There's much talk about frame interpolation these days, but I don't hear much about its drawbacks. About the only one I've read is that it adds some lip-sync issues, but how much? Is this delay constant so that once I dial in the audio delay on my AVR, I'll never have to worry about these lip-sync issues again? Or does it very from program to program so that adjusting the delay becomes a constant battle? And for those of you who use frame interpolation, is there any other disadvantages to it?

I'm having a difficult time considering this new innovation to be a feature that will be a deciding factor in choosing a new projector. My current model, a Panasonic AE2000, doesn't have it, and after watching Quantum of Solace this weekend and looking for judder, I'm quite certain that what I see at home is what I see in the theatres. Right now I don't missed it, but after see frame interpolation in action, I might change my mind.

I don't think delay is a downside of interpolation. All video processing has delays, and AV receivers are set up to allow you to delay the sound to compensate for it.

It could be an issue for video games, but you shouldn't need frame interpolation on game.

I think the potential downsides are:

1) Possible artifacts. The processor is looking at two frames and making a guess as to what is in between. Normal motion scenes are amenable to this, some scenes (extremely rapid movement, etc) it's possible some processors won't be able to do a good job and may introduce noticable artifacts. This downside will vary from projector to projector and may decrease as algorithms get better.

2) Artistic intent. If you don't have a problem with what you are seeing at the movie theater, why change it at home?

(You can argue that because of sample and hold effects, what you see is not what it is seen at the theater. In that case, it might be better to get a projector with dark frame insertion to better emulate the theater, rather than interpolation.)

My limited observation (15 minutes of viewing) is for some things like sports it's a useful feature, for movies, well... not so useful. If the stage coach wheels don't turn backwards as it pulls into town you're not watching a John Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ford) movie. For me, after watching movies at 24fps for 40 years the brain become conditioned to its idiosyncrasies. When they don't happen, you get pulled out of the movie experience as a little voice goes off and says, "Whoa this isn't the movies" :eek:

My limited observation (15 minutes of viewing) is for some things like sports it's a useful feature, for movies, well... not so useful. If the stage coach wheels don't turn backwards as it pulls into town you're not watching a John Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ford) movie. For me, after watching movies at 24fps for 40 years the brain become conditioned to its idiosyncrasies. When they don't happen, you get pulled out of the movie experience as a little voice goes off and says, "Whoa this isn't the movies" :eek:

Im with you. It just does not work for movies. I do like to turn it on for guests just to freak them out ( and it does ) but it is very unnatural looking. It looks more at home on video content.

I agree. The downside of frame interpolation is it makes film look like it was shot on an HD-cam. More like watching the "making of" extras than watching a film itself. It's neat for a little while but ruins the movie for me and actually makes it a less believable experience.

Probably fine for sports though.

I agree. The downside of frame interpolation is it makes film look like it was shot on an HD-cam. More like watching the "making of" extras than watching a film itself. It's neat for a little while but ruins the movie for me and actually makes it a less believable experience.

Probably fine for sports though.

True. The first time I saw a demo, I was impressed. The next time, when they had POTC playing, it seemed artificial. I think it would be great for nature shows, and animation though.

Art

So, what is natural about coach wheels turning backwards? ;-)
I agree that FI looks "unusual" because the artificial film look is lost and for a lot of film enthusiasts this is unacceptable.
On the other hand the FI look is much more like our reality and can create a very immersive 3D experience.

Guenther

P.S.: The reason many associate FI with a "video look" is that video has a 60 Hz framerate (NTSC) - so it also has less judder.

On the other hand the FI look is much more like our reality


See Mike Faraday's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday) observation about reality :rolleyes:
.
.
.

I also think it looks artificial on movies. mode1 was barely tolerable but mode2 was horrible. It would be interesting to see real film shot at higher fps to see if it's the higher fps per se, or the digital frame doubling that creates the artificial look.

Evan had some interesting thoughts on the matter. Scroll down on the page to read about frame interpolation.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm

It could be an issue for video games, but you shouldn't need frame interpolation on game.I

Why would you say that gamers don't need the frame interpolation? I guess that the motion resolution is guite important in games...

Why would you say that gamers don't need the frame interpolation? I guess that the motion resolution is guite important in games...

Not as important as lag. Gamers need 0 lag or close to it as possible which means video processing of this kind is a no no.

Why would you say that gamers don't need the frame interpolation? I guess that the motion resolution is guite important in games...
Games run native at 60 fps (consoles) or even higher (PC-games). No need for interpolation.


PS: I really hate the articifial look of frame interpolation on movies.

See Mike Faraday's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday) observation about reality :rolleyes:
.
.
.

I can totally understand that "it's not a movie if the coach wheels don't turn backwards" ;-) and that people do not like the look because it's not "filmlike".

But if people think that 24 fps look "natural" and 96 "artificial" then we really live in different realities...

Guess I should have taken the red pill - the blue one only gave me a headache ;-)

Guenther

I like it for alot of movies, but not for all...It depends...:)

It would be interesting to see real film shot at higher fps to see if it's the higher fps per se, or the digital frame doubling that creates the artificial look.

Go see an Imax film they're >24fps.

24 FPS is an old convention, nothing special about it except that we're used to it. It does have historical value and brings you close to the sensory information that the director experienced. But it does not bring you closer to the perceptual experience of the film in the context of the zeitgeist in which it was created.

