Love it or hate it, it looks like Frame Interpolation is going to be with us from now on.

The discussions that I have read on this kind of technology so far focused only on whether it looks good or not. Soap Operaish versus non-soap-operaish.

However, there is another discussion that has not been had. The simple question is this, should we, as videophiles, embrace this technology at all, regardless of whether it looks good or not?

If our goal is accuracy to the source, there is no question that frame interpolation is incompatible with that goal. FI manufactures new frames; frames that were not in the original. Thus, watching a film with FI engaged is clearly not accurate.

Is there a videophile argument that exists that supports the use of FI?

I'd like to hear what it is.

The true goal of any recorded material is to mimic real life, as humans view it. Real life doesn't have frames, we continuously sample dynamic images.

Thus to me, FI is closer to how the director really wants us to view the material, as if we are viewing it in person (true immersion).

Hey Law,
What's the difference between answer #1 and 3?

I chose "I don't care if it looks good or not, it's not accurate..." However, truth be told, I think it looks fine on sports but terrible, terrible, terrible on film-based content. And what kills me is that some televisions don't allow the viewer to turn it off. My mother has a Samsung LCD television that has a setting that "claims" to turn FI off, but clearly that setting doesn't really work as advertised since I can still see the effect.

A year or so ago, I was sitting in my workplace cafeteria listening to a couple of guys discuss how "Blu-Ray looks so REAL that it looks FAKE!" This comment mystified me, until I realized they were talking about the demo loop at best buy, which had FI turned up to high heaven, and they were mistaking the television's FI with the image quality of the BRD.

The true goal of any recorded material is to mimic real life, as humans view it. Real life doesn't have frames, we continuously sample dynamic images.

Thus to me, FI is closer to how the director really wants us to view the material, as if we are viewing it in person (true immersion).

Seeing as how this is your first post, I'm seriously wondering if this is a troll response, since you're pressing multiple videophile buttons in a videophile forum.... But I'll give ya the benefit of the doubt. :)

For starters, it is not true that the goal of any recorded material is to mimic real life. Take the movie 300 for example, or the movie 7, or any number of other films where a director seeks to achieve an effect that is considerably different than "real life."

Second point: FI has nothing to do with "true immersion," nor with the director's intent. If the director had wanted to mimic "real life" he could easily have filmed on standard video cameras using no artificial lighting, filters, or processing.

The true goal of any recorded material is to mimic real life, as humans view it.

It most certainly is not. Very few movies are intended to mimic real life. Most are, in some way, stylized in order to better compliment the atmosphere and story. Most films that don't, on initial inspection, look stylized, usually still are. Subtle palette restrictions or changes, grain introduction,minor defocusing, dynamic crushes etc are frequently working away in the background to pull us further in.

The goal of the recorded material is to capture and convey an intent,the goal of a recording medium is to provide as transparent a representation of that intent as possible

The true goal of any recorded material is to mimic real life, as humans view it. Real life doesn't have frames, we continuously sample dynamic images.

I categorically disagree with that, cinema is absolutely NOT intended to mimic real life, quite the contrary, it's intended to take us out of the real life we're in for the moment and transport us to a fictional place.

Take The Matrix, much of the movie has a green cast intentionally, that is obvioulsy not "mimicing real life".

Saving Private Ryan, most of the movie is shot with fast shutter speed, which gives the WWII parts of the movie a very sureal feel.

Speed Racer, the whole movie is made with super-saturated colors that are nothing like real life.

Slumdog Millionaire, the director intentionally used 12fps footage in some scenes to make things look different from real life:
http://prolost.com/blog/2009/2/24/slumdog-millionaire.html

The Lord of The Rings, there is no such place as Middle Earth, no such thing as hobbits, etc, etc.

The list goes on, but one thing is very clear, cinema is NOT intended to mimic reality, it's intended to be an escape from reality.

Now if you want to argue that FI helps get you personally more into the fantasy world created by the film, that's a different argument.

For me, FI makes me feel like I'm on the set watching actors act, not that I'm experiencing a fantasy world created by the director.

Thus to me, FI is closer to how the director really wants us to view the material, as if we are viewing it in person (true immersion).

That's not the case of Slumdog Millionare's director (wish I could find that blog again). I'm guessing not in the case of Saving Private Ryan either.

"And those emotional moments, almost without exception, featured key shots captured at 12 frames per second (or less) and double-printed for a staccato, dreamy feel."

I'd say the goal of the director is not to make you feel like you're on the set viewing the acting in person, quite the contrary, I believe their goal it to immerse you in the fantasy world created by the actors, cinematography and special effects.

Now if FI does that for you, great. It does the opposite for me.

To what extent is FI the manufacturers way of addressing memory effect issues with digital pixel arrays? - a CRT monitor will scan each frame it receives, with no memory of the previous frame, whereas most pixel arrays suffer from -to a greater or lesser extent- sample and hold effects/colour-stepping/smearing. FI may result in the image being closer to the source than expected by reducing these artefacts.

To what extent is FI the manufacturers way of addressing memory effect issues with digital pixel arrays? - a CRT monitor will scan each frame it receives, with no memory of the previous frame, whereas most pixel arrays suffer from -to a greater or lesser extent- sample and hold effects/colour-stepping/smearing. FI may result in the image being closer to the source than expected by reducing these artefacts.

Now that is an interesting point... And if it were true that it enabled LCD panels (for example) to overcome SAH, I'd entertain the notion that it might have some value beyond "sports."

However, in my experience, to my eyes, FI looks less like real 35mm film than does the same source on the same set WITHOUT FI. To me, FI always seems to impart a cheap cam-corder quality to everything it touches.

Seeing as how this is your first post, I'm seriously wondering if this is a troll response

You'll notice I've been a member for three years, and have read intently throughout that time. I just got my first projector yesterday (Epson 6500UB on Carada Masquerade 110" 1.78:1), so I finally have something to chime in about.

I still disagree with you about director intent. In 300, Snyder wants us to feel like we are present at the Battle of Thermopylae. Not sitting in a movie theatre watching 24 frames roll by every second. To me, FI improves immersion, since it makes the display look more like a 'window to another world' than a screen with rapidly changing static images.

Frame judder always reminds me I'm not 'there'. Different attitudes toward viewing I suppose; I want to feel like I'm witnessing the action live, but obviously some of you prefer to be reminded "it's just a movie".

EDIT: Note that the OP said 'videophile' not 'cinephile'. I agree that if you are a movie purist, and want to watch your movies the way they've been projected for the past century, then by all means, turn FI off.

You'll notice I've been a member for three years, and have read intently throughout that time. I just got my first projector yesterday (Epson 6500UB on Carada Masquerade 110" 1.78:1), so I finally have something to chime in about.


Then I'm glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Welcome to the conversation. :)


I still disagree with you about director intent. In 300, Snyder wants us to feel like we are present at the Battle of Thermopylae. Not sitting in a movie theatre watching 24 frames roll by every second. To me, FI improves immersion, since it makes the display look more like a 'window to another world' than a screen with rapidly changing static images.

I doubt very much Snyder wanted us to feel like we were watching the Battle of Thermopylae on a budget camcorder or on a Soap Opera set either....

Like it or not, film-makers understand the concessions required by the medium they are working on (35mm film, for example) and make a series of artistic decisions to accurately capture their vision given those characteristics. One cannot change such a major characteristic of the medium (a tremendous artificial jump in frame-rate, for example) without having unintended consequences on the director's other artistic decisions, thereby doing more to harm than help the director's intent. I believe this is evident when one watches any film with FI turned on.

To what extent is FI the manufacturers way of addressing memory effect issues with digital pixel arrays? - a CRT monitor will scan each frame it receives, with no memory of the previous frame, whereas most pixel arrays suffer from -to a greater or lesser extent- sample and hold effects/colour-stepping/smearing. FI may result in the image being closer to the source than expected by reducing these artefacts.

I don't think that FI could have any effect on the sample and hold effect, which, to varying extents, is present in all digital displays, regardless of framerate. This is so because manufacturing new frames won't change a given pixel's response time or blanking time. If you accept that FI doesn't change pixel response or blanking time (the root cause of SAH) you have to agree that your premise is incorrect.

I still disagree with you about director intent. In 300, Snyder wants us to feel like we are present at the Battle of Thermopylae.

Agreed, we're supposed to be immersed in the fantasy world that is created by the acting and cinematography.

Not sitting in a movie theatre watching 24 frames roll by every second.

Likewise we are not supposed to feel like we're standing on the set watching the actors act. This is where I think you're extending "intent" to far, if only rhetorically.

To me, FI improves immersion, since it makes the display look more like a 'window to another world' than a screen with rapidly changing static images.

That's perfectly fair, like I stated above. To a large extent I get the same feel. Though my brain interprets it differently, to me, it ends up feeling like I'm looking through a window at the set, at the process of creating the film.

Frame judder always reminds me I'm not 'there'. Different attitudes toward viewing I suppose; I want to feel like I'm witnessing the action live, but obviously some of you prefer to be reminded "it's just a movie".

I think it is differing attitudes. For me the fact that I know I'm not "there" allows my brain to suspend disbelief of what's going on, and I can sit back and become immersed in the story, the action, the cinematography. I can become immersed in the story itself.

With FI, it really does give the "I'm there" feel, however at least for me, "there" is on the set where the movie is being shot, not the fictional location that's trying to be created. I guess I don't feel you're really supposed to be "there" when you watch a movie. That's not to say I don't think you should be immersed, but I think immersion doesn't need the "I'm there" or "looking through a window" feeling FI gives. In fact IMO those feelings detract from immersion because we subconciously know that we'd never see those things looking through a window.


I don't think that FI could have any effect on the sample and hold effect, which, to varying extents, is present in all digital displays, regardless of framerate.

But it does. SAH is basically the blur caused by our eyes moving in relation to the static image. Faster frame rates/more frames means our eyes go less far before a new frame is shown, thus reducing the amount of blur.

This is so because manufacturing new frames won't change a given pixel's response time or blanking time.

SAH has nothing to do with pixel response time. But even so it's possible that with more frames, smaller changes will be required from one frame to the next, thus reducing the impact of pixel response.

SAH has nothing to do with pixel response time. But even so it's possible that with more frames, smaller changes will be required from one frame to the next, thus reducing the impact of pixel response.

I stated that it has no effect on pixel response OR blanking time.

FI is meant to address motion issues caused by low frame rates.

Pixel response time can contribute to motion issues because, if pixel response time is low, we can see blur during motion. FI would have no effect on this kind of blur.

Blanking time (the amount of persistence of particular pixels) is the root cause of SAH. Merely manufacturing new frames does not address pixel blanking time at all. In fact, the remedies that have been devised to address SAH (Black or dark frame insertion) have nothing at all to do whatsoever with Frame Interpolation. They are compatible with each other but you need not have one to thave the other.

If your assertion that simply adding "more frames" was the answer, we would have it already. On the RS20, for instance, 24p material is displayed at a multiple of 24p, 96p, I believe.

It has been well established that 24 frames per second became the standard not because it was the best, or even because it was the best compromise, but because it was the MINIMUM that could be comfortably viewed by the average movie goer with the equipment available at the time. That, in and of itself, doesn't make FI good..........................or bad, but there is nothing special about 24fps or the experience it provides, so if modern technology can create alternatives I'm all for exploring them. (especially if they can be truly turned on or off at the viewer's discretion).

Dick Fogg

The true goal of any recorded material is to mimic real life, as humans view it.

Completely untrue. The goal of any created media is to impart information in a meaningful manner. You might as well try and argue that paintings should be valued according to how realistic they are... a viewpoint considered facile in the extreme for the last 300 years.

There is nothing remotely realistic about the film watching experience.

You'll notice I've been a member for three years, and have read intently throughout that time. I just got my first projector yesterday (Epson 6500UB on Carada Masquerade 110" 1.78:1), so I finally have something to chime in about.

I still disagree with you about director intent. In 300, Snyder wants us to feel like we are present at the Battle of Thermopylae. Not sitting in a movie theatre watching 24 frames roll by every second. To me, FI improves immersion, since it makes the display look more like a 'window to another world' than a screen with rapidly changing static images.

Frame judder always reminds me I'm not 'there'. Different attitudes toward viewing I suppose; I want to feel like I'm witnessing the action live, but obviously some of you prefer to be reminded "it's just a movie".

EDIT: Note that the OP said 'videophile' not 'cinemaphile'. I agree that if you are a movie purist, and want to watch your movies the way they've been projected for the past century, then by all means, turn FI off.

Snyder wants the audience to feel they are watching a live action comic book. There are more "distancing" techniques in "300" that you can shake a stick at. What more do you want ? Leonidas winking at the audience?

You want realism ? Tape a camcorder to a dog's head , set it to autofocus at as wide an angle it wlll go to and after a couple of hours retrieve the tape, don't edit it at all....now you have the most accomplished film in the history of mankind...if you think that "realsm" and "immersion" are the alpha and omega of film-making.

I would also double check what refresh rate you are running at before waxing lyrical on the advantages of FI.

It has been well established that 24 frames per second became the standard not because it was the best, or even because it was the best compromise, but because it was the MINIMUM that could be comfortably viewed by the average movie goer with the equipment available at the time. That, in and of itself, doesn't make FI good..........................or bad, but there is nothing special about 24fps or the experience it provides, so if modern technology can create alternatives I'm all for exploring them. (especially if they can be truly turned on or off at the viewer's discretion).

Dick Fogg

The fact that 24 FPS was a limitation that had to be lived with ultimately became an intrinsic part of the 'look of film.' For that reason, I am not a fan of frame interpolation on film-based sources.

That said, I can buy the argument that there's nothing sacred about 24 FPS -- if a director wants to create a film at 60 FPS, for example, I'd want to play it back at that frame rate.

The fact that 24 FPS was a limitation that had to be lived with ultimately became an intrinsic part of the 'look of film.' For that reason, I am not a fan of frame interpolation on film-based sources.


Exactly, I think we have all been conditioned to think that 24 fps=cinema. If we don't see sickening frame judder every time the camera pans, then we think we must be watching a "soap opera". I am trying to be open-minded about FI in movies, but admittedly I've had limited experience with it. Football is my #1 most important viewing activity, and most folks agree that FI is a big plus for sports.

I'll also admit that 300 was a horrible example of a director's intent to immerse. Most of that movie is probably closer to the scene in a typical gay bar than an accurate depiction of the Battle of Thermopylae.

They way I see it CRT phoshors have lag time and display interlaced. Single chip DLP uses a color wheel, etc... Displays do not work as the film makers intended, you are not seeing the film by a series of distinct flashing frames. The frames are being held on screen longer than they should be. Each frame is a reference for a moment in time, holding it for longer than that moment causes motion judder. While displaying it for only the moment for which it is relevent can cause flickering on bright displays. Frame interpolation is suppose to solve these problems by generating additional frames, so motion is smooth and the display does not flicker.

Is it the film makers intent for the film to have unnatural motion judder or to flicker. Film print projectors do not hold the frame too long as they do not have the same limitations as crt or single chip dlp in how they make the image, so obviously they did not intend you to see motion judder. Cinema screens are relatively dim and the speed at which the eye/brain process the image is determined by the brightness, so flickering was also not intended.

You may argue that ideally with a projector you want to emulate the cinema including the frame rate. To do this you may need to emulate the cinemas relatively dim screen brightness levels. But brighter images are naturally more engaging, have better color and look sharper with better depth of field, due to the eye having better color perception in brighter conditions, and the iris being smaller and having higher contrast sensitivity. If viewing in a non batcave dedicated room, brighter may also be a necessity.

It is seen to be true to the film makers intent to lower the black level of the image to improve contrast beyond a film print projector. If having a brighter image is viewed the same, since there is a movement to increase screen brightness, then something has to be done about flickering or motion judder.

EDIT Added paragraph.
Besides increased brightness another "improvement" to the film image makes frame interpolation possibly desirable. Detail enhancement used on some blu-ray players increases the visibility of motion judder as it increases the contrast in middle sized details. Film normally has high contrast in large details and falling (but still present) contrast in smaller details, while video has a more level contrast across different sized details. So this also adds to the video look.

I see nothing wrong with frame interpolation and if it makes the image look subjectively better or I am distracted by motion judder or flicker I would use it.

I prefer an image that looks like I am there, rather than watching an image. If this is not viewed as a good thing why bother with projectors with better contrast ratios than a film print projector. Since the main advantage of higher contrast is more depth of image, it looks more real - like you are there. For that matter why bother with a big screen at all, since the point of a big screen is to immerse you in the action by occupying more than the central detail sensitive part of your vision so it looks more real. Part of good film making in my opinion is using visual clues to trick the viewer into seeing a two dimensional image as three dimensional, otherwise we might as well use the style of ancient Egyptian art to tell the story.

EDIT two more added paragraphs of me ranting
I am not a purist and also see nothing wrong in removing film grain, as long as you do not simultaneously remove image detail like skin pores and subtle variations in peoples skin tones, etc...

The soap opera look people seem to hate I think is caused by the differences between film and video.
Film in comercial cinemas use a different color gamut and greyscale color temperature. Digital cinemas have a higher bit rate for finer graduations of greyscale and color hues than Blu-ray. Contrast is also different from video, film has a higher gamma (more contrast) in the middle of the gamma curve and a different shaped gamma curve with gentler more natural highlight compression and shadow compression. Film contrast is also high in large details and falls (but continues to be present) in small details.
Video often has sharper and less natural looking compression of shadow detail and highlights. This can cause reduced color saturation in the dark colors and increased saturation in bright colors, shifting colors in hue towards their nearest primary or secondary color, giving less natural more poster book colors than film. Video contrast is relatively constant in large and small details. Detail enhancement often used in video can cause a contrasty edge not usually present in film.

"In 300, Snyder wants us to feel like we are present at the Battle of Thermopylae."

How do you know that?

Exactly, I think we have all been conditioned to think that 24 fps=cinema. If we don't see sickening frame judder every time the camera pans, then we think we must be watching a "soap opera". I am trying to be open-minded about FI in movies, but admittedly I've had limited experience with it. .

Have you ever watched true 24p material on a display that actually handles refresh in 24 multiples?



I'll also admit that 300 was a horrible example of a director's intent to immerse. Most of that movie is probably closer to the scene in a typical gay bar than an accurate depiction of the Battle of Thermopylae.

I'm sure you meant that as comical but its possibly offensive to some people.

. If this is not viewed as a good thing why bother with projectors with better contrast ratios than a film print projector. .

Because you are watching 8bit video which is so lmited in dynamic range you need to display it with as much contrast as possible to produce a pleasing image.

I'm sure you meant that as comical but its possibly offensive to some people.

I didn't say anything more offensive than the BBC review of the film, and the BBC isn't known for pushing the envelope of political correctness.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2007/03/19/300_2007_review.shtml

Dovercat brings up a good point: I don't see most front projection enthusiasts lining up to emulate the other drawbacks of traditional cinema (dim picture, flicker, etc), why hold on to 24fps as sacred?

Because you are watching 8bit video which is so lmited in dynamic range you need to display it with as much contrast as possible to produce a pleasing image.

Not to mention the fact that I believe that I have seen threads around here discussing the fact that a pristine 35mm original source print shown in a controlled environment can yield considerably more contrast than what is typical in the commercial theater.

I didn't say anything more offensive than the BBC review of the film, and the BBC isn't known for pushing the envelope of political correctness.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2007/03/19/300_2007_review.shtml

Dovercat brings up a good point: I don't see most front projection enthusiasts lining up to emulate the other drawbacks of traditional cinema (dim picture, flicker, etc), why hold on to 24fps as sacred?

There's nothing sacred about 24fps, as has been mentioned numerous times. If you can produce an original source print of the movie that was shot in 30fps or 100fps or whatever, we'd all be happy to watch it at that frame-rate. What we don't want are software algorithms artificially inserting frames where they DO NOT EXIST in the original print.

Also, please understand, there is a big difference between the limitations of the PROJECTOR and the limitations of the SOURCE PRINT. Brightness, for example, is often a limitation of the projector. Contrast ratio tends to be a limitation involving several factors (ambient light in the typical commercial theater, low quality source copies, the projector). I'm all for continuing to improve the PROJECTOR and the ENVIRONMENT. Just don't screw with the source. The source is an original work of art that should be preserved.

Case in point: Feel free to improve the museum all you want, just please don't put a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

When the camera pans and the image starts to judder, I stop watching the movie as I am involuntarily brought to start watching the frames jump and spasm…

Any technology that prevents me from being distracted from actually watching the story is welcomed by me and I am supportive of them continuing to refine it.

-Suntan

As I've stated many times on these forums, I used to chase "realism" in an image figuring that it could only aid my ability to "believe" what was going on screen.

I found, at least to my own perception (which is clearly shared by others as well) that I was wrong. "Realism" did not necessarily equate to "believability."

Once I got my plasma giving films a through-the-window/HD-cam like realism, I often found it actually harder to get into the movie. I became aware of the "realism" all the time, and the sensation became more like "watching actors on a set" vs believing the world in the film.

A perfect example of this effect was watching Spiderman 3 on an LCD display with frame interpolation, and somewhat "vivid" settings. The combination of added clarity and the dynamics of the image absolutely made the images on screen look more "real," like staring through a window, than
film. I was watching the scene with Peter and Mary Jane laying on the web in the park at night. Unfortunately, what it looked like was "real" like "I'm on a movie set." Watching the action before it is committed to film. And if you've ever stood on a movie set (I'm in the industry and have a great many times) you know how unconvincing it can be watching the actors "act" on the set, before the images are committed to film. Watching the Spiderman scenes made me notice the artificiality of the lights - "there's a 2K light just off camera over there, a 10K over there..." it all looked "lit artificially" without the smoothness and coherency that happens when you see it on film, as it was lit to be shown. I simply found the scenario I was watching to be less believable.

What this "through a window" and "HD-cam" effect also does, in my view, is remove the perception of the artist in the film-making. It sort of destroys for me "cinematography." Because it's like the cinematographer, and the sense of the scenes being mediated by the intent of an artist, is wiped away, giving me just the stark
feeling of looking through the camera myself, or through a window. One of the great things I'm getting back by going with projection is that big sense of This Is Cinematography when I revisit films I love.

So, at least as a movie fan, what I seek in general isn't "realism" per say, but rather "believability." Whatever helps me believe what I'm watching, that is accept the world and the drama happening on screen before me, is welcome. This CAN come with increases in contrast (unless the film is meant to look desaturated in color/contrast), detail and all the good things we like to look for in this new world of HD. But there is this sort of line where all these combine to make the world of the film look "believable" and organic, and stepping over the line in which things look "HD-video-like" or "too clear and unvarnished" which imputes a sort of mundane quality, and actually makes me believe the image less.

I don't think I can personally quantify it; it's fairly subjective. But "I know it when I see it" and I see it routinely when I see films on displays using frame interpolation.

That said, I'm no fan of judder or blur per se in film - the type that truly distracts. (Or blur-induced by the display). If I could see an implementation of FI that removed those big distractions yet retained the organic look of film (for movies shot on film) I'd certainly give it a try.

So far, it seems that the poll results show that most are in favor of using some king of FI.

No one thus far has explained how FI and being a videophile are compatible (though some vote that there is no conflict). Considering that videophile doctrine stresses accuracy and FI's manufacture of new frames is hardly accurate, I can't see how you can harmonize one with the other.

Anyone care to explain?

I'm undecided on my feelings about FI. However, judder is VERY annoying! If FI can remove judder w/o adding the soap opera effect I think most would go for it. I can't imagine any reason why anyone would want judder. It's not like it adds anything other than a distraction. In some ways FI can looks nice for some however for it to be useful though the unwanted artifacts need to be removed before it could be enjoyed.

I'm undecided on my feelings about FI. However, judder is VERY annoying! If FI can remove judder w/o adding the soap opera effect I think most would go for it. I can't imagine any reason why anyone would want judder. It's not like it adds anything other than a distraction. In some ways FI can looks nice for some however for it to be useful though the unwanted artifacts need to be removed before it could be enjoyed.

I thought Judder typically referred to the result of 24fps movies being played back at a frame-rate that was not a multiple of 24, typically resulting in a 3:2 cadence or "judder."

This is unrelated to the "choppiness" of 24fps source material: it's a different issue. I guess some people refer to this as judder as well?

Anyway, I think the solution is for films to actually be shot at higher frame-rates (assuming the director wishes to do so). Movies originally shot at 24fps should remain 24fps, in much the same way that B&W movies should remain B&W. However, having said that, as long as digital transfers don't start putting the extra frames directly onto the disc so we can't get rid of them, I don't have any problem with people turning on FI on their own sets if they want to.

The only thing that gives me pause is that historically, the will of the masses has had a way of making it directly onto the media where it tends to destory the original artwork for those who care about such things.

I thought Judder typically referred to the result of 24fps movies being played back at a frame-rate that was not a multiple of 24, typically resulting in a 3:2 cadence or "judder."

This is unrelated to the "choppiness" of 24fps source material: it's a different issue. I guess some people refer to this as judder as well?

Yes. This is called "film judder."

Yes. This is called "film judder."

Thanks for the clarification.

When the camera pans and the image starts to judder, I stop watching the movie as I am involuntarily brought to start watching the frames jump and spasm…

Any technology that prevents me from being distracted from actually watching the story is welcomed by me and I am supportive of them continuing to refine it.

-Suntan

I agree with this. Unfortunately, bad soap opera fi is even worse for bringing me out of the movie. Fortunately, I have seen displays where I knew fi was on, because the motion was so clear, and it did not have the soap opera look. This gives me hope that projector mfg's can accomplish this as well.

Depends how you define videophile.
Videophile values video quality.

If you equate quality to accuracy then you may well cry when you watch a film at home. Your display is unlikely to be reference quality and even if it was blu-ray is 8-bit, different color gammut, different gamma particularly in shadow details and highlights, etc...
You would not use blu-ray players post processing to "enhance" the image or a projectors dynamic iris with gamma skewing, or anything else that is suppose to "improve" the image quality by making it even less accurate.

If you equate quality to subjectively better looking image then I see no conflict if frame interpolation makes the image look better to you. For me my subjective opinion of what looks best is the deciding factor. Fortunately better looking is usually also more accurate, I guess the fim makers want the film to look good, so people watch it / buy it.
If a videophile is someone who chooses to watch a picture that looks worse to them, just because it is technically more accurate, rather than enable processing which makes the image look better to them, I am no videophile.

Most audiophiles do not seem to setup their systems using meters and computers to calibrate it for highest accuracy. They seem to mainly go by their ears, and claim audiophile status due in part to how much time and money they have spent on their hobby. Is the definition of videophile different, restricted only to those who strive for accuracy to standards, even if their eyes tell them it looks worse.

What's the reference point for accuracy? I assume it is the master copy. DVD and BD are not accurate copies of the original master. So FI adds something to the DVD or BD signal. Does it automatically make it less accurate? As long as the implementation is good and can be turned on/off I am all for it.

Similar discussion had happened before when 480p was displayed on higher resolution displays. Purists at the time argued that upconversion was inaccurate and insisted that 480p material was best displayed on 480p devices. Yikes.

Blanking time (the amount of persistence of particular pixels) is the root cause of SAH. Merely manufacturing new frames does not address pixel blanking time at all.

The root cause of SAH is our eyes tracking motion and the display not tracking it the same way. Say you've got a line moving at a rate of 120pixels/sec. Displayed at 24fps, the overall rate will be the same but the line will be stationary for 5 frames (~42ms), then jump 5 pixels, then stationary and so on, meanwhile our eyes will be scanning across the screen at about 120pixels/sec. Because of our persistence of vision and our eyes moving for 42ms where the picture isn't we see that line blurred. It's exactly as if you pan your eyes around a stationary room, everything looks blurred.

Interpolating this moving line (well) will result in the line moving 1 pixel each frame and will only be stationary for 1 frame, or about 8.3ms. Since our eyes will have only panned 1/5 the distance before the movement is updated, the blurring, the SAH will be greatly reduced.

Blanking time is another solution to SAH. Why? Well because despite the motion only being updated every 42ms, there isn't a static image in between the flashed frames for our moving eyes to see blurred. So the result is that we don't see the blur/SAH with flashed/blanked displays.

In fact, the remedies that have been devised to address SAH (Black or dark frame insertion) have nothing at all to do whatsoever with Frame Interpolation. They are compatible with each other but you need not have one to thave the other.

Absolutely.

If your assertion that simply adding "more frames" was the answer, we would have it already. On the RS20, for instance, 24p material is displayed at a multiple of 24p, 96p, I believe.

You're missing something (or I said it poorly), interpolated frames are one solution to SAH because they reduce the time that between motion updates that our eyes/brain scan over.

It has been well established that 24 frames per second became the standard not because it was the best, or even because it was the best compromise, but because it was the MINIMUM that could be comfortably viewed by the average movie goer with the equipment available at the time. That, in and of itself, doesn't make FI good..........................or bad, but there is nothing special about 24fps or the experience it provides, so if modern technology can create alternatives I'm all for exploring them. (especially if they can be truly turned on or off at the viewer's discretion).

But there's a huge difference between shooting and displaying new content at 30/60/120 fps and artificially converting 24 fps content to a higher frame rate.

Exactly, I think we have all been conditioned to think that 24 fps=cinema. If we don't see sickening frame judder every time the camera pans, then we think we must be watching a "soap opera". I am trying to be open-minded about FI in movies, but admittedly I've had limited experience with it. Football is my #1 most important viewing activity, and most folks agree that FI is a big plus for sports.

Sports and documentaries are entirely different thing than cinema/movies though. Sporting events and the subjects of documentaries are real life, real world subjects that you, as an individual could actually see/participate in. The intent of a television broadcast of a live event/documentary is as you stated in your first post, to portray accurately what the camera was seeing to your display.

