I've been enjoying my 120Hz Samsung since I got it around last Christmas, with PS3 for Blu-Ray and a Toshiba HD-A30 for HD-DVD, both set for 24Hz output. As you would expect, these are outstanding when the material is HD media from 24fps film source.

I also have a TiVo HD and last night I was watching a digital copy of the made-for-TV Australian mini-series On The Beach. Although I would have wished for a better presentation, RHI broadcast this last week as a 480i standard definition image cropped to 4:3. But still - this film is not available on DVD in any form except 4:3 and standard def DVD - and RHI is a digital broadcast - so I watched it when I got bored with the broadcast TV love-in of the DNC.

The TiVo HD can only output 1080i60 and the Samsung sometimes struggles with poorly mastered materials, especially with "shakeycam" or hand-held cameras, as this material tends to trip up the AMP processing used for 120Hz.

I'm happy to report that On The Beach (2000) is better than the original, a genuine updating and "reimagining" of the original film that even manages to outdo the Nevil Shute novel, which I read 40-odd years ago.

But what was unexpected for me was that the film was so competently photographed that I keep experiencing that "realer-than-real" 3D image effect that some wags have dubbed the "soap opera effect". The wild roller-coaster like ride in the helicopter around and through the rock formations was great. Even the appearance of the strawberries on the picnic cloth, or the individual fibers themselves, was jaw-dropping, the equal of the best conventional DVDs.

This is with Mode = Movie, Contrast Mode = Standard, and AMP = High.

The movie theme was of course depressing - made more effective by the well written and updated script - even containing a credible Post-Cold-War scenario for the end of the world, where China invades Taiwan. The characters were fully developed and it was well-acted. Hoping for a Blu-Ray someday in the original 1.85:1 (if IMDB is correct). About the only detraction was Armand Assante murdering yet another American Accent as Commander Dwight Towers. (They got the uniform wrong, as well - he had the rank insignia for a Naval Captain.)

120Hz, where have you been all my life? This is the best thing going since DVD IMHO. It's the first time that home video has been able to produce a more convincing 3D image than flat film in a theater. Film still rules in certain aspects such as resolution (where 1080p is just not enough) but until we get real 3D disk media shot with two lenses, 120Hz is where it's at for the best image you can get in your Home Theater.

I knew this was the case with HD media before I spent the money. That this can be seen in the best broadcast signals is an unexpected bonus.

I own the original DVD version of "On the Beach", in fact its right behind me; great movie, wonderfully depressing and delightfully eerie. The only thing I have to say is that 120hz seems to remove me from the "immersion" effect that films have. The 120hz, "soap opera effect", makes motion seem like video and less like film, which I find irritating and unnatural but what ever works for you.

First of all, there is a difference between 120hz and frame interpolation. What you're loving is the latter. I personally hate it and would never sit through a movie butchered in this manner.

I completely understand the difference between 5:5 pulldown, where each 24fps source frame is repeated 5 times, and AMP, where interpolated frames get inserted between source frames. It is the latter process I am celebrating.

People who don't like the extra image clarity are having a problem adjusting to a video display that offers better motion than the film source. It's the most significant advance in Home Theater since DVD IMHO.

About 7 people view my 120Hz display on a regular basis including my movie buddies and my family. Eventually all 7 "got it", and learned to appreciate frame interpolation. Two of my buddies have purchased 120Hz displays, the other is still convincing himself that analog 60Hz CRT RPTV is still viable.....naturally he is the one with only DVD and broadcast ATSC sources.

All I can say is if you watch a 120Hz display long enough everybody "gets it" after some variable adjustment period. There are those who are attached to the 60Hz displays they now own, and don't want to change - there's a little Luddite in everybody, I suppose.

Interpolation is very good at times (artifacts, etc don't alway lend well to movies)but still doesn't match what a natively shot higher framerate movie could create. Typically I like it on animations like Ratatouille and nature stuff like Planet Earth (still the artifacts at times do get me.. hence I'd prefere just natively higher rate material with no artififacts). Something like The Matrix looks funky with it.

It's a shame that movies aren't shot at a higher framerate and stick with such an archaic 24fps. Having movies with butter smooth pans would be awesome and increase the immersion factor immensely. For those directors that want the effect of 24fps that is still possible. I just wish the standard was set at 24fps for pretty much 99.9% of the movies.

I completely understand the difference between 5:5 pulldown, where each 24fps source frame is repeated 5 times, and AMP, where interpolated frames get inserted between source frames. It is the latter process I am celebrating.

People who don't like the extra image clarity are having a problem adjusting to a video display that offers better motion than the film source. It's the most significant advance in Home Theater since DVD IMHO.

About 7 people view my 120Hz display on a regular basis including my movie buddies and my family. Eventually all 7 "got it", and learned to appreciate frame interpolation. Two of my buddies have purchased 120Hz displays, the other is still convincing himself that analog 60Hz CRT RPTV is still viable.....naturally he is the one with only DVD and broadcast ATSC sources.

All I can say is if you watch a 120Hz display long enough everybody "gets it" after some variable adjustment period. There are those who are attached to the 60Hz displays they now own, and don't want to change - there's a little Luddite in everybody, I suppose.

If they wanted films to be smoother they would film them at a higher frame rate. It's easily doable and fully supported DVD/BR/HDDVD and 720p HD channels support it...

Your not fixing something that is broken here like you make it sound...

In equal what your doing is like adding simulated 7.1 surround sound to a 2 channel audio recording. Or adding your own effects in to the produced album...

It's your personal preference to like smoother video... just realize your not fixing something that's broken. Or that it's some sort of new revolution your starting....

Another example would be like converting all of your 2.35:1 moves to 1.85:1 so it fills your screen completely because you don't like the 2.35:1 ratio.

It was the directors choice to film in 2.35:1 ... it was also their choice to use 24 FPS....

Perhaps newer digitally shot action movies will be at a higher FPS....

It's not about "Getting it"; it's about staying true to the source. A film is only shot at 24 frames per second. Because of that, there will be inherent motion limitations. Because of those limitations, you get something called "Film" or "Movie" experience. You simply cannot change one of the major factors for that and expect to have the same experience as you would with a theater.

True, you personally may prefer the AMP mode, but the underlying thing to remember is, your messing with the director's intent. The directors, when creating films, never intended for their movies to look like anything with AMP mode turned on. the same can be said with a calibrated image. Some may prefer a calibrated 6500k image, some may not. It's entirely up to you.

The AMP or Motion Enhancer modes has initially impressed many of my friends, but once I've explained what it is and how it detracts from looking like a film, they start to see it too and prefer it without.

Also, because AMP or Motion Enhancer are trying to guess and make up for 'missing frames' it doesn't always do a good job and they produce unnatural image artifacts because of it. Usually it's pieces from the previous image or from the upcoming image that get introduced into the current frame.

Personally, I like my films to look like films and my videos to look like videos. The 120Hz refresh rate has allowed LCD users to finally experience both of those separately, but in terms of 'Motion Enhancers' or Samsungs 'AMP' it is trying to blend both worlds into making them look the same, which is not acceptable for me.

I completely agree with what you are saying about this being about preference - except Thomas A. Edison ran his 35mm film projectors at 24fps in the late 19th century, and there is a legacy installed base of projectors that run that frame rate. There have been high frame rate variations of 35mm and larger formats, they were all commercial flops, and high frame rate projectors survive today only as part of simulator rides in theme parks and pilot training facilities and the like.

The real resulting problem is that approximately six generations of audiences have been viewing 24fps sources all there lives, or interlaced video at slightly faster 30Hz which is a legacy holdover due to the performance limitations of vacuum tube electronics.

So now that the one aspect of video (fluid motion) can for the first time in over 100 years look BETTER than film, the new look of video is initially resisted by viewers who have watched 60Hz interlaced video and 24fps film their entire lives.

It just takes a while to make the adjustment (the term paradyne shift is both misused and abused, but could be applied to this phenomenon) but if you view 120Hz with frame interpolation long enough, you can't stand clunky 60Hz displays any more.

And I for one have never been happy with the flickering look of film. It has GREAT resolution and color rendition, but blurry motion and I see a series of images like a strobe light was being used to illuminate a moving object. Now I see something on my 120Hz display that is clearly and without any doubt BETTER.

And by the way, there's another evil result of the installed base of 24fps projectors. If given the true choice between shooting in large format film at high frame rates and vanilla 24fps 35mm, I believe most directors would choose the former. But try to get backers for IMAX or other large formats - it's hard to do.

I completely agree with what you are saying - except Thomas A. Edison ran his 35mm film projectors at 24fps in the late 19th century, and there is a legacy installed base of projectors that run that frame rate. There have been high frame rate variations of 35mm and larger formats, they were all commercial flops, and high frame rate projectors survive today only as part of simulator rides in theme parks and pilot training facilities and the like.

The real resulting problem is that approximately six generations of audiences have been viewing 24fps sources all there lives, or interlaced video at slightly faster 30Hz which is a legacy holdover due to the performance limitations of vacuum tube electronics.

So now that the one aspect of video (fluid motion) can for the first time in over 100 years look BETTER than film, the new look of video is initially resisted by viewers who have watched 60Hz interlaced video and 24fps film their entire lives.

It just takes a while to make the adjustment (the term paradyne shift is both misused and abused, but could be applied to this phenomenon) but if you view 120Hz with frame interpolation long enough, you can't stand clunky 60Hz displays any more.

Most directors like the look of film still... While I'm sure some newer action movies will be 60FPS shot in digital. I'd still expect most movies to be made at 24FPS to keep the iconic film look.

What your saying is sorta telling the directors how they should create their art. And the way you like viewing it is the correct and only way...

Technically...

I don't think blu-ray support 1080p 60fps in the current standard spec. It might be added in later or in the works now for all I know. However 720p 60 FPS exists today; and is mostly used for sports broadcasts.

I'm more of a purist and prefer to see it as intended vs. added enhanced effects that are artificial. While I don't argue that most action movies could use 60FPS.

B.T.W.

A lot of IMAX content is 60FPS already... been that was since the 80's... again, it's the directors choice.

I completely understand the difference between 5:5 pulldown, where each 24fps source frame is repeated 5 times, and AMP, where interpolated frames get inserted between source frames. It is the latter process I am celebrating.

People who don't like the extra image clarity are having a problem adjusting to a video display that offers better motion than the film source. It's the most significant advance in Home Theater since DVD IMHO.

About 7 people view my 120Hz display on a regular basis including my movie buddies and my family. Eventually all 7 "got it", and learned to appreciate frame interpolation. Two of my buddies have purchased 120Hz displays, the other is still convincing himself that analog 60Hz CRT RPTV is still viable.....naturally he is the one with only DVD and broadcast ATSC sources.

All I can say is if you watch a 120Hz display long enough everybody "gets it" after some variable adjustment period. There are those who are attached to the 60Hz displays they now own, and don't want to change - there's a little Luddite in everybody, I suppose.


Funny enough, I found frame interpolation one of the worst things in recent time along with marketing dynamic contrast ratio's.

Each his own though. Just like people enjoy dynamic mode along with pan and scan for 2.35:1 content, they're free to enjoy frame interpolation. I'm just glad there's an option to turn it off.

"A lot of IMAX content is 60FPS already..."

I think the ones I've watched may have been 48fps, either way the panning shots, etc look so much better and that is what I wish I could have in all movies. Panny shots, etc without the juddery effect. :D

Nothing standing in the way of that except Thomas A. Edison's 120-year old legacy of 24fps. It was as fast a film mechanism as he could reliably produce in the 1800's using contemporary machine tools and materials. He selected the tradeoff between film costs and projector reliability at 24fps, slow enough not to cause excessive mechanism faults, fast enough that most people accepted the movement flicker in a darkened room.

It's not even the oldest legacy standard - that would be the standard railroad guage, which is the same width as the Roman chariot wheels, which in turn was the width of two horses' rear ends.

First of all, there is a difference between 120hz and frame interpolation. What you're loving is the latter. I personally hate it and would never sit through a movie butchered in this manner.

I agree 100%. The process is not natural. 120hz itself is a good thing but it still does not completely fix the issues it was desgned to fix.



People who don't like the extra image clarity are having a problem adjusting to a video display that offers better motion than the film source. It's the most significant advance in Home Theater since DVD IMHO.



This is the thing.
IT is NOT Image clarity. Its just creating artificial frames that were not there to begin with.
Film material was not meant to look this way.
It makes the movie "godzilla" look like "cloverfield". Like you are watching the movie thru a camcorder instead of the high dollar film cameras.
This is not the what the director intended.
It is really just a gimmick. They added motionflow/AMP at the same time they introduced the 120hz. this makes most people think that the 120hz is what makes the motion look "smoother" or "more like video".
True good motion does not produce artifacts and make film look like video.

You seem to have a philosophical position here with no connection to reality. Whatever words you use to describe it, 120Hz with frame interpolation gives you a more convincing, more transparent depiction of reality than does film.

The best way to describe it is like a clear pane of glass, the screen takes on the appearance of a window into another world. All the audience can say is WOW. With well-photographed material like the BBC's Planet Earth series, the effect is truely spectacular, you have never seen the like.

In actual fact, a 60Hz display DOES NOT at all reproduce the look of film. If reproducing the appearance of film in a theater is your goal, then the way to accomplish that is to use the 120Hz display with the frame interpolation OFF. The result will be 5:5 pulldown and the strobing, flickery look of film in a theater. You don't see that in any display where frame rate conversion has occured (aka 2:3 pulldown or "telecine").

Because although you don't realize it until you have something better, the 60Hz refresh that you have been viewing your entire life has imposed a different and entirely artificial "look" to film that just does not belong there. That's a large part of "getting" 120Hz - when you finally recognize that 60Hz is a compromise, and you can get something better. Then you realize you have to have the upgrade.

I suppose it is possible to crave that familiar and comforting look of telecined material. But if you are going to do so, at least realize you are NOT seeing the true appearance of film, only the much poorer rendition of film possible on a 60Hz display.

Now the true philosophical part: I believe that it's perfectly fine for your Home Theater video to be better than film in the theater. Just as it is perfectly OK for your Home Theater audio to have more distinct channels, lower distortion, more bass, and be more understandable than the typical theater sound. I don't have any particular problem with a display that is better than Thomas A. Edison could manufacture in the 1880's.

Gary has a lot of good points. He is simply saying that to him, it is better. Fine, great, go for it..

On any board we all must remember that when opinions are presented or perceived to be facts, we should be very, very afraid....

It is a fact the Gary sees 120Hz as superior....

It is also a fact that not everyone does....

This does not mean that we should attack each others' opinions as "no connection to reality". These threads and debates are truly educational. I just hate it when people get so wrapped up in their own opinions that they view them as facts and attack others who disagree.

Grow up boys and girls....

Or maybe we should reignite the vinyl versus cd debate

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1061081

240Hz on its way at the end of the year.

If they wanted films to be smoother they would film them at a higher frame rate...

It was the directors choice to film in 2.35:1 ... it was also their choice to use 24 FPS....Please tell me what director has the ability to demand that the studio allow him to shoot a feature length film in something OTHER then 24fps? The studio would shoot him down in a second, because it would mean that the movie couldn't be shown in the vast majority of theaters throughout the country.

To come to the conclusion that directors are all just happening to choose 24fps is folly.

I think the real issue is the artifacts that interpolation can cause. If interpolation worked perfectly everytime, I don't think anybody would complain. But you must remember that anytime you try to add something that isn't there it isn't going to work perfectly.

There is no doubt a 120hz set will play 24fps material better than a 60hz set, all other things being equal. But usually, all other things are not equal. 120hz LCDs are not the pinnacle of HDTV development. Right now, like all TVs, you have to put up with many comprimises when purchasing a 120hz LCD, all of which have been covered extensively in other threads.

Please tell me what director has the ability to demand that the studio allow him to shoot a feature length film in something OTHER then 24fps? The studio would shoot him down in a second, because it would mean that the movie couldn't be shown in the vast majority of theaters throughout the country.

To come to the conclusion that directors are all just happening to choose 24fps is folly.

bingo

Please tell me what director has the ability to demand that the studio allow him to shoot a feature length film in something OTHER then 24fps? The studio would shoot him down in a second, because it would mean that the movie couldn't be shown in the vast majority of theaters throughout the country.

To come to the conclusion that directors are all just happening to choose 24fps is folly.

I agree with that. First time i saw a samsung 650 with Amp set to medium, i just couldn't believe what i had been missing for all these years. It was like looking through a window directly, into the action. I have no doubt, that if the directors was allowed to shoot at a higher frame rate, that they would do it. It just looks so much better and natual. I don't own a 120 HZ tv with AMP or motionflow yet, But i plan on buying one, when i get the money.

But i also think people here should respect, that not everyone has the same opinion.

I won't say that frame interpolation doesn't cause artifacts - it does, and I have seen them.

Everybody has heard of Samsung's infamous "Triple Ball Effect". When watching football, one can glimpse the TBE for a second or so, probably 6-8 times during the game. There is an equivalent to this in movie playback and I saw it on approximately the 12th HD film I viewed with AMP. Let me describe it:

The Blu-Ray version of The Wild Bunch is being shown on a PS3 at 24Hz with AMP=HIGH. During one high contrast scene there are some men riding horses at full gallop and shown silhouetted against the sunset sky, their bodies facing you darkened into shadow. For one brief moment as they move horizontally, you see a fine dark outline preceeding and trailing each rider. So I stop the disk, turn AMP = OFF, and play it again. Instead of the crisp border plus the extra two outlines, you have the original blur typical of rapid movement on film, in high contrast shots. My guess is that while capturing this shot late in the day, the camera shutter was open longer than it normally is in a brightly lit scene, at the cost of an excessive amount of blur.

YES that was a noticeable difference, and one so subtle that I barely noticed it. Knowing under what conditions these artifacts occur, I can now see them probably 3-10 times in the typical action film, by intently examining those areas of those scenes where I now know they are likely. IMHO that is not much of a downside, when the benefit seen from AMP frame interpolation is clearly visible in most scenes.

Adding 3-10 distinctly noticeable artifacts to a single movie is quite unacceptable to me. It’s acceptable to you and whatever makes it so you enjoy your TV better, I say go for it, but AMP is much to distracting for my personal taste and adding on top of that up to 10 instances that I may see further negative affects makes them less appealing. I could not stand using the Motion Enhancers on my XBR5 when I had it.

I only have two reasons for "hating" frame interpolation.

1 - It makes me feel like I want to vomit

2 - It makes a movie look like cheap video (camcorder)

I can't comment on video or video games because I've never seen them with AMP. I don't think there is anything wrong with Gary for liking this either. On the other hand don't try and tell people they "should" like it. You are just going to start a pissing match if you do.

I only have two reasons for "hating" frame interpolation.

1 - It makes me feel like I want to vomit

2 - It makes a movie look like cheap video (camcorder)

I can't comment on video or video games because I've never seen them with AMP. I don't think there is anything wrong with Gary for liking this either. On the other hand don't try and tell people they "should" like it. You are just going to start a pissing match if you do.

Xrox speaks the truth and makes a good point. Nothing is wrong with Gary liking it. I used to like it while playing my PS3 on my 71F and XBR4. But with Film I liked it at first because it was something new and seemed cool. but after watching it for a while I dislike it.
I never use smooth mode on my PRO-151FD. I can spot it right away. Its much much less obvious as say a 71F sammy, but I can still see it.
With my 71F the vapors were a big problem also. The XBR4 I had was much much smoother and created alot less artifacts.

I may have explained myself a little bit wrong, also. When I tell people of what frame interpolation does, I am explaining that it doesn't look like a film anymore and it looks more like a home video, as mentioned before. It may come across as negative, but I am leaving it up to them to decide which way they prefer. I explain why I don’t like it and they end up agreeing based upon their own judgment of what they see. In no way am I trying to make Gary choose to turn off AMP because when it comes down to it, it’s not my display and not my eyes.

I think many of you are attaching too much importance to "the look of film" when what we are really talking about is the quality limitations of film, further distorted with the telecine process. I believe most modern Directors - practically all of them - would prefer to use large film formats, high frame rates, and more expensive and faster fine grained filmstock wherever possible to create the finest, richest, and most detailed images possible. They would do so because that is how one wins audiences and film awards. The use of AMP (or genericly the use of frame interpolation) is not inconsistent with the goal of the utter convincing simulation of reality attempted in such films.

I can think of two quite famous film Directors who would not approve of AMP. Orson Welles developed his own style but was deeply influenced by the highly stylized silent film artists. Stanley Kubrick was notorious for changing aspect ratios between reels to acheive some of his effects - but also invented cameras and lenses to shoot both special FX and candlelit interiors.

Yet there are very few Directors or Cinematographers who are so stylized today. Today's films are CGI extravaganzas and realism is the name of the game. For modern films, I would use AMP=HIGH with no hesitation. For Citizen Kane or Touch of Evil or even for 2005's Sin City I might well choose AMP=OFF.

In case you are wondering, what I concentrate my attention on is the on-screen narrative, and sometimes the Cinematography. Once I had decided that most films were benefitted by AMP being used, I quit worrying about it - enjoying the plentifull benefits without noticing the rare flaws.

I think many of you are attaching too much importance to "the look of film" when what we are really talking about is the quality limitations of film, further distorted with the telecine process. I believe most modern Directors - practically all of them - would prefer to use large film formats, high frame rates, and more expensive and faster fine grained filmstock wherever possible to create the finest, richest, and most detailed images possible. They would do so because that is how one wins audiences and film awards. The use of AMP (or genericly the use of frame interpolation) is not inconsistent with the goal of the utter convincing simulation of reality attempted in such films.

I can think of two quite famous film Directors who would not approve of AMP. Orson Welles developed his own style but was deeply influenced by the highly stylized silent film artists. Stanley Kubrick was notorious for changing aspect ratios between reels to acheive some of his effects - but also invented cameras and lenses to shoot both special FX and candlelit interiors.

Yet there are very few Directors or Cinematographers who are so stylized today. Today's films are CGI extravaganzas and realism is the name of the game. For modern films, I would use AMP=HIGH with no hesitation. For Citizen Kane or Touch of Evil or even for 2005's Sin City I might well choose AMP=OFF.

In case you are wondering, what I concentrate my attention on is the on-screen narrative, and sometimes the Cinematography. Once I had decided that most films were benefitted by AMP being used, I quit worrying about it - enjoying the plentifull benefits without noticing the rare flaws.

I've looked at many of the new 120hz sets and at times they can look very nice and other times I have seen some of the issues others mention. It's great that you're enjoying your new set as that's how it should be but I would advise to temper the enthusiasm a bit as it appears from this thread you seem to think we should all accept it as being great. As you have seen from many responses already in your thread and from many others spread throughout this forum, that simply isn't the case. It's been improved, but still has some work to be done. :)

I think many of you are attaching too much importance to "the look of film" when what we are really talking about is the quality limitations of film, further distorted with the telecine process. I believe most modern Directors - practically all of them - would prefer to use large film formats, high frame rates, and more expensive and faster fine grained filmstock wherever possible to create the finest, richest, and most detailed images possible. They would do so because that is how one wins audiences and film awards. The use of AMP (or genericly the use of frame interpolation) is not inconsistent with the goal of the utter convincing simulation of reality attempted in such films.

I think you have confused you personal preference with what most people like and what directors really intend.
If the movie producers and video engineers of these movies wanted them to look like that they could simply use the type of cameras/format that soap operas do. They dont for a reason. Because it is film.

I can think of two quite famous film Directors who would not approve of AMP. Orson Welles developed his own style but was deeply influenced by the highly stylized silent film artists. Stanley Kubrick was notorious for changing aspect ratios between reels to acheive some of his effects - but also invented cameras and lenses to shoot both special FX and candlelit interiors.

Yet there are very few Directors or Cinematographers who are so stylized today. Today's films are CGI extravaganzas and realism is the name of the game. For modern films, I would use AMP=HIGH with no hesitation. For Citizen Kane or Touch of Evil or even for 2005's Sin City I might well choose AMP=OFF.

In case you are wondering, what I concentrate my attention on is the on-screen narrative, and sometimes the Cinematography. Once I had decided that most films were benefitted by AMP being used, I quit worrying about it - enjoying the plentifull benefits without noticing the rare flaws.


Fare from rare my friend.

I was like you for a while though. I really loved AMP. I thought it was awesome.
Until I experience the motion of a high end plamsa.

I think you have confused you personal preference with what most people like and what directors really intend.
If the movie producers and video engineers of these movies wanted them to look like that they could simply use the type of cameras/format that soap operas do. They dont for a reason. Because it is film.