If you listen to a Beethoven symphony played on original instruments, though the sensory information be the same, it will still sound to you nothing in the world like it did to the people who heard it within a decade or so of its first performance. The same holds for film but because of the nonlinear quality of "progress" the zeitgeist now evolves at blinding speed. If a film is more than a dozen years old there is no hope of seeing it the way it was seen when it was released--it's initial meanings are forever lost to direct experience and only its shadows are left for dissection and analysis.

seems to me it's something like that anyway LOL

My limited observation (15 minutes of viewing) is for some things like sports it's a useful feature, for movies, well... not so useful. If the stage coach wheels don't turn backwards as it pulls into town you're not watching a John Ford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ford) movie. For me, after watching movies at 24fps for 40 years the brain become conditioned to its idiosyncrasies. When they don't happen, you get pulled out of the movie experience as a little voice goes off and says, "Whoa this isn't the movies" :eek:

+1

I have only seen the AE3000 frame insertion. Is the VW200 similar? Does the Sony frame insertion offer any programming alternatives? I assume it's either inserting frames or it's not, and doing as good a job as it can.

It just seems like any motion blur captured in the 24fp rate and camera shutter, is still going to be presented as motion blur. It doesn't get any better.

I did notice in one scene in Swordfish where the camera pans down on a computer screen, the frame insertion was very dramatic at cleaning up the image. I'm still trying to figure out how it was doing it. :)

+1

I have only seen the AE3000 frame insertion. Is the VW200 similar? Does the Sony frame insertion offer any programming alternatives? I assume it's either inserting frames or it's not, and doing as good a job as it can.

It just seems like any motion blur captured in the 24fp rate and camera shutter, is still going to be presented as motion blur. It doesn't get any better.

I did notice in one scene in Swordfish where the camera pans down on a computer screen, the frame insertion was very dramatic at cleaning up the image. I'm still trying to figure out how it was doing it. :)

I was looking at a Sony rear projection LCD, LED, TV at Best Buy a week ago, they were using a PS3 as the source and some 1080p movies trailers to demo. This TV had the best use of frame interpolation I have seen yet. I noticed different manufacturers 120Hz look different then others, some look overly smooth and 3D, others slightly smooth and less 3D.

At first I didn't even realize 120Hz was running, trailers looked like normal 24fp but when the action would get fast nothing would get burly. Slow scenes looked like normal 24fp to me but fast action like spider-man swinging around looked smoothed and clear. It was the best frame interpolation I have seen yet. It did not have that super 3D look, but it was the first TV I have seen that I felt was watchable. Still some people may not like, but that is why manufacturers give you the option to turn it off.


If the VW80's frame interpolation looked like that LCD, LED Sony at Best Buy would try to import one for the 120Hz, I really liked it.

[QUOTE=Bytehoven;15101769.... the frame insertion was very dramatic at cleaning up the image. I'm still trying to figure out how it was doing it. :)[/QUOTE]

I don't know either but I'll bet you 25 cents that they heavily leverage the data abstractions used by the CODEC

I can totally understand that "it's not a movie if the coach wheels don't turn backwards" ;-) and that people do not like the look because it's not "filmlike".

But if people think that 24 fps look "natural" and 96 "artificial" then we really live in different realities...

I think that's really the wrong word for the effect, and not what people are getting at. When you watch a movie @ 24fps, it really seems to aid in the suspension of disbelief, to get you "into" the movie. The sort of surreal look of the low framerate just seems be the difference between "watching" and "experiencing" a movie.

Watching a motion-compensated frame-rate-converted movie just totally kills that, at least for me. I've played with it and it's completely awesome (on a technical level) what the technology does. But it totally changes the experience of watching the movie. It does look more like reality, but the loss of suspension of disbelief gives the whole movie an "artificial" feel.

Personally I find a 2D projection/transform of a 3D scene is plenty abstract in and of itself to allow the suspension of disbelief regardless of cadence. Aesthetic expectations evolve rapidly with experience. I expect that in 25 years or less 24fps will look nearly as quaint as silent films do today regardless of their artistic merit.

I expect that in 25 years or less 24fps will look nearly as quaint as silent films do today regardless of their artistic merit.

I didn't like The Jazz Singer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jazz_Singer_(1927_film)) when it first came out either. ;)

Aesthetic expectations evolve rapidly with experience. I expect that in 25 years or less 24fps will look nearly as quaint as silent films do today regardless of their artistic merit.

If films start being shot/projected/delivered at something higher (60fps) then I agree with you. But talking about mocomp frame rate conversion is much different than whether or not movies should be shot in 60fps or 24. mocomp frame rate conversion ("120Hz processing"/frame-creation) is more like colorzing a BW film. I don't think it will ever change the fact that changing 24fps to 60fps (or 120fps) with processing changes something fundamental about the movie that many will not like.

Mo-comp frame rate conversion utterly destroyed Saving Private Ryan for me. All the CGI looked cheap/fake, it stuck out like a sore thumb (where as it was very convincing when viewed @ 24fps), and the movie overall just lost it's impact and the whole movie just felt diminished.

I really think part of what make a "film" special, is it's low frame rate. Take that away, and it's just not as special anymore.

Now... I do like the idea of the director having creative control to select various frame rates for dramatic effect. I can image moving along at 24fps, and the then switching to 60fps to add impact to a fast paced action cut. It could really send shivers down your spine. I'm getting goose bumps just thinking about it. :D

It could really send shivers down your spine. I'm getting goose bumps just thinking about it. :D

Are you sure it's not just making your stomach queasy ?

I think the analogy with colorization has some merit though I too have only seen about 15 min of frame interpolation so I'm not in a position to have much of an opinion there. I sure want it as an option in my next display, however.

I do believe that 24fps like "emulsion" film is good as dead. One might as well get over it and embrace the future.

roger ebert is quite enamored with a demo of 48fps film that he saw (I don't remember what it was called, maxvision?). he didn't complain about it being too smooth or unfilm-like. (ebert dislikes digital projection which he deems unfilm-like). granted, native 48fps film is not the same thing as frame interpolation; I just think there's more to what we call "film-like" than just the frame rate.

... he didn't complain about it being too smooth or unfilm-like.

And I haven't heard too many complaints about >24fps Imax.

And I haven't heard too many complaints about >24fps Imax.
I think only 2 or 3 films have been shot in IMAX HD, which is 48 frames/second. I saw the first one (Momentum) in 1992. All other IMAX films have been shot at the usual 24 frames/second.

I think only 2 or 3 films have been shot in IMAX HD, which is 48 frames/second. I saw the first one (Momentum) in 1992. All other IMAX films have been shot at the usual 24 frames/second.

Yes, you are correct. My bad.

I love 24p movies because it gives it a distinct look as someone else said sometimes surreal. True 120 makes it look more natural and lifelike, but some of its appeal is lost. I'm sure directors have had the ability to shoot in 60 frames, but they don't.

When I shoot home videos I do some at 60 frames while the majority are 24 frames with a 35mm adapater (to give shallow depth of field) Every person that see the 24 frames likes it much better than the 60, including myself because it looks more interesting and doesn't look normal. I think for nature movies 60 frames and 120 are fine, but not for movies.

24fps vs 60fps is one thing... but i think frame interpolation is another as I think it doesnt quite look real, almost like an animated gif or something.. I dont know if its because the projector/tv is creating frames using guesswork or not.. but all the frame interpolation i have seen makes the motion look a bit animated and not quite real.

Is it just me or do others think it doesnt look as real as video shot at higher frame rates.

In the real world, the movement of the bodies is not linear. That's the problem of the frame interpolation, it assumes the movement to be linear, and IMHO that's the reason of the artificial look of it. The small non-linearities of the movement in the real world, only can be captured by a camera, they can't be calculated by a frame interpolation algorythm.

I just watched, "The Fifth Element" on blu-ray (the newer rivised version) using the frame creation or interpolation (mode 2) on my new PT-AE3000U and WOW!...it knocked my socks off!...But on the other hand, some movies look like crap using it...It really seems to depend alot on the source material and the type of movie it is...;)

In the real world, the movement of the bodies is not linear. That's the problem of the frame interpolation, it assumes the movement to be linear, and IMHO that's the reason of the artificial look of it. The small non-linearities of the movement in the real world, only can be captured by a camera, they can't be calculated by a frame interpolation algorythm.

If you only have two frames (data points) you are necessarily correct but there are numerous polynomial interpolation methods capable of giving very good curves depending on the number points on which one is basing the interpolation. Do you know for a fact that the current systems use linear interpolation? I don't know--I'm just asking.

I just watched, "The Fifth Element" on blu-ray (the newer rivised version) using the frame creation or interpolation (mode 2) on my new PT-AE3000U and WOW!...it knocked my socks off!...But on the other hand, some movies look like crap using it...It really seems to depend alot on the source material and the type of movie it is...;)

I don't think it's so much the source as the display refresh rate although some of it could be that. There may actually be two different issues at play here opposite the viewing of 24 fps shot movies with frame interpolation. One is frame interpolation and conversion to 120hz (120 fps) on displays that only use this refresh rate (many of the lcd and plasma TV) and the other is frame interpolation and conversion to 96hz (96 fps, or other even multiple of 24fps) on displays that refresh at film sources using even multiple of original footage. The former I would think may give an more video-like look to film when frame interpolation is on, but the latter (even with frame interpolation on) IMO does not look artificial -only smoother on fast action or fast horizontal pans etc . This may explain some the differential experiences that folks are having. I think each opinion on interpolation needs to state the display resolution that is being used for film output. Converting film sourced material to 120 hz display rate and adding frame interpolation may be what is causing some of the negative views on frame interpolation, but it may be due more to the former rather than the latter. This may be why your viewing on the new AE 3000 was positive for film material and other people don't like the way it looks on fixed 120hz displays.

120Hz is also an even multiple of 24Hz.

....One is frame interpolation and conversion to 120hz (120 fps) on displays that only use this refresh rate (many of the lcd and plasma TV) and the other is frame interpolation and conversion to 96hz (96 fps, or other even multiple of 24fps) on displays that refresh at film sources using even multiple of original footage. The former I would think may give an more video-like look to film when frame interpolation is on, but the latter (even with frame interpolation on) IMO does not look artificial -only smoother on fast action or fast horizontal pans etc.

I'm new to all this conversion and frame interpolation stuff and I cant' see why 5*24 (120) would be disadvantageous compared to 4*24(96) in regard to interpolation. Could you explain that to me?

I have assumed for interpolation they start the data abstractions inherent in the CODEC as much of the needed and costly computation would have been done during compression, but I have not even been able to verify that.:confused:

thanks

120Hz is also an even multiple of 24Hz.

120 is even and it's an integer multiple of 24 but the integer is odd (5) I assumed that's what he meant, again I can't figure out what significance that would have.

In the real world, the movement of the bodies is not linear. That's the problem of the frame interpolation, it assumes the movement to be linear, and IMHO that's the reason of the artificial look of it. The small non-linearities of the movement in the real world, only can be captured by a camera, they can't be calculated by a frame interpolation algorythm.


The interpolaters usually involve generating vectors on a recognisble pixel block. This allow frames to be interpolated according to acceleration along a given vector so the interpolation is far from linear. It can also calculate motionblur where required.

However it is artifact city. Things to watch out for are ghosting on fast moving subjects ( birds especially have a tendancy to double image). Complex textures may seem to jellify. Foreground subjects against backgrounds that are not that well differentiated at the pixel level may introduce tugging and pulling as if the background is getting dragged along by the foreground.

Particles like obvious rain may produce all sorts of weird things.

Even when interpolation is succesful the additional frames are notably softer because of all the filtering and warping going on.

I have assumed for interpolation they start the data abstractions inherent in the CODEC as much of the needed and costly computation would have been done during compression, but I have not even been able to verify that.:confused:

thanks

Nope the vector information in the encode is not passed through. The sequence has to be decoded then re-analysed in terms of vectors.

Nope the vector information in the encode is not passed through. The sequence has to be decoded then re-analysed in terms of vectors.

Damn lost my 25 cents :D

The interpolaters usually involve generating vectors on a recognisble pixel block. This allow frames to be interpolated according to acceleration along a given vector so the interpolation is far from linear.

So they do use polynomial interpolation, or .... ?

Or could you post a link to a descripion of the process?

many thanks

120 is even and it's an integer multiple of 24 but the integer is odd (5) I assumed that's what he meant, again I can't figure out what significance that would have.

yes, 4 frames (5 total) generated for every one "real" image vs 3 (4 total frames). It would be difficult to describe why this would make a difference without lining the frames up side by side for each display output. It's not that it would be impossible to use some kind of complicated algoritm software to interpolate well with odd output rate, but the reason they use 120hz fixed is because of all the 60hz content that is then easy to interpolate ever other frame. I'm only an enthusiast, but I would think it would take an order of magnitude more processing required to get a smooth picture for any source if you need non-linear interpolation. simple example: double the frame rate (1 extra image for every real image) just requires calculating the interpolated image halfway between the two real images on either side (this is the case I described above for 60hz content displayed on a 120hz display). Now, add another interplated image. You now have two interploated images- and the interpolated images may be generated 1/3 and 2/3 of the way in between the two real images, but now you have 2/3 of the data that isn't "real" so compluter is making more guesses as to where the image should be IMO making it look generated rather than real. If there is no change in speed of the image between the two real images, then this may still look ok, but fast moving objects are usually accellerating or decellerating (and different objects in the picture at different speeds). Bottom line IMO is that if all your doing is doubling or quadrupling the images and adding simple interpolation, then the algorithm is simple, but if you use an odd number of output frames the math gets complicated and the use of interpolation has varying results depending on the content.

I'm only an enthusiast, but I would think it would take an order of magnitude more processing required to get a smooth picture for any source if you need non-linear interpolation.

No, really it shouldn't, in numerical analysis one can often trade memory space for cpu time. I've done integer constrained nonlinear interpolation using lookup tables instead of the more expensive Taylor Series computations to simulate nonlinear (transcendental in that case) functions. And I'm way out of date so I'm sure the programmer's bag of tricks is way more bigger than in my day.LOL

yes, 4 frames (5 total) generated for every one "real" image vs 3 (4 total frames). It would be difficult to describe why this would make a difference without lining the frames up side by side for each display output.

It isn't really that different though, generating 3 or 4 frames on a curve (or line) between two known points is not significantly different. And just to throw more data/observation at it, the motion-compensated frame rate conversion I've seen an played with has been from source to 60fps, not 96 or 120, and it still gives the weird effect.


It's not that it would be impossible to use some kind of complicated algoritm software to interpolate well with odd output rate, but the reason they use 120hz fixed is because of all the 60hz content that is then easy to interpolate ever other frame.

The reason 120Hz was chosen, is because it's the lowest multiple of all common frame rates, 24, 30 and 60. This is important for providing "judder-free" display of all three rates when not using interpolation.

I'm only an enthusiast, but I would think it would take an order of magnitude more processing required to get a smooth picture for any source if you need non-linear interpolation. simple example: double the frame rate (1 extra image for every real image) just requires calculating the interpolated image halfway between the two real images on either side (this is the case I described above for 60hz content displayed on a 120hz display). Now, add another interplated image. You now have two interploated images- and the interpolated images may be generated 1/3 and 2/3 of the way in between the two real images, but now you have 2/3 of the data that isn't "real" so compluter is making more guesses as to where the image should be IMO making it look generated rather than real.

Not really, the hard part of doing interpolation is not the generating of the new frames, that's rather trivial. The "expensive" part of frame interpolation is performing the motion analysis and generating the motion vectors in order to be able to generate the new frames.