Film/cinema/movies are not the same. There a creative group of individuals are using film/cameras as tools to create fictitious worlds.

They way I see it CRT phoshors have lag time and display interlaced. Single chip DLP uses a color wheel, etc... Displays do not work as the film makers intended, you are not seeing the film by a series of distinct flashing frames. The frames are being held on screen longer than they should be. Each frame is a reference for a moment in time, holding it for longer than that moment causes motion judder. While displaying it for only the moment for which it is relevent can cause flickering on bright displays. Frame interpolation is suppose to solve these problems by generating additional frames, so motion is smooth and the display does not flicker.

It's not that simple, most frames in movie projectors are displayed twice, at 48Hz to reduce flicker, and further, they are shown for a finite, non-zero period of time. They also have the time for the frame to advance so there is a blanking time.

I think CRTs most closely reproduce this because since the phosphors naturally decay, they inherently have a degree of blanking time.

With digital projectors, there's no decay, so you have SAH due to holding the frame the whole inter-frame time. The way around this is black/dark frame insertion, which inserts blanking time similar to what a film projector would have. This is (one of ) the cause of blurring in motion on many digital displays, but not Judder.

And then there's Judder, of which there are two kinds. The kind most end up complaining about is the judder caused by the 3:2 pulldown used to fit 24fps film into 60fps refresh/video. This is what causes the unnatural studdery feel and unfluid motion that most people associate with film on TV.

But there's also some judder inherent in 24fps capture of motion, it's simply not high enough to smoothly capture fast motion. This judder is present at the theater and while perhaps not "desired" to be part of the movie, it certainly is known to be present and thus affects every creative choice the filmmaker makes in creating the film.

Is it the film makers intent for the film to have unnatural motion judder or to flicker. Film print projectors do not hold the frame too long as they do not have the same limitations as crt or single chip dlp in how they make the image, so obviously they did not intend you to see motion judder.

You will see just as much 24fps Judder at the cinema with a film projector as you do on a 24fps capable digital or CRT projector.

You may argue that ideally with a projector you want to emulate the cinema including the frame rate.

The problem with changing the frame rate, after the fact, is that every one of the filmmaker's choice were driven knowing that the film would be shown at 24fps, with 24fps video's limitations and issues. CGI choices are based on the same thing.

When you change the frame rate after the fact, you're changing all the rules and often times choices are no longer valid. Take for example Saving Private Ryan, shown at 24fps the CGI bullet splashes in the opening battle convincingly blend into the film, appearing quite realistic and convincing. However with FI, they stick out like haphazarly thrown on CGI. The CGI work just does not hold up to the clarity of higher frame rates.

I see nothing wrong with frame interpolation and if it makes the image look subjectively better or I am distracted by motion judder or flicker I would use it.

I said it before and I'll say it again, if FI improves your enjoyment of the flim, so much the better for you, that's the important point. It's when the argument starts moving into the area of if FI is "better", or if it's good to "fix" limitaitons of 24fps content that you get significant argument.

FI is like a lot of other "enhancements":
Colorization
Digital Noise Reduction
Edge Enhancement

I prefer an image that looks like I am there, rather than watching an image. If this is not viewed as a good thing why bother with projectors with better contrast ratios than a film print projector.

Let me ask you a question, you say FI makes you feel more "there", where is the "there" you feel like you are?

I'd theorize that those that dislike FI are like me in thinking/feeling that FI makes us feel like we're on the set, rather than part of the world the movie is intended to create.

The soap opera look people seem to hate I think is caused by the differences between film and video.

For me it's video makes me feel "there", but as I said, that "there" is the set the actors are acting the picture out on. It makes me feel like I'm watching a behind the scenes documentary. I don't want to feel like I'm in a room with the actors. I want to be engrossed in the story, the characters those actors are creating. And for me, being "there", "on the set" doesn't do that.

Dovercat brings up a good point: I don't see most front projection enthusiasts lining up to emulate the other drawbacks of traditional cinema (dim picture, flicker, etc), why hold on to 24fps as sacred?

We don't hold 24fps sacred in isolation, it's that we hold the work "sacred". That means the frame rate, the aspect ratio, etc, etc.

Changing the frame rate after the fact changes something fundamental in the movie.

I'm undecided on my feelings about FI. However, judder is VERY annoying! If FI can remove judder w/o adding the soap opera effect I think most would go for it. I can't imagine any reason why anyone would want judder. It's not like it adds anything other than a distraction. In some ways FI can looks nice for some however for it to be useful though the unwanted artifacts need to be removed before it could be enjoyed.

The way you eliminate judder (that you wouldn't also see at the theater) is by using a display that can display 24fps correctly.

What's the reference point for accuracy? I assume it is the master copy. DVD and BD are not accurate copies of the original master. So FI adds something to the DVD or BD signal. Does it automatically make it less accurate?

Yes it does. Different gamut, bit depth, gamma ramps, these are all very subtle differences that don't have any fundamental effect on the perception of the work.

FI on the other hand has a drastic effect on the perception of the work (if it weren't a dramatic effect, you wouldn't see so many people eager for it). Along the lines of colorization of black & white films, or Pan & Scan.

vid·e·o·phile (vĭd'ē-ə-fīl')
n. One with an avid interest in watching television or videos or in making video recordings.

cin·e·phile (sĭn'ə-fīl')
n. A film or movie enthusiast.

Both from the American Heritage dictionary.

The OP specifically asked about videophiles, and this entire discussion has be entirely about the preferences of cinephiles. I think anyone that even knows what Frame Interpolation is, is probably by definition a videophile.

Interpolating this moving line (well) will result in the line moving 1 pixel each frame and will only be stationary for 1 frame, or about 8.3ms. Since our eyes will have only panned 1/5 the distance before the movement is updated, the blurring, the SAH will be greatly reduced.

You can accomplish the same thing without manufacturing new frames so any improvement in SAH (Which no one as far as I can tell has ever isolated) is only incidental to FI's primary function. In other words, FI as a remedy for SAH has a lot of side effects, namely the interpolated frames!

Hey LG. Are you opposed to deinterlacing too? Its really not that much different than FI. A p frame is artifically created from the two i frames. So I guess if you ever intend on becoming a certified videophile you had better buy a CRT FP which will let you display the native i or p of your source. A digital projector following the logic of those opposed to FI based on theory butchers every thing that is not the native resolution of the display.

You can accomplish the same thing without manufacturing new frames so any improvement in SAH (Which no one as far as I can tell has ever isolated) is only incidental to FI's primary function.

Actually you can't. For well behaved motion, that's predictable (like my moving line) FI will both reduce the appearance of SAH and it will smooth the motion. Unless you're talking specifically about just the reduction in SAH.

In other words, FI as a remedy for SAH has a lot of side effects, namely the interpolated frames!

I never said it didn't. I personally don't think it's the right solution to SAH, but that doesn't mean it doesn't reduce it. FWIW I think SAH is one of the primary reasons you see it on so many displays these days. Plasmas never bothered with it, nor CRTs (even the HD ones out after the FI tech was available).

Philips had DNM on some of it's CRTs but it was never more than a novelty. Not until LCD TVs with their comparatively poor motion handling has FI really started to take off. Now it's basically a given that a deccent LCD will have FI. If they were just trying to solve 3:2 cadence judder, all they'd need is 120Hz refresh with 5:5 pulldown, or something like JVC and DLPs have where they auto switch to 48/96Hz. But FI has still grown in popularity precisely because it does reduce SAH, though also because it smooths motion.

But like I said, and my posts probably show, I don't like the effect, at least not on film. If I had the functionality, I'd probably try it on sports and documentaries, but that accounts for so little of my viewing time that I'd probably not even bother. Quality deinterlacing, inverse telecine and n:n pulldown are much more important to me.

Yes it does. Different gamut, bit depth, gamma ramps, these are all very subtle differences that don't have any fundamental effect on the perception of the work.

FI on the other hand has a drastic effect on the perception of the work (if it weren't a dramatic effect, you wouldn't see so many people eager for it). Along the lines of colorization of black & white films, or Pan & Scan.I wouldn't say that the low mode for FI on the Panasonic AE3000 has a dramatic effect if different color gamuts aren't considered dramatic. The high mode I would consider dramatic, but not really the low mode. I think their low mode kind of takes the edge off without really going to the soap opera kind of look and I prefer it to not having FI. I hope JVC's version is as good as the Panasonic's in low mode.

--Darin

The magic word. Quality. Quality deinterlacing, quality FI.

I actually find that FI looks best on the worst content. For high quality film content, I always turn it off.

You know where I find it actually is the neatest improvement? VHS tape.

It's a mixed bag when it comes to watching TV IMO, I go either way.

But for 24fps film, I'm a film purist, that garbage stays OFF.

On the Sony VPL-vw200, I mostly turned it off. For film, off. For video sports, mild on. BUT the process of FI just like deinterlacing will improve as time goes on. If one hasn`t seen the future, how can one judge it?

I am very accustomed to the look of 24fps film, and it is a very significant part of the feel of film. Yes, we can consider it a limitation, and as someone pointed out if someone wants to film something at video rate, or at 60p and release that in 60p on disc, I want to see it at that rate. But limitation or not, taking 24p content and frame interpolation VERY significantly alters the feel of the film, and I don't like it. That alteration will always be true regardless of how good the FI method is in the future, since that is the whole point. It is a change that I don't like for film.

I'm undecided on my feelings about FI. However, judder is VERY annoying! If FI can remove judder w/o adding the soap opera effect I think most would go for it. I can't imagine any reason why anyone would want judder. It's not like it adds anything other than a distraction. In some ways FI can looks nice for some however for it to be useful though the unwanted artifacts need to be removed before it could be enjoyed.

I wouldn't say that the low mode for FI on the Panasonic AE3000 has a dramatic effect if different color gamuts aren't considered dramatic. The high mode I would consider dramatic, but not really the low mode. I think their low mode kind of takes the edge off without really going to the soap opera kind of look and I prefer it to not having FI. I hope JVC's version is as good as the Panasonic's in low mode.

--Darin

I'm going with the "if it looks good" option because Mode 1 FI on the Panasonic PT-AE3000 gives a really pleasing judder-free image without that "video-like" feel of more aggressive motion smoothing. So with that disclaimer, that's my choice.

I think this argument has an analogue in the colorization controversy. Remember when Turner went about colorizing classic B&W movies? One argument that some made then was if the directors of those films had had color at their disposal, they would've used it. Critics and cinephiles argued that no, B&W has its own aesthetics, is in no way inferior to color, and is in fact what the directors wanted. (Colorized films also just looked terrible, but that's a different issue.)

I think like B&W film, 24fps is an accidental technical limitation that filmmakers have learned to use to give film an artistic, dream-like, painterly look to movies. The audience in turn has learned to appreciate that look. FI and perhaps future higher fps film format give movies a different aesthetic quality that directors and viewers may eventually embrace, or not.

Personally, I don't want movies to look like real life. I want movies to look like movies, not a "making of..." TV feature.

120hz is the wave of the future. Eventually all movies will be made at higher time resolutions and if we can move the great old movies up to a modern look; then that is a great step forward. Otherwise those movies will be lost in time.

The audience hasn't learned to like the movie look, they have learned to ignore it and put up with it. The sooner its gone, the better for most movie goers.

It's a horrible quirk of fate that left movies at 24 fps, it makes for blurry motion, annoying artifacts and jumpy scenes. Even movie theatres have already gone to 48fps to try to deal with the problems. 120hz can't come soon enough.

I'm undecided on my feelings about FI. However, judder is VERY annoying! If FI can remove judder w/o adding the soap opera effect I think most would go for it. I can't imagine any reason why anyone would want judder. It's not like it adds anything other than a distraction. In some ways FI can looks nice for some however for it to be useful though the unwanted artifacts need to be removed before it could be enjoyed.

I want to know, do you notice this judder so badly when going to the cinema? If not, have you seen either 72 or 96 hz frame repeated material? If so, was it on a CRT projector? If not, I suggest you using a PC with a way of outputting at least 72 hz progressive on a CRT monitor. Digtals can't update as fast as a CRT and also have what's called sample and hold effect. The combination of these two effects causes some freaky mojo. The mojo goes away on a 120 hz FI but as you said, makes it look like a soap opera and worse. So if you end up not seeing this "judder" on a CRT, my suggestion is to use black frame insertion(BFI) and see if that gets rid of most of your complaints.

But to answer the poll, FI is utter evilness and must be banished forever! It's just as vile as the carnival LSD colors some companies do to make the image "more vivid!" Neither are improving the picture, only changing the picture. So my advice is do some LSD and speed together if the colors and frame rate don't suite you.

But to answer the poll, FI is utter evilness and must be banished forever! It's just as vile as the carnival LSD colors some companies do to make the image "more vivid!" Neither are improving the picture, only changing the picture. So my advice is do some LSD and speed together if the colors and frame rate don't suite you.


LOL!

In principle (but not emotionally that harsh) I agree (and I still cannot believe why people think a pj without CMS/correct colors would do).

Then again, there is one not so unimportant application where 'mimicking the real world' might be really the goal, i.e. displaying sports events (among similar things). There I actually use FI, but never, never (!) with film. I think everything has been said why it is NOT a good idea to change frame rates wrt film (unless a director decides to shoot the film this way).

Hey LG. Are you opposed to deinterlacing too? Its really not that much different than FI. A p frame is artifically created from the two i frames. So I guess if you ever intend on becoming a certified videophile you had better buy a CRT FP which will let you display the native i or p of your source. A digital projector following the logic of those opposed to FI based on theory butchers every thing that is not the native resolution of the display.

That's unfair! Interlaced or progressive aren't anywhere the same as FI. With a high enough refresh, you can make 24p material look exactly like 48p frame doubled projectors at the cinema with 96i. Depending on how it's done, you can get 60p from 60i. If the material was originally 30p and shown transmitted as 60i, you can extract all frames and double to 60p with no "artificiality" created. With true 60i material you can just draw the other fields as black, so you'll end up with something similar to black frame insertion but with only ever other line black. What you're talking about is per pixel motion adaption, which is the same principle as the FI of 120 hz displays. So to summarize, just like how you can do 120 hz 5:5 pull-down(24p), or 2:2 pull-down (60p) or FI, the same techniques can be accomplished on a 60p display for interlace signals. But there is no way to do FI without changing the look of 24p and ruining the whole film look, unlike proper deinterlacing. There's no such thing as "proper FI!"

LOL!

In principle (but not emotionally that harsh) I agree (and I still cannot believe why people think a pj without CMS/correct colors would do).

Then again, there is one not so unimportant application where 'mimicking the real world' might be really the goal, i.e. displaying sports events (among similar things). There I actually use FI, but never, never (!) with film. I think everything has been said why it is NOT a good idea to change frame rates wrt film (unless a director decides to shoot the film this way).

I take my movies seriously. That's why I use a CRT projector. I must have my film look as close as possible to 35 mm film. My CRT projector may not have as many colors or anywhere near the resolution of film, but I have the same instantly showing frame and the "organic" look. My projector also uses SMPTE-C filtered lenses and is calibrated to use a 2.5 gamma bump. My home setup is practically the only way I can tolerate seeing films without being bugged about incorrectness. If something looks incorrect, I can be rest assured it's an authoring problem or the director/cinematographer were doing the drugs.

You will see just as much 24fps Judder at the cinema with a film projector as you do on a 24fps capable digital or CRT projector.

The Judder I was refering to, is the type caused by holding or repeating the frame longer than its point of reference, to reduce the flickering caused by low frame rates. How much low frame rates cause flickering I think comes down to how bright you have the screen and how susceptible you are. As someone pointed out even commercial cinemas use 48fps to reduce flicker. With bright displays I think increasing frame rate to reduce flicker maybe a necessity. So to prevent this from causing unsmooth motion frame interpolation steps in.


The problem with changing the frame rate, after the fact, is that every one of the filmmaker's choice were driven knowing that the film would be shown at 24fps, with 24fps video's limitations and issues. CGI choices are based on the same thing.

When you change the frame rate after the fact, you're changing all the rules and often times choices are no longer valid. Take for example Saving Private Ryan, shown at 24fps the CGI bullet splashes in the opening battle convincingly blend into the film, appearing quite realistic and convincing. However with FI, they stick out like haphazarly thrown on CGI. The CGI work just does not hold up to the clarity of higher frame rates.

In my opinion the need for frame interpolation is due to viewer discomfort with flicker and unsmooth motion, these are both caused in part by increasing the clarity of the image with increased brightness and contrast. Since you do not want to increase the clarity of the image as you feel it makes it too revealing, you hopefully will not suffer from too much flickering or unsmooth motion, so will not see the need for frame interpolation.

The other cause for needing frame interpolation I can see is the limitations in the display technology. Pesonally I can not stand the cheap lcd flatpannels I have seen due to their unsmooth motin handling, etc.. But flatpannel lcds have the biggest market share. CRT dictated the standards for mastering consumer home content in the past because it was the default consumer display. LCD flatpannels may end up being the same. Just as you presumably do not care for ntsc 60Hz 3:2 pull down, or pal 50Hz 2:2 slightly speeded up. You may not care for frame interpolation, but it could become the norm.


I said it before and I'll say it again, if FI improves your enjoyment of the flim, so much the better for you, that's the important point. It's when the argument starts moving into the area of if FI is "better", or if it's good to "fix" limitaitons of 24fps content that you get significant argument.

FI is like a lot of other "enhancements":
Colorization
Digital Noise Reduction
Edge Enhancement
.

Colorization I can not stand as it usually looks odd to me.

Digital noise reduction, I would not mind if it only got rid of film grain, unfortunately it often gets rid of fine detail as well.
Detail/edge enhancement, I also do not mind as long as it is subtle, to reduce the limitations of the display, as most displays are lower contrast in fine details, they have less contrast between a white pixel adjacent to a black pixel than a white pixel and black pixel on either end of the display.

Expensive blu-ray players tend to have post processing that they promote as a good thing, revealing more detail in the image and making it more dynamic.
Digital noise reduction and detail/edge enhancement also seems to be used on some discs. So the film makers must think people like it. I have seen reviews equate the high definintion - blu-ray look to clean, sharp images that pop, and praising discs which "videophiles" scorn as having excessive digital noise reduction removing all the film grain and fine details and having excessive edge enhancement. In my opinion the popularity of both of these can also be seen as due in part to the typical home display increasingly becoming cheap flat pannel lcds. Just like dvd edge enhancement and pre-smoothing, they may not suit projectors.


Let me ask you a question, you say FI makes you feel more "there", where is the "there" you feel like you are?

We don't hold 24fps sacred in isolation, it's that we hold the work "sacred". That means the frame rate, the aspect ratio, etc, etc.

Changing the frame rate after the fact changes something fundamental in the movie.

I do not use frame interpolation and do not appear to need it, no flickering or unsmooth motion. So I do not know if I would view it as an improvement but I am not ideologically opposed to it.

Where is the there you feel like you are? The there I want is I am afraid the image looking real - life like. So actors on a stage set as you put it. Probably why I value a good script, good acting, good looking or charismatic actors and good sets. Moody or arty cinematography where they purposefully make it look distinctly different from reality like the previously mentioned film 300 is not something I like in a film, though I do not mind it in pop videos or animation. So I am a philistine.

Using frame rate and aspect ratio in the same sentence? Do I prefer pan and scan 4:3 to widescreen. Well it depends on the size and aspect ratio of the display. My living room widescreen crt tv is permanetly on zoom to remove the black bars and make the image bigger. So I guess nothing is sacred, perhaps I should add video philistine as my tag.


The way you eliminate judder (that you wouldn't also see at the theater) is by using a display that can display 24fps correctly.

I agree this is the best solution. The second best would be simply repeating frames, the worse solution is frame interpolation. But it is better than distracting flicker or unsmooth motion for those whose suffer from these. I see it as a solution to a problem with some displays in some setups. Since the movie theater did not need frame interpolation a home cinema that emulates a movie theater should not need it. Unfortunately like digital noise reduction and detail/edge enhancement it may become increasingly the norm regardless of if you need or want it.

One argument that some made then was if the directors of those films had had color at their disposal, they would've used it. Critics and cinephiles argued that no, B&W has its own aesthetics, is in no way inferior to color, and is in fact what the directors wanted.

I think like B&W film, 24fps is an accidental technical limitation that filmmakers have learned to use to give film an artistic, dream-like, painterly look to movies. The audience in turn has learned to appreciate that look. FI and perhaps future higher fps film format give movies a different aesthetic quality that directors and viewers may eventually embrace, or not.


Good point, some modern films are still made in black and white for aesthetic reasons. It would be odd if displays had the option to colorize them. But most modern movies are in color and color makes it more life like.
Some film makers may be using the aesthetic of 24fps and as someone pointed out some film makers purposefully alter the frame rate of some scenes to impart a dreamlike look or what have you.

But I tend to view it as a limitation of the technology which when combined with some display technologies or some bright displays may have to be overcome to make it watchable. Adding it when you are not bothered by flickering or unsmooth motion because you think it improves the picture quality. Is just like using detail/edge enhancement or digital noise reduction. I think you would end up with the same different opinions with should film grain be removed.

Dovercat,

I don't think you have to worry about your videophile card being revoked since I don't think you ever applied for one, or if you did were rejected a long time ago!

I think stylistic movies like 300 are neat. The digitally added film grain added to the movie that wouldn't have been there, without it the film just wouldn't have been the same and rather boring. A cleaned up version would be a no go for me.

If I need a bigger image, I just get a bigger screen. My screen is 101.5x72, 101.5x57 for 16:9 and 96x72 for 4:3. I'm never hungering for size, whether it be Ben Hur or The Wizard of Oz.

If I notice an alteration of any kind to the original movie, I go ballistic. That's why I haven't been to the cinema this whole year! I don't ever plan on going again because I just can't control the movie to perfection like I can at home. My wife just loves me!

But FI has still grown in popularity precisely because it does reduce SAH, though also because it smooths motion.

I don't why you would say this. I would say that FI grew in popularity at roughly the same time as LCDs became more popular but that it coincidence. It is also found found on plasmas and DLPs, so basically every kind of display. I would say that FI became attractive as display sizes grew, making motion issues more obvious. Motion issues are not unique to LCDs. Far from it.

Again, I think we agree on the point that FI is an awfully strange thing to do if the sole thing that you want to accomplish is to reduce SAH.

On the Sony VPL-vw200, I mostly turned it off. For film, off. For video sports, mild on. BUT the process of FI just like deinterlacing will improve as time goes on. If one hasn`t seen the future, how can one judge it?

I totally agree with this. When FI matures i think it will benefit projectors alot. And ill gladly have my videophile card revoked anytime, aslong as progress still is being made in this department.

Dovercat,

I don't think you have to worry about your videophile card being revoked since I don't think you ever applied for one, or if you did were rejected a long time ago!

I think stylistic movies like 300 are neat. The digitally added film grain added to the movie that wouldn't have been there, without it the film just wouldn't have been the same and rather boring. A cleaned up version would be a no go for me.

If I need a bigger image, I just get a bigger screen. My screen is 101.5x72, 101.5x57 for 16:9 and 96x72 for 4:3. I'm never hungering for size, whether it be Ben Hur or The Wizard of Oz.

If I notice an alteration of any kind to the original movie, I go ballistic. That's why I haven't been to the cinema this whole year! I don't ever plan on going again because I just can't control the movie to perfection like I can at home. My wife just loves me!

I was not impressed by 300, although I did like the dancing girl scene. I did like Beowulf motion captured film, so I am not completely opposed to non-lifelike looking films.
Film grain is seen by many as intrinsic to the look of film. While some film makers seem less intrested in maintaining accuracy as they seem to be releasing more digital remastered films with film grain reduce/removed. I have some of the James Bond DVD ulitmate editions and they even changed the color on some scenes. Personally I view films as popular entertainment not high art, so while you may go ballastic I am not bothered.

I have a dedicated cinema room and used to sit about 9ft away from a 8ft width screen. Recently I reduced my screen size to 7ft width and viewing distance to about 8ft. The reason I reduced it was to go from maximum zoom to middle zoom on the projector lens. I did this after reading about the effect of zoom lens on an old thread. Reducing the zoom/image size has increased brightness (projector lumens actually go down but due to reduced screen size brightness goes up), increasd contrast slightly, and increasd focus/sharpness slightly (not too sure if I can see this, as it looked to be in good focus before). I do prefer the image now, but this is probably down to being a bit brighter (guess I did not notice the projector slowly dimming over time), as I adjusted the zoom and watched a bit untill I liked the image best, minimum zoom was too bright, while maximum had slightly less depth/pop.

With screen sizes the thing that amazes me is how people go on about needing high definition on 40-50" flat pannel displays. The main reason I think they need high defintion on the display is poor pixel fill factor, and the main reason on the source is poor scaling. The fact they are usually overly bright and blu-ray sells itself on being 24fps leads to displays being 24fps compatible rather than 24fps accurate, so we get frame interpolation. At least frame interpolation is at the display, you have a choice. With digital noise reduction and edge/detail enhancement on the disc you are stuck with it like it or not.

I don't why you would say this. I would say that FI grew in popularity at roughly the same time as LCDs became more popular but that it coincidence. It is also found found on plasmas and DLPs, so basically every kind of display. I would say that FI became attractive as display sizes grew, making motion issues more obvious. Motion issues are not unique to LCDs. Far from it.

Again, I think we agree on the point that FI is an awfully strange thing to do if the sole thing that you want to accomplish is to reduce SAH.

Screen size may have an effect since the central 20 degrees of vision is more detail sensitive while the rest is more motion sensitive. So as screen size increases motion issues are more noticed. But I do not see motion issues on my dlp front projector. I might not be susceptible to seeing it, since some people can see dlp rainbows, crt flicker, etc.. while others can not. But I do see motion issues on lcd flat pannels that are alot smaller. So I think it may not be coincidence that frame interpolation coincides with lcd. It may be present on other display technologies but that may be down to marketing features, my dlp has image "improvement" features I do not use as they make the image look odd/worse.

I'm not really willing to make a final judgment here. Technology improves all the time. Maybe current FI algorithms aren't good enough yet. But that can change any time. Current black/dark frame insertion algorithms could also improve. My recommendation for everyone would be to review only what is available today and refrain from prophetic judgments about potential future algorithms.

Personally, I could imagine that a very unobtrusive low level form of FI in combination with a clever black/dark frame insertion may end up being the choice of most videophiles.

Please guys, always remember: Motion smear is an artifact, too! So you can't just discredit all technology which aims at reducing motion smear, without taking into account that without these technologies you're stuck with sample-and-hold smear. Having motion smear is not "accurate", either. So a true videophile can not simply use hold type digital projection without any DFI/BFI and without any FI and then think he'd get accurate playback.

But I do not see motion issues on my dlp front projector.

The motion issue that I see is 24p film judder, which is present mostly during pans and other fast motion. I see this in film and on every display that I own, including DLPs.

I never used to see it. I think that it became more obvious to me as I began watching higher quality sources. On DVDs and other inferior sources, it just blended in with other artifacts that I think I was programed to tune out.

I am inclined to view film judder as evidence of bad cinematography. For example, overly ambitous film makers who don't see the limitations of the media they work in try for a shot that will never look as they intended it to. They see the pan in their mind but it will never look that way at 24p. It may look ok when they review the take on a studio monitor, but blow it up to a large screen and the problems become obvious.

In my mind, the question becomes, do we have the right to correct the film maker's mistakes?

The motion issue that I see is 24p film judder, which is present mostly during pans and other fast motion. I see this in film and on every display that I own, including DLPs.

I never used to see it. I think that it became more obvious to me as I began watching higher quality sources. On DVDs and other inferior sources, it just blended in with other artifacts that I think I was programed to tune out.

I am inclined to view film judder as evidence of bad cinematography. For example, overly ambitous film makers who don't see the limitations of the media they work in try for a shot that will never look as they intended it to. They see the pan in their mind but it will never look that way at 24p. It may look ok when they review the take on a studio monitor, but blow it up to a large screen and the problems become obvious.

In my mind, the question becomes, do we have the right to correct the film maker's mistakes?

Come to think of it I have seen motion problems on my DLP displaying DVD. On the PAL DVE dvd one of the zone plate test patterns with the moving circle judders if I use my projector rather than my dvd player to do the deinterlacing. Even using the dvd player to do de-interlacing I see slightly unsmooth motion at the beginning of the restaurant sequence, where the camera passes by the food, and they are using a pull at a rate that makes the 2-3 motion jutter noticeable. But in genral viewing I do not see it.

I expect pal dvd being 50Hz 24fps x2 and then slightly speeded up, and my display only being 2xspeed color wheel so 100Hz (24fps x 4 and slightly speeded up) with a blacked out white segment so a brief blanking frames as well, might make it less likely.

With blu-ray 24fps and a high speed colorwheel dlp say 5x so 300Hz (which might be 24fps x 12 = 288Hz) it might be more noticeable. Flat pannels boasting 200Hz or 600Hz might be worse still since they seem more prone to suffer from more sample and hold effect. But at least it is not uneven like ntsc 60Hz with 3:2 pull down. Blu-ray also has better fine detail contrast, and apparantly contrast in the middle sized details increases the perception of motion problems.

I can see how 24fps could cause visible flickering but do not see how it alone causes motion judder, unless the original camera pan was not smooth. I can see how the judder could be caused by how the display handles the 24fps source, duplicating or holding frames too long in an attempt to reduce flicker. Maybe I am just luckly and do not see it, people have different flicker thresholds etc..

In my mind, the question becomes, do we have the right to correct the film maker's mistakes?

Sure we do.

Sure we do.

What's your theory.

Well as you put it, its mistakes we are correcting.

Its been done for years as far as im concerned. When watching in your HT, there are plenty of variables you can alter to get the movie to show the way you like it. You almost certainly dont watch the movie exactly as the maker intended. Or maybe i`m wrong, maybe by correcting his mistakes, you get to view it as he intended but couldnt achieve. It doesnt really matter as long as youre happy with the result youre recieving.