Fare from rare my friend.

chadmak09, So if somebody made a 60fps film they could bring it to all the theaters across the U.S. and it would play at 60fps?

Can this be done with DVD's and Blu-ray's as well, can they be made to run at 60fps and all the players will play them fine?

Seems like it wouldn't be hard to take 60fps or maybe a better figure 72fps and if a director wanted have the effect of 24fps. The reverse really isn't true as far as I can tell aside from interpolation, no way to magically smooth out panning shots, etc..

chadmak09, So if somebody made a 60fps film they could bring it to all the theaters across the U.S. and it would play at 60fps?

Can this be done with DVD's and Blu-ray's as well, can they be made to run at 60fps and all the players will play them fine?

Seems like it wouldn't be hard to take 60fps or maybe a better figure 72fps and if a director wanted have the effect of 24fps. The reverse really isn't true as far as I can tell aside from interpolation, no way to magically smooth out panning shots, etc..

you are misunderstanding.
what I am saying is that if directors wanted the soap opera look they would shoot the same way a soap opera shoots.

you are misunderstanding.
what I am saying is that if directors wanted the soap opera look they would shoot the same way a soap opera shoots.

I guess I am still misunderstanding as that doesn't answer my questions.

Related to my first question. Not that I like the show, I don't but for example the Sex in the City movie is it the same framerate as the tv show? Could they have made it 60fps and shown it in every theater in the U.S at 60fps?

I'm not sure I know what the soap operat looks is either, is that anything that is 60fps? So does a football game, news broadcast, late night drama all equal "the soap opera" look in your opinion?

And that's the point. The moment the director INTENDS to make a film with more than 24fps, say 30fps or 60fps, then I won't argue the look. BUT, since they have ALWAYS intended to compensate for an obvious deficiency of only 24 frames, I will not try to tamper with that with the Auto Motion or Motion Enhancers.

To me (and maybe only to me) it's like adding heavy Scan Velocity Modulation or strong artificial edge enhancement to the image. It produces an image that I don't like very much.

+1 for 120hz but "real" frames would be better.

Using chadmak's theory, none of us should ever watch movies at home, unless we have a 40 foot screen, stadium seating, and a teenage kid kicking the back of our chair... The director's INTENT is for us to shell out $11 and see it in the theater, right?

Using chadmak's theory, none of us should ever watch movies at home, unless we have a 40 foot screen, stadium seating, and a teenage kid kicking the back of our chair... The director's INTENT is for us to shell out $11 and see it in the theater, right?

No, watch the way you like.
If you like the unnatural feel of the interpolation that Motionflow/AMP gives then use it and have a good time.
Just don't say things like everyone should like this effect or its somehow improving the picture. Thats just wrong.
Most people hate the soapy & vapor-causing effect. It introduces artifacts and makes motion look unnatural.
If you like it then use it and enjoy.

I just think its hilarious that television manufacturers have delevoped these gimmicks and people are buying into them and thinking that this was the way it is "supposed " to look. Nothing could be more far from the truth.

They were develpoed to help combat LCD's poor motion performance, not to somehow "fix" film.

you are misunderstanding.
what I am saying is that if directors wanted the soap opera look they would shoot the same way a soap opera shoots.I think you are misunderstanding his question though. He is asking, if the director did want to shoot it at 60fps (why does it have to be soap opera look?) would he be able to get it played at theaters, or would it have to go straight to video.

He is questioning the thinking that directors want to shoot at fps, vs. being limited to 24fps.

I think you are misunderstanding his question though. He is asking, if the director did want to shoot it at 60fps (why does it have to be soap opera look?) would he be able to get it played at theaters, or would it have to go straight to video.

He is questioning the thinking that directors want to shoot at fps, vs. being limited to 24fps.

Exactly... I really don't think my simple questions above are confusing. I would honestly like to know if it is possible to play movies at 60fps at theaters all over the U.S. I'd also like to know if anything above 24fps like much of the 60fps is the "soap opera look" to him.

Honestly I think football and other sports in 24fps would be a huge step backwards, but that is my personal preference. I simple prefer being immersed in the experience more, hence why I prefer color over black and white, HD over SD, Surround over stereo or even mono, lossless over lossy audio, higher frame rates over lower. Others may disagree which is fine.

I dont' think there is a wrong answer. It is ok to like either, or both. Same thing with CDs vs. LPs etc. Sort of nostalgia taking a role here. Film isn't bad though. There may be directors that like the way what they shot is presented, and they don't want the faster fps/motion.

I dont' think there is a wrong answer. It is ok to like either, or both. Same thing with CDs vs. LPs etc. Sort of nostalgia taking a role here. Film isn't bad though. There may be directors that like the way what they shot is presented, and they don't want the faster fps/motion.

Agreed 100%. I just don't assume all directors happen to specifically desire to shoot at 24fps for the hell of it. My guess is there has to be more to it than that. Why not 25fps for one film or 14fps for another, etc.

The answer is that the vast majority of film projectors can accept only 24fps film, and the shutter over the light source opens twice, and each frame is "double flashed" to 48fps. That's the 1880 Edison 24fps film standard, plus the double flash enhancement and widescreen anamorphic lenses, these represent the only significant changes in 120 years.

If you go to a premier of a major motion picture in Hollywood, you most often see something better than that. Not infrequently you see 70mm film at 48fps. There were at one time about five dozen theaters capable of 70mm projection, now they are rare.

That's an important point => The "look" of the common 35mm film print you have seen most of your life is NOT what many filmmakers had in mind, when they commonly shoot with Super Panavision 70mm cameras. Hollywood got to see the Director's intent, plus a handfull of other theaters equipped for 70mm (Radio City Music Hall and other large venues) but the vast majority of prints were the reduced 35mm size.

The type of distribution film print is determined by the theater which orders it. In many cases, the Interpositive print commonly used for mastering DVDs or Blu-Ray disks is 70mm. The Hollywood premier may use a second Positive struck from the negative. But the interpositive is the 1st generation copy of the original negative, and the interpositive is used to create the production negatives which are used for distribution prints.

Sorry, but the 3rd generation optical copy and the one you fondly accept as the "look of film", is severely compromised. Trying to emulate the corner theater is the wrong goal. Instead you need to try to emulate the look of the 70mm film positive print struck from the original negative and shown in Grauman's Chinese Theater in Hollywood. That's the Director's intent.

1080p at 120Hz is not enough for that to be frank. But it's better than any 60Hz rendition of film.

Exactly... I really don't think my simple questions above are confusing. I would honestly like to know if it is possible to play movies at 60fps at theaters all over the U.S. I'd also like to know if anything above 24fps like much of the 60fps is the "soap opera look" to him.

Honestly I think football and other sports in 24fps would be a huge step backwards, but that is my personal preference. I simple prefer being immersed in the experience more, hence why I prefer color over black and white, HD over SD, Surround over stereo or even mono, lossless over lossy audio, higher frame rates over lower. Others may disagree which is fine.

It may be possible, I am not in the movie Theater/ Directing buisness so I don't know.
My point is that there is a standard. The movie is shot and filmed with the fact that the movie will be displayed by this standard in mind.
Therefore the movie is intended to be played at this standard.

The directors, producers, and video guys optimize everything around this standard. So it is best to be displayed that way IMO.

Do you see what I am saying??

I have no idea how some directors would preferr to shoot. thats a matter of individual taste and preferrence.
what I do know is there needs to be a standard.

Trying to emulate the corner theater is the wrong goal. Instead you need to try to emulate the look of the 70mm film positive print struck from the original negative and shown in Grauman's Chinese Theater in Hollywood. That's the Director's intent.

To me it is a severe stretch to say this. How do we know the director's intent? Some are certainly artists who strive for the look of their art to be a "Chinese Theater" standard. Others, and certainly the big money studios, must recognize that the money is going to be made at the corner theater, and may compensate accordingly to this lower standard. This is the weakness of this premise. We can not assume the directors' intent to be one way or another, so we can not judge 120Hz processing against any such assumption.

Yes, certainly we can make that judgement - and it's just as valid as your assumption that they are actually aiming for the look of a third generation optical copy, shrunk to 35mm, with every other camera frame omitted.

The other large format they can shoot in is IMAX, but those cameras are huge and rarely used. The Panavision cameras can produce reasonable prints in anything from 16mm (still in use although rare) to IMAX.

The last format in general use and one becoming increasingly popular is 1080p24 camcorder, using anamorphic lenses to record 2.35:1 AR onto a 16:9 frame. Based on my viewing this format is particularly suited to a 1080p120 display from a Blu-Ray disk.

It may be possible, I am not in the movie Theater/ Directing buisness so I don't know.
My point is that there is a standard. The movie is shot and filmed with the fact that the movie will be displayed by this standard in mind.
Therefore the movie is intended to be played at this standard.

The directors, producers, and video guys optimize everything around this standard. So it is best to be displayed that way IMO.

Do you see what I am saying??

I have no idea how some directors would preferr to shoot. thats a matter of individual taste and preferrence.
what I do know is there needs to be a standard.

Well that's my point they are making the film based on the standard they have to use if they want to the vast majority of people to be able to watch it. Anything above 24fps can't achieve that goal.

No doubt there needs to be a standard, it is just a shame we are still using such an archaic standard when things could be vastly superior. At least they've evolved in the sound department and we didn't get stuck with black and white. I wasn't around then but maybe some argued against color as well back then claiming color ruins the intent, etc..

Having the ability to use superior frame rates certainly wouldn't hinder people from achieving a juttery lower frame rate look if wanted, but the reverse isn't true you can't turn 24fps into butter smoothness at the vast majority of theater as it is right now. Evolution in theaters would simply increase choices for directors and not leave them so limited as they are now.

When all they had was Black and White movies I think it would be equally as silly to claim that none of the directors would have preferred color.

Well that's my point they are making the film based on the standard they have to use if they want to the vast majority of people to be able to watch it. Anything above 24fps can't achieve that goal.

No doubt there needs to be a standard, it is just a shame we are still using such an archaic standard when things could be vastly superior. At least they've evolved in the sound department and we didn't get stuck with black and white. I wasn't around then but maybe some argued against color as well back then claiming color ruins the intent, etc..

Having the ability to use superior frame rates certainly wouldn't hinder people from achieving a juttery lower frame rate look if wanted, but the reverse isn't true you can't turn 24fps into butter smoothness at the vast majority of theater as it is right now. Evolution in theaters would simply increase choices for directors and not leave them so limited as they are now.

When all they had was Black and White movies I think it would be equally as silly to claim that none of the directors would have preferred color.

I agree. I wish they could change some of the standards.

Especially acpect ratio.
Movies are watched alot more on DVD and blu-ray at home now. They are only at theaters a short time. Yet everything conforms around how it will be displayed at the movie theaters. This is why we have those stupid black bars that everyone hates.

I agree. I wish they could change some of the standards.

Especially acpect ratio.
Movies are watched alot more on DVD and blu-ray at home now. They are only at theaters a short time. Yet everything conforms around how it will be displayed at the movie theaters. This is why we have those stupid black bars that everyone hates.

How about a projection setup with adjustable curtains.. After I win the lotto ;)

I agree. I wish they could change some of the standards.

Especially acpect ratio.
Movies are watched alot more on DVD and blu-ray at home now. They are only at theaters a short time. Yet everything conforms around how it will be displayed at the movie theaters. This is why we have those stupid black bars that everyone hates.

See that is something the directors can control, and they like those wider standards. Not much shot straight in 16:9 apparently. All animation usually is.

No, watch the way you like.
If you like the unnatural feel of the interpolation that Motionflow/AMP gives then use it and have a good time...
Most people hate the soapy & vapor-causing effect. It introduces artifacts and makes motion look unnatural.
If you like it then use it and enjoy.

I just think its hilarious that television manufacturers have delevoped these gimmicks and people are buying into them and thinking that this was the way it is "supposed " to look. Nothing could be more far from the truth.1) What data are you using to make the claim that "most people hate" motionflow?

2) Comments like "I think its hilarious" and "if you like the UNNATURAL feel," hardly seem consistent with yous "watch the way you like" and "if you like it then use and enjoy." Obviously you do have a problem with people liking it.

3) It just grates on those of us who do like Motionflow when those of you who don't break out the "We like watching it the way the director intended" when in fact, you have no idea what the director intended.

I know I am in the "I like Motionflow" camp, but it definitely seems to be that there is a LOT more attacking from the "I hate Motionflow" camp than vice-versa.

..

I know I am in the "I like Motionflow" camp, but it definitely seems to be that there is a LOT more attacking from the "I hate Motionflow" camp than vice-versa.

I have no reason to attack those who don't like it (I'm in the I like it for some material camp). Just a difference of tastes. I don't attack people who like coffee either ;)

I don't attack people who like coffee either ;)I've got the C4 hooked up to a remote detonator at Starbucks...

I've got the C4 hooked up to a remote detonator at Starbucks...

Seattle is screwed then, lol :eek:

I have no reason to attack those who don't like it (I'm in the I like it for some material camp). Just a difference of tastes. I don't attack people who like coffee either ;)

The title of this thread was set up for attacks as nothing is forever anyway and it appears by the OP's first thread that he was leading those in the forum to believe that 120hz is the means to the end to the best that can be had. As we have seen in the electronic industry, nothing lasts forever and before people get use to 120hz there will be new technology coming down the pipeline. This thread has defintiley taking a right turn and become somewhat off topic and still not really sure what the original intent was.


:)

1) What data are you using to make the claim that "most people hate" motionflow?

2) Comments like "I think its hilarious" and "if you like the UNNATURAL feel," hardly seem consistent with yous "watch the way you like" and "if you like it then use and enjoy." Obviously you do have a problem with people liking it.

3) It just grates on those of us who do like Motionflow when those of you who don't break out the "We like watching it the way the director intended" when in fact, you have no idea what the director intended.

I know I am in the "I like Motionflow" camp, but it definitely seems to be that there is a LOT more attacking from the "I hate Motionflow" camp than vice-versa.

I agree. The usual and typical reaction to AMP or other frame interpolation is jaw-dropping and "WOW!"

I spent 3 months deciding on a Samsung LN-T4669F after an unsatisfying Westinghouse LCD experience followed by an unsatisfying Panasonic plasma experience. But the wife walked through Circuit City and in a measured 7 minutes picked out the Samsung LN-T4671F (also 120Hz with AMP) as "the best picture". Later that day at Best Buy she agreed the matte-finish screen worked best in our bright room.

The wife is not any form of A/V hobbiest - she tolerates my hobby, but for her the difference between SD and HD is not worth walking to the front of the house. But the benefits of 120Hz and frame interpolation are plain to see.

Personally and just in my opinion, I think many genuine A/V enthusiasts are simply emotionally invested in the 60Hz displays they already own. Nothing wrong with that - except the practice of bad-mouthing the 120Hz displays.

Two more people (my camping buddies) immediately picked up on the benefits of 120Hz this week. That is 9 of 9 people now. The longest period before anybody "got it" was the 4 movies viewed by one of my movie buddies - but he was the one with the emotional investment in the 60Hz CRT RPTV.

they are making the film based on the standard they have to use if they want to the vast majority of people to be able to watch it.

That's probably a part of it. If you check around cinematography forums, you'll find at least some directors do deliberately choose 24 fps to achieve that certain look. Then again i've read other directors asking for a new standard. Those who choose 24 say viewers prefer it over 60 fps which "looks cheap" to them - I guess directors argue the exact same things.



maybe some argued against color as well back then claiming color ruins the intent, etc..

That's exactly what happened from what I read. Color when it first appeared was seen as too real, but eventually accepted later (obviously).


Tid-bit
There are presently a couple 60fps film formats in use (Showscan (http://www.showscan.com/company_2_2.htm), UHDV (http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/5941.cfm)) but they have not gained wide acceptance. Why? because the experience is so real some people get motion sickness. I like the "reality" of 120hz and it has not made me sick yet but an entire wall of motion? dunno - just contributing an explanation as to why higher frame rates have not become a standard in theatres.

1) What data are you using to make the claim that "most people hate" motionflow?.
Take a poll. See how many actually like the effects and the artifacts/unnatural video look of motion enhansers as opposed to having a set that performs well with motion without creating artifacts.
Some people who are new to display technology might think its cool but the majority of Calibrators and videophiles dislike what it does to film and the artifacts it creates.

2) Comments like "I think its hilarious" and "if you like the UNNATURAL feel," hardly seem consistent with yous "watch the way you like" and "if you like it then use and enjoy." Obviously you do have a problem with people liking it.

How about this:
I think its hilarious that some people like the UNATURAL feel and think its the way all TV should be, but its thier TV and they should Watch what they like , Because what matters is that they like it (not anyone else), so if they like it then they should use and enjoy!!


I know I am in the "I like Motionflow" camp, but it definitely seems to be that there is a LOT more attacking from the "I hate Motionflow" camp than vice-versa.

Just for the record, I don't hate motionflow completly. I think it can do some good with sports and games. Its what it does with Film that I hate.

How bad really is motion on flat panel lcd?

You really need to stop saying "Got it". I've seen it too many times in stores and I personally don't want to "get it". I see no reason to be proud of making your friends "get it" either unless your a salesman peddling your wares.

Gary has been trying to justify to himself why he bought into this G@D awful gimmick that makes movies look so nasty as to be unwatchable. He started a similar thread a few months ago and he got the same reaction.

No matter how many people tell him that it looks just awful...he insists that we are either lying or just don't appreciate his "superior technology". His other rap is that we are "invested" in our inferior technology. I have spent about $1000/month on the hobby since I started way back when. If I wanted one of these nasty screens I could easily purchase one for each room in the house. He does'nt understand that many of us would not take one if it was given for free.

Gary is like those guys who put Fresnel lens in front of their old tube sets to " get that big screen look" They looked awful but you could not tell any owners that.

If this is anything like "smooth" mode on the Kuro like Chad said I have no idea how someone can like that. It makes me want to vomit after 5 minutes. Until movies are actually shot in 60FPS I'll stick with 24fps. So unnatural, I guess some people like fake video look..

Agreed 100%. I just don't assume all directors happen to specifically desire to shoot at 24fps for the hell of it. My guess is there has to be more to it than that. Why not 25fps for one film or 14fps for another, etc.
Why are you guys going on about what you see at a theater?

Have you been to a theater lately? Even at a "good" theater, I find the PQ sorta fuzzy and difficult to watch. Now this may be the fact that my eyes are not what they used to be, but I really don't remember it any differently when I sit down and think about it.

I will take a upscaled DVD over the original theatrical presentation anyday for the better picture quality, and it does not matter what the panel is, plasma or LCD. For the most part except when the wife wants to go and see something on the big screen, I wait until it cmes out on DVD and watch it at home, I find the PQ there much better than the 24fps or whatever is at the theater.

Now for the OP, I have seen really good presentations of HDDVD and Bluray on good flat panels and wonder why you would ever go to the movies again. In defense of Gary, I understand completely, to bad all of the Plasma Fanboys out there can't just let people live with what they bought instead of deriding them for the choice.

Why are you guys going on about what you see at a theater?

Have you been to a theater lately? Even at a "good" theater, I find the PQ sorta fuzzy and difficult to watch. Now this may be the fact that my eyes are not what they used to be, but I really don't remember it any differently when I sit down and think about it.

I will take a upscaled DVD over the original theatrical presentation anyday for the better picture quality, and it does not matter what the panel is, plasma or LCD. For the most part except when the wife wants to go and see something on the big screen, I wait until it cmes out on DVD and watch it at home, I find the PQ there much better than the 24fps or whatever is at the theater.

Now for the OP, I have seen really good presentations of HDDVD and Bluray on good flat panels and wonder why you would ever go to the movies again. In defense of Gary, I understand completely, to bad all of the Plasma Fanboys out there can't just let people live with what they bought instead of deriding them for the choice.

It has nothing to do with LCD or Plasma, it has to do with people liking wow effects and others liking accuracy. Seems to be two big groups these people at AVS, if you like non existant frames and viewing a movie in a way the director never intended then great, just don't be surprised a lot of people think differently. There are TONS of LCD users that don't like it either.

The answer is that the vast majority of film projectors can accept only 24fps film, and the shutter over the light source opens twice, and each frame is "double flashed" to 48fps. That's the 1880 Edison 24fps film standard, plus the double flash enhancement and widescreen anamorphic lenses, these represent the only significant changes in 120 years.


A couple of years ago I went to see a movie while I was out on a business trip and had nothing to do for a couple of days.

The theater was touted as "Digital" and used DMD (DLP) as its projection device. It was somewhat clearer and sharper than the typical showing for a theater IMO.

Should all theaters move this direction?

Any thoughts?

It has nothing to do with LCD or Plasma, it has to do with people liking wow effects and others liking accuracy. Seems to be two big groups these people at AVS, if you like non existant frames and viewing a movie in a way the director never intended then great, just don't be surprised a lot of people think differently. There are TONS of LCD users that don't like it either.

Patrick, I understand, but I think it is just silly. Like Gary I feel that the theaters that show the "films" use tech has been around for over 100 years are out of date with the way tech in our society has advanced.

People who will debate the finer points of the differences between LCD and Plasma seemingly stand and defend the archaic way the vast majority of theaters around the world still do projection.

Patrick, I understand, but I think it is just silly. Like Gary I feel that the theaters that show the "films" use tech has been around for over 100 years are out of date with the way tech in our society has advanced.

People who will debate the finer points of the differences between LCD and Plasma seemingly stand and defend the archaic way the vast majority of theaters around the world still do projection.

I'm in 100% agreement with you guys that the current way movies are shown is horrible, but until then I think it's best to wait for the content, kind of like upscaling DVD players. I think it's great they offer the option but it's just not for me.

Gary has been trying to justify to himself why he bought into this G@D awful gimmick that makes movies look so nasty as to be unwatchable. He started a similar thread a few months ago and he got the same reaction.

No matter how many people tell him that it looks just awful...he insists that we are either lying or just don't appreciate his "superior technology". His other rap is that we are "invested" in our inferior technology. I have spent about $1000/month on the hobby since I started way back when. If I wanted one of these nasty screens I could easily purchase one for each room in the house. He does'nt understand that many of us would not take one if it was given for free.

Gary is like those guys who put Fresnel lens in front of their old tube sets to " get that big screen look" They looked awful but you could not tell any owners that.


Frankly, I was undecided as to whether I should report your offensive post or not. In the end, I decided I would not, because it is the duty of all responsible citizens (and AVS members) to instruct the young and ignorant.

My first "Home Theater" was a CRT front projector and large C-band satellite dish in 1984. Before Audio/video my hobby was audio and I constructed my first "High Fidelity" amplifier and speakers in 1970. I have a front projector/screen combination in my present home. I started watching HDTV on this screen in 2002 shortly after the first digital broadcasts began around here. I recognized the shortcomings of 60Hz displays at least 6 years ago and was fortunate enough to have a projector that would accomodate 72Hz refresh (four years before Kuro), and a HTPC that could be persuaded (after intense effort) to perform reverse telecine and reconstruct the 24Hz signal from a conventional DVD to overcome the all-too-obvious motion flaws in a 60Hz display.

I live in Silicon Valley within convenient driving distance of about a dozen theaters and 70+ screens, including an IMAX and a half-dozen digital projectors and a couple of RealD 3D screens. I know which of the local theaters are employing the best projectionists and have the most up-to-date equipment because I mix with those folks in the annual film festival in San Jose. I have eagerly followed digital projection in the theaters around here through three generations of commercial digital projectors, and I even know which other local theaters bought the replaced early generation equipment.

Make no mistake about it - 35mm 24fps is NOT AT ALL what most movie makers want their films to look like. If there are not any good theaters in your area where you can see a large format film, then spend a little time when you plan your next vacation and look up such a theater and plan an afternoon at the movies to find out what film SHOULD always look like and SELDOM does. Or simply ride the simulator rides at Disneyland, Universal Studios, or other large theme parks - those ultra-realistic images are from large format, high frame rate film.

Before owning my 120Hz LCD, I owned a lesser LCD and a plasma, and returned both for good reasons - the LCD developed a squealing noise from the power supply and could not be repaired, the plasma suffered from unacceptable reflections off the glass screen during daylight use. I didn't have to replace that $2000 Panasonic plasma with a $6000+ Pioneer plasma to know that it too would offer unacceptable performance in my bright sunlit room, because I saw those same reflections at Magnolia HiFi and knew I could never again own a display that presented a reflective glass surface to me. Not that I would ever be so foolish as to spend $6000+ on an HDTV.

