current OLED) uses a display technique known as sample-and-hold. Basically it displays a frame - and leaves it there until the next frame is needed. The initial frame is there the entire duration in between.
Why does this matter? The blur many people associate with LCD's - which is actually low temporal resolution - isn't technically happening on the TV. It's in our brains. The way our brain interprets motion is a complicated beast. If an image is 'held' for a certain duration, it basically gets burnt into our brain for a short time. When that next frame is then displayed, our brain is actually blurring them together ... not the TV.
Who's fault it is doesn't really matter. It is a side-effect of the display method. CRT, DLP, Plasma, etc do not use sample-and-hold, which is why they have superior motion handling by default. Their hold times are inherently shorter than the full frame LCD normally uses. Stuff like black/contrast-adjusted frame insertion, as well as de-judder effectively lower the hold time ... improving temporal resolution. All this stuff is basically chasing what other techs already handle decently by design. Well de-judder has other uses, but you get the point.
Mr. B Natural
Member
Why the soap opera hate? I like my stories.
Backfoggen
Banned
If the TV supports 24p, 100hz doesn't matter, right? (Cause 100/24 would be 4,16)
You are understating just how much effects work can cost. Will some hop on board? Sure, that doesn't mean it will become the norm. Not everyone is afforded the budgets of a Cameron movie.StuBurns said:
Look at it this way, the reason Buffy isn't on BD is because the effects in the first two seasons were implemented for SD interlaced displays. They will need to be redone if we want the series to hit HD. Why did they do something so silly at the onset? Cost.
Because that would have been an obscene waste of cash. It's like saying why wasn't some random episode of Top of the Pops shot in 70mm back in the sixties. It's because there was no call for it.Raistlin said:
Put it this way, everyone who's considering doing anything in 3D has happily doubled their effects budget, I've yet to hear anyone complain 3D is 'too expensive'.
Mr. Wonderful
Member
There's a difference between content filmed and sent to your TV at 60fps, which doesn't really exist, and things interpolated to 60fps and above. So, in fact, outside of gaming, we really don't know how native 60fps footage looks.Alx said:
This thread is going in circles, however.
Not necessarily. The point is that effects are many times gimped to the LCD even when the film stock used could warrant higher resolution. It's actually very common, and why a number of shows haven't hit BD.StuBurns said:
Obviously those tend to be bigger budget movies. Regardless, I suspect 48Hz or especially 60Hz effects would cost a lot more than 3D.
Post production on movies/shows, particularly effects-laden ones, is where much of the budget and time is spent. Doubling that work is hardly something to sneeze at. Please understand I'm all for increased framerates - I just don't have illusions of it becoming the norm.
Actually I posted a link to comparison footage (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1069482) :\Mr. Wonderful said:
Granted I'm at work so I can't verify whether they are still be hosted. If not, I can upload them when I'm back from my business trip.
This I'll certainly agree with. It is maddening.
So the advantage of buying a 120hz over 60hz is basically to eliminate "judder" on 24fps content (Like DVD/BD movies)? (since 24 divides evenly in 120 but not into 60?)? Is judder the right term?
I'm a plasma guy anyway so I really haven't payed much attention to this stuff.
A 120hz tv would redraw each frame 5 times, whereas a 60hz tv redraws alternating frames 2 times then 3 times then 2 times then 3 times etc......
I'm a plasma guy anyway so I really haven't payed much attention to this stuff.
A 120hz tv would redraw each frame 5 times, whereas a 60hz tv redraws alternating frames 2 times then 3 times then 2 times then 3 times etc......
Seda said:
Judder is actually a super-set.
The judder most people are referring to is telecine judder. That's the irregular motion generated from the the telecine process (24Hz -> 60Hz conversion). A 120Hz TV (if implementing the processing properly) can in fact eliminate telecine judder. Granted, the vast majority only can do that if actually sent a 24Hz signal - they won't detect a film cadence from 60Hz output and reconstruct the 24Hz original. Sadder still, some 120Hz TV's don't even do things right when sent a 24Hz signal.
