About a year ago I casually walked by a Samsung LCD T.V. while it was displaying an animated feature. I stopped dead in my tracks - I was shocked! O.K. I thought, the industry just snuck 3D technology past me and apparently everyone on the AVS Forum. As it turned out what I was seeing was the aggressive use of Frame Interpolation. I've seen several 3D presentations at the IMAX and always found the results to be somewhat gimmicky - things were being thrown off the screen at the audience for effect. Frame Interpolation on the other hand seems to add enormous depth to the image. In other words, scenes seem to stretch back behind the screen rather than being suspended out in front of it, which is much more natural IMO. The effect seems to work best for animation when applied aggressively. When applied less aggressively it works well for live action movies giving the action a smooth liquid flow without the usual judder and blurriness. When applied aggressively to live action film it can be distracting with that soap opera look; however, the liquid smooth flow of movement and huge apparent resolution (detail to the extreme) is intriguing.

I really enjoy animated films like: Kung Foo Panda, Horton Hears a Who; Cars; Bolt and so on, so when considering a digital projector I looked around for something with FI and I'm glad I did! For me a least, frame interpolation is the biggest technological breakthrough for display devices in the last several years. Nothing has garnered more positive comments from guests to my home theatre than animation displayed with FI! When I look round my HT at my guests while they watch an animated feature (with FI on) I am somewhat amused at just how transfixed they are. I also have a Sony G90 gamma corrected CRT projector that does full fade to black while retaining full shadow detail and its very impressive. Nonetheless, its the digital projector with FI that gets all the superlative comments about the image. For me that's pretty telling!

Frame Interpolation on the other hand seems to add enormous depth to the image. In other words, scenes seem to stretch back behind the screen rather than being suspended out in front of it, which is much more natural IMO.

It also destroys the look of film, making it look like a bad documentary or soap opera.

The effect seems to work best for animation when applied aggressively. When applied less aggressively it works well for live action movies giving the action a smooth liquid flow without the usual judder and blurriness.

1080p24 into a display that can display it right (meaning at 24n Hz) results in "smooth liquid flow" without the artifacts of FI, or the soap opera look.

I really enjoy animated films like: Kung Foo Panda, Horton Hears a Who; Cars; Bolt and so on, so when considering a digital projector I looked around for something with FI and I'm glad I did! For me a least, frame interpolation is the biggest technological breakthrough for display devices in the last several years.

I'll pass.

I second stanger89's comments. I've yet to see any implementation of frame interpolation that didn't, for me, negatively impact the viewing experience.

In fact I don't even care for it on computer animation. It does indeed give the animation a super-sharp, vivid look to be sure. But it screws around with the carefully crafted effects in the animation, insofar as motion blur is deliberately added to computer animation to make motion appear as it is captured in film. Once you take away the blur and sharpen up all the edges I find that it tends to detach the animated figures from the background, making them look more like sharp cut-out figures. I can "see" the process of the animated figures mapped on to the various backgrounds so the image looks more mechanical or contrived. Whereas without frame interpolation, as the animation was intended, there is a more convincing cohesiveness where all the figures and backgrounds seem to meld better.

People will always be amazed by super sharp imagery, so I'm not surprised at all that your guests comment positively on frame interpolation. But once you get beyond the "Wow it's super sharp" thing, a lot of us find the negatives can outweigh the positives.

At least at this point in the technology.

I recently upgraded my PJ from an AE3000 with FI to a JVC HD350 without. One of the things I thought I might miss was the effect of 'mode 1' FI (never got on with the more aggressive mode 2), but to my surprise I don't miss it. While it did sharpen up movement, I wasn't quite convinced by it, but I left it 'on' as with it 'off' the image on the AE3000 was much softer during motion. The funny thing is that the HD350 seems sharper in motion than the AE3000 with FI 'OFF', so I kind of feel that I'm seeing a better 'native' motion. Given that there are some that have issues with the HD350/750 during motion I think that maybe the AE3000 needs the effect of FI just to 'keep up' with the rest, or maybe the 'off' mode is somehow 'nobbled' to make the FI seem better.

All IMHO and YMMV of course.

The Dark Frame Insertion on my Sony VW200 in its lightest Mode (3) does seem to do an excellent job whether I am watching movies or sports. I only use MotionFlow with sports. Even without DFI I still notice the motion as being much better with panning then I did with the FPJ1/RS2 and RS20. Much better...

I second stanger89's comments. I've yet to see any implementation of frame interpolation that didn't, for me, negatively impact the viewing experience.

In fact I don't even care for it on computer animation. It does indeed give the animation a super-sharp, vivid look to be sure. But it screws around with the carefully crafted effects in the animation, insofar as motion blur is deliberately added to computer animation to make motion appear as it is captured in film. Once you take away the blur and sharpen up all the edges I find that it tends to detach the animated figures from the background, making them look more like sharp cut-out figures. I can "see" the process of the animated figures mapped on to the various backgrounds so the image looks more mechanical or contrived. Whereas without frame interpolation, as the animation was intended, there is a more convincing cohesiveness where all the figures and backgrounds seem to meld better.

People will always be amazed by super sharp imagery, so I'm not surprised at all that your guests comment positively on frame interpolation. But once you get beyond the "Wow it's super sharp" thing, a lot of us find the negatives can outweigh the positives.

At least at this point in the technology.

I also agree with these comments! I have yet to see any implementation that I could live with.

It also destroys the look of film, making it look like a bad documentary or soap opera.
It reminds me of the 1970s Land of the Lost, which was shot on video tape.

Even without DFI I still notice the motion as being much better with panning then I did with the FPJ1/RS2 and RS20. Much better...


*Plugs ears*

I don't wanna hear it.