FYI 120Hz processing and frame interpolation is not a gimmick and does represent a genuine and significant advance over the Edison 24fps film standard.

You don't have to like it. This is the United States of America and freedom rules. You are free to prefer horses over cars, tin cups over fine china, dried meat over refridgeration, and 24fps film over several better alternatives developed in the last 120 years, including the 120Hz display. You can also prefer DVD over the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray sources I prefer, because it just will not make a lot of difference on an old-style 60Hz display.

What I mean by "get it" is when a person has viewed a 72Hz display or a 120Hz display with a 24Hz video source long enough to finally notice the smooth motion that has never before been present in the 60Hz displays that almost everyone has been viewing since their entire lives. I noticed this in 2002 and spent months of intense effort to overcome "telecine judder". Most people are blissfully insensitive to motion judder which has been present ever since they started watching CRTs.

Frame Interpolation is a seperate topic and one I freely admit is more subject to preferences than simple smooth and natural motion. For someone who thinks that the compromised 3rd generation 35mm shrunken image with half the camera frames missing is "how film should look", because they have no experience with the better implementations of film, your position is understandable. Fans of IMAX and 70mm film prints (or even theme park simulator rides) would also appreciate 120Hz with frame interpolation.

Is it possible that some prefer the "movie" look, as opposed to the "through the window" realism, to stay disconnected from the action that is too upsetting? It is one thing to see a war or murder knowing "it's only a movie". It's another to witness it. Perhaps too much realism and immersion is not a good thing under some circumstances.

I find the motion interpolation to be somewhat helpful with motion resolution during sports and such, but during a movie, it's a no-no.

''because I saw those same reflections at Magnolia HiFi and knew I could never again own a display that presented a reflective glass surface to me''


Just as long as you know a Matte screen washes out the picture and provides a "dull'' look to the image. You also lose contrast and the 3d look. But in the daytime with alot of light in the room i guess i can see. But i could never compromise PQ because of daylight performance. This is why those shiny reflective Samsungs look WAY better than their Matte counterparts.

You guys just don't get it. The title of this thread includes 120Hz. It did not say "AMP" or the more generic "frame interpolation". I have listed the benefits of 120Hz several times in this thread. Now I will discuss 120Hz one more time:

1) 120Hz displays allow the display of both film source (24fps) and video source (30 or 60fps) without the uneven motion commonly referred to as "judder" within AVS. The FRC (frame rate conversion) board within the Samsung display I own even switches between 5:5 and 4:4 or 2:2 modes when a conventional DVD has mixed video and film source material - and many do. This happens because they still shoot film with live actors but sometimes go to 30Hz or 60Hz for video, because the 1080p24 camcorders are only as new as Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, and many professionals have older video gear than that. Alternately sometimes they digitize the film frames for CGI but then use older special effects gear created for video manipulation. (This happens more often than not with Anime' but seems to never be a problem with Dreamworks or Pixar digital animations).

This is the major advantage of a 120Hz display, and I have seen some 120Hz displays that cannot do this - that cannot in fact properly reconstruct the 24Hz source via reverse telecine when playing a conventional DVD, an essential first step to smooth motion. Not all of the Samsungs do this correctly, nor all of the Sonys, and no Mitsubishi or Toshiba I have ever seen. And finally, I have yet to see a Pioneer Kuro plasma that is capable of automatic 24fps to 30fps switching (i.e. changing screen refresh from 60Hz to 72Hz), although all of them allow this to be changed manually.

2) The second and less important benefit of 120Hz is frame interpolation, called AMP (Advanced Motion Processing) by Samsung and MotionFlow by Sony.

I suppose I understand the philosophical position that says that the extra frames are "not real". But in actual fact the vast majority of the video frame IS REAL in the sense that those pixels remained unchanged in the preceeding and following frames, so they are reproduced precisely and correctly in the interpolated frame. Only moving objects have interpolated positions which are a mathematical average of their positions in the preceeding and following frames. I'll be the first to admit that in defiance of all of Newton's Laws of Motion, one can never be certain that a ball for example did not dance randomly around the room in the 1/24th of a second between "real" film frames. But I for one do not think it did and I believe that the average position of the object shown in the interpolated frame is correct - being familiar with and honoring Newton's Laws.

As for the argument that interpolated frames give the images on screen too much clarity, an "unreal" clarity, and one more like video than film - yes that is entirely correct and that is the BENEFIT of frame interpolation that I for one celebrate, because I think that the interpolated 120Hz image is a more accurate depiction of what the Director actually wanted you to see on the theater screen, when he shot his movie with a common Panavision 70mm camera, or even a 1080p24 camcorder. Certainly a more accurate depiction than the 35mm print shown at the average corner theater.

I am absolutely certain however, that the absence of telecine motion judder is the correct depiction of motion - and something that anyone owning a 60Hz display may not even be aware he is missing. In other threads I have been vehemently excoriated for teaching the formerly happy owners of such 60Hz displays how to see telecine judder, which most people are not sensitized to. Therefore I make the offer that anyone who wants to be disatisfied with their existing 60Hz display, be it a cheap LCD or a very expensive plasma, need only send me a PM and I will reply with such instructions.

^^Does that mean motion is good on 120hz lcd?

All 120Hz is doing is multiplying the individual frames in order to fill the full 120Hz refresh rate. With that, you're not going to notice much difference in framerate because of it comparing between a 60Hz and 120Hz LCD. When you talk about Smoothing the motion from the 24fps film stock, the 120Hz does very little. AMP is the one you are talking about and 'loving'.

24fps x 5 equals the 120Hz framerate. Multiplying the same frames will not offer a smoother image like you are stating.

And for the record, we get it. You are preaching to the wrong crowd here. We've made up our own decisions about whether or not we like AMP or Motion Enhancers. Some do while a lot of us don't. We're happy you can enjoy your TV. I hope you can get years and years of enjoyment out of your Sammy, but you need to understand, you're STILL not seeing the movie as the director saw it.

Whether or not the director's intention for 24fps motion is implied directly or indirectly they still have to conform to the equipment they have to use, so they either compensate or embrace it. Regardless, 24fps is what they are. Film judder is what they expect and anticipate. Therefore they ALWAYS have 24fps in their mind as their intention on how it will be seen on the film reel at the movie theaters. They may not necessarily like it, but they still have to conform to it and utilize it as their framerate. The moment they start using 60fps film projectors and things are shot like that, you can argue that the director meant to do something other than 24fps.

Gary, I am trying to decide between 52A550 and 52A630. Will 120Hz and AMP reduce judder I see when watching tv? For example, I see a lot of judder when watching Law and Order. Did they make this program with a 24fps camera? I am not planning to buy any DVD players, blueray or whatever.

Aetherhole, you specificly do not get it because your description of what you incorrectly think I am talking about indicates that YOU do not understand motion judder or telecine judder. Look it up, I'm tired of spoon feeding people who just DO NOT want to understand that 60Hz displays specificly distort film motion (and 1080p24 video source) in a nasty way.

Becaus in fact with 24fps X5 a 120Hz display will actually display the smooth motion that 24fps film (or 1080p24 video) has in the theater, and a 60Hz display NEVER HAS under any circumstances. You are correct that a 120Hz display simply repeats each frame 5 times -that's THE WHOLE POINT, because a 60Hz display produces "judder" by displaying one frame 3 times, the next frame 2 times, the next fram 3 times, ...

It's fine if you don't like interpolated frames, even though I do. You still specificly need a 120Hz display to enjoy 24fps film or video the way it is shown in the theater.

Ramazur, I'm sorry to say that Samsung switched from the Micronas FRC chipset to an in-house solution for the 2008 HDTVs. I can not reccomend any 2008 Samsung models because I know of none that perform reverse telecine correctly.

Ramazur, I'm sorry to say that Samsung switched from the Micronas FRC chipset to an in-house solution for the 2008 HDTVs. I can not reccomend any 2008 Samsung models because I know of none that perform reverse telecine correctly.

I appreciate the info. Can you tell us which brands and 2008 models do it correctly?

I appreciate the info. Can you tell us which brands and 2008 models do it correctly?

Buy a Kuro and you won't have to worry about which LCD does it correctly. :)

Well, I'm with you on the welcome benefits of 120Hz insofar as it allows the removal of that dreaded telecine pull-down "judder." (But let's not forget that, aside from that video transfer artifact, film itself is subject to it's own type of judder...)

But here we part...



As for the argument that interpolated frames give the images on screen too much clarity, an "unreal" clarity, and one more like video than film - yes that is entirely correct and that is the BENEFIT of frame interpolation that I for one celebrate, because I think that the interpolated 120Hz image is a more accurate depiction of what the Director actually wanted you to see on the theater screen, when he shot his movie with a common Panavision 70mm camera, or even a 1080p24 camcorder. Certainly a more accurate depiction than the 35mm print shown at the average corner theater.



Some maybe, but not others. I'm in the film business myself (Sound Design/editing but spent years in the picture side - production and post production). I know plenty of people involved in making films, and have read plenty of interviews as well, wherein the film maker has lauded the "look of film." (Spielberg being a big name who dislikes the "too clear" look of HD for movies).

The "video look" has always been dreaded by practically everyone I know and have worked with. Young directors especially like to graduate from shooting on video, including hi-def, to film because they don't want their images to look like video....even hi-definition realistic video." (I just finished a film with a director who went on about just this issue).

They prize the look and artistic feel of film. Video feels cheap and de-romanticised. And that's very much the feel I get when I see movies on displays using the motion adaption/frame interpolation settings. It's super clear and sharp, but feels cheaper: looks more realistic but simultaneously less dramatically believable.

Much like standing on a film set observing the actors before it's committed to film. A more realistic image is not necessarily more convincing. That's not Luddite talk, it's just acknowledging something about the marriage of art and technology and the role of the "artist" and of viewer subjectivity. (I should add in here that I've noticed this issue with lots of people viewing Blu Ray shown on the new LCD screens using the frame interpolation. For instance at a home show not long ago I sat in the Sony trailor watching Casino Royal on Blu Ray, the Sony LCD obviously employing the frame interpolation for that super-clear look, watching the public's reaction to the image. I was quite amazed to see just how many comments there were that started "Oh my God, do you see how CLEAR that looks? It's like they are right there..." which then graduated to "But, it looks, I don't know, kind of strange. Kind of too clear or something. It's a bit too weird." I've seen plenty of "newbies" notice the oddness of the images).

Now the limitations of film aren't necessarily a ball of fun. You do have to work your shots within the limitations of the rather low-sample-rate of film to avoid too much blur (or juddery movement). And perhaps there will be a process that ameliorates some blur from film that still retain that special cinematic feel. But the attempts I've seen so far have the deficits I've mentioned. Certainly there are film-makers who have sought more realism to the experience, with 3D, IMAX, better film stocks etc. But none that I know are chasing the particular "HD-video look" of films as processed by these new LCD displays.

And it may well not be possible to get a marriage of clear-motion and "film look." (Although the last time I saw Showscan I remember it seemed to get close to that ideal).

But as one who obsessively chased image realism for consumer displays for years, I realised just as super-vivid realism starts to become possible that I didn't necessarily want it for movies, because the effect was to actually take me out of the drama and otherworldly vibe of films. I find myself actually less able to believe some of the drama on screen and prefer a more cinematic feel for film. And, as I said, plenty of folks I know in the business prize the look of film.

When I referred to the differences between the 60Hz and the 120Hz televisions, I failed to mention that it was only for 30fps or 60fps content that there would be very little difference. Believe me, I full-well understand the difference between the telecine judder and the 24fps judder. The 3-2 pulldown was indeed annoying and the 120Hz refresh rate allowed the LCDs to be able to show the 24fps films as they should be viewed. I am all for the 120Hz displays to allow this, but what I'm not for is the Smooth Motion or AMP that you are using on the "high" setting, which introduces things that are NOT supposed to be there, extra frames for one and artifacting, like I mentioned before, for another. We can agree to disagree on that because it's just a personal preference.

If you feel that you are 'spoon feeding' us, get over it and go somewhere else. Like I said, it seems you are preaching to the wrong crowd. A lot of the people who come to AVS are looking for ways to get the best possible picture and the most accurate picture as close to the director's intent. AMP and Smooth Motion most certainly do just the opposite of producing something accurate and close to the director's intent (for film-based material, of course).

Here's a vote in favor of AMP, used in moderation (Samsung LN46A750). From what I've seen, I like it on most movies. On first seeing it, my first reaction was "neat!". Then (like many) - "hey, this looks like a soap opera...weird....not sure I like this." Then it progressed to, " I feel a little seasick." Then I turned AMP down from high to mid, and continued watching. After an hour or so, maybe of getting used to it, I came to prefer it. I think my initial concern re the "soap opera" effect was just the association, but once I got past that I appreciated AMP. The picture was still fine going back to no-smoothing, but judder became *very* noticeable. I wonder if my brain had been trained.

I'd be very curious to see how a source actually shot at 60 Hz, say, compared to smoothing of 24 or 30 fps material (does anyone know of any?)

Another comment - in analogy to high end audio, where an oft-stated goal is to sound as much as possible as a "live" performance, I can't help think the analog for video would include producing as smooth a motion as possible - i.e., what you see in life with your own eyes. Until we get higher-fps sources, why then is AMP/smoothing such an "abomination" as some say, so long as it does not introduce actual artifacts? And if some believe artifacts are introduced, I'm still not sure what they are (I don't see any) - please enlighten.

Methinks the Star56's and Chad's of the world are a bit dogmatic.

By the way, I hear a lot about blurring on LCD's, but I just don't see anything I'd call "blurring" on this TV. Can someone (maybe a plasma-head?) please call out a source/scene where that's prevalent on a good LCD?

I'd be very curious to see how a source actually shot at 60 Hz, say, compared to smoothing of 24 or 30 fps material (does anyone know of any?)


If you watched the Olympics I think some if not all was 720p60. Otherwise I have found that off the shelf 60fps media is hella hard to find.

I appreciate the info. Can you tell us which brands and 2008 models do it correctly?


The best information last year was at www.hdguru.com. Gary Merson writes a summary HDTV test article most years for a major A/V magazine.

If you prefer online reviewers, then look for anyone who specificly uses the Silicon Optix HQV test disk.
That has a very good test for reverse telecine.

To put this problem in perspective:

The 2008 Samsung 120Hz sets do reportedly have a newer/better implementation of AMP.

The reverse telecine problem will not matter if you use Blu-Ray or HD-DVD players at 24Hz. Likewise there are a number of high-end standard DVD players that perform reverse telecine - with one of those, you won't miss the capability in the TV itself.

The Law and Order problem you mention is also present on the 2007 120Hz models of Samsung and Sony. The frame interpolation breaks down (runs out of video processing bandwidth) with the 720p60 signal and a handheld camera, because the "shakeycam" causes every pixel of every frame to differ from the next frame, as if it were a camera pan. The problem is worsened if your local digital broadcaster is stealing bits for subchannels, it reduces the HD bandwidth. I view Law and Order with AMP=OFF because of this issue. You learn to recognize handheld camera work real quick once you understand what it is....

-snip-
By the way, I hear a lot about blurring on LCD's, but I just don't see anything I'd call "blurring" on this TV. Can someone (maybe a plasma-head?) please call out a source/scene where that's prevalent on a good LCD?

The 120Hz LCD's have way way less blur than other LCD models. The panel specifications have improved a lot, and the infamous "sample and hold" blur that some people are sensitive to on LCDs is halved when you hold the frame for 1/120th of a second versus 1/60th of a second.

Blur can still be seen with some film source material because depending upon the length of time the shutter was open, the blur is recorded on film proportional to the amount of movement. The film photographers tend to use bright lighting to shorten exposure times to reduce blur.

The other factor at work is more and more material originates as video source, and the so-called "electronic shutter" is very quick and records minimal blur. That's one of the two primary reasons for the clarity of a video signal on a video display. The second reason being no second process step is required to digitize the image, because 1080i or 1080p HD video is captured in the "native resolution" of the display.

Thanks again, Gary.

is it possible that some prefer the "movie" look, as opposed to the "through the window" realism, to stay disconnected from the action that is too upsetting? It is one thing to see a war or murder knowing "it's only a movie". It's another to witness it. Perhaps too much realism and immersion is not a good thing under some circumstances.

lmao

The 3-2 pulldown was indeed annoying and the 120Hz refresh rate allowed the LCDs to be able to show the 24fps films as they should be viewed. I am all for the 120Hz displays to allow this, but what I'm not for is the Smooth Motion or AMP that you are using on the "high" setting, which introduces things that are NOT supposed to be there, extra frames for one and artifacting, like I mentioned before, for another

AMEN!!

I am all for 120hz.
But the AMP and Motionflow should not be used for film.
It looks too much like home video or a soap opera.

I for one do not like a movie to look like a play or opera that someone videotaped. It makes a good movie look like a cheap home movie.
It reminds me of that new movie "be kind and rewind" . Where Jack black and Mos-def make a home movie of ghostbusters and Rush hour. thats how ghostbusters looks with AMP or motionflow. too home-movie-ish.
It does not look good to me.
I used them for sports but thats it.

The pioneer has a similar thing called smooth mode. Which is by far the worse purecinema mode IMO.
The good thing about the Pioneer is that this smoothing is simply not needed.
The Kuro's are superb with motion and need no enhansers.
I guess the Smooth mode is to satify those who like the enhansment artifacts.

Is "be kind and rewind" done at 60fps? I was thinking of checking it out even though I don't care for Jack Black.

If you watched the Olympics I think some if not all was 720p60. Otherwise I have found that off the shelf 60fps media is hella hard to find.

Lol, I can imagine how unnatural the Olympics would look at 24fps. Definitely would make it much harder for the judges to make some calls if all they could see in was 24fps. "ugh, they both teleported to the wall at the same time it seems" :eek:

720p60 is often used for live sports broadcasts. The ATSC standard also permits 720p24 and 720p30 modes, and recorded network programming is often found at the lower frame rates on the 720p networks. 720p60 is often the source of that commonest HD artifact called "macroblocking" during camera pans. During a ball game, when the camera tracks the ball (i.e. a camera pan), you will sometimes see the screen background drop back into visible macrblocks (areas of 16X16 pixels). This happens with all HDTVs, it is a limitation of the broadcast standard - and before you ask, has nothing to do with frame interpolation.

1080i60 is the commonest HD mode, although the ATSC standard allows 1080p24 and 1080p30, I have never seen those modes specified when I hit the INFO button on my display. My speculation would be that 1080p24 and 1080p30 would not be compatible with the older interlaced analog HD RPTVs, which have resolution scalers that are fairly primitive by present day standards.

Is "be kind and rewind" done at 60fps?

Perhaps it's telling, but I've never seen one single 720p60 blu-ray (didn't look at DVDs though). Not even Planet earth or any documentary for that matter. And i've only seen scraps of 60fps material on the whole entire internet. I never knew how extremely rare this stuff is! afaik.

This one clip is pretty (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vuze.com%2Fdetails%2FTGKVWBM5YZNJPTG72I T6PNC2X2QUEFFP.html&ei=ZRi_SLXuL6fMggTb3YBS&usg=AFQjCNERXReZwKdfjeZZrRJzX8W6kq4deQ&sig2=QZO-Gy6vLIw4rZJGEQb4Jg) if you d/l and play it with Windoze media player (flash player cant hold a steady frame rate to save its life) - anyone can see the clarity & fluidity of 60fps @60hz in this clip. I'ts just like watching in person to me.

Perhaps it's telling, but I've never seen one single 720p60 blu-ray (didn't look at DVDs though). Not even Planet earth or any documentary for that matter. And i've only seen scraps of 60fps material on the whole entire internet. I never knew how extremely rare this stuff is! afaik.

This one clip is pretty (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vuze.com%2Fdetails%2FTGKVWBM5YZNJPTG72I T6PNC2X2QUEFFP.html&ei=ZRi_SLXuL6fMggTb3YBS&usg=AFQjCNERXReZwKdfjeZZrRJzX8W6kq4deQ&sig2=QZO-Gy6vLIw4rZJGEQb4Jg) if you d/l and play it with Windoze media player (flash player cant hold a steady frame rate to save its life) - anyone can see the clarity & fluidity of 60fps @60hz in this clip. I'ts just like watching in person to me.

Cool, I will check it out at home. Thank you.


From the link:
This was done to maximise definition in movment (note the lack of judder)

Exactly why I wish content was filmed well above 24fps to avoid the unaturally feeling of 24fps. Buttery smooth pans, etc..

Motion interpolation is an ugly look. I doubt current computer technology will ever be able to do such a complex task and make it look real with anything more than a helicopter pan over a landscape in Planet Earth. I've always enjoyed the film look, and I'm kind of annoyed that I had to pay a premium for some high tech gimmick with my 650, when I just want 5:5 pulldown, but what are you gonna do :(

Ummmmm, if you set AMP to "Off" but leave Game mode Off, you will have 120hz mode with 5:5 pulldown but no interpolation. This trick works on Sony TVs too, set MotionFlow to "Off" but leave Game mode Off and you'll have 120hz mode with only the 5:5 pulldown and no interpolation.

I will check it out at home.

You might have to register, then play it from your personal library to get WMP to play it. Software base plug-ins (quicktime/flash) frankly suck. WMP uses the power of your graphics card.

You might have to register, then play it from your personal library to get WMP to play it. Software base plug-ins (quicktime/flash) frankly suck. WMP uses the power of your graphics card.

Well I'm running a new iMac so I'll see if possible. If not well I've experienced higher framerates before and it absolutely rocks.

lmao

Brilliant.

Is it possible that some prefer the "movie" look, as opposed to the "through the window" realism, to stay disconnected from the action that is too upsetting? It is one thing to see a war or murder knowing "it's only a movie". It's another to witness it. Perhaps too much realism and immersion is not a good thing under some circumstances.

Speechless.

Speechless.

There is some merit to what he is saying.

AMEN!!

I am all for 120hz.
But the AMP and Motionflow should not be used for film.
It looks too much like home video or a soap opera.

I for one do not like a movie to look like a play or opera that someone videotaped. It makes a good movie look like a cheap home movie.
It reminds me of that new movie "be kind and rewind" . Where Jack black and Mos-def make a home movie of ghostbusters and Rush hour. thats how ghostbusters looks with AMP or motionflow. too home-movie-ish.
It does not look good to me.
I used them for sports but thats it.

The pioneer has a similar thing called smooth mode. Which is by far the worse purecinema mode IMO.
The good thing about the Pioneer is that this smoothing is simply not needed.
The Kuro's are superb with motion and need no enhansers.
I guess the Smooth mode is to satify those who like the enhansment artifacts.

That's nice.

That's nice.

says auditor55

AMEN!!

I am all for 120hz.
But the AMP and Motionflow should not be used for film.
It looks too much like home video or a soap opera.

I for one do not like a movie to look like a play or opera that someone videotaped. It makes a good movie look like a cheap home movie.
It reminds me of that new movie "be kind and rewind" . Where Jack black and Mos-def make a home movie of ghostbusters and Rush hour. thats how ghostbusters looks with AMP or motionflow. too home-movie-ish.
It does not look good to me.
I used them for sports but thats it.

The pioneer has a similar thing called smooth mode. Which is by far the worse purecinema mode IMO.
The good thing about the Pioneer is that this smoothing is simply not needed.
The Kuro's are superb with motion and need no enhansers.
I guess the Smooth mode is to satify those who like the enhansment artifacts.

Very helpful, too. One thing is not clear: What is enhansment?

Very helpful, too. One thing is not clear: What is enahansment?

"enhancement"

Didn't take much to figure that one out. :cool:

I haven't had the chance to read all thread, and I already asked this question in another thread and no answer, perhaps I get lucky here and someone reads my question and knows the answer.

I bought my first HDTV (Samsung LN46A630 120 hz) Friday before Superbowl.

I've never own a HDTV before, but I have seen 120hz in action when I went to stores (like Best Buy, HHGREGG, etc)

My questions is:

Is the 120hz in the TV forever?

What I mean is that lately I am starting to notice like it's "going away". Or is it because I am already so used to having turn on "HIGH" almost all the time, and now I cannot see the difference.

Before, when I purchased my TV, I can actually notice when watching a movie for example, and having 120hz turned off and then I turn on to "HIGH". I can see the difference.

The "live" motion (like a soap opera, home video) in the movie.

But now, when I turn off and on again, I can barely see the difference anymore.

Perhaps I am so used to this now.

Or is it that in reality, 120hz does not last forever?

Anyone can help me out here?

120Hz lasts forever, and you can't turn it on or off. Your 120Hz screen always refreshes at 120Hz, just as a 60Hz plasma or LCD is fixed at 60Hz.

What can be turned on or off, is the frame interpolation that synthesizes an extra frame between source frames.

After 15 months of owning a Samsung 120Hz set, I run frame interpolation all the time, although I do switch it down to "Low" sometimes for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD and DVD sources (all of which play back at 24Hz). I can't stand the clunky motion and muddled images of a 60Hz LCD or plasma very long, it drives me nuts.

The good news is that a new generation of 120Hz-capable front projectors are now appearing, and frame interpolation can now be had in your home theater where the benefits are very clearly visible, for less than $2500. The first two such projectors are the Panasonic PT-AE3000 and the Epson 6500UB.

These two projectors have the most advanced frame interpolation engines on the market right now, each is capable of accepting a 24Hz source signal and generating FOUR intermediate frames, each a quarter step from the last, and without visible artifacts. I am presently scheming to get one for Christmas to upgrade my 6-year old projector that I must mamnually switch between 60Hz and 72Hz refresh using my HTPC.

When these new frame interpolation engines are incorporated into LCD flat panels, we are in for another quantuum leap in motion resolution and performance. I can't wait.

I haven't had the chance to read all thread, and I already asked this question in another thread and no answer, perhaps I get lucky here and someone reads my question and knows the answer.

I bought my first HDTV (Samsung LN46A630 120 hz) Friday before Superbowl.

I've never own a HDTV before, but I have seen 120hz in action when I went to stores (like Best Buy, HHGREGG, etc)

My questions is:

Is the 120hz in the TV forever?

What I mean is that lately I am starting to notice like it's "going away". Or is it because I am already so used to having turn on "HIGH" almost all the time, and now I cannot see the difference.

Before, when I purchased my TV, I can actually notice when watching a movie for example, and having 120hz turned off and then I turn on to "HIGH". I can see the difference.

The "live" motion (like a soap opera, home video) in the movie.

But now, when I turn off and on again, I can barely see the difference anymore.

Perhaps I am so used to this now.

Or is it that in reality, 120hz does not last forever?

Anyone can help me out here?

yea, what you are speaking of is the artificial tampering that the amp does. 120hz cannot be noticed and does not stop lcd blurr.
It destroys your film quality.
You have gotten so used to its artificial effects and it tampering with the quality of film, that you have forgotten how film is supposed to look.
If you were to go back to watching normal Television for a while, you would notice the change next time you see the interpolation tampering.

120Hz lasts forever, and you can't turn it on or off. Your 120Hz screen always refreshes at 120Hz, just as a 60Hz plasma or LCD is fixed at 60Hz.

What can be turned on or off, is the frame interpolation that synthesizes an extra frame between source frames.

After 15 months of owning a Samsung 120Hz set, I run frame interpolation all the time, although I do switch it down to "Low" sometimes for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD and DVD sources (all of which play back at 24Hz). I can't stand the clunky motion and muddled images of a 60Hz LCD or plasma very long, it drives me nuts.

The good news is that a new generation of 120Hz-capable front projectors are now appearing, and frame interpolation can now be had in your home theater where the benefits are very clearly visible, for less than $2500. The first two such projectors are the Panasonic PT-AE3000 and the Epson 6500UB.

These two projectors have the most advanced frame interpolation engines on the market right now, each is capable of accepting a 24Hz source signal and generating FOUR intermediate frames, each a quarter step from the last, and without visible artifacts. I am presently scheming to get one for Christmas to upgrade my 6-year old projector that I must mamnually switch between 60Hz and 72Hz refresh using my HTPC.

When these new frame interpolation engines are incorporated into LCD flat panels, we are in for another quantuum leap in motion resolution and performance. I can't wait.

Thanks for the info. It makes sense.

yea, what you are speaking of is the artificial tampering that the amp does. 120hz cannot be noticed and does not stop lcd blurr.
It destroys your film quality.
You have gotten so used to its artificial effects and it tampering with the quality of film, that you have forgotten how film is supposed to look.
If you were to go back to watching normal Television for a while, you would notice the change next time you see the interpolation tampering.

Maybe I'll do that and see what happens.

Thanks!

120Hz lasts forever, and you can't turn it on or off. Your 120Hz screen always refreshes at 120Hz, just as a 60Hz plasma or LCD is fixed at 60Hz.

What can be turned on or off, is the frame interpolation that synthesizes an extra frame between source frames.

After 15 months of owning a Samsung 120Hz set, I run frame interpolation all the time, although I do switch it down to "Low" sometimes for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD and DVD sources (all of which play back at 24Hz). I can't stand the clunky motion and muddled images of a 60Hz LCD or plasma very long, it drives me nuts.
The good news is that a new generation of 120Hz-capable front projectors are now appearing, and frame interpolation can now be had in your home theater where the benefits are very clearly visible, for less than $2500. The first two such projectors are the Panasonic PT-AE3000 and the Epson 6500UB.

These two projectors have the most advanced frame interpolation engines on the market right now, each is capable of accepting a 24Hz source signal and generating FOUR intermediate frames, each a quarter step from the last, and without visible artifacts. I am presently scheming to get one for Christmas to upgrade my 6-year old projector that I must mamnually switch between 60Hz and 72Hz refresh using my HTPC.

When these new frame interpolation engines are incorporated into LCD flat panels, we are in for another quantuum leap in motion resolution and performance. I can't wait.

man,

Its a sad day when consumers are so vonerable to marketing gimmicks that they actually consider these gimmicks an advancement for all display technologys.

When did it get this way???

Why are consumers so "Trendy"?

When someone is so used to motion gimmicks that normal motion seems "clunky" to them, its an issue.

My advise would be to check out the new Neopdp from panasonic.

IT has perfect motion resolution and doesn't need to interpolate in order to do it. This should be what all display technologys strive for.
This maintains film quality and gives perfect motion resolution.

I played with AMP on a Samsung 950 a couple weeks ago for a while just to see if my feelings on it had changed at all.

If anything, I disliked it even more than I had prior. I find almost nothing appealing about it. Another thing I noticed is that whenever there are CGI special effects within a scene, they look completely disconnected from everything else. Absolutely terrible.

If panning judder could be eliminated without mucking up everything else, I'd probably go for it. But I've yet to see such a thing.

I played with AMP on a Samsung 950 a couple weeks ago for a while just to see if my feelings on it had changed at all.

If anything, I disliked it even more than I had prior. I find almost nothing appealing about it. Another thing I noticed is that whenever there are CGI special effects within a scene, they look completely disconnected from everything else. Absolutely terrible.

If panning judder could be eliminated without mucking up everything else, I'd probably go for it. But I've yet to see such a thing.

I agree as it's definitely not a gimmick that I would ever pay extra for and would likely never turn on. If they start incorporating it into more sets then it should always be something that can be turned turn off.

Frame interpolation may be criticized for the unwanted artifacts.

The logical test that shows the idea is sound is this: Let's assume that the very first movie and TV cameras as well as the TV sets were able to operate at, say, 1000 frames per second. Would anyone be asking today to slow it down to 24 because of "director's intent" and other artsy stuff? Is so, I would like to know why.

IT has perfect motion resolution and doesn't need to interpolate in order to do it. This should be what all display technologys strive for.
This maintains film quality and gives perfect motion resolution.

nope

i really don't think you understand interpolation. "perfect motion resolution" and what you call "film quality" (i.e. film judder) are diametrically opposed. its incorrect to claim frame repetition is any way superior to natural progressive motion (interpolation) - except in that you prefer it. the two most obvious benefits of progressive interpolated motion being: 1) reduction of hold time blur and 2) elimination of judder, both of which destroy motion resolution. in addition, as far as eye interaction goes, ill just say its more natural - there are a number of reasons.

you can't have cake and eat it too - i like film judder for cinematic effect (sometimes) but have no problem admitting its limitations. being a preference doesn't necessarily make it superior in any way other than you prefer it. in reality, there is not one other area that "film quality" is equal to natural progressive motion.

When someone is so used to motion gimmicks that normal motion seems "clunky" to them, its an issue.

i'd put it like this:

when someone is so used to "film quality" that normal motion seem "soap" to them, its a preference.

when someone is so used to "film quality" that normal motion seem "soap" to them, its a preference.

Normal vision is "soap" and I like the way it is. If one day I woke up with an implant that would make me see things at 24fps I would scream and run to the nearest place where I could have it removed.

Normal vision is "soap" and I like the way it is. If one day I woke up with an implant that would make me see things at 24fps I would scream and run to the nearest place where I could have it removed.

That may be your judgement but it's not mine. The way I look at it is like a painting an artist did and then someone comes along and does something that changes the way it was originally intended to look. If it changes the artists rendition and you prefer the original is that a good thing then? :D

Frame interpolation may be criticized for the unwanted artifacts.

The logical test that shows the idea is sound is this: Let's assume that the very first movie and TV cameras as well as the TV sets were able to operate at, say, 1000 frames per second. Would anyone be asking today to slow it down to 24 because of "director's intent" and other artsy stuff? Is so, I would like to know why.

If the director's intent was to film at 24fps, then yes. Any filmmaker today can film digitally at 60Hz if they so choose. It's quite simple to do.

But all film is art, and yes, I prefer to watch a movie the way it was meant to look, whether filmed at 24/60/120/1000, or whatever.

If you were going to view the Mona Lisa in person, and instead of finding DaVinci's painting, you were greeted by a photograph of a person in a wig and wearing ancient clothing and doing their best to pose exactly as the person in the painting did, would you appreciate it for its "realism" or would you ask for your money back?

And yeah, if I woke up and saw the entire world as an old painting, I'd be pretty upset, too. But that has nothing to do with art and my appreciation of it.

Any filmmaker today can film digitally at 60Hz if they so choose. It's quite simple to do.

not if they want anybody to watch their film. cinema projectors distributed around the world do not have the playback capability. currently i read there is a push to include higher frame rates (up to 60) for the upcomming digital transition of movie theaters. its being hotly debated in the movie community apparently - some older directers and cinematographers wanting to maintain the 24fps status quo and newer directors favoring new standards to open up new creative avenues.

not if they want anybody to watch their film. cinema projectors distributed around the world do not have the playback capability. currently i read there is a push to include higher frame rates (up to 60) for the upcomming digital transition of movie theaters. its being hotly debated in the movie community apparently - some older directers and cinematographers wanting to maintain the 24fps status quo and newer directors favoring new standards to open up new creative avenues.

Yes, that's true. But they could still go directly to DVD/Blu-Ray/television, or, alternatively, produce two masters that run at different rates if it was that important to them. And lots of theaters already have digital projectors in place. Most of the theaters around here have at least one or two.

nope

i really don't think you understand interpolation. "perfect motion resolution" and what you call "film quality" (i.e. film judder) are diametrically opposed. its incorrect to claim frame repetition is any way superior to natural progressive motion (interpolation) - except in that you prefer it. the two most obvious benefits of progressive interpolated motion being: 1) reduction of hold time blur and 2) elimination of judder, both of which destroy motion resolution. in addition, as far as eye interaction goes, ill just say its more natural - there are a number of reasons.

you can't have cake and eat it too - i like film judder for cinematic effect (sometimes) but have no problem admitting its limitations. being a preference doesn't necessarily make it superior in any way other than you prefer it. in reality, there is not one other area that "film quality" is equal to natural progressive motion.



i'd put it like this:

when someone is so used to "film quality" that normal motion seem "soap" to them, its a preference.

Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect.
There is a HUGE difference between Repeating original frames and ADDING FAKE COMBINATION (of before and after) FRAMES.

The original frames actually EXIST IN THE CONTENT!!!!

Interpolated frames DO NOT!!!

THIS IS TAMPERING!!!

This is not the way the countless film producers and video experts that put their time into optimizing the video wants the film to be seen.

All the work on the high motion scenes that they did is void when you let your TV insert fake frames into the movie.

And whether you have noticed it or not, Judder has been in movies for a long long time. Some of it is supposed to be there and the movie producers took that into account when they optimized the scenes.

Tampering with the film content may look cool to you but its not the way its intended. Period.
It turns a great movie into a wierd looking home movie.
Some may like this and consider it cool. and if they want to watch this way, then more power to them.
But to claim that its a technological advancement for all display technologys is incorrect.
Its simply LCD's way of fooling your brain into missing the blurr.

Incorrect Incorrect Incorrect.
There is a HUGE difference between Repeating original frames and ADDING FAKE COMBINATION (of before and after) FRAMES.


"incorrect" is your favorite word but i'm sorry, you completely missed my point. once again you are confusing your preference with fact.

i am not arguing that some directors and movie goers prefer film judder (as if they had a choice). but what you can not claim is that the image quality of 24fps @48 or 60hz is superior in terms of motion resolution, flicker, judder, blur, or just about any parameter you want to examine - its not natural which is ok with me - i think you understand that.

And whether you have noticed it or not, Judder has been in movies for a long long time. Some of it is supposed to be there and the movie producers took that into account when they optimized the scenes.

"took that into account" - like they have a choice?



Some may like this and consider it cool. and if they want to watch this way, then more power to them.

oh c'mon say what you really feel


But to claim that its a technological advancement for all display technologys is incorrect.
Its simply LCD's way of fooling your brain into missing the blurr.

technically interpolation is an advancement if you like natural motion - though it may not be your preference. it has been around for years though in standards conversion - you just never noticed it. There is no "fooling" - sample and hold blur is reduced.

Panning judder is something that I could do without, like I said above. It's not quite "artistic intent" when many directors and cinematographers go to great lengths to reduce it.

But we've yet to encounter a technology that can completely eliminate it without compromising the other aspects of 24fps motion.

1. That may be your judgement but it's not mine.

2. The way I look at it is like a painting an artist did and then someone comes along and does something that changes the way it was originally intended to look. If it changes the artists rendition and you prefer the original is that a good thing then? :D

!. This is not a question of judgment. Our vision does not have any frame rate and, therefore, judder or any other effect that may be caused by a sample-and-hold device such as a projector operating at 24fps. My vision is smooth in panning. How is yours?

2. Using analogies is a trick I don't fall for because it is a diversion from the original subject and this subject is not that complicated so that would have to use a simpler analogy to discuss it.

!. This is not a question of judgment. Our vision does not have any frame rate and, therefore, judder or any other effect that may be caused by a sample-and-hold device such as a projector operating at 24fps. My vision is smooth in panning. How is yours?

Studies that I've read have shown that the average human can not discern more than 60-70fps, so in effect, we each see the world at our own "frame rate".

And again, you're arguing artistic intent vs reality. Art is not always meant to look realistic. Why was Band of Brothers not shot at 60Hz? It was not released theatrically. Many television shows are shot at 24fps.

I've been reading this thread and have to laugh at some of the absurdity.

For one, many people, including myself, are purists in audio and video and the thought of watching the content in a manner in which it was not meant to be is just not right. Now I am well aware that there are no perfect playback or display devices in video, but at the same time, we want to watch a movie in as "direct" a way as possible. Adding frames to a movie is just stupid in my opinion. Why in the world would you ever want to tamper with a movie in such a henious way? There is absolutely NO WAY to insert frames that are in any way correct, becasue any frame you insert is by definition INCORRECT. You are no longer watching the movie on the disc at this point.

Second, how are any of you actually stating we don't know what the director's intent was? This is almost laughable to me. The director's intent is..........on the disc! What many posters seem to be talking about is what the director may have done on a sunny day in July if he had the a super duper film machine that could make all his or her movie dreams come true. So if a director would have loved to make a movie in 3D but didn't, and there was a 3D creation circuit in the tv, then flipping that circuit on will get you closer to the director's intent? It will not. We can sit and wax poetic all day long about what we THINK the director intended, but why would we do that when we know for certain what the director intended you to see? All the frames in the movie were shot and put on a disc, adding anything and claiming it's what the director intended is just........whatever, I can't believe this is even a actual topic of discussion.

If you like AMP, great, but in no way does it have anything to do with director intention, in any way whatsoever. The director's intent is already there in your hands. I was one of the many that were initially impressed and even wowed by the image clarity and smoothness. Initially. That quickly turned to disgust as I noticed the horrible artifacts on top of the video-like quality, that in my opinoin, takes away from the look of film in a very very negative way. I am squarely in the camp of AMP and anything like it, not being a good thing. 120hz is very good, inserting frames is insanely bad, no matter how well the implementation.

Fact is, AMP creates an artificial look, not real. If you like it great, I don't. I guess in your book Steven Spielberg could shoot his films with $500.00 Canon camcorders and you'd like it more. :D

Using analogies is necessary sometimes so that the other person can see how foolish their statement in reality is. Sorry you missed it. :cool:

I already covered the unwanted artifacts which are a result of imperfect implementation.

Your guess with Spielberg is wrong.

Using analogies being necessary for foolish people is an insult to those who are not. I can discuss any subject without having it simplified to my "foolish" level. Analogies are good for comedy as practiced by Dennis Miller. They have no place in science as some here assert AVS is about.

Second, how are any of you actually stating we don't know what the director's intent was? This is almost laughable to me. The director's intent is..........on the disc!

By that logic, any technique that could be used to remove that awful screeching sound and noise from the early 78rpm plates should be condemned as tempering with the intent of the recording studio. As Borf properly noticed, the directors had and continue to have no choice is selecting the frame rate. They are stuck with 24fps because of the projectors in the vast majority of movie theatres.

Besides, how do you interpolation-is-awful guys know what a director's intent was? How about this as a possibility: A director wants a judder-free movie in order to make it as realistic as possible and swears that his is stuck with all that 24fps crap that was invented by Da Vinci, or was it Newton, years ago.

They are stuck with 24fps because of the projectors in the vast majority of movie theatres.

Again, why are many television shows shot at 24fps then? The vast majority will never see a movie theater.

By that logic, any technique that could be used to remove that awful screeching sound and noise from the early 78rpm plates should be condemned as tempering with the intent of the recording studio.

I thought you didn't like analogies.

By that logic, any technique that could be used to remove that awful screeching sound and noise from the early 78rpm plates should be condemned as tempering with the intent of the recording studio. As Borf properly noticed, the directors had and continue to have no choice is selecting the frame rate. They are stuck with 24fps because of the projectors in the vast majority of movie theatres.

Blu Ray discs are in no way early 78rpm plates. The movie, almost exactly, is on the disc, just reproduce, not make up your own frames.

Besides, how do you interpolation-is-awful guys know what a director's intent was? How about this as a possibility: A director wants a judder-free movie in order to make it as realistic as possible and swears that his is stuck with all that 24fps crap that was invented by Da Vinci, or was it Newton, years ago.

Simple, the director's intent is what's on the disc. How is this not insanely obvious? The film has already been shot! Adding frames is NOT the director's intent. No matter what frame rate the director would have wished he could have shot the movie in, it was shot at 24fps, all the frames are there already. It can't be any easier than this; reproduce those frames and you'll have what the director's intends. At what frame rate the content is played back at is debatable, but how many frames are on the disc is not.

Besides, how do you interpolation-is-awful guys know what a director's intent was? How about this as a possibility: A director wants a judder-free movie in order to make it as realistic as possible and swears that his is stuck with all that 24fps crap that was invented by Da Vinci, or was it Newton, years ago.

Easy. How about this as a possibility:

We already see what the effect looks like for soap operas so If that's what the director wants then why doesn't he shoot it in the same method as soap operas? I would imagine it would have to be cheaper to shoot with that method as I'm sure a soap opera's budget is less than a prime time show like Law and Order or 24.

I thought you didn't like analogies.

You are correct - I don't when an analogy is used because the author thinks the reader is not smart enough to comprehend the main argument. Analogies work well when thrown in because their are funny or to make what is already agreed on even more convincing.

What I used here is another example from the same field of audio and video.

Here is another example: We adjust our TV sets to our liking disregarding the set's manufacturer's intent as expressed by the factory settings.

Another example: To follow the director's intent we should adjust our sets to reproduce the colors and other attributes exactly as he saw them during editing.

Another example: We adjust the sound level and the frequency characteristics of our audio gear to our liking, not the director's intent.

Another example: Was it the director's intent for you to watch his creation in total darkness? Many of you do and the pro-interpolation guys don't get bent out of shape claiming that the director meant his movie to be watched in a movie theatre with its typical level of light rather than in pitch black darkness.

Another example: Was it the director's intent to show his work on a glossy screen that blends the movie and the furniture you see as reflections, which is not the case with a movie theatre screen that does not?

Another example: Was it the director's intent to show his art on a screen of a set that has IR that results in the remnants from the previously shown material to blend with the current frames?

Another example: A foreign movie has three versions: the original is in French, the second version is in English and the third version has English subtitles. Which one would you rent? If your answer is not the original version, you are violating the director's intent.

Here is the bottom line: We depart from or ignore the director's intent in many ways for our own convenience and pleasure. All of sudden we have a sacred cow we can't touch: the frame interpolation.

What I used here is another example from the same field of audio and video.

And it was employed to try to make a point to someone who didn't agree with you.

Here is another example: We adjust our TV sets to our liking disregarding the set's manufacturer's intent as expressed by the factory settings.


Who cares about "manufacturer intent"? Manufacturers want your money, period. Their factory settings are designed to sell the most displays when their televisions are lined up on a shelf in a bright environment.

To follow the director's intent we should adjust our sets to reproduce the colors and other attributes exactly as he saw them during editing.

As much as it is possible to do so, I do. Both of my HDTVs are professionally calibrated.

We adjust the sound level and the frequency characteristics of our audio gear to our liking, not the director's intent.

It is *much* more difficult (and expensive) to realize accurate audio than it is accurate video. That said, given my limited knowledge and equipment, I've strived to get as close as possible.

Was it the director's intent for you to watch his creation in total darkness? Many of you do and the pro-interpolation guys don't get bent out of shape claiming that the director meant his movie to be watched in a movie theatre with its typical level of light rather than in pitch black darkness.

Any display will look its best in total darkness because perceived contrast ratio increases as ambient light decreases. A movie theater screen would look better in total darkness for the same reason, but packing a load of people into such a situation isn't at all safe and would never work as people would injure themselves and sue the theater in short order.

Was it the director's intent to show his work on a glossy screen that blends the movie and the furniture you see as reflections, which is not the case with a movie theatre screen that does not?

If I am critically viewing material the lights will be out anyway, so there will be no reflections. Also, some of the modern glossy-screened displays employ excellent anti-reflective filters.

Was it the director's intent to show his art on a screen of a set that has IR that results in the remnants from the previously shown material to blend with the current frames?

I have never experienced IR on my plasma.

A foreign movie has three versions: the original is in French, the second version is in English and the third version has English subtitles. Which one would you rent? If your answer is not the original version, you are violating the director's intent.

The version with subtitles, of course. It's still the lesser evil.

Here is the bottom line: We depart from or ignore the director's intent in many ways for our own convenience and pleasure.

And some do it because it's the only feasible way to do it. Making an effort to get as close as possible to a director's intent while remaining within your means and budget is very different from going out of your way to destroy it by switching on AMP.

Confession: I really really like AMP on Low on my Samsung 850. I like how it looks, and I have both great vision and generally good taste.

If my AMP-love bothers a few alleged purists, ah well. Ask me if I care. ;)
.

The version with subtitles, of course. It's still the lesser evil.



Bingo!

Judder is unnatural and annoying. FI comes with some artifacts. Those of us who turn AMP on choose the lesser evil.

To claim that judder is director's intent is nonsense. If you can, quote one who said that it is anything but a by-product. This claim is phony and made up here at AVS.

I have never claimed that judder is the director's intent. In fact, I said precisely the opposite in this thread. However, there are other qualities to 24fps motion that have nothing to do with judder - which is one reason why director's continue to employ it and many viewers enjoy it.

As for me, given the choice of judder or AMP, I will choose judder, as I find it to be the lesser evil, by far. When you can remove panning judder while maintaining the other qualities of 24fps, then we're getting somewhere.

I've been reading this thread and have to laugh at some of the absurdity.

For one, many people, including myself, are purists in audio and video and the thought of watching the content in a manner in which it was not meant to be is just not right. Now I am well aware that there are no perfect playback or display devices in video, but at the same time, we want to watch a movie in as "direct" a way as possible. Adding frames to a movie is just stupid in my opinion. Why in the world would you ever want to tamper with a movie in such a henious way? There is absolutely NO WAY to insert frames that are in any way correct, becasue any frame you insert is by definition INCORRECT. You are no longer watching the movie on the disc at this point.

Second, how are any of you actually stating we don't know what the director's intent was? This is almost laughable to me. The director's intent is..........on the disc! What many posters seem to be talking about is what the director may have done on a sunny day in July if he had the a super duper film machine that could make all his or her movie dreams come true. So if a director would have loved to make a movie in 3D but didn't, and there was a 3D creation circuit in the tv, then flipping that circuit on will get you closer to the director's intent? It will not. We can sit and wax poetic all day long about what we THINK the director intended, but why would we do that when we know for certain what the director intended you to see? All the frames in the movie were shot and put on a disc, adding anything and claiming it's what the director intended is just........whatever, I can't believe this is even a actual topic of discussion.

If you like AMP, great, but in no way does it have anything to do with director intention, in any way whatsoever. The director's intent is already there in your hands. I was one of the many that were initially impressed and even wowed by the image clarity and smoothness. Initially. That quickly turned to disgust as I noticed the horrible artifacts on top of the video-like quality, that in my opinoin, takes away from the look of film in a very very negative way. I am squarely in the camp of AMP and anything like it, not being a good thing. 120hz is very good, inserting frames is insanely bad, no matter how well the implementation.

You must also remember that what you see on the video screen of a 60Hz display is a far cry from the Director's intent as well. The problem we refer to as "judder" arises from the Telecine process used to adjust the 24fps of film to a video display at 60Hz. Telecine adds frames unevenly - one film frame is displayed 3 times, the next 2, times, and the cycle repeats.

The absolute closest you can come to the way film looks in a theater is to use a 120Hz display with AMP (or frame interpolation by any other name) turned OFF. Each film frame is displayed 5 times, and motion is smooth as it appears with a film projector.

That's the priimary benefit of a 120Hz display - that it will display natural motion for both 24fps film and 30fps or 60fps video. Frame interpolation is a matter of taste - and my taste says leave it on.

But unless you have 24Hz video sources (HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, and DVD) plus a 120Hz display, you are NOT seeing the Director's intent on your HDTV.

Bingo!

Judder is unnatural and annoying. FI comes with some artifacts. Those of us who turn AMP on choose the lesser evil.

To claim that judder is director's intent is nonsense. If you can, quote one who said that it is anything but a by-product. This claim is phony and made up here at AVS.

Why can't you just accept the fact that there are some of us that just don't like the look. No amount of posting by you or any others about what it does and doesn't do is going to change my mind and I doubt you'll change the minds of others also. If you like it great, but when we can agree on that we can move on rather make stupid arguments back and forth. :rolleyes:

The problem we refer to as "judder" arises from the Telecine process used to adjust the 24fps of film to a video display at 60Hz. Telecine adds frames unevenly - one film frame is displayed 3 times, the next 2, times, and the cycle repeats.

That is not exactly true. Panning judder is inherent to 24fps. You will see it from a 24fps source no matter what refresh rate you employ unless you're using frame interpolation as well. You're referring to pulldown judder, which 120Hz will eliminate, as will 48/72Hz as found on certain plasmas.

I can't believe this thread lasted 5 pages so I better sum it up for all. bla, bla, bla, bla, bla.

You must also remember that what you see on the video screen of a 60Hz display is a far cry from the Director's intent as well. The problem we refer to as "judder" arises from the Telecine process used to adjust the 24fps of film to a video display at 60Hz. Telecine adds frames unevenly - one film frame is displayed 3 times, the next 2, times, and the cycle repeats.

The absolute closest you can come to the way film looks in a theater is to use a 120Hz display with AMP (or frame interpolation by any other name) turned OFF. Each film frame is displayed 5 times, and motion is smooth as it appears with a film projector.

That's the priimary benefit of a 120Hz display - that it will display natural motion for both 24fps film and 30fps or 60fps video. Frame interpolation is a matter of taste - and my taste says leave it on.

But unless you have 24Hz video sources (HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, and DVD) plus a 120Hz display, you are NOT seeing the Director's intent on your HDTV.

The director's intent is to make a movie that will be seen first on a big screen, then on home televisions. Only recently has the latter included 120hz refresh rates. To therefore come to the conclusion that the 95% of us that use 60hz televisions are not seeing what 100% of the director's meant us to see is simply absurd and should never be mentioned by someone outside of the marketing dept for tv manufacturers (b/c that's what that is, marketing, poor marketing at that considering).

The goal shouldn't always be to emulate the "director's intent" or what you see in the theater, just what provides the best viewing experience (which for different people means different things, sometimes previously mentioned). For some, that means interpolation, for others, it doesn't.

Easy. How about this as a possibility:

We already see what the effect looks like for soap operas so If that's what the director wants then why doesn't he shoot it in the same method as soap operas? I would imagine it would have to be cheaper to shoot with that method as I'm sure a soap opera's budget is less than a prime time show like Law and Order or 24.

it seems all live shows use 60hz (news, sports, talk shows, SNL). it may be a technical thing, but that doesn't mean its cheaper. 60hz should take more bandwidth than 24 (and bandwidth is expensive). additionally, film is mucho expensive - i read the figures once but only remember that its a significant part of a film's budget. consider all the takes they do to get just one scene - that's wasted film unless they use digital. and don't forget all the labor and editing going into post processing of all those extra frames.

so i figure expense to be a big reason higher frame rates aren't used, in addition to the 24fps compulsory film projector rule - that and the lack of attention this subject gets in general. i also read there are also so many international standards out there, they are having a hard time making them all compatible much less creating new ones. we are talking about a 60 yr old infrastructure.

but its true, i've read some directors definitely say they prefer 24fps. i've read some don't - and like i mentioned there is a debate going on in the film community about this just like here. it can't hurt to expand the options i say.

Why can't you just accept the fact that there are some of us that just don't like the look. No amount of posting by you or any others about what it does and doesn't do is going to change my mind and I doubt you'll change the minds of others also. If you like it great, but when we can agree on that we can move on rather make stupid arguments back and forth. :rolleyes:

I never said that AMP should be acceptable to all. What I refuse to buy is that line about director's intent because nobody here knows what it is.

To say that the end product - the disk you rent - is exactly what that director intended is on its face nutty. The end product is the disk and my decision to view it the way I want to. He may be a director of the production cycle but I am the director where that disk will be shown and between the two I have the final say how the movie should be shown, AMP or anything else.

What the critics of AMP push is the idea that we should submit our judgment to the will of another person, the production director, lest we be charged with committing an act of blasphemy.

I never said that AMP should be acceptable to all. What I refuse to buy is that line about director's intent because nobody here knows what it is.

To say that the end product - the disk you rent - is exactly what that director intended is on its face nutty. The end product is the disk and my decision to view it the way I want to. He may be a director of the production cycle but I am the director where that disk will be shown and between the two I have the final say how the movie should be shown, AMP or anything else.

What the critics of AMP push is the idea that we should submit our judgment to the will of another person, the production director, lest we be charged with committing an act of blasphemy.

I am so done with this thread, continue this argument any which way you want but please, don't generalize a group of posters that may not like AMP as if they are one. :rolleyes:

Will there ever come a day when something other than 24 is used for movies?

Will there ever come a day when most movies aren't shot on film?

As Borf properly noticed, the directors had and continue to have no choice is selecting the frame rate. They are stuck with 24fps because of the projectors in the vast majority of movie theatres.



EXACTLY!!
The director/video producers knew beforehand that they would be using 24fps SO THEY SHOT THE FILM AND OPTIMIZED THE FILM WITH THIS IN MIND!!

Therefore, inserting fake frames into the movie is tampering.

How is this so hard to understand?

Personally, I liked the way AMP made movies look at first. It seemed new and cool. But that wore off pretty fast.
Now when I go to bestbuy and see all these TV's with the AMP/Motionflow jacked up, I can't even watch it.
It looks so artificial and strange, It ruins the content that it is displaying.
You can't even watch and enjoy the movie because the strange motion has got your attention and you keep thinking "that looked strange".
The fact that the movie/motion is being enhansed and changed is so obvious, that it make the whole movie experience look like it has been altered by CGI or something.
Its just too fake looking and is obviously adding something to the experience that is not supposed to be there.

You just don't get it. With AMP turned off on a 120Hz display, you see each original source frame 5 times. There are no fake frames. With a 60Hz display, you don't have smooth motion, you have uneven motion.

Panning judder is one thing AMP can reduce. But if you don't want it to be reduced, you just leave AMP off. AMP = Frame Interpolation, not 120Hz. Two seperate advances in video fidelity.

But there is no denying that a 120Hz display has more of the look of film than a 60Hz display. Anybody who claims to prefer 60Hz, is claiming to prefer a familiar set of film motion distortions caused by the uneven 3:2 pulldown of the Telecine process.

Which is fine by me - you can prefer anything you like. But denying that 120Hz is an advance in the video reproduction of film is pretty bone-headed, once you understand that we are NOT TALKING ABOUT FRAME INTERPOLATION.

Uhh, who are you talking to? No one here is saying that 120Hz is a bad thing or undesireable.

However, there are other qualities to 24fps motion that have nothing to do with judder - which is one reason why director's continue to employ it and many viewers enjoy it.



Could you explain what those qualities are?

EXACTLY!!
The director/video producers knew beforehand that they would be using 24fps SO THEY SHOT THE FILM AND OPTIMIZED THE FILM WITH THIS IN MIND!!

Therefore, inserting fake frames into the movie is tampering.



I think we have the essence of the debate right here.

I agree with the first statement. It is the fake and tampering I object to. In everyday English, anyone who engages in fakery and tampering is a bad person. I am willing to accept, however, that the poster didn't mean it.

Frame interpolation does not result in a fake frame. It re-creates a scene that actually existed but a 24fps camera failed to catch.

Uhh, who are you talking to? No one here is saying that 120Hz is a bad thing or undesireable.

yes, 120hz is a good thing for LCD.
I am talking about the interpolation process that amp and motionflow use.

Interpolation(amp/motionflow) inserts a fake frame in between two original frames.
The Frame is a combination of the before and after frame that does not exist in the content.

like this:
http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/interpolationsucks.jpg?t=1237735637

The Frame is a combination of the before and after frame that does not exist in the content.

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm71/chadmak09/interpolationsucks.jpg?t=1237735637

The question is why would you object to seeing the frame in the middle?

Frame interoplation does in fact create a new position for a rapidly moving object which is midway between the poisitions of the object in the prededing and following frames. That is the most obvious benefit from frame interpolation. Although I understand the philosophical argument about frame interpolation, I don't share it - interpolated frames are derived from source frames via algorythmic video processing, but they are not "unreal".

However, the so-called "soap opera effect" that has been under discussion results from enhancements to the stationary and slowly moving parts of the frame. The topic of film judder from Telecine is pretty much covered in prior messages. The Telecine judder is quite visible on a 60Hz display, once you have noticed it, it bugs you and you can't ever NOT notice it again. So those of you who are still satisfied with the way your 60Hz display looks had best not read threads like this one.

I tweeked for years to eliminate the Telecine judder from my Home Theater. I ended up with an LCD projector I set for 72Hz refresh for film source DVDs, or 60Hz for video sources. But the switch was a manual one and sometimes I would have to stop playback, switch video modes, and restart playback.

The "soap opera effect" is mostly produced by video-post-processing which has been used by all HDTV manufacturers for all HDTVs. The primary benefit was clean scaling from 480i source to 720p or 1080p. Samsung called it's proprietary video processing the DNIe which stands for "Digital Natural Image engine", and they have been doing this since the days of CRT and DLP HDTVs. 120Hz displays allow TWICE AS MUCH video post-processing as 60Hz displays, and Samsung allows you a menu setting to turn off DNIe, although it is enabled by default on most video inputs. On many other brands of HDTVs, the video post-processing cannot be disabled. It has minimal benefit on 60Hz HDTVs anyway, but I would not want to own any HDTV where you could not disable it. I do not run DNIe for my 24Hz Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources because they match the 1080p display resolution anyway. Likewise it does not help live 1080i broadcasts very much. But sometimes DNIe will do a great deal to clean up an older color film from the 1950s to 1970s which I am playing back on DVD at 24Hz.

I have NO RELUCTANCE whatsoever to allow the video post-processing on lower quality source material. The only way you would see exactly what was on a 480i DVD would be with a 480p progressive scan DVD player driving a native 480p display. If that is not what you have, you want the best-performing and cleanest video processing you can get. For me that is the Toshiba HD-A30 HD-DVD player - it blows away the PS3 I use for Blu-Ray playback when it comes to conventional DVDs. (The PS3 will only play conventional DVDs at 60Hz with telecine judder.) The Toshiba does a good job with reverse telecine, deinterlacing, and resolution scaling to 1080p, then outputs a digital 1080p24 image over HDMI, then the Samsung DNIe cleans it up a bit more.

I can't really see much difference b/t 120hz and 60hz w/o interpolation on. I also can't tell much difference in motion b/t a 120hz sammy and a 480hz panny. Jacking up the hz is marketing, it makes a subtle improvement, but that's just it, it's subtle. Then they add in things like AMP and such to give a distinct quality that people will notice enough for them to jack up the prices dramatically. Marketing. Everyone differs in their ability to perceive fps, perhaps you are extra acute to fps lag. :)

Interesting info on that last post though, thanks.

The question is why would you object to seeing the frame in the middle?

Because it destroys the cinematic quality of the picture. A movie will look like a behind-the-scenes documentary instead of a movie.

If you want a hyper-realistic look from your films, so be it.

I prefer viewing art as closely as true to the source as can reasonably be acheived. And the "cinematic" look of 24fps (panning judder aside) is something that many filmmakers, television show producers and viewers prefer.

I prefer viewing art as closely as true to the source as can reasonably be acheived.

I am glad we are in agreement. The "source" is the scene itself. The camera, the tape or film, the TV station, the RF carrier, and my TV set are the means of conveyance. I don't want this delivery system to interfere with my viewing art as closely as true to the source as can reasonably be achieved. The closest is actually being there in person. Anything else less close. How separating me from the real thing, the scene, with a 24 samples-per-second century-old gizmo improves things has not yet been explained. If you choose to offer the explanation, please try not to use the term "director's intent" since, as we all know by now, he had no choice in the matter how to bring the images to me.

The "soap opera effect" is mostly produced by video-post-processing which has been used by all HDTV manufacturers for all HDTVs. The primary benefit was clean scaling from 480i source to 720p or 1080p. Samsung called it's proprietary video processing the DNIe which stands for "Digital Natural Image engine"

"soap opera" was named after the progressive-frame look of daytime soaps. did i miss something? Dnie is an image enhancer afaik - it's "motion optimizer" being a 3-d noise reduction filter only. i don't think Dnie has anything to do with scaling or motion compensation.


Interpolation(amp/motionflow) inserts a fake frame in between two original frames.
The Frame is a combination of the before and after frame that does not exist in the content.


fake is a little harsh. its not always true that the frames "do not exist in the content". for instance, in the pics above "global motion compensation" would be used to basically shift the original frame before "tacking on" part of the existing before or after frame. thats your basic tilt & pan algorithm and its what AMP (MCFI) is so good at. the original content is still there, just re-arranged (without artifacts). you can call it fake if you want for impact but whatever...

where AMP seems to mess up is with "local motion compensation" which is a lot more complex. each object in the scene is predicted and their movements are often faster than a normal camera pan. the more difference between frames the harder it is to interpolate between them. if the motion is too fast or two frames are too far apart (temporally) it may be impossible to interpolate and then you get the ugly artifacts. its why MCFI will never be perfect.

p.s. i agree, the frame itself doesn't exist in the content as a whole.

The closest is actually being there in person.

And again, there's the fundamental disagreement.

Not all film is SUPPOSED to provide you with the impression that you're RIGHT THERE in person. If it did, you'd also see wires, blue/green screens, boom mics, stage lighting, etc. If the purpose of film is to provide an exact duplication of reality, well, then you can toss the vast majority of cinema since the artform's inception into the garbage. Movies are often stylized. Movies are art. Art is not always about duplicating reality down to every last detail. Quite often, it's meant to take you ever so slightly (or not so slightly) to the side and present you with something different to look at and to ponder and to take from it whatever meaning you might.

24fps may have began as a "necessity" of sorts, but it's persisted for decades to the point where even television shows - which don't care about the projectors in your local theater and could easily be shot and broadcast at 60fps - often continue to utilize it.

When I'm watching a football game I want it to look as realistic as possible. That's why they're shot at 60fps. I want the grass to look like grass and the uniforms to properly reflect the colors I'd see were I actually at the game.

When I'm watching a piece of art I want it to look as it was intended to look by the artist(s), regardless of whether that intention was to be completely off-the-wall fantastical or completely and utterly realistic.

When I'm watching a piece of art I want it to look as it was intended to look by the artist(s), regardless of whether that intention was to be completely off-the-wall fantastical or completely and utterly realistic.

I will go along with the "to each..." position as well as what you wrote above. My personal experience is that I find some of these artistic forms of expression so annoying that I actually quit watching shows like Law and Order. I doubt that was the director's intent.

The producers and the advertizers may not care that ramazur bailed out but I suspect that I am not the only one that finds anything that leads to sensory overload objectionable. This includes juddery panning, shaky-hand camera, deliberately out-of-focus images, excessive loudness, etc. I classify these as assaults on my brain.

To the extent that I can minimize the impact of these attacks I will. That is why I always watch with a remote in my hand to fight the director's intent, volume-wise. I don't give a ff what his intent was if I find the loudness not to my liking. According to some here, I should submit and suffer or else I am tampering with art.

Controlling video is harder. AMP is just another tool in my hand to fend off the attackers. Admittedly, not perfect but it is a step in the right direction as far as my rattled brain goes.

Contrary to the poster's intent, the three plane pictures are a perfect example why AMP is a good thing. Planes move smoothly. They had better or flying would be suspended immediately. I want to see them move on my screen just the way it really happens.

My personal experience is that I find some of these artistic forms of expression so annoying that I actually quit watching shows like Law and Order. I doubt that was the director's intent.

And that's fine. There's great art, bad art, awful art, etc. If I find some aspect of what I'm watching objectionable - or find that my own opinion is at odds with the director's intent, I'll watch something else. Rarely will I go out of my way to "adjust around" something I don't care for to make it more palatable. If it's that bad, it's not worth the effort, IMO.

The closest is actually being there in person. .

This must have been an inadverent slip on your part. If so there would never be close-ups or many other types of effects that can only be achieved by purposely restricting what you to see to what the director WANTS you to see.

The basic differences in POV here seem to be simply whether Movies are works or original art that should not be fiddled with or whether Movies are a tool to let you see what you want to see. Some believe the former while others believe the latter. Whether Movies are, in fact, works of original art has long been debated with many on both sides, and has not yet, and probably never be, resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

fafner

What about frame interpolation "smooth modes" in Plasmas such as the Samsung 760 series and the new 8 series?

I like AMP on some content while on others I just turn it off.....I like the option but I would prefer to get a plasma tv as they offer a better value than LCDs at sizes above 50 inches.....

If a plasma TV could offer an optional mode as impressive as AMP that would be the perfect display FOR ME

Has anyone ever seen the smooth modes on the Samsung plasmas and how does it compare to AMP?

Is the "Soap Opera Effect" in tact?:confused:

I'm for perfect interpolation with no artifacts.

I don't care what the director intended.

I look forward to the day when you can put garbage in and take out beauty.

If someone broke the law and colorized Citizen Kane--would the universe blow up?

I would though be against someone with a marker drawing a beard on the Mona Lisa.

"soap opera" was named after the progressive-frame look of daytime soaps. did i miss something? Dnie is an image enhancer afaik - it's "motion optimizer" being a 3-d noise reduction filter only. i don't think Dnie has anything to do with scaling or motion compensation.

Yeah, you missed something. You haven't spent a lot of time viewing 24fps disks on a 120Hz display with AMP turned off. Which I have and how I came to know that DNIe has more to do with the SOE than frame interpolation.

In fact resolution scaling, deinterlacing, motion compensation, noise filtering, and frame interpolation are just subroutines in the same video processor. It so happens that the video processor in a 120Hz set needs twice the processing power (bandwidth) of a 60Hz set, to deal with twice as many pixels/sec going to the screen. There is only the one video processor "engine" and it is shared between all the tasks.

The way a video processor works is it first services the highest priority subroutines such as deinterlacing and resolution scaling. These tasks are necessary to have an image displayed. Secondly the video processor services the medium priority routines such as frame interpolation. Finally it services the lowest priority tasks such as noise filtering and motion compensation. The lowest priority tasks are those that if left incomplete when the processing time for a particular frame expires will have the least effect on the image.

Now when you feed the 120Hz set with 1080p24, the highest priority tasks such as resoluution scaling and deinterlacing are not needed, there is beaucoups bandwith remaining in a fast 120Hz video processor for the medium and low priority tasks such as frame interpolation and that collection of routines Samsung calls "DNIe". Now you can play with turning those features on/off in the menus and ONLY THEN do you discover that the SOE comes from the enhancement subroutines and not from frame interpolation.

YES it is true that having BOTH frame interpolation and video enhancement provides the greatest amount of SOE. But the various enhancement routines do more than the frame interpolation.

You would think that high end HDTVs would have video processing engines with more bandwidth than less expensive models. But as near as I can tell, that is not the case - they all seem to be designed with video processing engines that are - barely - fast enough. My guess is that provides more profit for the manufacturer.

What about frame interpolation "smooth modes" in Plasmas such as the Samsung 760 series and the new 8 series?

I like AMP on some content while on others I just turn it off.....I like the option but I would prefer to get a plasma tv as they offer a better value than LCDs at sizes above 50 inches.....

If a plasma TV could offer an optional mode as impressive as AMP that would be the perfect display FOR ME

Has anyone ever seen the smooth modes on the Samsung plasmas and how does it compare to AMP?

Is the "Soap Opera Effect" in tact?:confused:

Why would you want to take a plasma that works great with motion and add an effect that is used for LCD blurr?

Why would you want to take a plasma that works great with motion and add an effect that is used for LCD blurr?

Many of you guys just don't get it. I went from the LN52A650 to the 5020 and the one thing I really miss is AMP. It had negatives for sure but after having AMP for a while I found myself really missing it.

So now I have much better viewing angles and blacks but as far as I am concerned, motion is HORRIBLE on anything but 120hz. That's right HORRIBLE. The amount of judder and shake that I see on my 5020 makes me ill. But I made the choice to go with extremely bad judder in order to get away from the horrible blacks and extremely poor viewing angles. Not to mention that AMP created many shows to look very synthetic and would drop frames when content was imperfect.

But some movies are so nice with AMP on low. Wall-E is ten times more 3D on the A650 with AMP. Pixar movies were made for AMP. They can't be touched by plasma. Some movies look like steaming piles of dog ^%^% with AMP because of SOE.

My idea of a perfect display is a Pioneer Elite with a quality form of AMP, These technologies exist now. A third component I would like to see added, which may sound crazy but doable, is a function that would allow the user to overlay varying amounts of film grain to combat the SOE. This should allow for smoothness while maintaining the feeling of film. Interpolation/motion smoothing has a place in flat panel technology. Many many many people like to have this at their disposal. I am one of them. I miss the option. You can call me hack but I am pretty sure I will get a full nights sleep tonight either way.

Some people are purists and some people are not. If a person has a problem on any level with a school of thought other than their own in this regard, then that places a spotlight on your own arrogance.

You must also remember that what you see on the video screen of a 60Hz display is a far cry from the Director's intent as well. The problem we refer to as "judder" arises from the Telecine process used to adjust the 24fps of film to a video display at 60Hz. Telecine adds frames unevenly - one film frame is displayed 3 times, the next 2, times, and the cycle repeats.

The absolute closest you can come to the way film looks in a theater is to use a 120Hz display with AMP (or frame interpolation by any other name) turned OFF. Each film frame is displayed 5 times, and motion is smooth as it appears with a film projector.

That's the priimary benefit of a 120Hz display - that it will display natural motion for both 24fps film and 30fps or 60fps video. Frame interpolation is a matter of taste - and my taste says leave it on.

But unless you have 24Hz video sources (HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, and DVD) plus a 120Hz display, you are NOT seeing the Director's intent on your HDTV.

Quite honestly, on my 60fps CRT set, I come FAR closer to the director's intent than anyone with AMP turned on does. Motion is not perfect on my set, but it's far closer to what I see in a theater than what AMP does to a disc. AMP is the furthest thing from director's intent that I can think of right now. With amp, you literally add extra frames to the movie, how can this in any way be director's intent? It cannot be, no matter how anyone spins it.