The other general type of judder is the regular interval jumpiness seen due to the low framerate content is filmed in. For example, during a pan. Even when the telecine (irregular) judder is gone, you can still note that the pan is less than smooth. The de-judder algorithms can help with that (and as a side-effect, improve temporal resolution).
I think you misunderstood both points. The point of not paying for 4K effect work on TV is because no one could use it, it's literally just throwing money away. And it doesn't stop them releasing anything on BluRay, they just choose not too, Firefly also has SD effects and it came out on BluRay.Raistlin said:
As for the 3D, 3D is doubling the work, exactly the same as 48fps. It is 48fps. Instead of an iteration ever 48th of a second, it's two every 28th of a second.
The principal is the same. Yeah, obviously you wouldn't pay for 4K effects on a TV show. However, for something that is shot on stock where an HD release makes sense ... it would be nice to have the effects match it.StuBurns said:
My point is that they do not always do this. Why? Because it is costly. Citing one show that did get released even with inferior effects doesn't really argue the point. That said, the case of Buffy is in a different class. The budget was far lower, and that includes the effects issues being more severe.
That isn't the case in all instances. For example, look at CGI effects (ie most). For 3D they need to simply move the virtual camera and re-render. That doubles rendering time, but involves little in the way of actual extra work. Doubling the frame rate doubles the actual man-work since in many instances the motion is hand-animated.
What I wouldn't think needs to be said however is the fact not all movies are shot in 3D (or post-processed to 3D). Why? in most cases cost. If anything you helping my point here.
A HD release didn't make sense, that is my point.Raistlin said:
Name a TV show today shot on 35mm that doesn't feature HD post-production, then you'll have a vague argument.
Hand animated CG effects? Care to name some? Even if you can, just because someone key frames 24 frames every second, doesn't mean they have to start key framing 48, they could interpolated the missing frames, i.e. no extra work.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Oh god the render times that would take.BotoxAgent said:
It would still take longer to render. Just because something's not hand animated doesn't mean it'll be any faster, especially for simulations. Render times and allocations on the render farm is a big part of the costs for each shot.StuBurns said:
XiaNaphryz said:Oh god the render times that would take.
It would still take longer to render. Just because something's not hand animated doesn't mean it'll be any faster, especially for simulations.
CPU cycles are cheap, so be it.
Herpes Reasons
Banned
is this 120hz the same thing as 600hz Sub-field Drive thats advertised on plasmas?
it gives the same effects?
i mean that soap opera look?
it gives the same effects?
i mean that soap opera look?
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Cheap according to who? Our renderfarm is massive and upgraded all the time, yet we can still manage to max it out with all the work we have to do. Allocation time on the renderfarm is always something that needs to be planned ahead of time.otake said:
Anything that needs to go through a renderer like Renderman or Mental Ray, be it a polygonal model or digital composite or particle effect or water sim or digital explosion, if there's double the frames to render it will most likely take twice as long. So yes, mono 48 would likely take the same amount of time as stereo 24, but there could be some time savings in the stereo renders due to some stuff you can do with caching since the frames will be really similar.StuBurns said:
So 3D at 24 is basically the same in terms of work load as a theoretical 2D 48fps film?XiaNaphryz said:
As someone who had access to lots of Avatar fun, did you see the high framerate tests Cameron talked about? If you're allowed to say either way. Outside of the few IMAX HD things most people have never seen, the public really hasn't had access to high framerate films, mastered with proper direction etc.
Interestingly ... you're the one that brought up the showStuBurns said:
The same issue was present in Buffy, and tons of other shows.
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1271/firefly.html
Either way we seem to be getting further and further away from the point and nit-picking things ancillary to the issue at hand.
The original posit was that high framerate filming would become the norm. I'm arguing that for cost reasons, don't count on it. Especially for TV. Even with film, the 'norm' does not equal Hollywood blockbuster releases.
A ton of Pixar's work includes hand animation. They aren't using physics models for everything.
That said, aren't you arguing for the use of motion interpolation at least for effects? This thread is circling
the drain lol
As I've said though, even assuming the costs are the same (which isn't always the case) ... again ... 3D is not the norm ... because of costs :lol
Raistlin said:Interestingly ... you're the one that brought up the show
The same issue was present in Buffy, and tons of other shows.