If there is no change in speed of the image between the two real images, then this may still look ok, but fast moving objects are usually accellerating or decellerating (and different objects in the picture at different speeds). Bottom line IMO is that if all your doing is doubling or quadrupling the images and adding simple interpolation, then the algorithm is simple, but if you use an odd number of output frames the math gets complicated and the use of interpolation has varying results depending on the content.

Thing is, you never really just "split the difference", computationally there's no difference between creating a frame at 50% between the frames vs 20% or 25% or 33%. So the only real difference between quadrupling and quintupling framerate is the 25% extra time in the generation stage to create the extra frame. But that's still probably almost negligible compared to the time spent doing the motion search.

Damn lost my 25 cents :D



So they do use polynomial interpolation, or .... ?

Or could you post a link to a descripion of the process?

many thanks


Google "vector based retiming" or optical flow interpolation.

Not really, the hard part of doing interpolation is not the generating of the new frames, that's rather trivial. The "expensive" part of frame interpolation is performing the motion analysis and generating the motion vectors in order to be able to generate the new frames.



Thing is, you never really just "split the difference", computationally there's no difference between creating a frame at 50% between the frames vs 20% or 25% or 33%. So the only real difference between quadrupling and quintupling framerate is the 25% extra time in the generation stage to create the extra frame. But that's still probably almost negligible compared to the time spent doing the motion search.

This is correct: the analysis is the "tough" part. However just to clarify things: the entire sequence is interpolated: extra frames are not inserted between real ones, every frame is reinterpolated based on the new desired frame rate and the vector information. ( I know this isn't "not" what you were saying).

so the interpolation is far from linear.

Let me rephrase it.
I used the term linear not in the pure mathematical form.
I was referring to the fact that the movement of very complex bodies, like the human and other complex living beings, could not be represented, exactly, by any known formulas. We could find very good aproximations, but when compared with the real world... too bad!
Saying it in another way, we can make a good prediction of what happenned between two moments, but we can't describe it completelly with all the detail.

This is not a math thing, it's a real world thing. That's the reason why with animation it works great (it's not the real world, it was created by us), but with the real world is so artificial.

Sorry if I can't explain myself better, but english is not my native language...

My own personal take on higher frame rates in movies is based upon the proverbial "like looking out a window experience". To me, there are several differences between looking out a window and watching TV...

1)was the low resolution of SDTV makes things fuzzy when viewed on larger displays... today the HD high-resolutions has solved that problem for the larger display up to say 100" and at normal viewing distances

2)motion blur is the next greatest impediment to the "window experience"... 24fps is so slow each frame of action is often captured blurred and therefore much movement is viewed blurry, however this is not quite the same as in viewing real life out a window... looking out a window, depending upon actual speed of the action, one can move their eyes and even the head to reduce or eliminate motion blur however the camera when static simply captures the motion as blur and this is what we see on screen regardless of head and eye movement. A faster film/shutter might capture sharper frames but then the movement lacks the smooth flow and will still be viewed as blurry and jerky. I feel the solution to this is a faster frame rate to capture any motion more sharply in each frame while still allowing a smooth flow of motion to appear on-screen, thus more resembling real life which has no frames and so if our eyes/head move with an object in motion on-screen in effect it will appear clearer than if we chose to not follow that action... much more like in real life. However once motion becomes this clear it requires everything that moves on-screen to be more authentic... such as actors and their micro-facial expressions, eye and body movements etc, because humans are so adept at spotting phony emotion, poor acting which was not noticed on blurry 24fps becomes very obvious when viewed at clearer, faster frame rates. Also too, special effects have to become better as slow frame rates also hide many little motion details and cues that tell us something isn't for real. I believe a faster frame rate requires better skills on the part of actors and much better attention to detail in special effects to allow one to again suspend belief and get drawn into the movie like you do in 24fps. I believe this is why people find nature documentaries, sports, concerts, news, etc completely acceptable at high frame rates but not movies... because there is no acting or special effects to be scrutinized in real life events

3)field of depth is probably the one thing that will never be possible to overcome... when looking out the proverbial window we are able to focus on whatever we chose and thereby causing peripheral blurring to anything closer or deeper into the scene. However a camera captures the scene depending upon what the director wishes us to focus on and there is no true depth in 2D, only the illusion of depth using perspective cues, so what is captured blurred by 'distance' remains blurred on-screen regardless of the viewer's own eye focus and whatever is capture sharp remains sharp again regardless of what other object we may choose to focus on on-screen... so at no point will one ever be totally fooled into thinking they are looking out a window.

So just as I see hi-def (HDTV) as a big step toward greater realism akin to looking out the window, I also see employing higher frame rates as another step in the same direction, however film production values (mainly the acting and special effects) have to also be bumped up a notch to match the technology's improvement... and finally the so called 3D stuff I've been exposed to so far I don't believe addresses what one truly experiences when focusing for field of depth on an individual basis and therefore leads me to doubt if it will ever be possible to attain that "like looking out of a window" experience fully.