The RS20 is virtually perfect for me in all respects, although I do sometimes notice softness with motion. I was wondering how it compared with my older Panasonic AE900 projector, which I never had any problem with in terms of motion. (Not that the AE900 is particularly good with motion, just that since I've watched it for many months without being bothered by motion issues, if the RS20 is at least as good then I should be ok).

So I did a mini-shoot out and it seemed everything that blurred on the RS20 blurred on the Panasonic too, only perhaps a little worse on the Panasonic. But strangely, when I watch them separately it seems I can be more aware of some blurring on the JVC. I don't know if it's the much brighter picture of the JVC or that I get into a more critical mode or whatever. But IF it is indeed no worse than the Panny I should be ok.

The last thing I want is to have blurring issues end up as some deal-breaker....

*Plugs ears*

I don't wanna hear it.

The RS20 is virtually perfect for me in all respects, although I do sometimes notice softness with motion. I was wondering how it compared with my older Panasonic AE900 projector, which I never had any problem with in terms of motion. (Not that the AE900 is particularly good with motion, just that since I've watched it for many months without being bothered by motion issues, if the RS20 is at least as good then I should be ok).

So I did a mini-shoot out and it seemed everything that blurred on the RS20 blurred on the Panasonic too, only perhaps a little worse on the Panasonic. But strangely, when I watch them separately it seems I can be more aware of some blurring on the JVC. I don't know if it's the much brighter picture of the JVC or that I get into a more critical mode or whatever. But IF it is indeed no worse than the Panny I should be ok.

The last thing I want is to have blurring issues end up as some deal-breaker....

Don't read this then. :D Seriously, it is not that the RS20 was so bad for me. I was just used to the VW200 and how excellent it handles motion. If I came from another PJ I would have probably not noticed it as much. No worries, the RS20 is still one of the best offerings at the moment. :)

My Optoma HD8200 has FI (off, low, med, high) and after experimentation I could never watch a "film" movie with it on. I used Quantum of Solace as the test and it is just goofy with it on. BUT, sports is great on med/high and animated is good on low/med.

I second stanger89's comments. I've yet to see any implementation of frame interpolation that didn't, for me, negatively impact the viewing experience.

In fact I don't even care for it on computer animation. It does indeed give the animation a super-sharp, vivid look to be sure. But it screws around with the carefully crafted effects in the animation, insofar as motion blur is deliberately added to computer animation to make motion appear as it is captured in film. Once you take away the blur and sharpen up all the edges I find that it tends to detach the animated figures from the background, making them look more like sharp cut-out figures. I can "see" the process of the animated figures mapped on to the various backgrounds so the image looks more mechanical or contrived. Whereas without frame interpolation, as the animation was intended, there is a more convincing cohesiveness where all the figures and backgrounds seem to meld better.

People will always be amazed by super sharp imagery, so I'm not surprised at all that your guests comment positively on frame interpolation. But once you get beyond the "Wow it's super sharp" thing, a lot of us find the negatives can outweigh the positives.

At least at this point in the technology.

When I go back to animation with no FI, on either my Epson 7500 or G90, it looks flat and lifeless (relatively speaking) and no longer holds any appeal for me. I also find that FI allows me to appreciate the artistry involved in the creation of the image. For me the "film look" tends to hide or obscure the intricate detail (in other words the talent) that went into the creation of the image.

When I go back to animation with no FI, on either my Epson 7500 or G90, it looks flat and lifeless (relatively speaking) and no longer holds any appeal for me. I also find that FI allows me to appreciate the artistry involved in the creation of the image. For me the "film look" tends to hide or obscure the intricate detail (in other words the talent) that went into the creation of the image.

I find that quite often that "hide[n] or obscure ...intricate detail" is meant to be that way, done on purpose so that it's harder to tell it's "fake"/artificially generated.

Watch Saving Private Ryan with FI on and let us know how it looks. FI makes the bullet splashes in the water look hastily slapped on by a freshman CGI artist rather than convincingly real like they were meant to look.

I find that quite often that "hide[n] or obscure ...intricate detail" is meant to be that way, done on purpose so that it's harder to tell it's "fake"/artificially generated.

Watch Saving Private Ryan with FI on and let us know how it looks. FI makes the bullet splashes in the water look hastily slapped on by a freshman CGI artist rather than convincingly real like they were meant to look.

I don't watch movies (live action) with FI on normal or high, only on low where the "film like look" is retained. FI on low is very subtle. I'm in agreement with you with respect to "film" and aggressive FI; however, I personally really like FI on normal or high for live concerts and animation - in fact, so much so, that I wouldn't purchase a projector without it!

I am new to the audio visual aspect and have never seen FI in action. In the near future i am going to upgrade to the 1080p projector from the Optoma DV-10 i have now so i am sure there will be a difference as i leap into HD.

My wife loves The Polar Express and once we get everything set up, it is going to be the first blue ray to buy and watch.

I wonder how FI will be when watching The Polar Express? Would it be "life like" i know we are going to be in awe just upgrading from 480 to 1080P, umm maybe the movie will just be as good without FI.

I wish there was a display i can see it in action.

I am new to the audio visual aspect and have never seen FI in action. In the near future i am going to upgrade to the 1080p projector from the Optoma DV-10 i have now so i am sure there will be a difference as i leap into HD.

My wife loves The Polar Express and once we get everything set up, it is going to be the first blue ray to buy and watch.

I wonder how FI will be when watching The Polar Express? Would it be "life like" i know we are going to be in awe just upgrading from 480 to 1080P, umm maybe the movie will just be as good without FI.

I wish there was a display i can see it in action.

Polar express (HD DVD) was the first movie I showed anyone with frame interpolation turned on and everyone was mesmerized. It looks good without FI, but with FI its kind of scary (in a good way).

I watched Bolt and Cars last night with FI on and my Fiance could not stop commenting on how great it makes the image look. I turned it off and on to see if she could notice a difference and she liked it on (and so did I)...But other then animated movies and sports I tend to leave it off...

FI high + Living Room or Dynamic mode + concert/sports/animation/gaming/planet earth, etc. = an experience the JVC cannot touch.

I'm referring to the Epson 6500. When combining 2000 lumens and FI, it produces something that beats any flat panel I've ever seen. (I own both a panasonic plasma, Samsung LCD, and Panasonic LCD).

The only negative to FI is that it does not work well with movies (soap opera effect), but the NEW firmware with the low FI setting actually removes most judder and does not give the soap opera effect.

I will never buy a Projector without 120hz again. Unless it's 240hz;) Those who bash FI, obviously have not seen it used properly. I really hope this years JVC adds this feature. (now that would be a nice projector)

It's definitely a love/hate relationship with FI. I personally don't like it, though I have seen instances on certain sources where it did "add" something to the look.

To each his own. :)

I completely understand. Almost every time I see it, I'm amazed by what it does. It truly is amazing technology. That said, I find that once I get over that initial "wow", I tend to become accutely aware that something has been "lost". It's like I'm no longer watching the movie, but I'm watching the filming of the movie, like I'm on the set watching the creation take place, rather than being transported into the movie.

FI seems to eliminate/reduce the suspension of disbelief that makes movies so enjoyable.

I upgraded from the 6500UB to the HD350 and like a few others I don't miss FI at all. Even though FI on 6500UB was not perfect (showing up artifacts once in a while), even when it was working 90% of the time I never really liked the effect (I never used it after trying it for the first few days with different materials). On the other hand, I find the 3D effect from the HD350 to be much more amazing and satisfying, which I guess is due to the smooth, noise free picture it throws. Yes it does show judder in fast moving/panning scenes, but all the other times I like its 3D effect more than what FI on 6500 provided.

I watched Kung Fu Panda a couple days ago on both a Sony LCD and the Pioneer Kuro plasma.

The Sony was using Frame Interpolation. It looked astonishingly sharp and detailed, of course. If someone wanted to be impressed by sheer image clarity and detail, I'd show them the movie with FI on. But it also displayed exactly the issues I complained of earlier: It had that "cut out" effect, where the characters didn't look as attached to the background - just placed "into" the scenery. And it looked more like video. Just, kind of cheaper.

I preferred the presentation on the Kuro (no FI) and found the image more natural, film like and believable overall.

I haven't seen every impementation of FI and perhaps on some "low" setting it's something I could use here or there. But I've yet to see it implemented on any display where it didn't make itself known in the manner above.

I upgraded from the 6500UB to the HD350 and like a few others I don't miss FI at all. Even though FI on 6500UB was not perfect (showing up artifacts once in a while), even when it was working 90% of the time I never really liked the effect (I never used it after trying it for the first few days with different materials). On the other hand, I find the 3D effect from the HD350 to be much more amazing and satisfying, which I guess is due to the smooth, noise free picture it throws. Yes it does show judder in fast moving/panning scenes, but all the other times I like its 3D effect more than what FI on 6500 provided.

I also have have a gamma corrected G90 (and a gamma corrected Marquee 8500 LC in a second HT) which has a black level that no consumer digital projector can touch and has amazing depth. The depth from my 7500 with animation and FI on is in a different league. I've now watched lots of different material with FI on and off. For me its a must have for animation and live concerts. I usually watch live action movies with the G90 or the 8500; however, the 7500 looks really good with FI on low for live action movies. If the 7500 had the G90's black level then I would use it for everything.

I think FI is here to stay and that it will evolve and ultimately become widely accepted, at least for some applications. Some people like certain foods while others don't! I doubt that there's a right or wrong - just personal preference. For some applications I find myself becoming an advocate for FI.

I also have have a gamma corrected G90 (and a gamma corrected Marquee 8500 LC in a second HT) which has a black level that no consumer digital projector can touch and has amazing depth. The depth from my 7500 with animation and FI on is in a different league. I've now watched lots of different material with FI on and off. For me its a must have for animation and live concerts. I usually watch live action movies with the G90 or the 8500; however, the 7500 looks really good with FI on low for live action movies. If the 7500 had the G90's black level then I would use it for everything.

I think FI is here to stay and that it will evolve and ultimately become widely accepted, at least for some applications. Some people like certain foods while others don't! I doubt that there's a right or wrong - just personal preference. For some applications I find myself becoming an advocate for FI.

I completely agree with you that its personal preference. I also agree that in a few years FI would be standard on most displays. However my point was regarding the subject of this thread, i.e. FI is not a must have at this time at least for quite a few people.

I completely understand. Almost every time I see it, I'm amazed by what it does. It truly is amazing technology. That said, I find that once I get over that initial "wow", I tend to become accutely aware that something has been "lost". It's like I'm no longer watching the movie, but I'm watching the filming of the movie, like I'm on the set watching the creation take place, rather than being transported into the movie.

FI seems to eliminate/reduce the suspension of disbelief that makes movies so enjoyable.

Well said.

I completely understand. Almost every time I see it, I'm amazed by what it does. It truly is amazing technology. That said, I find that once I get over that initial "wow", I tend to become accutely aware that something has been "lost". It's like I'm no longer watching the movie, but I'm watching the filming of the movie, like I'm on the set watching the creation take place, rather than being transported into the movie.

FI seems to eliminate/reduce the suspension of disbelief that makes movies so enjoyable.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here as to what FI in its various incarnations actually does! FI isn't simply an "off" or "on" feature. The recent upgrade to the Epson's FI is a clear indication of this and I think the FI on the Panasonic 3000 is similar. FI on "low" DOES NOT produce a soap opera or hand held video camera look, but rather a highly detailed very smooth film look. FI on "normal" or "high" with live action film does strip away the film look leaving a very "soap opera" look which I find distracting; however, both animation and live concerts, IMO, benefit from this look due to the added realism and amazing 3D quality added, especially for animation. I don't particularly like the soap opera look so I don't watch movies with FI on "normal" or "high"; however, "low" looks very much like 1080p/24, but smoother and with more apparent resolution. To dismiss FI, carte blanche, because one application of it produces a "video" look is a mistake IMO.

FI on "low" DOES NOT produce a soap opera or hand held video camera look, but rather a highly detailed very smooth film look.
What does "low" actually do? Does it just convert 2-3 pulldown to 5-5 pulldown? If that's the case, 5-5 will appear smoother than 2-3, but there is no interpolation at all.

I think "low" adds fewer interpolated frames smoothing out the image without other noticeable side effects.

Maybe "less noticable" but there's simply no way to make 24fps display smoothly in 60Hz refresh without interpolating every frame.

I'm searching for my first projector and for now, FI is a must for me. I honestly don't know if I'll use it a lot, but I know I'll end up using when gaming and watching hdtv/sports. I'll experiment with film material to see if I'll like it. I "think" I'll enjoy it on low, cause I hate judder/motion blur during panning. It really gets to me ... But I've seen the soap opera effect that others talk when walking around LCD shelves.

Having said that, I have a question for those that don't like it. You don't like it because of the artifacts it introduces or it's just the film feel that's gone? Let's say movies start being recorded at these speeds (thus no artifacts), then the argument that info is being generated and that it's not the director's intent goes away. Would you still feel that the same way?

I have very little hands on with FI (still own an older rear projection set), so just trying to understand the real reason people don't like FI.

I'm searching for my first projector and for now, FI is a must for me. I honestly don't know if I'll use it a lot, but I know I'll end up using when gaming and watching hdtv/sports. I'll experiment with film material to see if I'll like it. I "think" I'll enjoy it on low, cause I hate judder/motion blur during panning. It really gets to me ... But I've seen the soap opera effect that others talk when walking around LCD shelves.

I see this "gaming" comment quite often, doesn't FI make lag much worse?

Having said that, I have a question for those that don't like it. You don't like it because of the artifacts it introduces or it's just the film feel that's gone?

Both, but I explained it the best way I can above. Film's frame rate, for whatever reason it was chosen, has the effect of feeling "surreal". My thought is that it's just slow enough so that your brain knows it's not "real", and this allows you to more easily "get lost" in the movie. FI'd film just doesn't feel the same, it feels like you're on the set watching the creation of the movie, as opposed to just letting go and really getting into it. Or to put it another way, FI feels like a behind the scenes documentary rather than the real movie.

But then there's the artifacts, I tried to watch Saving Private Ryan with FI enable once. The opening (cemetary) scene in the movie is spectacular (speaking purely technically/aesthetically). But the moment the movie "flashes back" to Normandy, everything regarding FI changes. FI utterly destroyed that movie. Without FI the bullets hitting the water look like real bullets/splashes, but with FI they look like B/C movie special effects. The surreal-ness is completely gone. Effects that are convincing normally are made cheap looking by FI's sharpening (motion blur is a valuable tool in making effects blend in).

Let's say movies start being recorded at these speeds (thus no artifacts), then the argument that info is being generated and that it's not the director's intent goes away. Would you still feel that the same way?

Without actually seeing a movie shot that fast I can't say for sure. I've seen a few TV shows (sci fi/dramas) that occasionally/oddly switch from film to video (or look like it) in the middle of an episode and the video parts don't look "right"

My guess is that 30/60fps movies wouldn't have the same magic 24fps movies do. I think it would become more of a "ride" than what it is now.

Makes me wonder if that's a big reason we're still shooting almost every movie in 24fps today.

Thanks for the response. I've read that FI could be a problem for gaming. I guess it depends on how sensitive you are and the type of game.

From your response, I think it's more about the feel itself, which is fine.


One more question. Is there any difference in implementation and/or feel between FI on LCD tv's and LCD projectors? Maybe different algorithm or just the screen size that gives a different experience?

Thanks

Thanks for the response. I've read that FI could be a problem for gaming. I guess it depends on how sensitive you are and the type of game.

From your response, I think it's more about the feel itself, which is fine.


One more question. Is there any difference in implementation and/or feel between FI on LCD tv's and LCD projectors? Maybe different algorithm or just the screen size that gives a different experience?

Thanks

From what I've read different manufactures implement it (FI) in different ways - some are very aggressive while others are quite mild. Originally Epson's implementation was very aggressive. It has now tamed its FI and on "low"it is very mild and hardly noticeable, while "normal" and "high" are a different story. Although 60fps is fed to the projector, processing is enabled that strips it back to 24fps and then each frame is shown a number of times plus an interpolated frame (or several interpolated frames depending how aggressive the implementation is) so you now end up with 96fps (it was 120fps before the latest fw upgrade). In other words you might take the original frame and create three interpolated frames so you now have four frames and then do this for the remaining 23 frames shown each second. This would be an aggressive implementation of FI (FI on high). On the other extreme you could repeat each frame three times and only add one interpolated frame to give you the four frames and repeat this process for the other 23 frames. This would be a very non-intrusive use of FI. This I believe is what the Epson now does on its "low" setting and why it is smooth with the "film look" left intact.

Deja, how does FI look on material other than BluRay? I have heard bad things about the FI fix on the Epson that causes issues with movies over cable/dish. I want to upgrade to the 6500UB, but want to make sure everything is working properly.

Also, if it is running at 96fps, wouldn't that cause problems with 60fps material, such as sports and documentaries?
Thanks!
Art

Why do we all appreciate that "film look"? I used to notice it particularly when I watched PBS television twenty years ago. PBS got most of its drama shows from the BBC which regularly mixed film and video. It was quite jarring to watch the Scotland Yard detective get out of his car on the street - shot on film - and then follow him as he went into the office - shot on video. See any episode of "The Sandbaggers".

The "look" of the video was much different from the "look" of film. In general I and most everyone one else I suspect, thought that the filmed sequences looked better. Why should that be?

Some posters here would have you believe that it is the "magic" of film. I don't think that 24fps is magic. We know that that speed was arrived at as the slowest speed that did not have terrible flicker. We also know that directors learned to compensate for the limitations of film by avoiding pans especially quick pans. So again, why do we prefer the film "look"?

I think there are two reasons: lighting and association. A set for recording a TV show will be well and uniformly lit so that any of several TV cameras can get a usable shot. This practice arose when all television was live. The TV director could switch from camera to camera in real time if need be. He could photograph a character in dialog and then cut to the other character's reactions and both shots would be lit well enough for telecast standards.

This is not how its ever been done in Hollywood movies. There typically is only one camera. The lights and actors are arranged for that one set up only, and then rearranged for the next planned shot. This is not how "soap operas" are shot. Consequently soap operas look flat and lifeless while "film noir" shots have shadows and textures. They have art.

It is analagous to the accompaning music. In film you get a custom score written by some genius like Poledoris, or Herrman which is played by a symphony orchestra. Soap operas have a real time improvisation on an organ.

The other reason I suspect is because we all harbor positive associations of the "film look" with the great films we have seen.

If I am right about any of this the "soap opera" look phenomenon will fade. If feature (films) are shot on video by major studios, the set ups and lighting will be better and the final products will be memorable. Directors will be liberated from the limitations of mechanical silver halide image capture - and only old timers will wax rhapsodic about "film look".

Frame interpolation will become known as a technology for bringing old material closer to modern standards.

PLB, very nice points. One other concern I have when discussing this topic is that we need to be careful not the equate frame interpolation with capturing with higher frame rates. It could be that capturing in a higher frame rate, even for movies, could look fantastic, while frame interpolation still looks "bad". Although I have seen some displays with FI, and consequently felt the need to vomit, I would love to see a film which is captured at 48 or 96 FPS. I suspect the experience will be quite different from one captured at 24 FPS, then displayed with FI at 96, 120, etc FPS

Why do we all appreciate that "film look"? I used to notice it particularly when I watched PBS television twenty years ago. PBS got most of its drama shows from the BBC which regularly mixed film and video. It was quite jarring to watch the Scotland Yard detective get out of his car on the street - shot on film - and then follow him as he went into the office - shot on video. See any episode of "The Sandbaggers".

The "look" of the video was much different from the "look" of film. In general I and most everyone one else I suspect, thought that the filmed sequences looked better. Why should that be?

Some posters here would have you believe that it is the "magic" of film. I don't think that 24fps is magic.

By "magic" I don't mean anything more than that special look we all like, and the effect that lower framerate has on how we perceive it.

We know that that speed was arrived at as the slowest speed that did not have terrible flicker. We also know that directors learned to compensate for the limitations of film by avoiding pans especially quick pans. So again, why do we prefer the film "look"?

I think there are two reasons: lighting and association. A set for recording a TV show will be well and uniformly lit so that any of several TV cameras can get a usable shot. This practice arose when all television was live. The TV director could switch from camera to camera in real time if need be. He could photograph a character in dialog and then cut to the other character's reactions and both shots would be lit well enough for telecast standards.

This is not how its ever been done in Hollywood movies. There typically is only one camera. The lights and actors are arranged for that one set up only, and then rearranged for the next planned shot. This is not how "soap operas" are shot. Consequently soap operas look flat and lifeless while "film noir" shots have shadows and textures. They have art.

But there's way more to it than that. The "jarring" you mention above when a TV show switches between film and video, I've experienced the same thing as well. A few episodes of Stargate had that happen. There's no difference in lighting or composition, just the framerate. It's like the middle of the show they cut over to a behind the scenes documentary, and then return to the show again.

It is analagous to the accompaning music. In film you get a custom score written by some genius like Poledoris, or Herrman which is played by a symphony orchestra. Soap operas have a real time improvisation on an organ.

The other reason I suspect is because we all harbor positive associations of the "film look" with the great films we have seen.

No doubt

If I am right about any of this the "soap opera" look phenomenon will fade.

FWIW, at least when I say it "soap opera effect" has nothing to do with lighting, it's entirely the framerate of the picture.

If feature (films) are shot on video by major studios, the set ups and lighting will be better and the final products will be memorable.

I really don't think lighting or the like has anything to do with it, the problem for me with higher framerates is that when I watch something that's 30/60fps, it looks like I'm watching a documentary. Your brain doesn't process those framerates in the same way, and as a result it doesn't feel like a movie.

Directors will be liberated from the limitations of mechanical silver halide image capture - and only old timers will wax rhapsodic about "film look".

Frame interpolation will become known as a technology for bringing old material closer to modern standards.

Even today, film makers are using low framerates on purpose. This didn't get much interest here, but this is an interesting read:
http://prolost.blogspot.com/2009/02/slumdog-millionaire.html
http://prolost.blogspot.com/2006/03/less-is-more.html

There's a sentence in the second blog that really sums it up for me "Cinema is not reality." 24fps (and below) don't look "real", but then most movies aren't supposed to be real, they're an escape from reality.