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1271/firefly.html
Either way we seem to be getting further and further away from the point and nit-picking things ancillary to the issue at hand.
The original posit was that high framerate filming would become the norm. I'm arguing that for cost reasons, don't count on it. Especially for TV. Even with film, the 'norm' does not equal Hollywood blockbuster releases.
A ton of Pixar's work includes hand animation. They aren't using physics models for everything.
That said, aren't you arguing for the use of motion interpolation at least for effects? This thread is circlingthe drain lol
As I've said though, even assuming the costs are the same (which isn't always the case) ... again ... 3D is not the norm ... because of costs :lol
Firstly, the Firefly thing says pretty much my whole point, "HDTV was a pipe dream", so there is no point wasting budget on it.
Pixar (and the like) are animating CG characters, we were talking about effects added to live action footage. Pixar films and their ilk would certainly feel the growing pains of increasing framerate, more than anyone I'd imagine. (For an example of 60fps CG vaguely in that style, check out Blur's BioShock Infinite trailer, there are 60fps versions around).
As for the additional cost in general, I just think you're wrong, it would cost more, you haven't proven it would cost more than 3D, but that's beside the point. The CG effects in most normal TV shows is virtually nothing beyond set extension which is a static addition essentially, and often literally nothing. Any normal live action TV show, shot on with digital cameras, could go to 48fps and have almost no budgetary affect I imagine.
24fps is fine, we're used to it, but people talking about going to 4K before we even up the refill rate seems crazy to me. 48fps would have an actual affect on the way things are filmed, the style of cutting action most prevalently, 4K is just making something pretty a little bit more pretty.
Herpes Reasons
Banned
so whats the hoopla on that 600hz mega super duper drive thing?Raistlin said:
whats the visual difference?
I think ten years from now almost every major film release will be in a higher framerate than 24, there will people who won't ever move from Super 35, there films will have to remain the same I'd imagine.Raistlin said:So you're saying in 20 years then?
I don't understand why our discussion needed to meander the way it has. You initially stated you thought high framerates would be the norm, I disagree due to costs. The rest was us throwing feces on the wall. :lol
I disagree the discuss was just throwing shit, I think the budget thing is inaccurate that's all. But I'm certainly the one on the radical end of things, framerate hasn't increased since the twenties (I think that's right?), to think it'll happen as a result of Avatar 2 is quite a gamble. There are a lot of people who don't think 3D will catch on this time, although I'd argue that's a bigger change.
We'll see either way, I think it will, and more importantly, should.
Since the technologies are totally different, it's apples and oranges for the most part.viakado said:
The question is why advertise it then? It's a numbers game ... basically dick waving Hz values. I wouldn't get too mad at the Plasma makers for it though, they were pushed into it by LCD makers. LCD manufacturers started advertising 120Hz and 240Hz as a prominent feature, as though it made it better than Plasma automatically. While one can argue the merits of motion interpolation/de-judder (which some plasmas now offer well), the other feature these sets are promoting is the increased motion resolution. The problem is, it's not like it's an advantage over Plasma. Much the opposite, it's LCD's upward climb to simply match Plasma motion handling (which it hasn't).
LCD took what could be argued as a disadvantage and marketed such that it appears to be a feature to J6P. Plasma makers were simply forced onto the PR shit train
StuBurns said:
The problem is what do you mean by 'major' release? Hollywood blockbusters? Basically the movies with a 80+ million dollar budgets? As I said, I agree with that ... the problem is that isn't the majority of film releases. It may seem that way due to advertising, but 99% of advertising dollars go to like 5% of movies.
While a point of contention was whether or not it will cost more than 3D, you never argued it would cost less. So let's say they are equal? That still favors my argument. If 3D was cheap, other than the directors that object to it personally, all movies would use it. They don't - and it's known to be a cost issue.
I never said it shouldn't. Much the opposite. Actually I'd argue it's probably more important for 3D. Just think of those costs though
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked