Hollywood Directors team up against the scourge of TV Motion Smoothing

Should TV manufacturers make a filter that adds chromatic aberration to your TV?


Results are only viewable after voting.

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
#51
Here's my feeling:

1. Idiots who don't know any better won't know that it even exists, so turn it off by default.
2. During setup, carefully word a question, "Who is ur favorite director, Stanley Kubrick and Orson Welles, or McG and Michael Bay?
3. Turn it off regardless of the answer.
 
#52
Here's my feeling:

1. Idiots who don't know any better won't know that it even exists, so turn it off by default.
2. During setup, carefully word a question, "Who is ur favorite director, Stanley Kubrick and Orson Welles, or McG and Michael Bay?
3. Turn it off regardless of the answer.
HDTV: Automata
 
#53
I remember when I first noticed it on a friend's TV back in... 2010? I don't know, it was a very long time ago, but it instantly made my eyes pop and I said "eww what's wrong with your TV?"

he insisted it was great, but for me it ruined the movie Brazil :\
 
#54
Most people don't. You'd be surprised. Most family or friends I visit have this shit turned on.

Super enhanced cinema (super monty python diarrhea effect) sounds too good to be turned off for a 500$ TV or something. TV manufacturers are at fault.
Yeah, I feel like most don't which is crazy. Whenever I visit my grandparents I see how terrible their expensive TV looks because of the default settings.
 

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
#56
Motion smoothing/image interpolation during text crawl or credits isn't bad though.
I hate it but I use it for Rock Band because I'm focused almost entirely on the gems dropping and it makes that smoother. And the massive input lag it adds can be compensated for by the game.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
#59
All these Luddites fighting our glorious HFR future. Give me 144 fps films to go along with my 144 fps games or give me death.
Film is different from video games. The main benefit of a real higher framerate in gaming is the reduced input lag, there is no such benefit for film unless you want the motion to look incredibly unnatural.
 
#60
This is the bane of my existence. This and people who "stretch" images. Especially on youtube uploads. Holy mother of god. 4:3 is ok guys. No need to fatten everything and distort the image of old things.
 
#61
Aw man, I can't find it anymore, but there was this amazing clip on Youtube maybe six months ago of Batman Forever in 60fps. It was insane to look at.
 
#62
Film is different from video games. The main benefit of a real higher framerate in gaming is the reduced input lag, there is no such benefit for film unless you want the motion to look incredibly unnatural.
This is completely wrong.

But, if it isn't shot in 144 hz, I don't want it to try and display at 144 hz.

TVs should display what they're being fed with little to no image processing.
 
#63
Can't stand any "enhancements" that are on by default. Makes the picture look like shit. It's always so obviously terrible too, I can't understand why people don't even see it (or claim to not see it).
 
#64
What really sucks is that turning on these motion interpolation settings is usually the only way to increase the motion resolution of your TV. Otherwise you're generally stuck at around 300 lines during fast movement and everything looks blurry as fuck.
 

LCGeek

formerly sane
#66
Odd they would whine about that instead of the natural blurring most displays have until you light boost or get insane refreshrate.
 
#67
I have an old Sony Bravia (2012). The only thing i can find is something called LED motion and it’s turned off. Is that what they are talking about?
 
#69
Start shooting in high framerates if you want me to turn off interpolation.
Film is a blurry juddering mess without it.

When we moved to flat panel displays that don't flicker, we also needed to significantly increase the framerate.
In fact, we should never have switched to completely flicker-free displays at all.
Flicker reduces how long the image is held on our retinas. This minimizes motion blur while also causing motion to appear smoother.

Warning: this image flickers at a very low framerate.
View this image without any sort of motion enhancements enabled, and track each of the moving circles with your eyes - one at a time while covering up the other with a hand.
You should see that the lower circle is much clearer and appears to move much more fluidly than the upper circle.
Both images move at the same framerate and there is no motion blur at all - the only difference is that one flickers while the other does not.