I just don't think the film "look" has anything to do with production values, and I think changing the frame rate will eliminate that, regardless of production budget/technique.

From what I've read different manufactures implement it (FI) in different ways - some are very aggressive while others are quite mild. Originally Epson's implementation was very aggressive. It has now tamed its FI and on "low"it is very mild and hardly noticeable, while "normal" and "high" are a different story. Although 60fps is fed to the projector, processing is enabled that strips it back to 24fps and then each frame is shown a number of times plus an interpolated frame (or several interpolated frames depending how aggressive the implementation is) so you now end up with 96fps (it was 120fps before the latest fw upgrade). In other words you might take the original frame and create three interpolated frames so you now have four frames and then do this for the remaining 23 frames shown each second. This would be an aggressive implementation of FI (FI on high). On the other extreme you could repeat each frame three times and only add one interpolated frame to give you the four frames and repeat this process for the other 23 frames. This would be a very non-intrusive use of FI. This I believe is what the Epson now does on its "low" setting and why it is smooth with the "film look" left intact.
I know that there are different implementations that vary in how aggressive frames are generated. But I guess my question was more specific to differences between LCD tv's and projectors. Maybe the difference in size, difference in brightness/contrast gives a different experience watching FI on a LCD tv and a FP projector.

I suspect the experience will be quite different from one captured at 24 FPS, then displayed with FI at 96, 120, etc FPS
I'm not so sure about that. When you hear people saying they don't like FI, the term soap opera effect always comes up. Soap opera effect seems closely related to the higher speeds, rather than the artifacts generated by the interpolation. Don't take me wrong, the absence of artifacts might convert a lot of people, but the "soap opera effect" will still be there.

I know that there are different implementations that vary in how aggressive frames are generated. But I guess my question was more specific to differences between LCD tv's and projectors. Maybe the difference in size, difference in brightness/contrast gives a different experience watching FI on a LCD tv and a FP projector.


I'm not so sure about that. When you hear people saying they don't like FI, the term soap opera effect always comes up. Soap opera effect seems closely related to the higher speeds, rather than the artifacts generated by the interpolation. Don't take me wrong, the absence of artifacts might convert a lot of people, but the "soap opera effect" will still be there.

FI with a Samsung LCD T.V and the Epson projector (set to normal) look very similar (at least for animation). As far as artifacts are concerned it seems to be very source dependent - some material looks almost artifact free while other material has many obvious artifacts. The ability to use "low" FI which obviates the "soap opera" look and leaves the positives without the negatives will, IMO, make FI a must have for most viewers - while retaining the option for a more aggressive implementation for other material - a win win situation.

I've got to ask, have you seen correct 1080p24 reproduction? Because if you get rid of the soap opera look, you're back to 1080p24.

Very interesting thread, and some good arguments all around...

I personally, have yet to see a version of FI that I can live with for any type of viewing, outside of fast moving sports.

Anybody got any thoughts on 24fps film shown at the cinema (double gated to 48hz) and 24fps film (source) shown on a 60hz (NTSC) system?

60hz playback of 24fps material with 3:2 pulldown induced "judder/stutter" is very noticible to me and just looks weird with that uneven dragging cadence. Whereas 50hz (PAL) playback of 24fps material which is simply sped up to 25p and shown at 50, 100 or 200hz (and more often than not interlaced) looks just fine.

And film at the cinema "flickers" so I feel right at home with Sony's DFI :)

Hey Deja Vu,
Are you Grant from back in the NEC HT1000 days?

I agree with you on the FI thing. We have it on an Optoma 8200 and on low it's great!!

scott

Hey Deja Vu,
Are you Grant from back in the NEC HT1000 days?

I agree with you on the FI thing. We have it on an Optoma 8200 and on low it's great!!

scott

Bingo! Actually it was the little NEC LT150 that really inspired me, although I did move on up to the HT1000 later. Don't tell me I'm getting passionate about something again and that gave me away. :D

Anybody got any thoughts on 24fps film shown at the cinema (double gated to 48hz) and 24fps film (source) shown on a 60hz (NTSC) system?

60hz playback of 24fps material with 3:2 pulldown induced "judder/stutter" is very noticible to me and just looks weird with that uneven dragging cadence. Whereas 50hz (PAL) playback of 24fps material which is simply sped up to 25p and shown at 50, 100 or 200hz (and more often than not interlaced) looks just fine.

Which is why a lot of us insist on players that support 24fps/Hz output (eg 1080p24) and displays that can display it right.

I see the same difference as you, film at 1080p60 is "OK" on my W5000, though pans are noticeably "unsmooth". But flip my 51FD over to Source Direct (1080p24) and motion is nice ans smooth, like it's supposed to be. But with none of the artifacts associated with FI.

I have to wonder if those who love "low" FI, have never tried, or never been able to try "unmolested" 24fps playback.

Which is why a lot of us insist on players that support 24fps/Hz output (eg 1080p24) and displays that can display it right.

I see the same difference as you, film at 1080p60 is "OK" on my W5000, though pans are noticeably "unsmooth". But flip my 51FD over to Source Direct (1080p24) and motion is nice ans smooth, like it's supposed to be. But with none of the artifacts associated with FI.

I have to wonder if those who love "low" FI, have never tried, or never been able to try "unmolested" 24fps playback.

There is still a "choppyness" to pans in 1080p24. In fact, there is in the theatre as well. It is inherent to the slow framerate. If you see smooth pans, there is some other processing going on.

Art

There is still a "choppyness" to pans in 1080p24. In fact, there is in the theatre as well. It is inherent to the slow framerate. If you see smooth pans, there is some other processing going on.