So yeah, I think frame interpolation is a step in the right direction hopefully to be followed soon by actually filming all movies at an increased frame rate. The only problem with frame interpolation is that some implementations seem to be better than others but in general I see much improvement has taken place since the first Tri-mensional stuff I viewed on my HTPC several years ago. I really like what our Samsung 650 looks like on Low motion interpolation and will soon be in the market for a front projector that can do the same.

and finally the so called 3D stuff I've been exposed to so far I don't believe addresses what one truly experiences when focusing for field of depth on an individual basis and therefore leads me to doubt if it will ever be possible to attain that "like looking out of a window" experience fully.

.

If i want to look out a window...I look out a window.

This is not a math thing, it's a real world thing. That's the reason why with animation it works great (it's not the real world, it was created by us), but with the real world is so artificial.

Sorry if I can't explain myself better, but english is not my native language...

We're not talking about the real world though: we are talking about a bunch of pixels. If you generate accurate vectors you can do pretty impressive stuff: however as far as vector analysis goes if it can't identify a pixel consistently through a moving image...you get artifacts. And at the moment its pretty dire.

If i want to look out a window...I look out a window.
Most windows doesn't have a view of dinosaurs and huge spaceships... ;):D

Most windows doesn't have a view of dinosaurs and huge spaceships... ;):D

"Here then, eat from this side of the mushroom," the larva said.

If i want to look out a window...I look out a window.

I think that about sums up my view on it too. If I'm watching a film, I "like" the way it looks, not that it's unsmooth, but that the frame rate is just low enough that your brain knows it's not real and it sort of lets you forget everything around you and just become immersed in the movie.

I mean, when I look out your window I don't feel like I'm outside, I just see what's out there. I'm sort of disconnected from what I'm seeing because I'm on the other side of the window. I get a completely different experience actually going outside.

Now, when I watch a film, it's not like looking through a window. Of course it's not like going outside either. Thinking about it, my guess is the low framerate causes your brain to realize it's not real, and perhaps kicks into it's "imaginative" state. I know when I watch a movie, I just "get into it", sort of let go of the fact that I'm sitting in a room, watching pictures on a screen, and my brain just sort of immerses me in the story that's unfolding.

For me, frame interpolation just kicks me right out of that "into it" state I'm in when watching movies and I'm back to to just looking at pictures on a screen again. Maybe it would be interesting to hook someone up to an EEG, MRI or other brain scanner and see if there really is a difference in how 24fps is perceived vs 30, 60, or higher.

I will say, that given the right content (like the opening cemetery scene in Saving Private Ryan, or some parts of The Last Samurai, like landscape shots) frame interpolation can look absolutely stunning. But like I said, it's no longer like watching a film, it's like watching a news report or something. A completely different, and IMO, undesirable experience.

I like field interpolation - hope we see some affordable products, or built in processing options soon..

Those who don't like it, can simply turn it off ;)

I'd be happy with 48 fps output, but I wouldn't kick 96 out of bed either :)

We're not talking about the real world though: we are talking about a bunch of pixels.

Agree, but don't forget that it's a bunch of pixels generated based on the real world. When you perform FI that bunch of pixels is not generated based on the real world, is generated based in the previous and next bunch of pixels.

If you generate accurate vectors you can do pretty impressive stuff: however as far as vector analysis goes if it can't identify a pixel consistently through a moving image...you get artifacts. And at the moment its pretty dire.
Yes, I also agree it's impressive; and with some kind of images the result is very good, but over the time we feel some kind of discomfort, the noticed "unrealness" of it.
It's like the feeling I get when listening to a high bitrate mp3 vs the original files: at the first audition, it's almost the same, but after a few time of listening, my head becomes very tired of it and I have to stop the music...

Now a question: Do you feel that the FI is more acceptable at DVD resolutions or at blu-ray resolutions?

I've heard that dlp projectors dont have any motion blur, do they also look unnatural?

Yes, DLPs do temporal dithering instead, which looks even worse.

Hmm, I remember when CDs first appeared, many audiophiles claimed they didn't sound "natural". Seems they missed the clicks and pops of their LPs, go figure. Time marches on...

I wonder if movies will start to be made at higher frame rates (say 48 or 60). Even if the film cinema or digital cinema only supports 24fps, the director would then have the higher frame rate to work with for the home theater release later.

My question assumes that if one records digital video at 48fps you can remove every other frame and get a high quality 24fps shot. That sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure it's true.

Seems they missed the clicks and pops of their LPs, go figure.

Are the clicks and pops part of the music?
So, no, it's not that they were missing.

The issue here is the current impossibility to create the reality. Look for the Jurassic Park movies. The first time I saw it, I was really impressed, now, after watching those movies several times, it doesn't look real anymore, because it's not.

it doesn't look real anymore, because it's not.

That's correct, movies, even documentaries are abstractions under any and every circumstance. Any reality attributed to them is subjective and contextual. It's informative to read the enthusiastic praise of realism heaped on every technical advance, including the very first hand cranked films.

There is no downside to it, because it helps bad transfers in alot of situations as well as removes bad jutter, and if you don't like it, you can turn it off. The fact that you can turn it off leaves no downside IMO. IE: The HD-DVD version of "A Stain Glass Christmas and Heavenly Carols" is very, very, choppy, jerky, (don't know what happened to the transfer) but anyways, I watched it in Mode 2 120HZ on my new Panny 3000U and it smoothed it out completely. :)

There is no downside to it, because it helps bad transfers in alot of situations as well as removes bad jutter,

Anyone who says there's no downside to frame creation/frame interpolation is kidding themselves, and everyone they talk to. It fundamentally changes the look of the content.

