For many years I have decried the state of modern flat-panel televisions, and specifically the manner in which they use inter-frame motion interpolation to achieve higher framerates than 30 FPS. It has always looked jarringly artificial to me, although I've never been able to eloquently express a justification for this.

As it turns out, I'm not alone. There's even an official term for it: The Soap Opera Effect.

Motion interpolation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Down with 60 FPS. Long live 24 / 29.97 FPS.

 

I remember watching a crappy Tom Cruise movie film at the girlfriends Uni house, the TV was set-up really weird and had this exact same effect, it's horrible!

 

To all of you guys having gif image problems and using chrome.

My condolences.



^btw it's a gif image if you cant see it.

 

The sheep like the motion+ motionsmoother trumotion because it makes it look realistic. Movies are made to portray something unrealistic in a believable way, hence the 24FPS.

I agree and disagree with you. The LCD manufacturers have completely distorted the 120HZ/240HZ marketing crap to make it seem like you need that, when in fact the function that interpolates the frames is commonly known as dejudder (Telecline Judder). You can turn it off in the menu. I do so on every TV for which I can get my hands on the remote.

The other problem is judder is more apparent due to the 3:2 pulldown process when converting from the original 24FPS of the movie to the 29.97FPS of your TV. 24FPS will appear smoother at the movies than on your TV. Newer high end TVs, plasma and LCDs, are becoming increasingly adept at displaying true 24FPS video.

60 FPS does have its place though. Anytime you are trying to convey fast motion with great clarity, 60FPS is the answer. Video games, sports, non-movie action, even around the house movies of my dogs look better in 60FPS. Content hosts really need to start their way into 60FPS once the infrastructure is able to support it. To 60FPS, and beyond!

24FPS can suck it. The Hobbit is going to have a limited release in Imax at 48fps. Mixed reviews so far, but I feel that 48fps will be good. Fast enough that I will be able to tell what's happening during a fast scene, and slow enough that it avoids the soap opera effect. I cannot wait to try it out.


Dat artifact.



Now for a rant about Plasma VS LCD.

LCDs are a non-refreshing display. The picture shown is constantly there and requires no maintenance to remain there. When the time comes to display the next frame, the pixels are commanded to change, and they begin doing so. On many, this happens at 120/240HZ, regardless of whether dejudder is turned on or off.

Plasmas (Like CRTs) are a refresh-type display. A phosphor fades VERY quickly after being excited, so it must be reexcited to maintain the picture. This is now typically done at a rate of 600HZ, and it is very noticeable as a flicker to me if I am not looking directly at it. Then again, I'm bothered by fluorescent fixtures with failing ballasts too. I was at a friend's house the other day. He had a CRT TV. AHHH, THE FLICKER! I have become acclimated to non-refresh and 600HZ displays to the point that the CRT seems unwatchable now. I still love plasmas, and believe they are superior for displaying movies, but it seems that a small number of people are extra-sensitive to the flicker.

Also, the number of people asking about 600hz vs 240hz on the internet is alarming.

 

I'm crying right now watching this.

 

no. just, no.

He was too busy downloading scanned pics of Vanna White from Playboy and Kathy Ireland in biknis off BBSs to care about stupid ponys that have yet to be born and reside in parent's basements.

 

^^^

 

And it was 1.44MBs, not just 1.40Mbs. You have no idea how much data can be packed in 40K (ok, technically, about 40K worth of data).

 

 

Joe:

'The Hobbit' shooting at 48 frames per second. So what's the big deal? | Inside Movies | EW.com


I just picked up another plasma. I do not regret this desicion.

 

If I see a TV with Soap Opera mode turned on, I turn it off. I don't care where I am or who I am disrespecting. It's either that or I vomit on their carpet from getting seasick.

Also: The gif thing is isolated to this goddamn site. senorgif works fine.

 

Would bang

 

Looks like Conroe has made the big rap map.



One of my coworkers saw them shooting part of this in the parking lot below us.

 

is his shirt real life?

 

So....

You have people rapping about living in Texas now?

 

Ive got a 120 Hz TV and it looks weird as ****. Most people seem to think it looks really good, I guess because its so sharp between frames, but its not right.
I did some research a while back and apparently the algorithms used to create this high frame rate blending are still in their infancy, which is why it looks odd.

 

this is why i have two plasmas.

 

Had me lol'in. Stick around for the end:

 

It's funny that you mention this, as CRTs are still my preferred display technology.

Don't get me wrong- the hi-rez interlaced video modes on the Amiga used to drive me nuts. And even working in lo-rez modes (such as on the C64) definitely gave me a headache after a while, and that was 25 years ago when my eyes and brain were much younger. 15.75Khz is not a good refresh rate for computer displays.

But for "TV" applications? I still use a tube. Three tubes, technically. Rear-projection. That may contribute somewhat to the lack of problems, as rear projectors use three discrete monochrome tubes (one each coated in red, green and blue phosphor material) so they don't need to use shadow masks or operate at so high a plate voltage as direct-view tubes. Add the fact that purely optical convergence is never *quite* perfect, and you get a very solid image with no discernible pixel pitch whatsoever. It has a very "analog" feel to it. Kind of like film.

Still, I can't bring myself to upgrade. I really do want a new TV. I want a TV with a native aspect ratio of 16:9 that has VGA, DVI and/or HDMI inputs. I want a TV that isn't so arduous to lug around every time I move (this TV has now resided in 8 different homes since I bought it). And if anybody were still building rear-projection CRT sets then I'd have bought one already. But I just cannot bring myself to sacrifice the warm, fuzzy glow of my old tube set for a present-day plasma or LCD.

(Cripes. I sound like one of those folks who spends $3,000 on a tube-based audio amp and then bemoans how much better it sounds than a solid-state unit.)

Funny thing, though. I'm one of those folks who can't stand looking at a color-wheel based DLP set. Rainbows, rainbows everywhere.






Aaah, classic Top Gear.



I guess we'll just have to wait and see how that turns out.

Now, don't get me wrong. Some of these reviews I read talk about how upconverting ruins the director's artistic intent and what have you. I don't buy into those arguments. I just think that video which is artificially re-scaled to higher framerates (which is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING from having a high REFRESH RATE) looks weird and artificial.

It's the video version of what computer / robotics scientists refer to as the Uncanny Valley, wherein a robot (or CG model of a human) which looks almost human, but not quite, winds up freaking us out. Falls into the same perceptual realm as zombies and prosthetic limbs.







You have two plasmas because you're the .

 

talking about old tv flicker... do any of you hear the high frequency sound many old tv's emit? I can hear it out to the street sometimes if someone still has an old tv at home.

It never bothered me, but I'm curious what it is exactly that I'm hearing.