Art

OK, smooth as it's possible to be and still be film, fast pans still show the lack of temporal resolution but slow ones are buttery. And my W5000 has no processing.

The other reason I suspect is because we all harbor positive associations of the "film look" with the great films we have seen.


PLB, great points all of which I think are true. I think this last one is the most important though. I think we've gotten used to associating video with relatively poor quality TV (esp. soap operas), while all of our best and most positive associations are all from film. All else being equal, higher frame rates are obviously better from a technical standpoint, but we have a lifetime of memories and associations working against us that tell us subconsiously to favor the look of film. Faster frame rates can add more realism and improve the sense of being there, but unfortunately our lifetime of associations creates an instant "ugh" when watching higher frame rates.

I think most digital HD cameras will do at least 30fps now and I can see where some directors would intentionally go for an even faster 60hz soap opera look (think Cloverfield), so it will be interesting to see if source frame rates improve in the coming years. Most movies will continue to be shot at 24fps but if enough Indies and niche movies are shot using higher frame rates it might be enough to desensitive most people to where faster source frame rates won't be such a turnoff.

PLB, great points all of which I think are true. I think this last one is the most important though. I think we've gotten used to associating video with relatively poor quality TV (esp. soap operas), while all of our best and most positive associations are all from film.

See I don't agree with that. I think most here will agree that some of the best "video" (I use it in the generic collection-of-moving-pictures meaning) is HD video. Stuff like In Focus and other HDnet documentaries, HD sports, DVE's HD DVD/Blu-ray HD Video demo material, etc. These types of "video" make some of the best demo material out there. We all love that quality/feel, I know HD video is some of the most beautiful content I've seen. So I think that indicates that we don't have some "prejudice" against video, that the thought/argument that we don't like video because we haven't seen video is a flawed one.

You'll notice, if you're reading carefully, that all those great examples of awesome video have something in common, they're all trying to capture real life, reality, and portray it as accurately as possible through the video system to the viewer. I think this here is one reason why we see so few people complain about FI with sports and the like, lots of people who like FI, like it with the caveat that they use it only on video content.

Where we see the disagreement, is with movies, and there's one big difference between movies and the types of content I've mentioned above, movies aren't trying to portray reality, they're trying to portray "unreality". I'm not even sure how best to explain it, but even films based in historical events all have a different feel/intent than a historical documentary of the same event.

This is I think where the difference lies, not in our "bad experience" with video but with how we watch view the "unreality" of movies vs the reality of, well 'reality-based' content. It's the difference between being passively immersed in the the story (film) vs being more actively "taken" to the location (video).

All else being equal, higher frame rates are obviously better from a technical standpoint, but we have a lifetime of memories and associations working against us that tell us subconsiously to favor the look of film. Faster frame rates can add more realism and improve the sense of being there,

That's the thing, and why I think many don't like higher framerates for film, higher frame rates (30/60fps) do a much better job of taking you "there", but that "there" is the location of the camera on the set. With higher frame rates you feel "there" next to the camera seeing what the camera sees as if you're on the set, or in the forest, or at the game.

But when watching movies we don't want to be "on the set", we want to be immersed in the "unreality" that the creator is trying to create. I think being "there", on the set next to the camera is a completely different feeling than being immersed in the imaginary world, and I prefer to be immersed in that imaginary world.

...but unfortunately our lifetime of associations creates an instant "ugh" when watching higher frame rates.

See, I don't feel "ugh" when I see high framerate (except for the case of a work switching framerates without warning).

I think most digital HD cameras will do at least 30fps now and I can see where some directors would intentionally go for an even faster 60hz soap opera look (think Cloverfield), so it will be interesting to see if source frame rates improve in the coming years. Most movies will continue to be shot at 24fps but if enough Indies and niche movies are shot using higher frame rates it might be enough to desensitive most people to where faster source frame rates won't be such a turnoff.

I mentioned Saving Private Ryan above, I could see where if that were being shot today, with an eye toward home/D Cinema (not film) projection, higher framerates could be used for parts of the movie (the "present day" parts) to good effect, but I don't think the rest of the movie would hold up.

And I'd really guess that is a likely possibility for the future. I don't think the "fantasy" (I use that very broadly) type movies will ever work well at the higher framerates because our rational minds know we can't really be "there" and that would conflict with our senses. Those movies don't engage the viewer directly in the story. But for movies (like Cloverfield) where the viewer is supposed to be engaged directly, it could work.

Stranger89, very good points. I also agree with you that typical video content (concerts, sporting events, etc.) all look great on video. My earlier comments really pertain to what we think of as movie content.

You make an interesting point that perhaps our desire for wanting a film look is based on not wanting to really be there. I'm not sure if it's the reason or just that we've grown up watching film and been conditioned to think that this is how a good presentation should look. Definitely food for thought and a good class project for someone in Film School.

stanger89 made some of the points I would make as well.

For quite a while I chased strict realism for movie content, and felt I was getting closer and closer. But the closer I got the more I noticed I seemed somewhat distracted from
getting into the movie. I realised my image was starting to look more like I was peering on to a movie set, rather than watching a movie. I thought that surely a more realistic image would mean greater involvement. But paradoxically, I realised there was a difference between "realism" and "believability." Simply making actors look more real in front of me didn't make what they were pretending to do more believable.
In fact, it had the opposite effect.

It reminded me of being on set (I've worked on many film sets) watching actors act. It's often not nearly as convincing standing in front of the actor as when you watch him acting on film (as many film-makers have observed). Whenever I was shooting I always knew that the images were going to be translated into a not-quite-real medium that created it's own world, it's own texture, which eased you into the fantasy.