Maybe im not per your definition as much of a videophile as id like to think, but im all for technical advancements that can make the viewing experience better. Whos to say whats right or wrong as long as we have the option to choose?

I'm very much against FI. I watch movies at the cinema often (3-4 times a month) and you know what? There's judder. There's shaking. There's flickering. That's just how it looks. At home, all there's left really is the judder. I'm OK with it, it looks how it 'should.' I'm totally OK with 2:2, 4:4 and 5:5 pulldown, it adds a bit of smoothness without making it look awkward and too real. Any sort of FI makes me crazy, because I know that's NOT how it supposed to look. Anything that approximates 'being on a movie set' very much ruins the experience. I want the end result, not some hyper-real approximation based on some software algorithms...

I've recently moved from using a CRT PJ to a digital JVC HD750.

The CRT could be set up to display 72Hz, i.e 3x24 frames per second (progressively, CRT isn't necessarily interlaced!!!!) - and other than motion judder on pans inherent to the native film, I didn't see the blurring etc which is common with digital displays - and at the time I had no idea why black field insertion, or FI or extra high refresh rates would be desirable.

Hence my earlier question about FI addressing sample and hold issues etc - when the industry takes some kind of gee-whizz video processing technique to market, the cynic in me wonders if they're addressing existing defects and dressing up the fix, as these defects currently, to my eyes, dominate over whatever other issues may arise from the limited frame rate of the original source.

The CRT could be set up to display 72Hz, i.e 3x24 frames per second (progressively, CRT isn't necessarily interlaced!!!!) - and other than motion judder on pans inherent to the native film, I didn't see the blurring etc which is common with digital displays

I actually prefer 48FPS on a CRT because I see the same judder as I do on film. Im a film nut and if I could Id have the authoring studios leave the warning dots, grain, a few emulsion lines..the whole kitchen sink:)
72fps on the CRT is nice but reminds me Im not watching film. Its to close to perfect or a step toward that digital look.

48Hz flickers way too much to my eyes - more than 48 fps at the cinema owing to the speed of phosphour decay - hence 3:3 pulldown as opposed to 2:2.

My Epson's 48hz 2:2 pulldown is incredibly sweet for movies. It's a hell of a lot better than my Sony Bravia's 5:5 pulldown. To me, it's "the home verison of cinema" and when I turn it off back to 3:2 pulldown, it looks just like the cinema, all full of tasteful judder. I flip it on and off between movies, just because I love the way 3:2 looks on some films!

I have just read an article on critical flicker threshold the lowest level of continuous flickering that is perceived as a continuous light source. It is alot lower than I thought for bright images. The retina neurons only respond to flicker upto 120Hz, and you do not perceive flicker that high. So going much over 120Hz to reduce flicker looks likely to be unneccessary and pointless. I think dlp rainbow effect is still visible to some people over 120Hz because the eye/brain is merging-combining images over time and saccadic eye motion.

I do not see flicker at 100Hz and as it is quite close to 120Hz it is probably unlikely anyone does. At 100Hz (4x24fps slightly speeded up) I also do not see unsmooth motion. So no need for frame interpolation.

I think frame interpolation is only needed if the display wants to create more brightness by increasing the screen time of the image, which would then increase problems with motion. With some flat pannels maybe it is neccessary to make them bright enough or needed so they use less electricity, a dimmer constant light rather than a flickering brighter light.

My projector is already plenty bright enough without doing this. But with single chip dlp projectors I can imagine increased screen time for the image being used to reduce dlp rainbow effect, or increase brightness with led based projectors.

What flicker are you referring to? LCD, DLP and LCOS used a fixed light for projection, so it can't 'flicker', no matter what refresh rate used. Also, there are no black frames between video frames on Blu-ray, so what's flickering, exactly?

At the cinema, it flickers because there are frame borders between frames, and you see that...

Sorry, just confused.

What flicker?
Films are shot at 24 frames per second. That is 24 seperate snap shots/frames.

Each frame is only relevent for a specific point in time. It should not be held on screen longer than that specific point in time. If it was held on screen untill a new frame came along to replace it you would have no flicker. But the image would suddendly jump to the next image with no gap in time, motion would look wrong things would jump or blur. The gaps in time between showing each frame makes your brain create / fill in the missing information and movement.

(The eye has blind spots as blood vessels are above the retina, the eye does not take in all of you field of view at once, it compiles the information over time, the brain recognizes objects moving in the distance say going behind a tree and appearing the other side as the same moving object, not a new object. The eyes/brain has evolved to be able to create the impression of a consistant whole image even when being fed a series of snap shots.)

Getting back to film. If frames are simply repeated or held longer than they are relevent. Each frame is held too long and the gaps in time between them are too small so you get motion judder as things stay still too long (repeating the same frame) then move too quick (going to the next frame), or motion blur as your eye/brain creates an image over time not instanteously so it could endup combining two seperate images into one as they changed while it was compiling the image.

Maybe this is what modern displays do. Hold the image on screen too long. I can imagine crt painting line by line, with each line fading away after it is painted, and single chip dlp with its spoke time and sequencial color, both being dependent on the eye/brain to compile images anyway, so less motion judder/blur. But lcd, lcos projectors and flat pannel lcd and plasma if they hold the image untill the next one are going to be bad.

Frame Interpolation creates frames inbetween the reference frames, so in theory you get frames relevent for each specific point in time. So you can have no flicker, get no motion judder, and less or no motion blur (since the images being combined are closer to together in time objects are less likely to have moved as far). Some motion blur is natural anyway due to how the eyes/brain work. But the brain does a better job of making up natural looking motion than frame interpolation.

I wouldn't say that the low mode for FI on the Panasonic AE3000 has a dramatic effect if different color gamuts aren't considered dramatic. The high mode I would consider dramatic, but not really the low mode. I think their low mode kind of takes the edge off without really going to the soap opera kind of look and I prefer it to not having FI. I hope JVC's version is as good as the Panasonic's in low mode.

--Darin

This is something I'm still looking for an answer to. Low must not be interpolating 60 new frames out of 24, becasue it's completely impossible that you can do that and not create the soap opera effect. The reason being is because that effect is caused by the smooth motion of high frame rates vs 24fps.

So give that, what does "Low" FI actually do if it's not creating all new frames? How is it different from doing 2:2 pulldown? Or is it? Is it that "low" FI is just n:n pulldown?

If it is then I submit that "Low" FI isn't FI at all.

I don't why you would say this. I would say that FI grew in popularity at roughly the same time as LCDs became more popular but that it coincidence.

Maybe, but the technology was around before LCDs took off and never really caught on there. If it were the great, must have feature it's made out to be, I would have expected to see DNM take off, instead of being just the subnote it was.

It is also found found on plasmas and DLPs, so basically every kind of display.

But it's not nearly as prevalent on either, and it's incorporation has lagged behind on those displays relative to LCD. Thus it looks to me like it's thought to be "needed" on LCDs, and now other techs are pulling it in becuase they have to to compete. Not because there was something they were needing to overcome (like LCD).

I would say that FI became attractive as display sizes grew, making motion issues more obvious.

But FI didn't take off until LCDs did. When Plasma, CRT and DLP were the primary display technologies of the mid-high end buyer, FI was basically no where to be seen. It's only now that LCDs are taking over that market that FI is everywhere.

Motion issues are not unique to LCDs. Far from it.

But LCDs are by far the worst.

I didn't vote because none of the statements really convey my feelings on it.

I will say, everybody I know that has bought into it after see'n it at the retail store has eventually turned it off. Once the gimmick wears off, it gets turned off for most owners I have had any interaction with on it.

You guys are funny. Nobody here is as much a videophile as I am. Further more, if you do not agree with my point of view YOU are not a true videophile. PS - my projector (which ever one that is) is the best one. ;)

To be quite honest, if I had a FP CRT projector(and one day I will), I might honestly watch all of my material in the rez of the media it's in, as I am a cinephile as well as a videophile. I see no reason for FI. Yes, it makes the picture smoother, but it is also not even close to accurate and it makes it look unnatural as hell. I personally love the look of film with all of it's film judder.

I encounter neophytes all the time who have just seen Blu Ray displayed on an LCD that has it's FI turned on. I can ALWAYS tell they've just seen a display with FI because the description is almost identical.

Moments ago my neighbour, a middle aged woman, told me of having recently seen Blu Ray on a flat panel TV in the stores. She talked about how she couldn't BELIEVE how sharp the picture was from Blu Ray. But also noted it "almost looked kind of weird...for some reason it seemed so sharp it was almost like it hurt my eyes to watch it."

I asked if it made the movie look almost too clear, like it was shot with high definition video instead of movie film. She said "Yes, exactly like that!"

I explained to her that the quality she was seeing was undoubtedly the processing of the display (didn't need to mention FI) that was creating that "super sharp" look and that Blu Ray, even though it can be sharper and have more detail, did not inherently look like that itself.

She said "Ok, that's good to know. When I was watching the movie I was getting the feeling I wasn't sure that I liked it."

That scenario has been repeated over and over among non-videophile folks I know who see FI on the flat panel displays.
They first think it looks incredibly sharp, but then they notice there is something "weird" about the experience that isn't sitting right.

I have the Epson 6500UB and after the FI fix I leave it on low all the time. I do sometimes switch to high for animated movies, but that is the only time it goes on high.

Well reading threads and posting helps highlight what I dont know, so I can go educate my self.

Ok digital projectors and displays, no flicker they hold frame on the screen untill the next one comes along. No wonder they have problems with motion.

Also been reading about 24fps, avoiding strobing and skipping effects, camera movement and picket fences causing problems with unatural looking blur, and 45 degree shutter technique for no blur but judder. Guess I am used to watching well made movies and did not appreciate the effort it takes to get 24fps to look natural. So now I get why 24fps can cause problems even if displayed at 24fps.

The motion issue that I see is 24p film judder, which is present mostly during pans and other fast motion. I see this in film and on every display that I own, including DLPs.

I never used to see it. I think that it became more obvious to me as I began watching higher quality sources. On DVDs and other inferior sources, it just blended in with other artifacts that I think I was programed to tune out.

I am inclined to view film judder as evidence of bad cinematography. For example, overly ambitous film makers who don't see the limitations of the media they work in try for a shot that will never look as they intended it to. They see the pan in their mind but it will never look that way at 24p. It may look ok when they review the take on a studio monitor, but blow it up to a large screen and the problems become obvious.

In my mind, the question becomes, do we have the right to correct the film maker's mistakes?

What mistakes? The film is the film, it looks how it looks, judder and all. We have no idea if the film maker wanted it to look any different than it does. The fact of the matter is that it looks the way it does, and trying to make it look different is inaccurate, no matter what we make up in our heads to justify changing it. Film makers work with the media they have, and what they put out to the world is how it's supposed to look. Period. The film maker didn't make any mistakes, what you see is inherent in the technology. Judder is part of movie making.

Creating frames that aren't in the original work, especially just to have smoother motion, is not something I want when I watch a movie. As I've stated before, I love film and movies and I love the way they look. I want them to look as close as possible to accurate. Anything different is just different and not better. To me.

I encounter neophytes all the time who have just seen Blu Ray displayed on an LCD that has it's FI turned on. I can ALWAYS tell they've just seen a display with FI because the description is almost identical.

Moments ago my neighbour, a middle aged woman, told me of having recently seen Blu Ray on a flat panel TV in the stores. She talked about how she couldn't BELIEVE how sharp the picture was from Blu Ray. But also noted it "almost looked kind of weird...for some reason it seemed so sharp it was almost like it hurt my eyes to watch it."

I asked if it made the movie look almost too clear, like it was shot with high definition video instead of movie film. She said "Yes, exactly like that!"

I explained to her that the quality she was seeing was undoubtedly the processing of the display (didn't need to mention FI) that was creating that "super sharp" look and that Blu Ray, even though it can be sharper and have more detail, did not inherently look like that itself.

She said "Ok, that's good to know. When I was watching the movie I was getting the feeling I wasn't sure that I liked it."

That scenario has been repeated over and over among non-videophile folks I know who see FI on the flat panel displays.
They first think it looks incredibly sharp, but then they notice there is something "weird" about the experience that isn't sitting right.

Pretty much mirrors my experience with people as well, and my own.

I take my movies seriously. That's why I use a CRT projector. I must have my film look as close as possible to 35 mm film.Based on other posts from you I would say that isn't true. If you really preferred getting as close as possible to 35 mm film you wouldn't do what you do with the Brightness setting to make blackouts stay black and say that you need 700,000:1 on/off CR, or something like that. I'm not saying you are wrong for preferring the higher on/off CR you can get at home than you would get with the vast majority of film even if projected in the best way possible, but that is a deviation from what you would have gotten with the film.

So, when push comes to shove are you more in favor of changing things to look the way you prefer, or to how they would have looked if projected with 35 mm film?

--Darin

What mistakes? The film is the film, it looks how it looks, judder and all. We have no idea if the film maker wanted it to look any different than it does.

For the most of film's history, and for the most part generally, filmmakers, DOPs in particular, try to avoid creating distracting blur and judder. (The major exception being scenes shot with the camera deliberately swishing around faster than it can capture the action, where it is understood blur will add to the chaotic feel).

DOPs/cameramen have had to deal with the low sample rate of film for a long time, so it's part of the cinematographer's hand book how to avoid producing distracting judder/blur, in terms of how to frame the action, how to move the camera, how fast etc. So for the most part they ARE consciously trying to minimize the effect while filming. When obvious film blur/judder happens often it's just something they have to live with. I'm quite sure lots of cinematographers would love not to have to worry about blur/judder. At the same time many cinematographers love the look of film, so the challenge can be how to reduce the "bad" judder/blur while still imparting the artistic, filmic look they desire.

This is something I'm still looking for an answer to. Low must not be interpolating 60 new frames out of 24, because it's completely impossible that you can do that and not create the soap opera effect. The reason being is because that effect is caused by the smooth motion of high frame rates vs 24fps.

So give that, what does "Low" FI actually do if it's not creating all new frames? How is it different from doing 2:2 pulldown? Or is it? Is it that "low" FI is just n:n pulldown?

If it is then I submit that "Low" FI isn't FI at all.You might claim that it looked like a soap opera in low mode with the Panasonic if you saw it, but I wouldn't. And I wouldn't agree that FI has to change things dramatically if you say that color gamut differences (like the JVC's with their wide gamuts) don't show dramatic differences. I believe that low mode on the Panasonics creates one fake frame between each real frame, so 24Hz to 48Hz and then maybe displayed at 96Hz. And I could be wrong about how much it is interpolating (and it could be that the algorithms are much more complicated than the above).

If you decide on a lower threshold for what you call "dramatic" then of course the low mode on the Panasonic could be claimed to make a dramatic difference, because it obviously makes a difference or I wouldn't prefer it. It isn't like what I see with high or tend to see on the flat panels in stores with FI though. As I said, I would call that dramatic.

--Darin

Im pretty sure judder isnt an effect any director has been going for but rather a limitation they have been stuck with. Claiming it is, is rather ignorant. Even believeing it is.

Based on other posts from you I would say that isn't true. If you really preferred getting as close as possible to 35 mm film you wouldn't do what you do with the Brightness setting to make blackouts stay black and say that you need 700,000:1 on/off CR, or something like that.

--Darin

This reminds me of the ill-used term used in many display reviews: "Cinematic."
Many reviewers when confronted with displays, especially plasmas like those from Pioneer (RIP), whip out descriptions like "And the incredible contrast and black levels of this display make the image all the more cinematic!"

What the hell do they mean by that? These displays are producing black levels and contrast well beyond what most people have ever experienced from projected film in a cinema.

Sorry...just a pet peeve.

...So give that, what does "Low" FI actually do if it's not creating all new frames? How is it different from doing 2:2 pulldown? Or is it? Is it that "low" FI is just n:n pulldown?

If it is then I submit that "Low" FI isn't FI at all...All FI systems create new frames. What gets interpreted as motion, how much change is applied and what new objects are created all vary within each specific implementation and definately across specific company/version of the implementation.

In general "low" FI settings tend to be more conservative about motion detection and new object creation than "high" F1 settings.

For the most of film's history, and for the most part generally, filmmakers, DOPs in particular, try to avoid creating distracting blur and judder. (The major exception being scenes shot with the camera deliberately swishing around faster than it can capture the action, where it is understood blur will add to the chaotic feel).

DOPs/cameramen have had to deal with the low sample rate of film for a long time, so it's part of the cinematographer's hand book how to avoid producing distracting judder/blur, in terms of how to frame the action, how to move the camera, how fast etc. So for the most part they ARE consciously trying to minimize the effect while filming. When obvious film blur/judder happens often it's just something they have to live with. I'm quite sure lots of cinematographers would love not to have to worry about blur/judder. At the same time many cinematographers love the look of film, so the challenge can be how to reduce the "bad" judder/blur while still imparting the artistic, filmic look they desire.

Not arguing any of this, however I think you miss my point. No matter what the film maker may have wanted to if given the chance, what is in the film is what he did do. We can speculate all day about what the DOP and Director would have done differently, but the truth of the matter is that they didn't do anything differently, what they did do is on screen. I don't want to try and correct for a mistake that is technically not a mistake. It may have been a mistake when it was filmed, but when it's on film, anything other than trying to re-create what is on that disc is incorrect. You may like the outcome, but it's still not right, and therefore wrong. Me personally. I want what's on the disc, as faithfully as possible, there can't ever be anything wrong with reproducing that.

I am at heart a pragmatist. FI, provided it can be disabled, does no harm. If you don't like it, don't use it. From what I have seen of the technology, I would turn it off because I don't like it and think it does more harm than it does good. I have no philosophical objection to doing what you want with a disk that you bought, after all, it is yours. I don't mind or object to people who strictly adhere to some standards but not to others or who value accuracy in one context but not in another. We all have those small contradictions that we live with.

I am glad to see that many people are keeping their minds open. My experience has been that the purist breed of videophile ("accuracy all the way") has been intolerent of other's opinions. I am glad that this is not the case here.

I'm not really willing to make a final judgment here. Technology improves all the time. Maybe current FI algorithms aren't good enough yet. But that can change any time. Current black/dark frame insertion algorithms could also improve. My recommendation for everyone would be to review only what is available today and refrain from prophetic judgments about potential future algorithms.

Personally, I could imagine that a very unobtrusive low level form of FI in combination with a clever black/dark frame insertion may end up being the choice of most videophiles.

This is all pending a potential outcome of my understanding of what "low" FI really does, but I don't believe it's possible to do Motion Compensated Frame Rate Conversion without changing the fundamental feel of the video. That's not to say I think it's impossible for display and video processor manufacturers to develop ways to make displays better, more naturally display 24fps content, but if you start adding motion compensated frames I just don't see how it's possible to not change the feel.

Which is the problem most of us have with "FI".

Please guys, always remember: Motion smear is an artifact, too! So you can't just discredit all technology which aims at reducing motion smear, without taking into account that without these technologies you're stuck with sample-and-hold smear. Having motion smear is not "accurate", either. So a true videophile can not simply use hold type digital projection without any DFI/BFI and without any FI and then think he'd get accurate playback.

I think it's fair to "discredit" technology that aims at changing the feel of film, at least from an accuracy standpoint. And it should be noted that I don't think any of us "anti-FI" people have complained about B/DFI, I'd like nothing more than to see that sort of feature become standard on displays.

I expect pal dvd being 50Hz 24fps x2 and then slightly speeded up, and my display only being 2xspeed color wheel so 100Hz (24fps x 4 and slightly speeded up) with a blacked out white segment so a brief blanking frames as well, might make it less likely.

With blu-ray 24fps and a high speed colorwheel dlp say 5x so 300Hz (which might be 24fps x 12 = 288Hz) it might be more noticeable. Flat pannels boasting 200Hz or 600Hz might be worse still since they seem more prone to suffer from more sample and hold effect.

I think you seriously missunderstand something about how most digital displays work. On most, there is absolutely no visual difference between running the panel at 24Hz and running it at 120, 240, or higher. Logically the display is getting refreshed more often, but the actual display values isn't changing so there's no visual difference.

As I think you realized after this post, this is why many digital displays (especially LCD) suffer from SAH so. Because there's no "break" between images. SAH really causes the blur we see with motion and has nothing to do with any judder we see, at least that's how I understand it.

But at least it is not uneven like ntsc 60Hz with 3:2 pull down. Blu-ray also has better fine detail contrast, and apparantly contrast in the middle sized details increases the perception of motion problems.

It will exacerbate SAH because this is the sort of detail that will get blurred most by SAH. But I don't see that it would affect overall judder much.

I can see how 24fps could cause visible flickering but do not see how it alone causes motion judder, unless the original camera pan was not smooth. I can see how the judder could be caused by how the display handles the 24fps source, duplicating or holding frames too long in an attempt to reduce flicker. Maybe I am just luckly and do not see it, people have different flicker thresholds etc..

Remember there are two kinds of Judder, there's 3:2 cadence judder and then there's the low sample rate issues from 24fps. The former is basically always present on a 60Hz display, but the former isn't always present, it depends on how the film was shot.

Keeping pans slow, using long-ish exposures, etc are all ways the DOP can minimize or eliminate 24fps judder. There's a great scene at the beginning of Quantum Of Solice after the exciting part of the car chase as Bond is slowly driving through the streets. This is shot with slow enough motion that even at 24fps it looks very smooth.

On the other hand Saving Private Ryan is shot in such a way as to make 24fps look juddery the whole movie (adds to the sense of sureality).

I have just read an article on critical flicker threshold the lowest level of continuous flickering that is perceived as a continuous light source. It is alot lower than I thought for bright images. The retina neurons only respond to flicker upto 120Hz, and you do not perceive flicker that high. So going much over 120Hz to reduce flicker looks likely to be unneccessary and pointless. I think dlp rainbow effect is still visible to some people over 120Hz because the eye/brain is merging-combining images over time and saccadic eye motion.

I do not see flicker at 100Hz and as it is quite close to 120Hz it is probably unlikely anyone does. At 100Hz (4x24fps slightly speeded up) I also do not see unsmooth motion. So no need for frame interpolation.

It's not quite that simple. Not only refresh rate, but also hold time figure into whether we see flicker. On a PC monitor I can see flicker anywhere below 72-75Hz due to the fast phosphors and their low hold time. On a CRT HDTV I can't see flicker at 60Hz. But on my HD CRT, if I run it at 60i (sort of 30Hz) I can see flicker. But that's because the HDTV uses slower phosphors with longer hold time.

With an LCD monitor, there is no flicker period, because the hold time is essentially 100%.

I think frame interpolation is only needed if the display wants to create more brightness by increasing the screen time of the image, which would then increase problems with motion. With some flat pannels maybe it is neccessary to make them bright enough or needed so they use less electricity, a dimmer constant light rather than a flickering brighter light.

But that's just the issue LCDs have about 100% hold time. For all intents and purposes they never blank.

My projector is already plenty bright enough without doing this. But with single chip dlp projectors I can imagine increased screen time for the image being used to reduce dlp rainbow effect, or increase brightness with led based projectors.

If your projector is not a CRT, then it's almost certain that your display has almost 100% hold time. Sony was the first MFG to add DFI (blanking time) on a (consumer) digital projector with the VW200 and VW80.

DLP may be an exception due to it's flashing operation, but even there the aggregate result is essentially 100% hold time.

Well reading threads and posting helps highlight what I dont know, so I can go educate my self.

Ok digital projectors and displays, no flicker they hold frame on the screen untill the next one comes along. No wonder they have problems with motion.

Exactly.

Also been reading about 24fps, avoiding strobing and skipping effects, camera movement and picket fences causing problems with unatural looking blur, and 45 degree shutter technique for no blur but judder. Guess I am used to watching well made movies and did not appreciate the effort it takes to get 24fps to look natural. So now I get why 24fps can cause problems even if displayed at 24fps.

It's not always completely evident, and this is also one reason why I wonder if "low FI" might really be nothing more than 2:2 pulldown on most displays. I think very few people are used to seeing correct n:n display of film at home and associate 3:2 judder as being normal.

If you've seen n:n pulldown of 24fps content then I'm thinking you're much less likely to have an affinity for FI, since n:n pulldown eliminates all the bad judder that's erantly added by the display technology.

You might claim that it looked like a soap opera in low mode with the Panasonic if you saw it, but I wouldn't.

Does "Low FI" look different from n:n pulldown, eg 1080p24 fed to the Planar with the Planar set to Auto DLP refresh or 48Hz?

And I wouldn't agree that FI has to change things dramatically if you say that color gamut differences (like the JVC's with their wide gamuts) don't show dramatic differences.

For reference I'm talking gammut like properly presented film/DCI vs properly presented SMPTE-C/709. The JVCs supergamut is a different issue as those throw everything off. As best I understand it when DCI is mapped to SMPTE-C/709 it's not just compressed, so stuff that's not outside the C/709 gamut isn't affected (or not much) by the mapping.

I believe that low mode on the Panasonics creates one fake frame between each real frame, so 24Hz to 48Hz and then maybe displayed at 96Hz.

If that's the case, then I think you're right and I would call it soap opera. Because for me the threshold for that effect is with the move from 24fps to 30fps. 30fps looks like video, where as 24fps doesn't.

And I could be wrong about how much it is interpolating (and it could be that the algorithms are much more complicated than the above).

I'm just trying to figure out what the levels really are.... For example with a 60Hz display, you've got to display 5 frames for ever two:
1 x x 2 x
Where x are frames that aren't stored on the media.

So what sort of processing can you do? Well you can repeat frames, 3:2 pulldown, but this induces judder:
1 1 1 2 2

Or you can blend the odd frame (I've seen scripts to do this in the HTPC forum):
1 1 1.5 2 2
This supposedly helps judder but I don't call this Interpolation because there's no motion compensation going on.

You can motion compensate all the frames:
1' 2' 3' 4' 5'
But this definitely gives the soap opera effect, since every frame is new. This is what I assume "high" FI would be.

You could do a sort of combination between these last two and interpolate to 48Hz and add a blended frame:
1 1' 1.5' 2 2'
But I'd think this would still have the video look being basically >=30 fps and still would have judder I'd think.

Oh, and one more option is to say FI to 60Hz, and then blur/drop intermediate frames back and display them repeated at a 24fps rate:
1' 1' 1' 2' 2'
This would get some of the "benefits" of the FI processing like the sharpening and denoising but might return the "film look".

Basically your options are limited when it comes to smoothing out 24fps content, very limited with a 60Hz locked refresh since the only right place to display every other frame is smack dab in the middle of a refresh.

Hence why I'm curious what the levels of FI do.




If you decide on a lower threshold for what you call "dramatic" then of course the low mode on the Panasonic could be claimed to make a dramatic difference, because it obviously makes a difference or I wouldn't prefer it.

Well if "low" FI is not really FI but simplified "idiot speak" wording for n:n pulldown, then I could see it making a difference and not giving the soap opera effect.

All FI systems create new frames. What gets interpreted as motion, how much change is applied and what new objects are created all vary within each specific implementation and definately across specific company/version of the implementation.

My question though is if some of these "FI" modes are really misnomers. That they're included under the title for simplicity but really don't do any motion compensation. I find that completely possible and perhaps even likely.

Where is the there you feel like you are?

I did want to address this. I'm not sure how to explain it. With a good movie, displayed well, I just get "into" it. I forget I'm sitting in my HT (or wherever) and what's around me, and I'm just focused on what's going on in the movie. The story the action, the characters. It's not that I feel like I'm in the place that's being portrayed on the screen, it's that I'm conscious of being planted in a seat watching pictures moving on screen. Or maybe my brain just relaxes and lets the story unfold....

However the FI I've seen doesn't do that for me. Like some have said, it very much gives that "looking through a window" or "being there" feeling. However for me that means I feel like I'm watching actors on a set. I don't lose myself in the story/action/characters. I'd don't get the same relaxation, or letting go of reality, when watching FI'd content.

I think for me the lower frame rate of film is enough of a cue that it's not actually really "real" that it allows me to just let go and enjoy the film regardless of what's shown, where higher framerates get processed like the images are really happening.

The there I want is I am afraid the image looking real - life like. So actors on a stage set as you put it. Probably why I value a good script, good acting, good looking or charismatic actors and good sets. Moody or arty cinematography where they purposefully make it look distinctly different from reality like the previously mentioned film 300 is not something I like in a film, though I do not mind it in pop videos or animation. So I am a philistine.

Yeah, if you want to feel like you're watching a play, that you're literally there watching the actors act, then FI is definitely for you.

I'm just trying to figure out what the levels really are.... For example with a 60Hz display ...I don't think it is 60Hz in that mode, like I said. I think it is a multiple of 24, just like when showing 24Hz material at 1080p24 with more refreshes than that (like doing 1080p96). The difference being that some of the frames are interpolated. If it interpolates to 48Hz and then displays at 96Hz it would just be:

1 1 x1 x1 2 2 x2 x2

I think High mode is:

1 x1 y1 z1 2 x2 y2 z2

Where the letters mark fake frames.
Well if "low" FI is not really FI but simplified "idiot speak" wording for n:n pulldown, ...No, this is frame interpolation we are talking about.

Just to be clear, your position is that you've never seen low mode with the Panasonic, but if you did you would say it looked like a soap opera. Is that right?

I don't see any reason for you to assume 60Hz playback. I think that is messing things up.

--Darin

I think you seriously missunderstand something about how most digital displays work. On most, there is absolutely no visual difference between running the panel at 24Hz and running it at 120, 240, or higher. Logically the display is getting refreshed more often, but the actual display values isn't changing so there's no visual difference

As I think you realized after this post, this is why many digital displays (especially LCD) suffer from SAH so. Because there's no "break" between images. SAH really causes the blur we see with motion and has nothing to do with any judder we see, at least that's how I understand it.
With an LCD monitor, there is no flicker period, because the hold time is essentially 100%.
But that's just the issue LCDs have about 100% hold time. For all intents and purposes they never blank.

Yes I was not understanding how digital displays work. That is why I read and post to forums as it enlightens me as to what I do not know or misunderstand. With lcd flat panels in effect having no break between images. I can see why they would use black frame insertion to reduce problems with motion. Since black frame insertion would impact brightness, I can see why they also use FI. What are flat panels that claim 100Hz or 200Hz or 600Hz actually doing are they black frame inserting or generating additional frames.


If your projector is not a CRT, then it's almost certain that your display has almost 100% hold time. Sony was the first MFG to add DFI (blanking time) on a (consumer) digital projector with the VW200 and VW80.
DLP may be an exception due to it's flashing operation, but even there the aggregate result is essentially 100% hold time.

The way I figure it

My 100Hz DLP Projector (2x color wheel with PAL signal)
100fps, each frame lasts 10ms, each frame is sequencial colorwheel G3/12 Y1/12 R3/12 W2/12 B3/12(do not use - have painted over white segment). If I treat the Green-Yellow-Red segments as the frame and the White(black)-Blue as the blanking or if I treat Blue-Green-Yellow as the frame and Red-White(black) as the blanking. I get 5.8ms frame and 4.2ms blanking. Treating the BGYR as combining to make a frame and the W(black) as blanking, I get 8.3ms frame with 1.7ms blanking.

For commercial film print cinema displaying at 48fps (2x24fps) I believe the sequence is. 10.42ms frame, 10.42ms blanking. The blanking time is long due to the mechanical limitations of advancing the frame in the projector, the number of blanking periods is doubled to reduce flickering, and the new blanking period needs to be the same length as the first also to reduce flicker.

For PAL video camera recording cycle is I think 16.6ms = first image 3.4ms = shutter blanking time

My DLP strikes me as having enough blanking time to not be functioning like a lcd flatpannel allways displaying an image. Along with the 50Hz PAL so no 3:2 pull down for film, this might be why I do not see problems with motion.

Has anyone had any time in front of a Loewe Aconda? I ask because to this day, it is one of the best displays I've ever seen, but I swear part of that was because of the motion. Did this set utilize some sort of FI? I remember watching SW EP:2 on it and being able to clearly tell that the actors were acting against a fake background. The more I think about my memory of that, I'm wondering what was going on with the motion.

So, when push comes to shove are you more in favor of changing things to look the way you prefer, or to how they would have looked if projected with 35 mm film?

--Darin

Film contains much more detail than what is projected. It's not the fault of the film, it's the nature of the way it's presented. I don't think a director says to themselves, "hey I want black to glow!" That's just the nature of how film is projected. I'd love to have all the properties of film, like more color, and I bet those who do film, such as a movie about space would love it if the medium could portray it like space, utterly black. Nothing defines 35mm as having to not be 100% pitch black. The reason is all I've stated and safety concerns too. When I was a kid, film was a lot higher than 2,000:1 because there were no rules about safety. At home no such rules exist, and I can make black be black. If a director didn't want black to be black he'd elevate black slightly past pitch black and make the scene slightly bluish to simulate blackness. There are tons of movies which do that, and no matter if I get 0 IRE to nothing, those "dark" scenes will glow. Saying otherwise is silly. So any old film like Citizen Cane which shows much more than 2,000:1 as b&w, since b&w film does more CR than color, but if shown in a theater today, because of safety concerns would be 2,000:1 or less. Does that mean if I make mine more than 2,000:1 at home it's now "wrong?"

Good discussion on a relevant topic.

Peter Jackson and James Cameron were on a panel at Comic Con this summer.

Thread started here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1166901

Go to video panel number three, and starting at around 5:50 into the video, James Cameron talks about 24P, higher resolution, 3D etc.

Here's the link for video panel three.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyolmy8IU94&NR=1

Good discussion on a relevant topic.

Peter Jackson and James Cameron were on a panel at Comic Con this summer.

Thread started here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1166901

Go to video panel number three, and starting at around 5:50 into the video, James Cameron talks about 24P, higher resolution, 3D etc.

Here's the link for video panel three.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyolmy8IU94&NR=1

Great find! Both Cameron and Jackson seemed very enthused about higher framerates. Cameron's description of the problem is exactly how I feel. At 24p things look perfect until there is motion and then there is strobing and there is nothing you can do about it.

Interesting comments from Cameron about the shortcomings of 24fps and the advantages of higher frame rates such as "can't distinguish it from being there" and "indistinguishable from reality". Appears he doesn't adhere to the whole watching film should be like watching film and not like you're there concept that the anti FI brigade keep putting forward. So the obvious question is, if film makers start shooting "film" at higher frame rates so it's no longer jerky and "filmlike" will you guys stop going to the movies.:)

Interesting comments from Cameron about the shortcomings of 24fps and the advantages of higher frame rates such as "can't distinguish it from being there" and "indistinguishable from reality". Appears he doesn't adhere to the whole watching film should be like watching film and not like you're there concept that the anti FI brigade keep putting forward. So the obvious question is, if film makers start shooting "film" at higher frame rates so it's no longer jerky and "filmlike" will you guys stop going to the movies.:)

Nope. However the movie was meant to be displayed is how I'd like to view it, or get as close as possible to it.

What flicker are you referring to? LCD, DLP and LCOS used a fixed light for projection, so it can't 'flicker', no matter what refresh rate used. Also, there are no black frames between video frames on Blu-ray, so what's flickering, exactly?

At the cinema, it flickers because there are frame borders between frames, and you see that...

Sorry, just confused.

Yes they can as they refresh. LCOS goes to black for instance, so there is still frame refreshes happening, it just happens very fast so it appears very solid.

And DLPs are always flickering because the mirrors are binary, and that includes in a 3-chip, it just isn't flickering in any relationship to the framerate of the content, add to that the colorwheel on a 1-chip, you have temporal issues that are far more significant, regardless of the fact that the bulb is on all the time, that light isn't reaching the screen in a constant fashion by ANY stretch of the imagination.

Same with LCD, at least older ones with the peekaboo scanline issues as they refreshed, that's another temporal problem too.

Any of you guys watch "Public Enemies" at the theatre? The one with Johnny Depp? The scenes where the FBI or whatever are trying to catch them at night at the motel in the woods. Did any of you notice how soap opera`ish those scenes looked?

Im not sure what the cause was, and i wasnt sure even if i liked the look. Looked like FI to me but like i said, i cant tell for sure. Whatever it was, it looked different.

Anyone know?

Keeping pans slow, using long-ish exposures, etc are all ways the DOP can minimize or eliminate 24fps judder. There's a great scene at the beginning of Quantum Of Solice after the exciting part of the car chase as Bond is slowly driving through the streets. This is shot with slow enough motion that even at 24fps it looks very smooth.

On the other hand Saving Private Ryan is shot in such a way as to make 24fps look juddery the whole movie (adds to the sense of sureality).

This is my objection to FI with film. I have no fundamental problem with FI per se, except when it comes down to preserving the artistic intent of content I care about. When it comes to watching TV, if I'm watching the news or something, I'm not hugely concerned about the accuracy of that motion relative to the original intent, there isn't some artistic merit there to be upheld, so FI I may or may not like just depending on whether I think it's done well, or whether I like the new "feel" of the content.

But when it comes to film, despite the fact that 24fps is an imposed limitation, it is one that is worked within as you point out, and it is important to me to preserve that feel, very crucially so.

Just like the Saving Private Ryan example, for instance 13 days later was shot with a very jaggedy and juddery appearance, some segments shot at slower framerates it appears, but run at full speed, which gives a very very choppy and frantic appearance to many fast-paced sequences in that film. Smoothing that all out is a very sharp change in the feel of those scenes, and that's why I don't like FI on film content, or other content that I care about maintaining the accuracy of.

I think part of it is also culturally ingrained, I have grown up with the look of film versus the look of video, and the look of film means something emotionally to me, both in terms of preserving grain, the 24fps, and the way that film responds to light. In fact, while I welcome digital cameras, and some of the very different looks of certain movies not shot on film (Collateral, Miami Vice for instance) that appear very different, these are conscious changes made by the filmmakers, and I'm okay with that. But I am not okay with imposing that look, or the feel of video on films that were shot in 24fps, and didn't look like that originally.

And in my line of work, there are a lot of people who actually find it disturbing when they see a TV with motion interpolation turned on, they usually think it looks weird, or they comment that it feels bizarre, or something like that, and many people do want it turned off.

I don't like it, and it sure as hell is not touching any film that I watch in my theater.

Any of you guys watch "Public Enemies" at the theatre? The one with Johnny Depp? The scenes where the FBI or whatever are trying to catch them at night at the motel in the woods. Did any of you notice how soap opera`ish those scenes looked?

Im not sure what the cause was, and i wasnt sure even if i liked the look. Looked like FI to me but like i said, i cant tell for sure. Whatever it was, it looked different.

Anyone know?

I haven't seen the film yet, but it's because that movie was shot digitally, not film, and digital cameras have low-light capabilities and luminance response that is very different than film, and lots of the TV you see shot with video cameras is why you draw that connection. There is a shot in Mann's Ali where he is running at night, shot digitally, and it really jumps out in a similar way as looking "video-y." But this doesn't have to do with framerate, but the way a digital camera responds in low light in ways that film just can't.

Film contains much more detail than what is projected. It's not the fault of the film, it's the nature of the way it's presented. I don't think a director says to themselves, "hey I want black to glow!" That's just the nature of how film is projected. I'd love to have all the properties of film, like more color, and I bet those who do film, such as a movie about space would love it if the medium could portray it like space, utterly black. Nothing defines 35mm as having to not be 100% pitch black. The reason is all I've stated and safety concerns too. When I was a kid, film was a lot higher than 2,000:1 because there were no rules about safety. At home no such rules exist, and I can make black be black. If a director didn't want black to be black he'd elevate black slightly past pitch black and make the scene slightly bluish to simulate blackness. There are tons of movies which do that, and no matter if I get 0 IRE to nothing, those "dark" scenes will glow. Saying otherwise is silly. So any old film like Citizen Cane which shows much more than 2,000:1 as b&w, since b&w film does more CR than color, but if shown in a theater today, because of safety concerns would be 2,000:1 or less. Does that mean if I make mine more than 2,000:1 at home it's now "wrong?"In other words you deviate from how it would look if projected with 35mm and figure that the director may have been happier with that, but claim that others shouldn't deviate from 24Hz playback because that is how the film would be played. I'm in favor of doing what you do with black. It is the turning around and claiming that you have to stick with 24Hz when you don't stick with the contrast ratio that I disagree with. Why do you condone deviating for one, but not the other? Do you think all the directors wanted to be stuck at 24Hz? Do you think James Cameron wants to be stuck at 24Hz?

If a director knows their film is going to be shown at 2000:1 and prefers that they wouldn't need to raise the black level, which would mean less than 2000:1 relative to that scene. If the mastering monitors had infinite on/off CR then the people making the decisions could choose whether they want the blackout to be black or not and see it. This is one reason I want higher on/off CR for the mastering monitors. Then they can choose while being able to see. With a mastering monitor with less they may prefer the black that the monitor can do over higher, but not want a complete blackout, and the only way to get the black that the monitor can do is to encode at black for it. Anything higher and it would be even more gray.

--Darin

In other words you deviate from how it would look if projected with 35mm and figure that the director may have been happier with that, but claim that others shouldn't deviate from 24Hz playback because that is how the film would be played.

In a nutshell, yes. :p

I'm in favor of doing what you do with black. It is the turning around and claiming that you have to stick with 24Hz when you don't stick with the contrast ratio that I disagree with. Why do you condone deviating for one, but not the other? Do you think all the directors wanted to be stuck at 24Hz? Do you think James Cameron wants to be stuck at 24Hz?

Darin I would say this: the change in black level between an elevated black floor of projected film versus chasing utter complete black doesn't make drastic changes in the presentation, and it is a rather 'safe' but not necessarily true assumption that most directors when they go to a dark scene or a black frame want to go as dark as they can, and would prefer not to be limited by an elevated black floor. I make this preference partially because I personally like it better, but also because I feel confident in making the intelligent assumption that MOST directors would probably agree that better black level performance would be preferred, and there is still plenty of room to have elevated blacks higher than that found in the theater, so it isn't too ambiguous to say: they wanted this as dark as possible with the limitations imposed, so let's exceed those limits some and improve things.

On the other hand, the imposition of the 24fps limit, while a very significant limit, has a HUGE impact on the feel of a film. It is a completely different ballpark in terms of the change of the feel of the film, shooting something at 24fps versus say 60p is VAST. That is not a small change. It is more akin to choosing to shoot in B&W versus color. I don't doubt that there were many directors who would have wanted to shoot films in color but were stuck with B&W, however there is not one cell in my brain that thinks that we should colorize film. And I'll bet there are directors who would have loved to shoot in color, but would have fought tooth and nail against colorizing their films that they would have shot in color in the first place had they had the chance. And I don't doubt that there are directors working today who would want to shoot in framerates beyond 24, however assuming that because the limitation is a "limitation" that therefore many, most, or all directors would have liked to shoot at a higher framerate is like assuming that all directors who shot in B&W would have liked to have shot in color, so we should colorize their films. Even if a director says that he would have done it in color, I wouldn't colorize the film. Even if a director says that he would have shot it in a fps higher than 24, I wouldn't interpolate frames.

It is just such a drastic change to the feel and look of a film, that it really isn't fair to compare an improvement in black level to FI.

In other words, just because a medium imposes a limitation doesn't inherently mean that we should on our own remove that limitation and change the content by doing so. We also have to judge whether that change is something that most directors would think is positive, and also whether we feel it is positive. On improving the black level, you and I both feel that the improvement is positive, and I agree with you that I think almost any director would also agree that the improvement is positive over the limits of the theater. However when it comes to frame interpolation, that change is drastic, and I certainly think it is not positive, and I think that most directors would think it is a bad idea. But we don't really know what directors would think.

I think I have been underestamating what frame interpolation does.
It seems to not only be creating new frames inbetween existing frames to smooth the motion. It also seems to incorporate using information from multiple existing frames to reduce the blur inherent on the existing frames. It is a form of imaging sharpening - detail enhancement.
Moving objects blur, representing moving objects using a series of still images that are not changing as fast as the objects on the screen are moving. But with the inherent blur of the original image removed is going to result in an image where objects appear to be moving at such a speed they should be naturally blurring but are not. That is going to look odd. Kinda like your eyes have been upgraded and your brain has not be notified, hyper real but weird unreal.

Like plasticine models completely static images that are moved between frames, but not moving when the frames are captured. The frames are then being displayed at a high enough frame rate that you do not see motion judder, but slower than the objects are actually moving, so your eyes have a longer time than they should to capture the details of the moving object. Same applys to following a moving object with your eyes against a static background, the background naturally blurs, but in this case it does not.