120hz and simply showing the frames on disc multiple times is a good thing. AMP is not, in my opinion. I'm not debating 120hz at all, I'm only saying I don't like AMP and that it is quite literally, not director's intention.

forget-it, my bad.

AMP is the furthest thing from director's intent that I can think of right now. With amp, you literally add extra frames to the movie, how can this in any way be director's intent? It cannot be, no matter how anyone spins it.



I talked to Steven Spielberg last night and he told me that his intent has always been to shoot in 48fps but was not allowed by the marketing department. I also asked him if he minds if I fill the missing frames by turning on the AMP thingy and he said he likes AMP because AMP makes his movies like Saving Private Ryan more realistic and more scary.

I talked to Steven Spielberg last night and he told me that his intent has always been to shoot in 48fps but was not allowed by the marketing department. I also asked him if he minds if I fill the missing frames by turning on the AMP thingy and he said he likes AMP because AMP makes his movies like Saving Private Ryan more realistic and more scary.

Steven told me this morning that he is going to make yet another Director's cut of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" since he still can't figure out what his intent really was with this movie.

fafner

I took my daughters to see Race to Witch Mountain this past weekend. Went to a Muvico, on their "main" screen. If the incredible amount of film judder that was present in the film was the director's intent...then I'm completely okay getting away from it. I haven't been to an actual theater in 6-8 months or so, and I don't recall if it was the same back then, or just this particular movie. However, with the excessive amount of actions scenes and pans, it was unbelievable to me how much judder was present.

Maybe I've gotten used to motion enhancement on my set. I was 50/50 on the Motion Enhancement/AMP issue...not any more.

Edit....I can't wait until the movies comes out on BRay to compare it on my set.

Many of you guys just don't get it.

So now I have much better viewing angles and blacks but as far as I am concerned, motion is HORRIBLE on anything but 120hz. That's right HORRIBLE. The amount of judder and shake that I see on my 5020 makes me ill.

Some people are purists and some people are not. If a person has a problem on any level with a school of thought other than their own in this regard, then that places a spotlight on your own arrogance.

1) It's not that we don't get it. It's that we do not like it and therefore disagree with you.

2) I personally think that your description of motion is way, way off base with the Pioneer. In fact I can't believe you are describing the same display, when you reference the 5020. But then again, I have to remember that you have not been satisfied by any display that you have used.

I've been enjoying my 120Hz Samsung since I got it around last Christmas, with PS3 for Blu-Ray and a Toshiba HD-A30 for HD-DVD, both set for 24Hz output. As you would expect, these are outstanding when the material is HD media from 24fps film source.

I also have a TiVo HD and last night I was watching a digital copy of the made-for-TV Australian mini-series On The Beach. Although I would have wished for a better presentation, RHI broadcast this last week as a 480i standard definition image cropped to 4:3. But still - this film is not available on DVD in any form except 4:3 and standard def DVD - and RHI is a digital broadcast - so I watched it when I got bored with the broadcast TV love-in of the DNC.

The TiVo HD can only output 1080i60 and the Samsung sometimes struggles with poorly mastered materials, especially with "shakeycam" or hand-held cameras, as this material tends to trip up the AMP processing used for 120Hz.

I'm happy to report that On The Beach (2000) is better than the original, a genuine updating and "reimagining" of the original film that even manages to outdo the Nevil Shute novel, which I read 40-odd years ago.

But what was unexpected for me was that the film was so competently photographed that I keep experiencing that "realer-than-real" 3D image effect that some wags have dubbed the "soap opera effect". The wild roller-coaster like ride in the helicopter around and through the rock formations was great. Even the appearance of the strawberries on the picnic cloth, or the individual fibers themselves, was jaw-dropping, the equal of the best conventional DVDs.

This is with Mode = Movie, Contrast Mode = Standard, and AMP = High.

The movie theme was of course depressing - made more effective by the well written and updated script - even containing a credible Post-Cold-War scenario for the end of the world, where China invades Taiwan. The characters were fully developed and it was well-acted. Hoping for a Blu-Ray someday in the original 1.85:1 (if IMDB is correct). About the only detraction was Armand Assante murdering yet another American Accent as Commander Dwight Towers. (They got the uniform wrong, as well - he had the rank insignia for a Naval Captain.)

120Hz, where have you been all my life? This is the best thing going since DVD IMHO. It's the first time that home video has been able to produce a more convincing 3D image than flat film in a theater. Film still rules in certain aspects such as resolution (where 1080p is just not enough) but until we get real 3D disk media shot with two lenses, 120Hz is where it's at for the best image you can get in your Home Theater.

I knew this was the case with HD media before I spent the money. That this can be seen in the best broadcast signals is an unexpected bonus.

This is amazing! I look at 120Hz and frame interpolation and get a headache after a couple minutes!

It makes everything to my eyes look like a video game.

That's not more real to me, 3D-look notwithstanding.

no, watch the way you like.
If you like the unnatural feel of the interpolation that motionflow/amp gives then use it and have a good time.
Just don't say things like everyone should like this effect or its somehow improving the picture. Thats just wrong.
Most people hate the soapy & vapor-causing effect. It introduces artifacts and makes motion look unnatural.
If you like it then use it and enjoy.

I just think its hilarious that television manufacturers have delevoped these gimmicks and people are buying into them and thinking that this was the way it is "supposed " to look. Nothing could be more far from the truth.

They were develpoed to help combat lcd's poor motion performance, not to somehow "fix" film.

+1

1) What data are you using to make the claim that "most people hate" motionflow?

2) Comments like "I think its hilarious" and "if you like the UNNATURAL feel," hardly seem consistent with yous "watch the way you like" and "if you like it then use and enjoy." Obviously you do have a problem with people liking it.

3) It just grates on those of us who do like Motionflow when those of you who don't break out the "We like watching it the way the director intended" when in fact, you have no idea what the director intended.

I know I am in the "I like Motionflow" camp, but it definitely seems to be that there is a LOT more attacking from the "I hate Motionflow" camp than vice-versa.

120Hz and Frame Interpolation were designed to combat LCD motion-handling shortcomings, not to address film shortcomings.

120Hz and Frame Interp are not a revolutionary fix, and some of us cannot watch it in comfort. What part of that don't you get? For us, it is undesirable.

Arguing against 120Hz and Frame Interp is not arguing for film blurring or other film issues.

They're 2 different things.

;16103585']

Arguing against 120Hz and Frame Interp is not arguing for film blurring or other film issues.

They're 2 different things.

one comes with the other unfortunately.

You just don't get it. With AMP turned off on a 120Hz display, you see each original source frame 5 times. There are no fake frames. With a 60Hz display, you don't have smooth motion, you have uneven motion.

Panning judder is one thing AMP can reduce. But if you don't want it to be reduced, you just leave AMP off. AMP = Frame Interpolation, not 120Hz. Two seperate advances in video fidelity.

But there is no denying that a 120Hz display has more of the look of film than a 60Hz display. Anybody who claims to prefer 60Hz, is claiming to prefer a familiar set of film motion distortions caused by the uneven 3:2 pulldown of the Telecine process.

Which is fine by me - you can prefer anything you like. But denying that 120Hz is an advance in the video reproduction of film is pretty bone-headed, once you understand that we are NOT TALKING ABOUT FRAME INTERPOLATION.

Why don't you argue against the way Pioneer Elite plasma tvs handle 24p content?

Please, I dare you.

one comes with the other unfortunately.

Not on a Pioneer plasma :)

the display isn't really relevant. its a frame rate issue. the pioneer or any display for that matter that must work within the confines of current frame rates can only vary the proportion of blur judder & flicker ect. to reduce their sum total you have to raise the temporal frame rate (i.e. interpolation or even better - increase frame rate at the source)

the display isn't really relevant. its a frame rate issue. the pioneer or any display for that matter that must work within the confines of current frame rates can only vary the proportion of blur judder & flicker ect. to reduce their sum total you have to raise the temporal frame rate (i.e. interpolation or even better - increase frame rate at the source)

Let's talk about pq please, not supposed or real limitations of technologies.

i am talking about pq (blur judder flicker ect) as these are the real benefits of mcfi - which is the thread topic. would you like to talk about?

As you all know FRC (frame rate conversion) was developed and adopted in display technology (mostly LCD) in order to combat both blur and judder. The key word here is "both". When comparing only hold times, FRC (120Hz or 240Hz) is inferior to impulse driving such as found in CRT or PMOLED or PMSED. Where FRC really makes a difference is in combining short hold times and anti-judder. This gives the ultra clear-ultra smooth-real life-soap opera-cheap handy cam look that many like and many hate based on personal preference.

I cringe when I read so many posters trying to tell people what they should prefer. I used to do this but rarely anymore as it is so fruitless IMO. Sooner or later you have to accept the fact that your personal preference is not something you need to spend energy convincing others of. Gary seems to have finally accepted this. He used to vehemently tell others what they "should" be prefering and why. Discussing the science is more fun IMO.

As for interpolation artifacts, I have a few papers on the subject. Here is one of a few lists of some artifacts and details about them.

Samsung Electronics
Byung Hyuk Shin, Jaeho Oh, Kyungwoo Kim, Minkyu Park, Brian H. Berkeley
SID Symposium Digest 39 366 (2008)
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd126/xrox/120Hz.jpg

i am talking about pq (blur judder flicker ect) as these are the real benefits of mcfi - which is the thread topic. would you like to talk about?

By your own eyes - Is the way the current gen of Pioneer KURO plasmas handle 24p content preferable visually to the way a 120Hz/ frame interp set does so?

OK, let us start with film technology. 24fps and 35mm film was selected by Thomas Edison in the late 1800's. He had experimented with several sizes of film and several frame rates. He selected 35mm as a compromise between expense and image quality - the film base was (flammable) nitrocellulose and the B&W films of the time used expensive colloidal silver emulsions. He selected 24fps as a compromise between projector expense and image quality, due to the limitations and tolerances of the available machine tools used to manufacture precision projector parts.

Thirteen decades later 35mm and 24fps are still the standard, although we have safety film stock with fine-grained films based on organic color dyes, and fourth generation film projectors built with hardened steel alloy parts. But the 24fps was only ever sufficient for about 95% of the population. I have ALWAYS seen and ALWAYS been annoyed by film motion in a theater, which I perceive as a series of static images as if a strobe light were in use.

Now lets talk about 60Hz video. In the dark ages of NTSC television, B&W direct-view CRTs were in use. These were often found around the 60Hz flourescent lighting of the time. The NTSC standards committee noticed that pulsing 60Hz flourescent room illumination would interact with the near-60Hz images and the user would perceive either flicker or rolling vertical bars in the image. For that reason the NTSC video frame rate was not only set at 60Hz but was interlocked with the powerline 60Hz frequency (by using a 60Hz high voltage power supply for the CRT anode). Since the local TV station and user TV were on the same power grid, this stopped the flicker.

Now roll forward 80 years. The fact that Plasma and LCD panels run at 60Hz and 120Hz is for compatibility with legacy NTSC video sources. High voltage CRT anodes with 60Hz power supplies are pretty much gone although they were still around for first-generation analog HDTVs based on CRT rear projection technology.

Telecine was invented in the 1940's to synchronize 24fps film with 60Hz video broadcasts. Everybody grew up viewing direct-view CRT TV's with the peculiar distorted motions caused by Telecine and most pople are not troubled by it or sensitive to it. But once again a minority of us were always conscious of and were always urked by the jerky on-screen motions caused by Telecine. Everybody can learn to see Telecine motion problems in my experience, but most remain blissfully ignorant.

Now the ATSC standard still has 60Hz video modes defined within it. Even though other frame rates are allowed by ATSC, they will probably not ever be used because they would be incompatible with the earliest generation HDTVs, those analog RPTVs I mentioned before.

Fortunately there is a cure for the Telecine motion judder (clearly visible on Plasma, CRT, DLP, amd LCD televisions) which is 120Hz LCD panels or the 48Hz/72Hz plasma panels. Of the three refresh rates, 120Hz has unique advantages because it will sync with film AND video. The very expensive Pioneer Elite Plasmas with 72Hz and built-in frame interpolation must be manually switched between 60Hz (video) and 72Hz (film).

Funny, but there are not too many Pioneer Elite plasma owners complaining about frame interpolation artifacts. Strange because the Pioneer plasma has among the WORST quality frame interpolation I've seen. In case you are wondering, the BEST frame interpolation is on the brand new Panasonic PT-AE3000 120Hz front LCD projector.

When it comes to flat panels, I like Samsung's AMP better than other brands. But I also very frequently go to various commercial theaters and I am familiar with 35mm, IMAX, Digital, and 3D technologies in such theaters. Which is why I can comfortably say (and defend my arguments) that:

1) The 1080p 120Hz LCD with Frame Interpolation (AMP or whatever) provides the BEST simulation of 35mm 24fps in a theater. We are talking about smooth motion and bright contrasty images. If anybody wants to talk about black levels and the superiority of Plasma, I invite you to watch film in a theater. LCDs offer blacker blacks than the average 35mm film distribution print. LCDs also offer blacker blacks than are present on the average Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disk.

For those of you who DOUBT this statement, you have not visited a good film theater with a crisp new film print recently enough. If you do so, the modern film projector has it's own anti-judder motion (the native 24fps frame rate) and modern techniques for image stabilization (precision film positioning) and modern techniques (double flash at 48Hz) to eliminate flicker. The result is that FILM now looks "realer than real" when compared to 20 years ago. Of course, IMAX large format film and Digital projection already look much realer than 35mm film prints.

2) Plasmas (I briefly owned a pretty good Panasonic 50" plasma) are compromised in white levels every bit as much as LCDs are compromised in black levels. The average or even exceptional plasma can equal the 35mm film print when viewed in a darkened room. But it will NOT provide a good rendition of a Digital or IMAX large format film, it simply will not get bright enough.

3) In both Plasma and LCD, the 60Hz legacy represents the minimally acceptable level of performance, but only if you don't have a 1080p24 video source (I have two). For those you need 1080p 120Hz LCD or 1080p 72Hz plasma. If your DVD or HD/BD disk playback device is limited to 1080i60 or 1080p60, then you are never going to see and never miss the freedom from Telecine motion judder.

OK, let us start with film technology. 24fps and 35mm film was selected by Thomas Edison in the late 1800's. He had experimented with several sizes of film and several frame rates. He selected 35mm as a compromise between expense and image quality - the film base was (flammable) nitrocellulose and the B&W films of the time used expensive colloidal silver emulsions. He selected 24fps as a compromise between projector expense and image quality, due to the limitations and tolerances of the available machine tools used to manufacture precision projector parts.

Thirteen decades later 35mm and 24fps are still the standard, although we have safety film stock with fine-grained films based on organic color dyes, and fourth generation film projectors built with hardened steel alloy parts. But the 24fps was only ever sufficient for about 95% of the population. I have ALWAYS seen and ALWAYS been annoyed by film motion in a theater, which I perceive as a series of static images as if a strobe light were in use.

Now lets talk about 60Hz video. In the dark ages of NTSC television, B&W direct-view CRTs were in use. These were often found around the 60Hz flourescent lighting of the time. The NTSC standards committee noticed that pulsing 60Hz flourescent room illumination would interact with the near-60Hz images and the user would perceive either flicker or rolling vertical bars in the image. For that reason the NTSC video frame rate was not only set at 60Hz but was interlocked with the powerline 60Hz frequency (by using a 60Hz high voltage power supply for the CRT anode). Since the local TV station and user TV were on the same power grid, this stopped the flicker.

Now roll forward 80 years. The fact that Plasma and LCD panels run at 60Hz and 120Hz is for compatibility with legacy NTSC video sources. High voltage CRT anodes with 60Hz power supplies are pretty much gone although they were still around for first-generation analog HDTVs based on CRT rear projection technology.

Telecine was invented in the 1940's to synchronize 24fps film with 60Hz video broadcasts. Everybody grew up viewing direct-view CRT TV's with the peculiar distorted motions caused by Telecine and most pople are not troubled by it or sensitive to it. But once again a minority of us were always conscious of and were always urked by the jerky on-screen motions caused by Telecine. Everybody can learn to see Telecine motion problems in my experience, but most remain blissfully ignorant.

Now the ATSC standard still has 60Hz video modes defined within it. Even though other frame rates are allowed by ATSC, they will probably not ever be used because they would be incompatible with the earliest generation HDTVs, those analog RPTVs I mentioned before.

Fortunately there is a cure for the Telecine motion judder (clearly visible on Plasma, CRT, DLP, amd LCD televisions) which is 120Hz LCD panels or the 48Hz/72Hz plasma panels. Of the three refresh rates, 120Hz has unique advantages because it will sync with film AND video. The very expensive Pioneer Elite Plasmas with 72Hz and built-in frame interpolation must be manually switched between 60Hz (video) and 72Hz (film).

Funny, but there are not too many Pioneer Elite plasma owners complaining about frame interpolation artifacts. Strange because the Pioneer plasma has among the WORST quality frame interpolation I've seen. In case you are wondering, the BEST frame interpolation is on the brand new Panasonic PT-AE3000 120Hz front LCD projector.

When it comes to flat panels, I like Samsung's AMP better than other brands. But I also very frequently go to various commercial theaters and I am familiar with 35mm, IMAX, Digital, and 3D technologies in such theaters. Which is why I can comfortably say (and defend my arguments) that:

1) The 1080p 120Hz LCD with Frame Interpolation (AMP or whatever) provides the BEST simulation of 35mm 24fps in a theater. We are talking about smooth motion and bright contrasty images. If anybody wants to talk about black levels and the superiority of Plasma, I invite you to watch film in a theater. LCDs offer blacker blacks than the average 35mm film distribution print. LCDs also offer blacker blacks than are present on the average Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disk.

For those of you who DOUBT this statement, you have not visited a good film theater with a crisp new film print recently enough. If you do so, the modern film projector has it's own anti-judder motion (the native 24fps frame rate) and modern techniques for image stabilization (precision film positioning) and modern techniques (double flash at 48Hz) to eliminate flicker. The result is that FILM now looks "realer than real" when compared to 20 years ago. Of course, IMAX large format film and Digital projection already look much realer than 35mm film prints.

2) Plasmas (I briefly owned a pretty good Panasonic 50" plasma) are compromised in white levels every bit as much as LCDs are compromised in black levels. The average or even exceptional plasma can equal the 35mm film print when viewed in a darkened room. But it will NOT provide a good rendition of a Digital or IMAX large format film, it simply will not get bright enough.

3) In both Plasma and LCD, the 60Hz legacy represents the minimally acceptable level of performance, but only if you don't have a 1080p24 video source (I have two). For those you need 1080p 120Hz LCD or 1080p 72Hz plasma. If your DVD or HD/BD disk playback device is limited to 1080i60 or 1080p60, then you are never going to see and never miss the freedom from Telecine motion judder.


Um, whose questions were you answering, Gary? Not mine.

In case anybody is wondering about the Samsung 120Hz technology, it is based upon the following FRC chipset from Micronas:
http://www.micronas.com/consumer_products/by_function/frc_94xyh/product_information/index.html
....state of the art 2007.

The new Panasonic PT-AE3000 projector uses this even more advanced chipset:
http://www.micronas.com/consumer_products/by_function/frc_94x9q/product_information/index.html

The very expensive Pioneer Elite Plasmas with 72Hz and built-in frame interpolation must be manually switched between 60Hz (video) and 72Hz (film).

Purecinema Advance mode on the Elite automatically detects a 24fps signal and converts it to 72Hz. All 60Hz content remains at 60Hz. At least, that's how it's designed to work (there is some controversy here). There should not be any toggling on/off required.

Funny, but there are not too many Pioneer Elite plasma owners complaining about frame interpolation artifacts. Strange because the Pioneer plasma has among the WORST quality frame interpolation I've seen. In case you are wondering, the BEST frame interpolation is on the brand new Panasonic PT-AE3000 120Hz front LCD projector.

Probably because frame interpolation is only supposed to occur in Smooth mode, which most people seem to not use.

For those of you who DOUBT this statement, you have not visited a good film theater with a crisp new film print recently enough. If you do so, the modern film projector has it's own anti-judder motion (the native 24fps frame rate) and modern techniques for image stabilization (precision film positioning) and modern techniques (double flash at 48Hz) to eliminate flicker. The result is that FILM now looks "realer than real" when compared to 20 years ago. Of course, IMAX large format film and Digital projection already look much realer than 35mm film prints.

I recently watched a new film in an IMAX theater and did not find that it looked anything like AMP.

;16104772']By your own eyes - Is the way the current gen of Pioneer KURO plasmas handle 24p content preferable visually to the way a 120Hz/ frame interp set does so?

i've only watched poineer in the store so you're asking the wrong person. but if you're asking if i prefer soap - i already said yes, for some things, no for others. i usually leave it on.

now if your'e asking if mcfi motion resolution and motion pq is better in general on a technical basis the answer is most definitely yes (sans artifacts xrox pointed out). that's why the samsung 950 (an lcd of all things) bested every other display (including poineers i believe) in hdguru' motion resolution test.

now let me ask you a question - isn't it nice to have it as an option (for some content at least: i.e. sports, animation, documentaries)

;16104933']Um, whose questions were you answering, Gary? Not mine.

Nope, I was replying to borf and xrox above, and had not seen your post. I have spent some time with a few 2008-vintage Kuro's at the Magnolia HiFi in San Jose. This "PureCinema Advance" mode is not something I recall from Summer 2008. Is it on this year's Kuro models?

I believe it was introduced with the 9G panels.

i've only watched poineer in the store so you're asking the wrong person. but if you're asking if i prefer soap - i already said yes, for some things, no for others. i usually leave it on.

now if your'e asking if mcfi motion resolution and motion pq is better in general on a technical basis the answer is most definitely yes (sans artifacts xrox pointed out). that's why the samsung 950 (an lcd of all things) bested every other display (including poineers i believe) in hdguru' motion resolution test.

now let me ask you a question - isn't it nice to have it as an option (for some content at least: i.e. sports, animation, documentaries)

Thought so. You're railing against a display you've not seen, and you're trusting a single reviewer who clearly has a bias (and who is largely alone in his views of the 9G KUROs).

And you can't say "sans artifacts". You have to take each display as a package, because they don't exist "sans artifacts".

Technical bases are all well and good, but the eye is the proof. Let's ask those who have tested a KURO model in their homes with 24p content.

Ladies? Gentlemen?

Nope, I was replying to borf and xrox above, and had not seen your post. I have spent some time with a few 2008-vintage Kuro's at the Magnolia HiFi in San Jose. This "PureCinema Advance" mode is not something I recall from Summer 2008. Is it on this year's Kuro models?

You clearly haven't really kept up with that Pioneer is doing (apart from a cursory observation in the store that it was a large sheet of glass that wouldn't work in your home) in plasma displays. And they're the BEST in the business. The top of their game. For you to conclude that plasma tvs have nothing to offer you because you got flicker from a single Panny set is like saying "no internal combustion engine for me" because you test-drove a Honda and found it wanting.

;16105282']Thought so. You're railing against a display you've not seen, and you're trusting a single reviewer who clearly has a bias (and who is largely alone in his views of the 9G KUROs).

i have personally tried so hard not to use the word "kuro" or "pioneer" in this thread and only do so now because its obviously unavoidable - here within this lcd topic. if i'm now willing to play on the "kuro" field then don't bash me for it - you had better present facts. why do kuro folks get so defensive about anything "not plasma". i don't care about lcd vs plasma personally. i'm not here to "rail" against any display. kuro is a fine display. i'm here to talk about 120hz/ mcfi which happens to be lcd club only - but thats ok, everyone is welcome.

as far as hdguru goes, you haven't been around long - he has long been said to favor plasmas.

;16105282']And you can't say "sans artifacts". You have to take each display as a package, because they don't exist "sans artifacts".

true and i really hate defending mcfi over natural frame rates but will do so when i see agenda, preference and fud dictating fact.




;16105282']Technical bases are all well and good, but the eye is the proof. Let's ask those who have tested a KURO model in their homes with 24p content.

i could show you some videos to educate you, but really don't want to take the time. i recommend you read up on this stuff.



and you didn't answer my question.

Is it nice to have an option? I suppose. But it's a deflection from the topic of conversation.

And this isn't an LCD topic nor an LCD forum. (I will grant that 120Hz is largely an LCD feature, but even Panny has been compelled to speak in those terms - new 09 plasma models with a 600Hz sub-field drive. (They weren't really pushing the fact that their previous generation was equipped with a 480Hz sub-field drive, so it's clearly a change in the marketing vernacular).