...and if you don't like it, you can turn it off. The fact that you can turn it off leaves no downside IMO.

The question was NOT, what's the downside of having the feature available, the question was what's the downside of using the feature.

...but over the time we feel some kind of discomfort, the noticed "unrealness" of it...
Unfortunately I must disagree with this... when poorly implemented or overly done or on movies with poor production values, I'll admit it is a bit hard to get used to and can even create annoying artifacts in certain situations to call attention to itself but on the whole, when done 'right' (a subjective opinion to be sure) I find it far "more real" as it soon beomes effectively transparent as long as the acting and special effects remain top-notched... or until I switch it off and then I am quickly disappointed. The feature is so well implemented (when on Low) on our Samsung, it never gets turned off and rarely does it ever call attention to itself... in fact, my wife and our relatives/friends have no clue other than to occasionally marvel at how clear and sharp everything appears and how they want one just like it (that is until I tell them the price... gulp). I don't bother telling them why it appears so much clearer as these people are just ordinary TV watchers who are not given to dissecting and analyzing what they are seeing and they are not swayed by any hype of new technologies being employed... they only know if its better or not. And that's the bottomline here, its all subjective.

I will maintain the degree to which ordinary people can adjust to FI is going to depend greatly upon how well it is implemented... poorly done or too heavy-handed and it draws attention to itself and is annoying to be sure ...the original implementation of Tri-mension in Win DVD is a major example that quickly comes to my mind, another example (though not nearly as bad) would be our own Samsung TV when set on High. Though it would be best if the frame rates of the source had actually been recorded at a higher frame rate but until that happens FI is the only viable choice to 'imitate' that and when done well I personally think its quite an improvement.

The bottomline is like the other poster has continued to point out... it is always implemented as an option, so if you don't care for it you simply turn it OFF... yes, you can have it both ways with this option, so in that sense there is no downside to having the option... in fact, I believe the only downside is to NOT have the option available for any viewers who may happen to enjoy it.

Unfortunately I must disagree with this...
I agree with you on this.;)

In the end, it's just a matter of taste. Like in every other things, there are good versions, and poor versions. The good versions could be an improvement to some people, and there is nothing wrong with that, is just each person's way of capturing the world in front of them.

Another example... Lots of people using a HTPC like to use sharpening filters and say they give a 3D look to the image. Personally, I don't use it, for me the image looks artificial, even with the best and more praised. But I respect and understand that others feel differently...

Some people adore perfumes... I hate them, some make me feel sick.

Let's just keep all this stuff optional...
Remember the "colored" black and white movies, and the edge (dis)enhancement used in lots of dvds?

I know "film-makers intent" is debatable as well, but I just have one question for those who think frame interpolation makes things look "more real", hence better: How about those countless tv shows where the director chose deliberately to shoot in 24 fps, even though 60 fps was available, or even cases as we have in europe, where a series was shot in 50 fps, but then converted to 25 fps "to create a more film-like feel". These are cases where the director _deliberately_ chose to make the movements choppy, even though they had a choice, to create a certain feel of the image. In these cases, do you still think frame interpolation that smoothes out movement is an improvement of the source material?

BTW: When I was younger, and more focused on image quality than movie content, I was a quite active backer of frame interpolation (Philips' DNM). However, the more I started to focus on the actual art of making movies, the less I liked frame interpolation. I believe that most people who prefer frame interpolation, are too focused on PQ and not the actual art of movie-making.

BTW: When I was younger, and more focused on image quality than movie content, I was a quite active backer of frame interpolation (Philips' DNM). However, the more I started to focus on the actual art of making movies, the less I liked frame interpolation.

I went through something similar. I was an early plasma adopter and I found the increased image size and precision of the image in terms of perfect flatness, perfect geometry, perfect pixel-mapping etc (relative to CRTs of the time) to make for a sharper, more realistic, more "window-like" image.

I became so enamoured of this effect that for years I compared all image technologies to "real life." (Which is definitely significant...but not the whole ball of wax). I tweaked and tweaked my plasma to get a less film-like, sharper, more "realistic" image. Even wrote tomes about it that were enthusiastically received on the plasma forums and followed by others.

I used masking, black backdrops, high gamma for brighter scenes, tweaking sharpness/color - I even "calibrated" my display sometimes by looking at a real person in the room and calibrating the display until it gave the same "vibe" as looking at the real person (e.g. careful dialing of the color control - not too color-rich, contrast, sharpness etc).

I was indeed able to ring out some absolutely amazingly realistic images from DVDs at the time. Friends couldn't stop commenting on how realistic the image looked when we watched a movie. Problem was: neither could I.
It's sort of like that audiophile trap where you use "real live sound" and try to reproduce it with your audio gear. It's an understandable and useful barometer, but the technology will always fall short of such a goal and it's hard to stop "comparing" and noting what you are missing vs the real thing.

I found I wasn't concentrating on the movies so much anymore as the realism of the image quality. (Like many people find when they first get HD TV signals). And worse, a more realistic image did not necessarily make the
experience more believable! It often had the reverse effect: the image was de-romanticised by it's stark realism. The "fantasy" effect was diminished and it felt more like watching actors act, than watching "a movie."