That's one reason I got into front projection and left flat panels. It gets me back into that film-like state of mind where I find it easy to slip into the fantasy aspect of movie-watching.

I think many of use don't want that "live" look to a movie. Many movies are fantasy and inspire our imagination unlike something like a sports game. The soap opera effect turns movies into a filmed live type look and just take away the from the fantasy part of it per se (and also can make backdrops and such look like actual backdrops rather than scenery in the background).

However, judder is distracting. Removing judder while keeping a fluid look to the image w/o the "soap opera" effect would be a nice upgrade IMO. Neither my Pioneer projector no my Pioneer plasma remove judder while using 1080p/24fps over my PS3.

I think many of use don't want that "live" look to a movie. Many movies are fantasy and inspire our imagination unlike something like a sports game. The soap opera effect turns movies into a filmed live type look and just take away the from the fantasy part of it per se (and also can make backdrops and such look like actual backdrops rather than scenery in the background).

However, judder is distracting. Removing judder while keeping a fluid look to the image w/o the "soap opera" effect would be a nice upgrade IMO. Neither my Pioneer projector no my Pioneer plasma remove judder while using 1080p/24fps over my PS3.

That's the beauty of non aggressive FI - you get to keep the "film look" and the judder is gone. I think you'll find over the next generation or two of equipment, more and more consumers will be using FI on "low" for live action movies, and that includes people here who object to FI, once they realize it doesn't have to have that "soap opera look".

I run an Optoma 8200 and they have a demo split screen for FI testing and there is a definate improvement when used on low.
When bumped up to higher it does add that artificialness to the pic but low looks much better.
If the critics have seen one implemented on a low setting they may like it for some, not all, material. That's one good thing about having it available, you CAN turn it off for some material and on for the stuff that benifits from it.

Scott

Where we see the disagreement, is with movies, and there's one big difference between movies and the types of content I've mentioned above, movies aren't trying to portray reality, they're trying to portray "unreality". I'm not even sure how best to explain it, but even films based in historical events all have a different feel/intent than a historical documentary of the same event.

This is I think where the difference lies, not in our "bad experience" with video but with how we watch view the "unreality" of movies vs the reality of, well 'reality-based' content. It's the difference between being passively immersed in the the story (film) vs being more actively "taken" to the location (video).
I think there are all valid points here, because at the end of the day, it's all subjective and personal preference.

I'm just not sure if I agree with your statement that movies aren't trying to portrait reality. I think this is dependent on how the spectator likes to experience movies (in this case, you made it clear how you like to experience them), the movie genre and the director intention. So I wouldn't state that in black and white.

I think one thing FI is doing, is breaking the habit of watching all movies with that film-look. It is planting the seed that higher speed can be used and appreciated in some types of content by some people, so when/if movies come out shot like that natively, there will be an audience there to support. Maybe now, people think it's only valid on animation, but as people get used to it and implementation evolves, more people will start using for other type of contents.

I hope in the future we get films shot both ways and then we will be discussing if the director did the right thing shooting that way or not. And maybe there will be a tool to reverse the process and throw away frames so the user can watch the film the way they want to.

I run an Optoma 8200 and they have a demo split screen for FI testing and there is a definate improvement when used on low.
Was the "low" FI being compared to 24p or to 60p with 2-3 pulldown?

I hope in the future we get films shot both ways and then we will be discussing if the director did the right thing shooting that way or not. And maybe there will be a tool to reverse the process and throw away frames so the user can watch the film the way they want to.
It might not be as simple as just throwing away frames. The films might be shot with different shutter speeds as well, which affects the amount of motion blur that was captured in each frame.

I run an Optoma 8200 and they have a demo split screen for FI testing and there is a definate improvement when used on low.
When bumped up to higher it does add that artificialness to the pic but low looks much better.
If the critics have seen one implemented on a low setting they may like it for some, not all, material. That's one good thing about having it available, you CAN turn it off for some material and on for the stuff that benifits from it.

Scott

I agree that the low setting on the Optoma is great for movies. It preserves the look of film but reduces blur and judder. It's not clear that it's doing FI on the low setting though. It may just be doing dark frame insertion.

=
Where we see the disagreement, is with movies, and there's one big difference between movies and the types of content I've mentioned above, movies aren't trying to portray reality, they're trying to portray "unreality". I'm not even sure how best to explain it, but even films based in historical events all have a different feel/intent than a historical documentary of the same event.

This is I think where the difference lies, not in our "bad experience" with video but with how we watch view the "unreality" of movies vs the reality of, well 'reality-based' content. It's the difference between being passively immersed in the the story (film) vs being more actively "taken" to the location (video).



Exactly. Movies = escapism. While some may benefit from looking more "real", most will not, at least IMO.

So I have a question about setting up and system and how FI may work with my setup while I wait for my Emo UMC-1 processor. I have a Yammy RX-V2500 (non HDMI receiver/pro) and will be buying the Epson 6500 and the Oppo BR. How do I wire the BR/Yammy/6500 to get the best picture and sound. Once the UMC-1 is available then it is all connected via 1 HDMI cable....right? So for now what do I do? Run HDMI from Oppo to 6500 and component from Oppo to Yammy for audio? Does FI cause a slight audio delay?

Thanks for the help.

--JK

I agree that the low setting on the Optoma is great for movies. It preserves the look of film but reduces blur and judder. It's not clear that it's doing FI on the low setting though. It may just be doing dark frame insertion.

Mark, how is "Low" FI different from native 1080p24 display? I'm having trouble figuring out how you can "improve" on 1080p24 without eliminating the film look, unless it's DFI, but I didn't think anything but the VW80/VW200 had DFI so far.