Again, when it comes to technical points, AMP and 120Hz lose because it really is inserting artificial frames and smoothing the resultant output. The KURO's simply decode 24p in the proper manner without inserting visual oddities into the mix like 120Hz/AMP does.

The output of 120Hz/AMP is not inescapably desirable. What should those of us do who experience headaches after watching a few minutes of 120Hz/AMP? Why on earth should we suffer through 8 more hours to possibly/possibly not "get it" like you guys suggest we should? Especially when we've already found a much more acceptable way of rendering a pleasing 24p image (that produced by the KUROs)!

That suggestion is a cop-out anyways. Even a year later the street price on the 9G Kuro is twice the price point where I was shopping for a 46"-50" HDTV last year. I already have a Home Theater, I would upgrade the projector to the PT-AE3000 120Hz 1080p for $2500 and have frame interpolation for the the 96" theater screen first. I also don't have a family room where I can tolerate a glass panel, even the best anti-glare glass is a far cry from the true matte-finish LCD screens.

Based on comments in this thread I will go see the 9G Kuro and the new 7-Series Samsung LED LCDs. But I doubt I'll be upgrading.

Anybody ever been to a Movie Premiere in Hollywood? Ever notice that such evets frequently involve large format film or 3rd generation digital projectors nowadays? The classic "look" and the limitations of 35mm film prints are apparently NOT what the "director's intent" is about nowadays. The newer film formats blow the 19th Century Edison format out of the water. Yet so many many people (even in this very thread) seem to think that the widespread 35mm distribution print is the way the Director wanted things to look - I just cannot agree.

Edit: 120Hz with Frame Interpolation also exists in the world of direct-view CRT monitors and DLP rear-projection sets, although it is an unusual feature. On the DLP sets I have seen, it has similar benefits to the flat panel LCDs.

That suggestion is a cop-out anyways. Even a year later the street price on the 9G Kuro is twice the price point where I was shopping for a 46"-50" HDTV last year. I already have a Home Theater, I would upgrade the projector to the PT-AE3000 120Hz 1080p for $2500 and have frame interpolation for the the 96" theater screen first. I also don't have a family room where I can tolerate a glass panel, even the best anti-glare glass is a far cry from the true matte-finish LCD screens.

Based on comments in this thread I will go see the 9G Kuro and the new 7-Series Samsung LED LCDs. But I doubt I'll be upgrading.

1. This thread has not been about "What can Gary afford to buy?" This thread has been about Gary wants us all to agree with him that 120Hz is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

It isn't. 120Hz doesn't solve film problems, nor does AMP create a retroactive frame-rate upconversion to make everyone happy with the result. Do we sound happy with the result, Gary? No.

2. You cursory swipe at glare on glass plasma screens is a clever way to avoid all the superior things KUROs are capable of doing for people watching 24p content and who find the artifacts inherent in 120Hz/AMP distasteful or disconcerting. By dismissing all plasmas from the conversation, you're avoiding having to speak to the simple, elegant ways Pioneer has addressed the film judder and panning issues in 24p content.

Proper handling of fast motion content in both HD TV and 24p film content from disc have long been nigh to impossible for HDTVs to handle properly. Even now, in 2009, we can still count on 2 hands all the currently available models that can do it properly. 120Hz/AMP is not perfection onscreen. It is a stopgap measure, a kludge, until films are actually released in higher bit-rates and frame rates.

3. By doing #1 and #2, you're really all about justifying your choice and putting your purchase up on a pedestal and trying to preach to convert those of us whose homes aren't like yours, and whose eyes don't see what yours see.

When reading about interpolation artifacts I keep reading the mention of the background around moving objects being unintentionally smeared or blurred or generally f#$@ed up by the ME algorithym. I wonder if this unintentional blurring of the bakground around a moving object is the source of the 3D look that interpolation can sometimes create?

Also, my main reason for not liking interpolation is that it makes me want to vomit, literally:) I haven't quite figured out why but I know my visual system is telling me something is wrong. And no, it is not because it is too real :rolleyes: or whatever. I've kinda pinpointed that it has something to do with a mismatch between the foreground objects and background objects that gets me queezy.

Cheers

;16105822']


Again, when it comes to technical points, AMP and 120Hz lose because it really is inserting artificial frames and smoothing the resultant output.

do you even know the technical points? once again this is preference.


;16105822']Why on earth should we suffer through 8 more hours to possibly/possibly not "get it" like you guys suggest we should? Especially when we've already found a much more acceptable way of rendering a pleasing 24p image (that produced by the KUROs)!

if you're talking to me, i haven't said anyone has to like it personally. there are good points and bad points to it i think so please don't lump me in with "you guys". i definitely try to stay away from terms like "proper", "incorrect" and "acceptable", "desirable" ...ahem :rolleyes:

;16105969'] It is a stopgap measure, a kludge, until films are actually released in higher bit-rates and frame rates.


now you're talkin.

Some might be surprised, but I think the frame interpolation technology is horrible for Pixar's CG movies, not because they look too real, but rather, because they look too FAKE. I saw Ratatouille at BB the other day with the "120hz" technology turned on and it looked, motion-wise, like an in-engine 3d cutscene from an older PC game, circa-2003 or so. It was quite sad.

In my mind, lower framerates permit the CG to "breathe," tricking my mind into thinking that the skin is soft, hairs interact with the air, and that these rendered polygons on the screen have mass. But, the smoothness makes every movement too linear, too tight, and lifeless. No one in real life can move his hand from point A to point B without incurring some kind of herky-jerkiness, trembling, or non-linear type of motion. But these characters are moving entirely along smooth paths at near constant speeds.

I guess the way my brain works is that the less information there is, the more my brain compensates to bring things up to its preconceived notion of "reality." But as more information is introduced, there is the possibility that my brain is no longer compensating, but is now in the process of judging what it sees against its "reality" and rejecting information that departs from its "reality." That's when things look garishly fake. I don't know if I'm making sense here, but I think this may be related to the "uncanny valley" area of human perception.

FYI animated digital productions are still 24fps. So are movies like the Star Wars prequels that are shot on camcorder, massaged in a computer to add CGI characters, and then released as 24fps digital masters.

Although 24fps is fine for most people, it's only usable in total darkness - any room illumination causes flicker, even incandescent lighting (which does flicker less than flouresecent). This is why theaters are darkened.

As for Plasma panels in my home, be aware that I have a home in sunny California, the family room has windows without light controlling treatments on three walls, the fourth wall has glass doors without light control that face a central atrium with full sunlight from above.

Glass screens just do not cut it. I tried a flat screen Sony Wega before that and had the same glare problem. The Wega could only be used with the wooden cabinet doors half open so that they blocked glare from the sides - and even then, at certain times of the day the Wega was unusable. Even after dark, the plasma was only usable in darkness - there was a couch positioned opposite the HDTV, with reading lamps at each end. When one person was reading at one end of the couch, the other person saw a reflected image overlaid on the screen. Glass screens were and are totally unusable in this room - that's as plain as I can say it. Matte finish LCD screens are completely usable in full sunlight at all times of the day and night. LCD wins - no contest whatsoever.

As for fast motion onscreen, there was a thread some months back about that. Fast motion and also camera pans result in a condition where many of the pixels on the screen change every frame. This worst case scenario maximizes the bitrate and minimizes the MPEG2 compression used for ATSC broadcasts. If the local station is stealing bits for subchannels, there is not enough bandwidth for the HD image remaining, the result is that 16x16 blocks of adjacent pixels (often called macroblocks) are broadcast with the same colors. The worst case was identified as a 720p broadcast (which requires more bandwidth than 1080i) with subchannels. This is an ATSC specification issue and there is no relief in sight - MPEG4 compression is not part of the ATSC spec, and lower frame rates than 60Hz (which ARE part of the ATSC spec) cannot be used without losing compatibility with first generation analog ATSC sets with CRT rear projection technology.

Also, my main reason for not liking interpolation is that it makes me want to vomit, literally:)


I am close to vomiting when I watch our "leaders". AMP, set to MEDIUM, never does it to me. No, this is not an invitation to a political debate. I just couldn't resist it once you mentioned your gag reflex acting up on you.

Another unrelated point I want to make is that you bring a lot of good info to this forum that was already acknowledged by others so it's nothing new to you. My disappointment is that AVS would not provide a special folder for the "pros" like you and Gary McCoy where we could get solid info without reading a ton of meaningless posts like mine.

I definitely try to stay away from terms like "proper", "incorrect" and "acceptable", "desirable" ...ahem :rolleyes:

Add to that "director's intent". Words cannot describe how I dispise this term. All of these terms connect with rules, control, and obedience and judgement as if I were in the fifth grade again.

Back to 120Hz and AMP: What I would like to know is what percentage of the LCD owners who have AMP or equivalent actually use it. I started a poll. This would be a simple way to find out if the owners find it attractive or is it just a useless marketing gimmick.

I am close to vomiting when I watch our "leaders". AMP, set to MEDIUM, never does it to me. No, this is not an invitation to a political debate. I just couldn't resist it once you mentioned your gag reflex acting up on you.

Another unrelated point I want to make is that you bring a lot of good info to this forum that was already acknowledged by others so it's nothing new to you. My disappointment is that AVS would not provide a special folder for the "pros" like you and Gary McCoy where we could get solid info without reading a ton of meaningless posts like mine.Thanks for the kind words but I can't take any credit. Nearly all of the info I post is directly from tech papers and patents. Most of which would bore most here to sleep :)

Also, my main reason for not liking interpolation is that it makes me want to vomit, literally:) I haven't quite figured out why but I know my visual system is telling me something is wrong. And no, it is not because it is too real :rolleyes: or whatever. I've kinda pinpointed that it has something to do with a mismatch between the foreground objects and background objects that gets me queezy.

Cheers

I feel the same way now.
The fact that the motion is being enhansed is so blatantly obvious and distracting, that I can't enjoy the movie.
Way too distracting and fake looking.
It makes me feel kinda like when i watch a movie with a huge amount of CGI. I just can't enjoy the movie when its so artificial looking.

This mainly only happens with film though. With Live shows/sports/etc, I can't even tell the interpolation is happening until the vapors/aurora start showing up.

Personally, I have never really observed the "3D" look that some talk about. It has never made content look 3-D to me. Just motion enhansed.

Add to that "director's intent". Words cannot describe how I dispise this term. All of these terms connect with rules, control, and obedience and judgement as if I were in the fifth grade again.

Back to 120Hz and AMP: What I would like to know is what percentage of the LCD owners who have AMP or equivalent actually use it. I started a poll. This would be a simple way to find out if the owners find it attractive or is it just a useless marketing gimmick.

I think it's how the manufacturer processes the motion. From a layman's eye I couldn't take Samsung's "AMP" and Sony's "Motion Flow" last year when I was buying a new 52 LCD. Too "in your face and soap opera like" and smearing but I stumbled on the Toshiba 52xv540 and love thier version of interpolation. It's not intrusive, a little more toned down but makes my movies fantastic. Maybe because Toshiba is a chip proccesor company that they seem to do a better job to my eyes.

My $.02

It's true that different manufacturer's implementation of frame interpolation differ in performance. It is also true that (IMHO) Samsung's late 2007 firmware was good and the 2008 units actually got a little worse when Samsung dropped down from the Micronas video processor to a lower-performance Samsung chipset.

The BEST implementation of frame interpolation in early 2009 IMHO is on the Panasonic PT-AE3000 front projector, and not on any current flat panel displays.

As for trends in the HDTV marketplace, LCD continues to gain market share from plasma, and 120Hz LCDs capable of frame interpolation have in the past year grown from a tiny number to about 1/3 the sets advertized. In terms of actual sales this probably means something about the increasing popularity of frame interpolation as a feature, but if anybody publishes actual sales numbers about 120Hz vs. 60Hz, I have never found any.

I would not buy any HDTV today without the frame interpolation feature. I would, as in the above message, shop carefully for an implementation of Frame Interpolation I liked.

I pretty much like the Samsung frame interpolation, and the Panasonic front projector. I do not think the Samsung 1080i deinterlacing performance is as good as some I have seen - Sony's is better, but Sony's frame interpolation (MotionFlow) is less impressive.

It's true that different manufacturer's implementation of frame interpolation differ in performance. It is also true that (IMHO) Samsung's late 2007 firmware was good and the 2008 units actually got a little worse when Samsung dropped down from the Micronas video processor to a lower-performance Samsung chipset.

The BEST implementation of frame interpolation in early 2009 IMHO is on the Panasonic PT-AE3000 front projector, and not on any current flat panel displays.

As for trends in the HDTV marketplace, LCD continues to gain market share from plasma, and 120Hz LCDs capable of frame interpolation have in the past year grown from a tiny number to about 1/3 the sets advertized. In terms of actual sales this probably means something about the increasing popularity of frame interpolation as a feature, but if anybody publishes actual sales numbers about 120Hz vs. 60Hz, I have never found any.

I would not buy any HDTV today without the frame interpolation feature. I would, as in the above message, shop carefully for an implementation of Frame Interpolation I liked.

I pretty much like the Samsung frame interpolation, and the Panasonic front projector. I do not think the Samsung 1080i deinterlacing performance is as good as some I have seen - Sony's is better, but Sony's frame interpolation (MotionFlow) is less impressive.


Interpolation isn't growing in popularity, 120hz is, and really people have no idea what that means. All that people know is they want the LCD w/ 120hz b/c that's what their friend has and they told them it's the greatest thing in the world. They don't have any idea what it looks like (of course I'm generalizing). 120hz isn't becoming popular b/c of what it does, it's becoming a trend, and in marketing that's worth more than quality (I'm not going to even bother mentioning examples, I'm sure you can think of a few). Same with the almost arbitrary numbers you'll see on a card for CR. People don't find out what it means, they just go w/ the bigger number because it must be better, right? :D

Interpolation is indeed cool. I like it sometimes simply b/c it looks neat and different. I most certainly wouldn't use it in 90% of movies though, and companies simply charge to much for the tech. Once 120hz becomes the standard and an interpolation option is usually included, I won't complain, but until then, I certainly won't be coughing up extra dough for a novelty.

But, dude, it's 120Hz. 120 > 60. It HAS to be better!

Sometimes I think marketing people have it too easy. ;)

Although 24fps is fine for most people, it's only usable in total darkness - any room illumination causes flicker, even incandescent lighting (which does flicker less than flouresecent). This is why theaters are darkened.



Umm What threater are you going to that they are showing a movie at 24:confused:

Threaters show movies at 48 or 72. You can see flicker in a bright room, theaters are not dark to reduce flicker.

Took me a day to get used to interpolation, now I miss it on my other TVs. Guess its time to update them all (this will have a low WAF) :o

Once it becomes the standard, I won't complain, but until then, I certainly won't be coughing up extra dough for a novelty.

Heaven help us is if it becomes a standard.
I don't think it will, too many professionals and video experts agree that it looks far too cheap and gimmicky.

If manufacturers want to start adding interpolation options to thier Tv's then I am fine with that. Just as long as you can turn it off and see the content correctly and as intended.
IMO it should only be an option and NEVER a standard.
Too many people like movies and should not have to suffer with motion tampering

Heaven help us is if it becomes a standard.
I don't think it will, too many professionals and video experts agree that it looks far too cheap and gimmicky.

If manufacturers want to start adding interpolation options to thier Tv's then I am fine with that. Just as long as you can turn it off and see the content correctly and as intended.
IMO it should only be an option and NEVER a standard.
Too many people like movies and should not have to suffer with motion tampering


Oh definitely I was referring to 120hz as the standard not interpolation. I didn't make that clear enough. If interpolation is on a TV an not able to be turned off it is definitely not a TV I want to own, i doubt that will happen though, b/c I know I'm not alone in that.

I own and enjoy a Pio KURO 6020FD. The film judder in it blows. I looked at a new LED lit LCD with 120hz w/ AMP and I am sold. MY PERSONAL CHOICE is now "Screw the old technology, if we can improve the pictures with new technology. I'll most likely sell my Kuro since it is hard to look at after viewing the 120 AMP, and buy a 120 or 240hz LCD
I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything other than provide a perspective as another KURO owner.

I own and enjoy a Pio KURO 6020FD. The film judder in it blows. I looked at a new LED lit LCD with 120hz w/ AMP and I am sold. MY PERSONAL CHOICE is now "Screw the old technology, if we can improve the pictures with new technology. I'll most likely sell my Kuro since it is hard to look at after viewing the 120 AMP, and buy a 120 or 240hz LCD
I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything other than provide a perspective as another KURO owner.

If you think the film judder of the Kuro blows then basically what you are saying is that Film blows.
The kuro is giving you an exact representation of the source content.
Your problem is the source content, not the Kuro.
What you are saying is no different than not liking a cetain movie and blaming the Kuro for it.

If you would preferr your TV to alter film and remove every speck of film judder than by all means, get an LCD with AMP/Motionflow, crank that enhansement up to the max, sit back and enjoy the soap opera. Its your money, do what you like. Just don't complain about black level issues, flashlighting, clouding,ghosting, off angle picture degradation, and the other issues that come with it. And unlike the most so called "issues" with a plasma, these issues are consistant and everyone sees them to some extent.

Also, be sure to call samsung and congrtulate them on a sucessful marketing gimmick.;)

All I know is it makes all the pretty little pictures look CLOSER to HI DEF than the Kuro accomplishes... to me. I'm discussing this in another thread already

I believe it was introduced with the 9G panels.

My 8G Pioneer has Advance and Smooth as well.

I own and enjoy a Pio KURO 6020FD. The film judder in it blows. I looked at a new LED lit LCD with 120hz w/ AMP and I am sold. MY PERSONAL CHOICE is now "Screw the old technology, if we can improve the pictures with new technology. I'll most likely sell my Kuro since it is hard to look at after viewing the 120 AMP, and buy a 120 or 240hz LCD
I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything other than provide a perspective as another KURO owner.

But the part that you can't seem to get, is that all of our eyes are different. I don't think that there are too many people out there that are seeing things on their Kuros as you are. I know I certainly don't see any horrible panning or artifacts like objects being doubled, etc that you describe. It appears that there is something with your visual perception that is different than many, and therefore you need something different to help you work around it. Heck I even loaded up WALL-E yesterday on my 5010/PS3 looking at the scene you described and took pictures... but nada... just smooth motion.

Xrox keeps nicely stating this in your other thread, but all of your posts come across as broad generalizations. Imagine if the folks that see DLP rainbows were trying to convince everyone they were supposed to see them.

Anyways I try to avoid this thread because I disagree with Gary 100% and that's not going to change. But at the same time I could care less if people enjoy AMP. I simply think it's a poorly implemented kludge of a technical solution turned marketing gimmick. In my thinking it's mostly like "dynamic mode". If people want to use it, fine. They are obviously looking for a vastly different experience from their display than I am. And if they started a "Dynamic Mode Forever" thread I'd try to ignore that too.

Note: Yes I understand the difference between AMP and 120hz, but everyone seems to be talking about motion processing anyways.

Heaven help us is if it becomes a standard.
I don't think it will, too many professionals and video experts agree that it looks far too cheap and gimmicky.



Ya because every one always agrees with the "professionals and video experts" when is the new KURO coming out again?

I enjoyed the OP's explanation about how we've all lived with 24fps for a hundred years and now something faster comes along and we are not comfortable with it's advanced purity. That is exactly how I see this whole issue. This is a NEW thing and different. Change never comes easy.

I enjoyed the OP's explanation about how we've all lived with 24fps for a hundred years and now something faster comes along and we are not comfortable with it's advanced purity.

Misc excerpts from your post in the other thread when you demo'd motion enhancement with your own content...

"...she suffered a tiny bit of "Face Off"... you know what I mean... her makeup was sliding around a bit. ..... I think I saw her nose dislocate for a second also when she turned her face.......It had that high frame rate "Soap opera" look everyone seems to hate...."

How is that advanced purity? Is changing the apparent cadence of the film, and having people's noses come off and facial details creep around a legitimate tradeoff? There's no doubt that everyone is entitled to make that decision themselves.... but I certainly wouldn't call it advanced purity.

I can appreciate something better than 24p coming along and improving our experiences, but true change comes at the source. Upscaled DVD isn't a substitute for 1080p, and similarly motion enhancement isn't a substitute for a framerate better than 24p. Both are band-aids...

Although I enjoy the benefits of AMP, I seem to be in a slowly growing group that is still (at this moment) in the minority. Although I'm not sure - I know a great many people who bought flat panel HDTVs based more on the sale at WalMart or Costco than any concern with technological frills. Several relatives told me for example that this was the first time they could see the improvements of DVD over VHS. It may be true however that among the more technologicly astute those who appreciate 120Hz are no longer a minority - as I mentioned before if you look at advertizing, the 120Hz sets are about 1/3rd of those present, and for the most part are the higher priced models.

But the benefits of 24Hz video sources viewed on a 120Hz display are plain for all to see. I am referring to the smoothness of motion from the even 5:5 pulldown that displays each source frame for an equal amount of time. Like I have said, many people are not sensitized to this temporal artifact because they grew up with direct-view CRTs that were locked to the 60Hz powerline frequency by their high voltage power supplies. Throughout their entire childhoods, they watched far more NTSC brooadcasts from film, complete with Telecine motion judder, than any other type of video.

I have always been bugged by this Telecine judder. I have always been bugged by the slow 24fps frame rate in a theater. I have (since the advent of ATSC broadcasts) been bugged by the 1080i interlacing temporal artifacts. Yes, intellectually I know that 480i had such artifacts as well - but they are so "in your face" with 1080i that I wonder that more do not complain.

Just because 35mm 24fps film was good enough for Thomas Edison in 1896 does not mean it's good enough for me. I view 120Hz LCD displays as the first major advance in video fidelity since ATSC. I'm afraid my view of plasma technology is it is a peculiar detour in CRT technology, temporary in nature.

I might clarify that a bit and mention that 120Hz technology is only halfway there. It will have arrived completely when there are displays capable of accepting 120Hz video signals and displaying them - all current displays max out at 60Hz inputs except for a few fast CRT gaming displays. The video game market will drive 120Hz technology IMHO - 60Hz is not fast enough for today's games. But I am not a gamer - I own a PS3 and have done nothing but play Blu-Ray and download a few trailers on it in 15 months.

For those of you interested in the history of the Edison film projector, I would recommend the following searches:

Kinetoscope (around 1888) - The first Edison moving picture invention. This and the later Eidoloscope were single-user film viewers.
Vitascope (1895-1896) - An early film projection technology leased by Edison which caused him to realize that the future of film was large audiences and projection technology.
Projectoscope (1896) - The first implementation of 35mm 24fps film. Edison also made movies from about 1896-1900, but fortunately recognized that this was a seperate and very different business. His film camera and projector patents however earned far more than any of his other inventions with the possible exception of the electric power plant.

Let me say that I understand and respect those who prefer the "look" of the film technology from 1896. I also enjoy retro technology sometimes myself - like owning and shooting black powder firearms. But I WILL NOT be content with the likes of 1896 video when we can do so much better today. I rank the major advances in video since 1896 as these:

1) Talking pictures and color pictures - 1920's and 1930's, a complex history.
2) Broadcast television - specificly the 1941 NTSC standard for B&W.
3) Color television - the 1953 NTSC standard.
4) VHS recordings - around 1977.
5) Large format front and rear CRT projection, around 1980.
6) HD television - the 1986 ATSC standard.
7) DVD recordings - around 1997.
8) Blu-Ray and HD-DVD - 2005.
9) 1080p 120Hz displays - 2006 (although CRTs were available earlier).

I find it ludicrous that somebody would stop between #8 and #9 and proclaim that basicly 120Hz is the spawn of the devil that lacks the "look" of the 1896 Edison film standard!

I find it ludicrous that somebody would stop between #8 and #9 and proclaim that basicly 120Hz is the spawn of the devil that lacks the "look" of the 1896 Edison film standard!

The anti-interpolation, let's continue enjoying the 1896 invention, group is potentially doing the rest of use a disservice. Here is why: A set without AMP can make only them happy. A set with AMP can make them and the rest of us happy. Conclusion: If you don't like AMP, at least be quiet because, if the TV manufacturers read forums like AVS, they may drop the idea outright or reduce their efforts to make it better.

I can see a very similar argument happening in ten years.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/03/26/deutsche-telekom-exec-sees-holographic-tv-within-a-decade/

"...she suffered a tiny bit of "Face Off"... you know what I mean... her makeup was sliding around a bit. ..... I think I saw her nose dislocate for a second also when she turned her face.......It had that high frame rate "Soap opera" look everyone seems to hate...."