When you view 24 FPS film on a display which flickers at 24Hz - and only 24Hz, the same thing happens.
Viewing 24 FPS film on a CRT monitor running at 24Hz (or multiples of 24 with black frame insertion) is so smooth that it looks as though you just enabled interpolation.
View it at 48Hz or 72Hz - which is what modern film projectors do - and the magic is lost; film looks like an awful juddering mess again.
In fact, it actually gets worse, since repeating frames on a flickering display causes there to be double-images. Here is 24 FPS at 96, 72, 48, and 24Hz on a CRT, showing quad, triple, and double images from the repeated frames.
But 24 FPS at 24Hz on a low-persistence display is magical. You get the smoothness of an interpolated image without any of the interpolation artifacts... along with a hell of a lot of flicker.
Motion interpolation on a flicker-free flat panel display is restoring the native look for 24 FPS film presented at 24Hz - but the trade-off is that you get interpolation artifacts in place of flicker.
 
#71
People have this ingrained idea that it's only a "film" if it's 24fps. It "feels filmic" or "has that filmic look". And rightfully so - the 24fps standard has been around for decades and has been used for almost every movie they've watched.

But 24fps is only a number that was chosen because it was the tradeoff between motion fidelity and cost. It was good enough and cheap enough to be widely adopted. Unfortunately it's also terribly limiting in some cases, but attempting to go against the grain is often met with revulsion from film purists.
I think that was a happy accident.

Maybe if 48fps had been the norm, some artists would've had experiments with the frame rate and someone would try 24fps and would look it like "hey, this looks really cool, really dreamy, maybe we should film all the future movies in 24fps" :)

Sometimes accidents and limitations create the perfect result. I think 24fps might've been exactly that.
 
#73
I use black frame insertion on my Samsung TV to help remove the judder I normally get with 24p content. Honestly I find it the best solution to remove judder regular TV sets suffer from without that weird soap opera effect.
 
#76
I use black frame insertion on my Samsung TV to help remove the judder I normally get with 24p content. Honestly I find it the best solution to remove judder regular TV sets suffer from without that weird soap opera effect.
The problem with BFI or backlight strobing is that it's not matched to the source framerate on most displays.
If your TV strobes at 120Hz (which most Samsung displays do) then a 60 FPS source will have double-images in motion. 24 FPS will have five image repeats per frame.
Some Sony TVs have 60Hz BFI, which is great for 60 FPS games, but I'm not aware of any modern display which will strobe at a rate <60Hz so it doesn't solve the problem for film.
The best option is still to combine interpolation with BFI/Strobing. Many displays will interpolate to 120 FPS if they strobe at 120Hz, rather than 240 FPS with it disabled.
 
#77
The most infuriating part is there are people who don't notice it. I point it out to my sister on her TV and she has no idea what I'm talking about.
 
#81
That smoothing effect is like diarrhea to the eyes. It's one thing to film something in a higher framerate, it's another when a processing effect makes it look like it's speeding up and down constantly after the fact.

That garbage is disorienting. If you use it to take advantage of the higher motion resolution, for the love of god, use it on the lower settings, it creates less of that motion smoothing artifact.
 
#83
I forced a friend to turn it off a little while ago when we were watching something, it was unbearable.

He said he didn't even notice and his dad liked it because it "made everything look like a play".

Blegh.
 
#84
Yup, lose that shit. I tried to keep an open mind when I saw The Hobbit in High Frame Rate (HFR) but it just solidified my view that my brain is wired to view that smoothness with cheap reruns of The Twilight Zone.

The Hobbit being garbage did not help.
 
#85
Not all motion interpolation is bad!

One of the problems with LCD displays is that motion effectively reduce the resolution to 300p. So yep 1080p in stills or slow panning. But as soon as the action get heated the details fly out of the window.

I agree most settings create wierd unatural movement.

But you can have your cake and eat it, for example on some of the Sony's I've owned "clear" motion flow has virtually no soap opera and maintains constant resolution.

So it is in most cases a question of tweeking.
 
#88
Guess I'm an outlier because I LOVE motion smoothing. Makes it seem like the show I am watching "pops" more.

I don't think it should be default no. But I do like it as an option, in particular on tvs. I never turn it off. Hesitant to get the new TCL 4k P series because no motion smoothing options.
 

forrest

formerly nacire
#90
Can we just get shit filmed at a higher number of frames as a standard?

I also turn off frame interpolation / motion smoothing, whatever you want to call it.
 
#93
Interpolation is gross. Sample-and-hold displays are insufficient for displaying full motion.

Y'all should've bought plasmas while you could. Too bad the early stigma stuck, FUD spread like wildfire, and the average consumer continually buys into half-baked gimmickry.