As someone who spent years on movie and tv sets, this was a very familiar feeling. I'd always noted, watching actors do their thing right in front of me, how it felt less believable than when it ended up on screen. It's because, at least for me, the fantasy element was gone. The actor hadn't been placed into the world of "a film" yet, there was no sense of the artistic or the arbitration of an artist (director/cinematographer etc), weaving together the actor and everything else into a new creation - a film - where the audience understands the fantasy of the experience and willingly surrenders.

This is one reason why Spielberg refused George Lucas' prodding to shoot in HD video. Spielberg has said that HD video feels "too clear" to him, as if it removes the artist.

Seeing the effect of motion interpolation programs on the new LCDs, combined with very vivid image settings, really confirms this for me personally. The movie images can just be startlingly realistic, in terms of clarity, sharpness and also the vividness of the contrast. And it makes me feel like I'm watching actors "acting" on a movie set, rather than watching a movie. It no longer looks mediated by some artistic medium, and the key light or back light on an actor looks as it does on the set: like a 2K (light) is set just off the edge of the frame shining on the actor. It looks more "real" like it does in real life, but it doesn't look "artistic" or film-like. It actually takes me out of the fantasy mind set I need to be in to accept what is happening on screen.

It's interesting that I've noticed a lot of "regular joe" consumers actually make similar comments, although they can't put their finger on the issue.
I sat at a home show in front of a Sony demo of Casino Royale on Blu Ray, on a big LCD panel using frame interpolation. I watched the reaction of many, many folks to the image. And very often it started "Oh my gosh, look at this! Look how real that looks! It's so clear, it's like they are right there!"

But it was surprising how often the reaction started to change for people who stood longer than a few moments (e.g. who sat down to watch). I'd start to hear "But...it looks sort of weird too. I don't know, sort of like it's too clear, or too real or something." I heard that over and over and it was clear they were struggling with a similar issue I've described above, but just couldn't put their finger on what it was.

Personally, my new criteria is no longer "realism" per se, but "believability."

This definitely comes from my emphasis on being a movie lover vs one who watches a lot of sports. Realism to "real life" definitely seems to work for sports and other HD-video event programming.

But what I want in watching movies is to believe what is happening on screen. Sometimes an added realism can aid that. Sometimes not; sometimes the artistic quality of the medium, the grain, the haziness, the "unreality" and painterly quality makes for it's own believable "otherworld."

But I certainly notice, since getting a projector, how it brings back the "believability" of the cinema experience, the filmic quality. When I watch movies on many projectors I once again seem to enjoy the "cinematography" rather than the "realism or clarity" of the image. That's not to say the image can't also look very detailed and believable, but there is also the sense of the art-form imbued in the experience. When I watch movies on the LCDs with frame interpolation it feels like watching HD-cam footage, like a sporting event, and I don't sense the cinematographic aspect as much, nor do movies feel as differentiated in terms of cinematography...movies take on an HD-cam sameness vibe.


I believe that most people who prefer frame interpolation, are too focused on PQ and not the actual art of movie-making.

Generalities are always problematic...but it's hard not to feel you've put your finger on something there.

I have the 120hz option on my 52" LCD flat panel TV and I hate it. The other night I turned it on for CSI Miami just to remind myself how bad it looks, and the damn thing made be sick just watching it. Something like brain nausea. The distortions it causes combined with fast pans and action is worse than DLP rainbows by a long shot. At its best, 120hz makes a movie look like a daytime soap opera.

IB

The "fantasy" effect was diminished and it felt more like watching actors act, than watching "a movie."

Yes, I agree. I get the same feeling when watching the "making of" extras, the scenes don't have the same feeling...

For the reality, the detail is never enough, because the original have always more, that's the reason we always want more.
For the illusion, the detail should be enough to make us believe in it. To low, shows us it's a fake, too high, shows us it's not real.

Let's think in money, dolar bills.
If you want to use them, they need to be real, to have all the detail, and no matter how much you have, is never enough...:D
If you just want to joke with someone, they could be fake, but they need to have enough detail to illude them - you cannot use monopolly dolar bills -, but you cannot show them a pack with US$1000000, because then they will know it's not real...;)

Simply put, the more I use this, the more I dislike it. Yes, it can do amazing things to a wide variety of scenes from a wide variety of sources... But even if it helps in the majority of the scenes, it only takes one jarring scene to take me out of the movie/TV show.

Simply put, the more I use this, the more I dislike it. Yes, it can do amazing things to a wide variety of scenes from a wide variety of sources... But even if it helps in the majority of the scenes, it only takes one jarring scene to take me out of the movie/TV show.

Try leaving on it on off or low for 24fps content.
Animation and Documentary/Nature footage usually look great on higher settings.

How do all the judder reducing technlogies compare, in how they look and artifacts? 120hz with no interpolation, with interpolation, dark frame insertion with and without interpolation, backlight flickering...?

Has anyone here compared the interpolation of the projectors to Phillips' PixelPlus engine. I though the first generation of Philips' digital natural motion had loads of artifacts and look very funky, but after a bunch of upgrades, it looks MUCH better(think the newest cone is called "Perfect Pixel 2008")?

watch it with disney movies and its amazing. i watched nightmare before xmas with it last night and it was the most 3d ive seen an image on the screen ever