How is that advanced purity? Is changing the apparent cadence of the film, and having people's noses come off and facial details creep around a legitimate tradeoff? There's no doubt that everyone is entitled to make that decision themselves.... but I certainly wouldn't call it advanced purity.

I can appreciate something better than 24p coming along and improving our experiences, but true change comes at the source. Upscaled DVD isn't a substitute for 1080p, and similarly motion enhancement isn't a substitute for a framerate better than 24p. Both are band-aids...

That was on a Bly-ray test disc that used many different frame rates of the same video. And I didnt take note which version caused it. Nor did I adjust any motion control settings on the TV
I bet I could live with the occasional nose dislocation here and there compared to a CONSTANT loss of detail whenever anything moves on my plasma. I'll take 95% clarity over 50% anyday

Although I enjoy the benefits of AMP, I seem to be in a slowly growing group that is still (at this moment) in the minority.

They're only a 'minority' on AVS and perhaps a few like-minded forums, really.

As far as the group that really matters in terms of TV sales (i.e. the mainstream consumer), motion-enhancement seems to have gotten the thumbs-up, as the TV makers are stumbling all over themselves to bring it into more and more sets in their line-ups.

Last year, it was very hard to find a set smaller than 40" that had ME. This year, a fair number of 32-inchers have it. And thus the price of ME-capable sets continues to drop.

As long as ME can be turned down or off, I don't have a problem with it, and I'd wager that Joe Sixpack doesn't either. And, for good or ill, his votes, en masse, count for a lot more than ours do.
.

I find it ludicrous that somebody would stop between #8 and #9 and proclaim that basicly 120Hz is the spawn of the devil that lacks the "look" of the 1896 Edison film standard!

I guess I see what you're saying but I maybe some of us look at it like art. I'm glad the still camera came along to take photos but I don't want to see paintings disappear either. I DON'TEVEN KNOW IF THAT MAKES SENSE!

All I have to say is Long live The New flesh!

I view 120Hz LCD displays as the first major advance in video fidelity since ATSC.

Ignoring interpolation, what makes 120Hz better than, say, 72Hz? Both elimintate telecine judder. Why is 5:5 better than 3:3?

Although I enjoy the benefits of AMP, I seem to be in a slowly growing group that is still (at this moment) in the minority. Although I'm not sure - I know a great many people who bought flat panel HDTVs based more on the sale at WalMart or Costco than any concern with technological frills. Several relatives told me for example that this was the first time they could see the improvements of DVD over VHS. It may be true however that among the more technologicly astute those who appreciate 120Hz are no longer a minority - as I mentioned before if you look at advertizing, the 120Hz sets are about 1/3rd of those present, and for the most part are the higher priced models.

But the benefits of 24Hz video sources viewed on a 120Hz display are plain for all to see. I am referring to the smoothness of motion from the even 5:5 pulldown that displays each source frame for an equal amount of time. Like I have said, many people are not sensitized to this temporal artifact because they grew up with direct-view CRTs that were locked to the 60Hz powerline frequency by their high voltage power supplies. Throughout their entire childhoods, they watched far more NTSC brooadcasts from film, complete with Telecine motion judder, than any other type of video.

I have always been bugged by this Telecine judder. I have always been bugged by the slow 24fps frame rate in a theater. I have (since the advent of ATSC broadcasts) been bugged by the 1080i interlacing temporal artifacts. Yes, intellectually I know that 480i had such artifacts as well - but they are so "in your face" with 1080i that I wonder that more do not complain.

Just because 35mm 24fps film was good enough for Thomas Edison in 1896 does not mean it's good enough for me. I view 120Hz LCD displays as the first major advance in video fidelity since ATSC. I'm afraid my view of plasma technology is it is a peculiar detour in CRT technology, temporary in nature.

I might clarify that a bit and mention that 120Hz technology is only halfway there. It will have arrived completely when there are displays capable of accepting 120Hz video signals and displaying them - all current displays max out at 60Hz inputs except for a few fast CRT gaming displays. The video game market will drive 120Hz technology IMHO - 60Hz is not fast enough for today's games. But I am not a gamer - I own a PS3 and have done nothing but play Blu-Ray and download a few trailers on it in 15 months.

For those of you interested in the history of the Edison film projector, I would recommend the following searches:

Kinetoscope (around 1888) - The first Edison moving picture invention. This and the later Eidoloscope were single-user film viewers.
Vitascope (1895-1896) - An early film projection technology leased by Edison which caused him to realize that the future of film was large audiences and projection technology.
Projectoscope (1896) - The first implementation of 35mm 24fps film. Edison also made movies from about 1896-1900, but fortunately recognized that this was a seperate and very different business. His film camera and projector patents however earned far more than any of his other inventions with the possible exception of the electric power plant.

Let me say that I understand and respect those who prefer the "look" of the film technology from 1896. I also enjoy retro technology sometimes myself - like owning and shooting black powder firearms. But I WILL NOT be content with the likes of 1896 video when we can do so much better today. I rank the major advances in video since 1896 as these:

1) Talking pictures and color pictures - 1920's and 1930's, a complex history.
2) Broadcast television - specificly the 1941 NTSC standard for B&W.
3) Color television - the 1953 NTSC standard.
4) VHS recordings - around 1977.
5) Large format front and rear CRT projection, around 1980.
6) HD television - the 1986 ATSC standard.
7) DVD recordings - around 1997.
8) Blu-Ray and HD-DVD - 2005.
9) 1080p 120Hz displays - 2006 (although CRTs were available earlier).

I find it ludicrous that somebody would stop between #8 and #9 and proclaim that basicly 120Hz is the spawn of the devil that lacks the "look" of the 1896 Edison film standard!

You actually have people that couldn't tell the difference between VHS and DVD until they saw your TV? That speaks volumes about those relatives ability to distinguish actual improvement as VHS and DVD is similar to the difference between SD and HD, especially if you're playing it through an up-scaling player. It's statements like this that make it difficult to give your post much credibility.

As for you keep bringing 1896 technology into the discussions and acting like nothing has improved since then is like saying nothing much has improved on the internal combustion engine since its inception, which we know isn't true. The principles are the same but the improvements have been dramatic over the years on both technologies.

120hz has been a nice improvement for LCD's but AMP seems to be something that many can live without and some prefer not to actually use if they have it. Your Samsung 69 series TV was a nice TV 2 years ago but most sets, including plasmas have improved since then and I expect both to keep improving over the years and new technologies could emerge in a few years also.

You actually have people that couldn't tell the difference between VHS and DVD until they saw your TV? That speaks volumes about those relatives ability to distinguish actual improvement as VHS and DVD is similar to the difference between SD and HD, especially if you're playing it through an up-scaling player. It's statements like this that make it difficult to give your post much credibility.

As for you keep bringing 1896 technology into the discussions and acting like nothing has improved since then is like saying nothing much has improved on the internal combustion engine since its inception, which we know isn't true. The principles are the same but the improvements have been dramatic over the years on both technologies.

120hz has been a nice improvement for LCD's but AMP seems to be something that many can live without and some prefer not to actually use if they have it. Your Samsung 69 series TV was a nice TV 2 years ago but most sets, including plasmas have improved since then and I expect both to keep improving over the years and new technologies could emerge in a few years also.

You seem upset with him because of how effectively he can articulate the benefits of 120 hz LCD displays.

I wait to read more from hiim.

You actually have people that couldn't tell the difference between VHS and DVD until they saw your TV? That speaks volumes about those relatives ability to distinguish actual improvement as VHS and DVD is similar to the difference between SD and HD, especially if you're playing it through an up-scaling player. It's statements like this that make it difficult to give your post much credibility.

As for you keep bringing 1896 technology into the discussions and acting like nothing has improved since then is like saying nothing much has improved on the internal combustion engine since its inception, which we know isn't true. The principles are the same but the improvements have been dramatic over the years on both technologies.

120hz has been a nice improvement for LCD's but AMP seems to be something that many can live without and some prefer not to actually use if they have it. Your Samsung 69 series TV was a nice TV 2 years ago but most sets, including plasmas have improved since then and I expect both to keep improving over the years and new technologies could emerge in a few years also.

Please first READ and then THINK about what I said. In this case what I was saying is that several people I know could not see much difference between VHS and DVD - on their small screen 480i NTSC televisions from across the room. Now they have somewhat larger HDTVs and do in fact notice a difference. Not all of them care about this however. Nor will they (or most TV viewers for that matter) ever be the critical viewers that most AVS members are. They bought an HDTV basicly because they did not want to deal with converter boxes and one more remote.

The whole point I was making is that the majority of viewers buy on a value proposition (screen size versus price) and don't much notice video quality much less care about technical details such as AMP and 120Hz. But the more technologically astute are more appreciative of these high-end features.

I don't understand the balance of your argument. I bother to search out better quality theaters, IMAX theaters, digital theaters, and those with better sound systems. But the bulk of the theaters here in even tech-savvy Silicon Valley are content to meet a lesser standard - 35mm distribution prints on smallish screens, and sound mixed down to stereo. If you took an original Edison film print from a museum, those theater projectors could handle it (perhaps with a new aperture plate because there is no space on the old print for soundtracks).

The point being, Edison selected 24fps and 35mm to save film costs, and 113 years later we are still using those same specs. YES there have been incremental improvements within those parameters but the better quality film formats favored by Hollywood Directors are 70mm, IMAX, and Maxivision 48, plus the new Digital Camcorders, some of which capture 24fps and some 48fps. If you look for a Hollywood Premiere you will not find one on vanilla 35mm, and yet most people will accept that at their local theater, even though the film Director would not. To me, the "look of film" argument is totally bogus. I think instead that people like the look of the movies and the televisions they grew up with, and the source of their discomfort with AMP is the fact that it looks less familiar. Most people DO get over this in a few hours, and learn to appreciate 120Hz for what it brings.

To me, the "look of film" argument is totally bogus. I think instead that people like the look of the movies and the televisions they grew up with, and the source of their discomfort with AMP is the fact that it looks less familiar. Most people DO get over this in a few hours, and learn to appreciate 120Hz for what it brings.

...and, along with the director's intent, made up here at AVS with no basis that these views are shared by the unwashed and the un-initiated aka normal people that don't read AVS.

You seem upset with him because of how effectively he can articulate the benefits of 120 hz LCD displays.

I wait to read more from hiim.

Upset? Why would I be upset? :p

What's confusing in much of this discussion keeps crossing over between AMP and 120HZ as if they are one. 120hz was created to compete with plasmas ability to show motion without the side effect of motion blur and I have never said I have a problem with that. It's ability in picture quality though isn't near as much as GMc makes it out to be but it is an improvement. AMP is just an artificial process that changes the way the picture looks and makes movies look like they've been filmed on a home camcorder IMO. When I was looking for TV's a couple years ago I had looked at the 4069 and went with the 4065 instead because the improvement didn't justify the cost differential and I wasn't interested in AMP. If you like AMP that's perfectly your choice. I just don't happen to fall into that category. :cool:

What's confusing in much of this discussion keeps crossing over between AMP and 120HZ as if they are one.

Not to mention that sometimes 1000 word blocks of text aren't the most effective way to express an opinion.

I appreciate Gary's passion but man those are some long posts. :-)

Please first READ and then THINK about what I said. In this case what I was saying is that several people I know could not see much difference between VHS and DVD - on their small screen 480i NTSC televisions from across the room. Now they have somewhat larger HDTVs and do in fact notice a difference. Not all of them care about this however. Nor will they (or most TV viewers for that matter) ever be the critical viewers that most AVS members are. They bought an HDTV basicly because they did not want to deal with converter boxes and one more remote.

Gary, all I can read is what you write and there was never any mention of what there previous habits were and what they were viewing them on. The statement you made was very misleading and made a person to easily come to the conclusion that your TV with amp and 120hz opened their eyes to now be able to see a difference. If they had a HD plasma to view that same movie I'm sire the conclusion would have been very similar. Personally, I could always tell a difference between DVD and VHS when they both were viable options and on basic 27-32" CRT TV's as could my wife who really doesn't even care about PQ. Today, people by HDTV's basically because that's pretty much all that's available and the majority are still dealing with an STB and a remote whether it be cable or satellite so not sure about that point you were trying to make.

The whole point I was making is that the majority of viewers buy on a value proposition (screen size versus price) and don't much notice video quality much less care about technical details such as AMP and 120Hz. But the more technologically astute are more appreciative of these high-end features.

I definitely agree with the first part as my wife falls into that category, but there are many options available to obtain that quality and not just an LCD with AMP and 120hz..



The point being, Edison selected 24fps and 35mm to save film costs, and 113 years later we are still using those same specs. YES there have been incremental improvements within those parameters but the better quality film formats favored by Hollywood Directors are 70mm, IMAX, and Maxivision 48, plus the new Digital Camcorders, some of which capture 24fps and some 48fps. If you look for a Hollywood Premiere you will not find one on vanilla 35mm, and yet most people will accept that at their local theater, even though the film Director would not. To me, the "look of film" argument is totally bogus. I think instead that people like the look of the movies and the televisions they grew up with, and the source of their discomfort with AMP is the fact that it looks less familiar. Most people DO get over this in a few hours, and learn to appreciate 120Hz for what it brings.

Again, a 120hz LCD and AMP aren't the only ways to process these films and get a high quality picture as you seem to keep stating unless I'm reading it wrong. That simply isn't correct. I have nothing against some of the newer high end LCD's available as they put out an excellent picture as do the high end plasmas. It boils down to a matter of personal choice and hopefully we can agree with that.

Peace :)

Why would anybody who does not have a set with interpolation be here in this thread to speak against it other than to offer the "to each his own" line that is so motherhood it should banned from AVS as the single truest and, therefore, meaningless statement ever.

Before anybody jumps on this and offers "I don't need your permission" indignation, please notice the first word as a clue that this is a question that should be followed, if you chose to reply, with a sentence: No, I don't have and never had a set with interpolation but I am speaking against it because.....

On the other hand, if you do have a set so endowed, and tried using it with and without AMP, and decided to turn it OFF and forget it - that is interesting.

I have two Samsung sets - one with and one without - and I like the one with more. A lot.

Why would anybody who does not have a set with interpolation be here in this thread to speak against it other than to offer the "to each his own" line that is so motherhood it should banned from AVS as the single truest and, therefore, meaningless statement ever.

Before anybody jumps on this and offers "I don't need your permission" indignation, please take a note of the first word that is a clue this is a question that should be followed, if you chose to reply, with a sentence: No, I don't have and never had a set with interpolation but I am speaking against it because.....



To each his own. :cool:

Might be for the same reason a poster who owns LCD's going into a plasma forum and discussing power supplies and life expectancy of a plasma. :rolleyes:

These are all open forums and many of us are here as a hobbyist who like to learn and discuss various aspects of A/V and whatever one's intent is in a forum is perfectly acceptable to me as long as it's kept clean and with respect. The mods make sure of that part. :)

I do not like it because it destroys the cinematic experience for me. When I want to watch a movie, I'm not looking to watch a documentary - and AMP even on low creates that effect for me.

Again, I do not like panning judder, so there is no "perfect" movie experience for me right now. If a technology appears that retains the cinematic feel of film and can trick my eyes into never seeing judder, I'll be a happy camper.

To each his own. :cool:

Might be for the same reason a poster who owns LCD's going into a plasma forum and discussing power supplies and life expectancy of a plasma. :rolleyes:



...in response to which I was immediately reminded of the wisdom contained in the above and I didn't forget it. This is my turn to get even. I feels good to get even.

These are all open forums and many of us are here as a hobbyist who like to learn and discuss various aspects of A/V and whatever one's intent is in a forum is perfectly acceptable to me as long as it's kept clean and with respect. The mods make sure of that part. :)

Knowing how this forum works, as a preventive step, I covered this in my second sentence. Just like the "to each his own", it is a throw-away truism not worth repeating.

Knowing how this forum works, as a preventive step, I covered this in my second sentence. Just like the "to each his own", it is a throw-away truism not worth repeating.

Just a suggestion. Let the mods be mods and let the forum users discuss what they want and how they want. :D

Ignoring interpolation, what makes 120Hz better than, say, 72Hz? Both elimintate telecine judder. Why is 5:5 better than 3:3?

i think you mentioned having a multisync crt...they aren't too different. you can test this by setting a game to 24fps and varying the sync rate to 72/120 (make sure your graphics card is up to it)....gary might disagree here but theory says 24fps @ 120hz (5:5) would have more blur & less judder. likewise, 24@ 72hz (3:3) would have more judder & less blur. turns out this is what i see personally. there seems to be a blur/judder/flicker relationship that only allows substitutions (that is until you raise and sync the temporal frame rate - and then it becomes a whole different ballgame!)


5:5 blur is the reason i think lcd manufacturers seemed hesitant to incorperate it at first - they were trying to show how they could reduce lcd blur.

The unique advantage of 120Hz is that it is a multiple of 24fps for film (5:5 pulldown), and a multiple of the 720p60 ATSC video mode (2:2 pulldown), and a multiple of the 1080i60 ATSC video mode (deinterlaced to 1080p30 followed by 4:4 pulldown). The 120Hz display does this seamlessly without need to switch modes.

The plasma displays that switch between 60Hz and 72Hz refresh depend upon "cadence detection" to autoswitch, with motion artifacts generated until the switch occurs. Earlier plasmas would not autoswitch and had to be manually switched.

borf, nothing wrong with your theory except that CRT multisync monitors are analog devices subject to the laws of physics. As such the sync amplifiers and deflection coils and beam focus circuits have a "sweet spot" designed into them and at the same resolution 120Hz refresh requires a sweep frequency that is 66% higher than 72Hz. It is unlikely that the same CRT would have identical performance at both refresh rates, instead the one that was nearest the analog "sweet spot" would have the least blur and judder. (We used to spend hours with the old CRT front projectors maximizing performance by finding out what those analog "sweet spots" were.)

CRTs also use different formulations for the phosphors than do the plasma panels. The CRTs use "long persistence" phosphors where the glow lasts much longer than on a plasma. This allows the screen to be painted with two interlaced fields and your eye sees one deinterlaced frame image due to phosphor persistence. In fact interlacing was invented for CRTs in the days of vaccuum tubes to reduce sweep amplifier bandwidths and economize on the vacuum tube and deflection coil cost. But once you get up around 120Hz, that same phosphor persistence results in blurs and ghost trails after moving objects.

All three display technologies have their pros and cons. HDTVs based upon each technology have the advantage in certain applications, ambient lighting, etc. In fact the only people who are COMPLETELY WRONG are those who make nonsensical blanket statements like "plasma is better than LCD" or "CRT is better than LCD". The best technology for any particular application is determined by how and where it will be used. My family room is an environment where CRTs and plasmas are at a considerable daytime handicap, for example.

The plasma displays that switch between 60Hz and 72Hz refresh depend upon "cadence detection" to autoswitch

I've never noticed artifacts when switching between different rates at all. 24fps <---> 720p60 <---> 1080i60 looks perfectly seamless to me.

Just a suggestion. Let the mods be mods and let the forum users discuss what they want and how they want. :D

I am glad that we agree on this truism that nobody challenged. And another.

"soap opera" "documentary" "movie speed"... I don't care what anything is called...

I bought a big High Definition TV so I could see the MAXIMUM DETAILED QUALITY image it is capable of producing on it, all the time. Not half the time, or certain times, but ALL THE TIME. That is what I wanted to buy into. Call me narrow minded, I just want the highest rez, best looking picture on it, as much as possible.

5:5 blur is the reason i think lcd manufacturers seemed hesitant to incorperate it at first - they were trying to show how they could reduce lcd blur.Yes, 120Hz FRC was developed for LCD in order to combat SAH blur. Reduction of judder was an afterthought.

And 24fps rendered at 5:5 or 3:3 or 2:2 or 1:1 or 500:500 all have the same 42ms frame time and therefore duty cycle will determine amount of blur. In that respect if the duty cycle is less than 100% the lower the symetric cadence the less the blur. 1:1 > 2:2 > 3:3 >4:4 >5:5....etc

If the duty cycle is 100% there is no difference obviously :)

The plasma displays that switch between 60Hz and 72Hz refresh depend upon "cadence detection" to autoswitch, with motion artifacts generated until the switch occurs. Earlier plasmas would not autoswitch and had to be manually switched.And does the ability to use one refresh eliminate the need for detection of signal parameters and switching output formats and errors associated with this process?

CRTs also use different formulations for the phosphors than do the plasma panels. The CRTs use "long persistence" phosphors where the glow lasts much longer than on a plasma. You have this backwords. Both CRT (modern) and SED on average use much faster phosphor than PDP (especially green and red)

"soap opera" "documentary" "movie speed" "camcorder" ... I don't care what anything is called...

I bought a big High Definition TV so I could see the MAXIMUM DETAILED QUALITY image it is capable of producing on it, all the time. Not half the time, or certain times, but ALL THE TIME. That is what I wanted to buy into. Call me narrow minded, I just want the highest rez, best looking picture on it, as much as possible. Period.

You forgot "camcorder" and "Period". The corrected version shown above.

Other than that, your post should be framed or made into a bumper sticker.

hahahahhaa thanks! :D

Yes, 120Hz FRC was developed for LCD in order to combat SAH blur. Reduction of judder was an afterthought.

And 24fps rendered at 5:5 or 3:3 or 2:2 or 1:1 or 500:500 all have the same 42ms frame time and therefore duty cycle will determine amount of blur. In that respect if the duty cycle is less than 100% the lower the symetric cadence the less the blur. 1:1 > 2:2 > 3:3 >4:4 >5:5....etc

If the duty cycle is 100% there is no difference obviously :)



thanks xrox for confirming the difference between 3:3 and 5:5 (on an implulse displays anyway). i think we can say it as:

24fps @ 120hz: more blur, less judder
24fps @ 72hz: less blur, more judder

(yeah impulse display only - with s.a.h. (lcd) there isnt any difference)

higher hz approximate sample-and-hold somewhere after flicker-fusion imo.

this is basically sound but i think gary is right in that there are other things to factor in such as pixel response. the eye's response time is just as important i think. as far as the sweet spot (which i didn't know about) it may be a factor but i've watched not only 72 and 120 but everything in between. you can see the blur replace judder as you go up.... time to go work.

Second, how are any of you actually stating we don't know what the director's intent was? This is almost laughable to me. The director's intent is..........on the disc!

There have been many directors that have stated they don't like 24p, and yet are forced to use it, so, no, the director's intent is not necessarily what is on the disk.

There have been many directors that have stated they don't like 24p, and yet are forced to use it, so, no, the director's intent is not necessarily what is on the disk.

They were also forced to accept: the length of the movie, the age rating, the budget, the location, the actors, ....

You forgot "camcorder" and "Period". The corrected version shown above.

Other than that, your post should be framed or made into a bumper sticker.

Or better yet, it should be a slogan for samsung to use in order to get more people to fall for gimmicks instead of learning that thier LCD's are bad with motion.

thanks xrox for confirming the difference between 3:3 and 5:5 (on an implulse displays anyway). i think we can say it as:

24fps @ 120hz: more blur, less judder
24fps @ 72hz: less blur, more judder

(yeah impulse display only - with s.a.h. (lcd) there isnt any difference)

higher hz approximate sample-and-hold somewhere after flicker-fusion imo.

this is basically sound but i think gary is right in that there are other things to factor in such as pixel response. the eye's response time is just as important i think. as far as the sweet spot (which i didn't know about) it may be a factor but i've watched not only 72 and 120 but everything in between. you can see the blur replace judder as you go up.... time to go work.

Interesting post, thanks.

Or better yet, it should be a slogan for samsung to use in order to get more people to fall for gimmicks instead of learning that thier LCD's are bad with motion.


http://dmeb.net/speb/foryoureyes/Emperor03.jpg
"Ahh, yes, feel the hatred flow through you."


.

I don't understand this whole "film look" or "directors intent"! I honestly find most of the directors intents to be downright hideous! We have made SIGNIFICANT progress in image resolution, color resolution, and sound resolution, but we STRIVE to prevent progress in motion resolution???? WHY??????

Why are we letting 19th century standards and limitations still dictate HOW motion resolution should be TODAY????

Until the movie studios wake up and smell the 21st century... I will support motion interpolation. It is a step in the right direction and we need to continue down that direction until we see the death of 24p.

Give me motion enhancement over deeper blacks ANY day of the week!