Thinking about it frame interpolation removing blur on the original frames maybe necessary. The blur in the original 24fps frames is caused by the exposure time of each shot. I have read it is usually about 1/48 of a second.

If the lcd is holding an image all the time it needs to generate lots of new frames to keep the motion smooth. Since the blur on the original frames is a product of the cameras original exposure time of about 1/48th of a second they need to have blur reduced. Unfortunately frame interpolation instead just removes all the blur it can by using the information on lots of original frames. This would only be correct if it was displaying a continuous moving image like real life, where the eye/brain produces the blur.

Frame Interpolation blur reduction looks to me to be an attempt at fixing a limitation with lcd. Lcd can not support long blanking times without sacrificing too much brightness.

I am not sure how this translates to dlp projectors as they pulse colors sequencially, but have higher frame rates than the 24fps source.

. Kinda like your eyes have been upgraded and your brain has not be notified, hyper real but weird unreal.


You got exactly why I, H A T E, FI. It's not just making the image smoother, it's changing the reality of the moving image. You can't get 60p+ from 24p. It's not possible without artifacts. Now if the original image was filmed at 60p, that's different, I wouldn't mind. I personally get dizzy when FI is used. People who don't have FI can try using using their TV's 60i to 24p inverse telecine feature for material which is 30p or 60i not 3:2 telecined. I sometimes accidentally output 72p for 60i/30p, when I should be doing 60p. The result is a freaky image that moves crazy and makes me feel dizzy.

So to answer Darin, yes. 24p to 60p FI radically changes the image to the point a person loses track of reality and it's like you're stoned. Changing "black" to true black from gray doesn't change reality. You can change black to be very near to black and still have 2,000:1 on off contrast, the resulting peak white will just be super dim. Some studios use 2.2 gamma, others 2.4 and yet others still 2.6. You just plain don't know. A studio might use a CRT to grade, a Samsung projector, or even a LCD, so black level at the telecine end can vary. 24p is 24p, that can't change, it's not subjective one bit. Therefore as long as I don't go too crazy like using a gamma over 2.6 or under 2.0, I'll get a picture the studio saw. But if I alter the frame rate, I'm radically deviating from reality, let alone what the telecinist saw!

But like I said before, if a director really isn't after a black hole black, he'll elevate black until it glows and give it a blue tint. A recent film I saw which did that was called The Underneath. If a director wants 60p, he'll use a Electronic News Gathering (ENG) type camera rather than a cinema camera. That's done all the time in movies which want a documentary like look. So therefore I'm not changing reality, nor deviating from the director's intent by changing to a higher on off contrast. But I am with FI. If a director never wanted black to ever look black hole black, why didn't he just make it that way by elevating black in the first place like in The Underneath? That assumes directors, cinematographers, and telecinists are retarded and aren't making their film to be viewed on all kinds of equipment, not just a film projector, digital or 35mm, etc. Especially when a movie is put on DVD or Blu-ray, then the studio and telecinist both know people with a plasma, or CRT will and are going to view it and definitely aren't calibrating to 2,000:1 on off. To say otherwise is nonsense and silly.

I haven't seen the film yet, but it's because that movie was shot digitally, not film, and digital cameras have low-light capabilities and luminance response that is very different than film, and lots of the TV you see shot with video cameras is why you draw that connection. There is a shot in Mann's Ali where he is running at night, shot digitally, and it really jumps out in a similar way as looking "video-y." But this doesn't have to do with framerate, but the way a digital camera responds in low light in ways that film just can't.

Thanks for clarifying. I was wondering why it was only apparent in the night scene.

No, this is frame interpolation we are talking about.

Oh, understood that's what the thread is about. My only question is if the low FI modes aren't using motion compensation at all, and are instead doing something like n:n pulldown with the wrong name for simplicity of use.

Just to be clear, your position is that you've never seen low mode with the Panasonic, but if you did you would say it looked like a soap opera. Is that right?

My position is if it's motion compensated FI 48fps, then yes. I did a little test last night and used an AVI synth script to FI 24fps to 48fps, and the 48fps has the "soap opera" look compared to the original 24fps.

Interesting comments from Cameron about the shortcomings of 24fps and the advantages of higher frame rates such as "can't distinguish it from being there" and "indistinguishable from reality". Appears he doesn't adhere to the whole watching film should be like watching film and not like you're there concept that the anti FI brigade keep putting forward.

No, I don't think that's what he's saying. What he says doesn't at all conflict with what the "anti FI brigade keep putting forward". We are not saying higher frame rates are bad by themselves. We're saying artificially increasing the framerate of a work, something which fundamentally changes the feel of the work, is something that is along the lines of colorizing or Pan & Scan.

We aren't arguing about what framerates should be used to shoot motion pictures, we are arguing about whether or not it's acceptable to change the framerate of an already produce work after the fact.

So the obvious question is, if film makers start shooting "film" at higher frame rates so it's no longer jerky and "filmlike" will you guys stop going to the movies.:)

It will be like anything else, if the movie is good, I'm sure we'll go see it.

This is my objection to FI with film. I have no fundamental problem with FI per se, except when it comes down to preserving the artistic intent of content I care about. When it comes to watching TV, if I'm watching the news or something, I'm not hugely concerned about the accuracy of that motion relative to the original intent, there isn't some artistic merit there to be upheld, so FI I may or may not like just depending on whether I think it's done well, or whether I like the new "feel" of the content.

I agree, I've thought for a while it would be nice to have FI feature available for my non-critical viewing of TV and video sources in general. Though I agree with many here that think even with video FI often feels "unnatural".

I've pasted a link to one reviewer's thoughts on FI, and as I have both the Panny 3000 and a Samsung 46" LCD 120hz flat panel, I pretty much agree with his assessment. FI can be a benefit if implemented and used appropriately.
Paul
http://www.projectorcentral.com/frame_interpolation.htm

Oh, understood that's what the thread is about. My only question is if the low FI modes aren't using motion compensation at all, and are instead doing something like n:n pulldown with the wrong name for simplicity of use.To be more clear, my comment wasn't about the thread subject, it was about low mode with the Panasonic AE3000. Put another way, this is frame interpolation we are talking about with respect to the low mode in the AE3000, not just repeating the same frame multiple times.

--Darin

Any of you guys watch "Public Enemies" at the theatre? The one with Johnny Depp? The scenes where the FBI or whatever are trying to catch them at night at the motel in the woods. Did any of you notice how soap opera`ish those scenes looked?
Maybe they used a slower shutter speed, to capture more light in dark scenes, but motion blur increases. The camera still shoots at 24 frames/sec, but the camera exposes each frame for more than the usual 1/48th sec. I saw a similar effect in one scene in The Lookout.

Why isn't FI being used on DCI projectors?

Found an old similiar thread that goes into how eyes track motion

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1009629&highlight=

Motion blur on film makes you focus on the non moving part of the image so keeps your attention where the director wanted it to be.
Maybe it is not used on DCI projecors because realistic detailed motion on a large screen might induce motion sickness in some people, because your eyes are not focusing on what the director intended but the moving background details. Also blurring stimulates fluidity of movement, sharpness stimulates stuttering which might induce nausea even when it looks like smooth motion.

It's not used because it's not an accurate representation of the source.

I'm not familiar with the in's and out's of most FI algorithms, but it seems that just by watching some of them (Samsung LCDs, Panny 3000) that they assume a linear rate of movement in objects between frames. This is what seems to lead to the unnatural looking motion. The solution is to switch to a higher recorded frame rate - someone posted a BBC article recently which suggested that somewhere around 300fps was a good start - to eliminate the artifacts found in 24/25fps and even 50/60fps material. I can't find the link but it was a very interesting read.

Obviously film's 24fps lends it a certain look just as a certain texture of canvas would lend a particular look to a painting. However, it would be nice to see higher frame rates available to directors that don't find that look desirable, and for right now I've found FI to be a very poor band-aid to a much bigger problem.

somewhere around 300fps was a good start

Geeez. Can you imagine the cost of that? Impossible with film most likely, and even with video, the storage requirements are staggering!

Geeez. Can you imagine the cost of that? Impossible with film most likely, and even with video, the storage requirements are staggering!

Well, imagine talking about HD on BD back when VHS was brand new! Now we're talking about a similar 10-fold increase in storage requirements to get up to 240Hz native material, without the use of compression - which would have the potential to become more efficient at higher frame rates. I'm not saying I think it's practical tomorrow, but it's one of many things I'd see extra data used for instead of just increasing resolution on video material again.

I know it's a slightly different story with film since we're talking about using more for higher frame rates, but with continued improvements in capturing digitally, I would love to see a movement away from 24fps as a standard if/when the use of film becomes less prevalent. Who knows when that will be though.

It's not used because it's not an accurate representation of the source.
I'll rephrase the question. Are theaters being prevented from using FI on DCI projectors?

I'll rephrase the question. Are theaters being prevented from using FI on DCI projectors?

Even if they were or were not, the better question is why would they use it? There's nothing wrong with the way movies are shot and displayed today. I see no reason to switch to a frame rate that will better emulate video. Judder is objectionable yes, but so much that we need to completely change the look and feel of movies to get rid of it? I don;'know. I personally love the way film looks, it's one of the reasons I love movies. It's one of the reasons I love movies. They have a certain aesthetic, part of that being the movement, that lets you know you are watching a movie, a story that is not real. I love it.

Making motion different just because it's possible, seems like something J6P would clamor for, not someone that appreciates film for the works of art that it is. But that's my wee opinion.

Even if they were or were not, the better question is why would they use it?
If they are prevented from using DI, then the point is moot.

If they are not prevented, and some theaters decide to use it, then I'd mainly like to know which ones are using it, not so much the reason why they decided to.

Why isn't FI being used on DCI projectors?
It's not used because it's not an accurate representation of the source.
Agreed. However, motion blur due to sample-and-hold is not an accurate representation of the source, either. So I'd expect hold type DCI projectors to sooner or later use at least BFI/DFI, or maybe even a low level FI implementation (similar to Panasonic's FI on "low"), too.

Geeez. Can you imagine the cost of that? Impossible with film most likely, and even with video, the storage requirements are staggering!
Depends on how the data is stored. If you actually record with 300Hz, the difference between each frame will be almost non-existent. Which means that storing and compressing each frame separately would (as you say) result in extreme storage requirements. However, using some kind of inter-frame compression method would cut down most of the storage requirements quite easily...

I think FI would be catastrophically horrible to use in the cinema.

However I think that DCI will give the opportunity to capture and display at higher framerates than 24p, and I that's a very foreseeable possibility, and that's something I'd like to see. If the projector can just as easily support 48hz or 60hz, or 120hz or whatever, then it would give directors the flexibility to decide to shoot at different framerates, because as DCI theaters become more prevalent, then they'd have a venue for those unique films. And depending on what they look/feel like, they might not be unique for very long...

I'll rephrase the question. Are theaters being prevented from using FI on DCI projectors?I'm not sure how a theater would do FI with a DCI projector even if they wanted to. If there was any frame interpolation that was going to go on for films on DCI projectors I would expect it to be done in non-realtime. They show the same things over an over and know what they are going to show, so I think pre-encoding makes sense to do it the best way, if anybody was going to do it.

Maybe the IMAX guys could latch onto this. :) Do a deal where they upscale 24Hz to 48Hz like how they now have some methods for upscaling resolution for 35mm films that get shown in real IMAX theaters.

It wouldn't shock me if they made a deal for a computer animation to do it at 48Hz (although this could be rendered at 48Hz or some intermediate method taking the 24Hz original) if it weren't for the big kick to do 3D with computer animation now. The downside of 3D is the loss of light, which something like this wouldn't have. They could also combine 3D with 48Hz per eye (and not just flashing the same frame more times) for computer animation.

I also don't know of any theaters using dynamic irises, although they could pre-encode material for that to decrease artifacts.

--Darin

Agreed. However, motion blur due to sample-and-hold is not an accurate representation of the source, either. So I'd expect hold type DCI projectors to sooner or later use at least BFI/DFI, or maybe even a low level FI implementation (similar to Panasonic's FI on "low"), too.

I haven't critically watched a DCI presentation lately, but I've seen a few and I never recall seeing the sort of motion issues that are complained about (beyond the inherent 24fps limitations). Maybe it's because they already do some form of DFI/BFI....

I think FI would be catastrophically horrible to use in the cinema.

I agree.

However I think that DCI will give the opportunity to capture and display at higher framerates than 24p, and I that's a very foreseeable possibility, and that's something I'd like to see. If the projector can just as easily support 48hz or 60hz, or 120hz or whatever, then it would give directors the flexibility to decide to shoot at different framerates, because as DCI theaters become more prevalent, then they'd have a venue for those unique films. And depending on what they look/feel like, they might not be unique for very long...

Oh, we already have seen it, DCI-based cinemas have been showing live sporting events and concerts and other such things and I assume they're shown at 60Hz, or at least 30Hz.

I'm not sure how a theater would do FI with a DCI projector even if they wanted to.
Maybe some theaters will have a DCI-compatible processor that performs FI in realtime, in case there is no pre-encoded copy.

What happened to MaxiVision and Super Vista SDS-70 film based systems using 48fps with 1/100th of a second exposure, with MaxiVision displayed at 48fps and SDS-70 at 96fps. Improved frame rates at commercial cinemas seem to always be just around the corner but never here.

Also was/is the DCI 2K 48Hz format ever used.

If they are not prevented, and some theaters decide to use it, then I'd mainly like to know which ones are using it, not so much the reason why they decided to.


So would I, so that I could avoid them.

Interesting article on this here (http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/08/12/help-key-why-hd-video-looks-weird/).

The comments are interesting, with most people seemingly not liking FI. One poster had some interesting thigs to write:

Two points to make:

1. The problem with motion interpolation is that it is having to create new frames that weren’t on the original film.

Imagine we have a football moving left to right on screen.
frame a:
O
and frame b:
O
but then we have to insert a new frame in between.
Then the ball should be in between:
O
Even this simple task is very tricky.
Firstly the software has to recognise the object that has changed position - the ball.
Secondly it has to cut out the ball and move it into an interpolated position - in the middle.
But it also has to not show the ball at the left-hand or right-hand position. It has to instead show whatever was behind the ball - presumably grass or something.
What a CG digital compositor would probably do is grab from frame b the bit of grass that was behind the ball in frame a, and grab from frame a the bit of grass that was hidden in frame b.

But this simple task would take an effects artist a few minutes per frame at least.

Your TV is having to do this in 1/24 of a second.

Which is impossible.

So it cheats. It uses warping and other motion compensaton/interpolation techniques to create inbetween frames that sort of fool the eye.

But what we end up with is every other frame being a frame made up by the computer as a poor approximation of what that frame would look like had it ever been filmed - with all the errors, artifacts, and inaccuracies of a process done at incredibly high speed.

And not surprisingly it looks weird.

For half the film you are watching images that no camera ever filmed, that no editor ever saw, and no director ever intended for you to see.

But my second point is:

When we go the cinema to see a film, or even when we see a movie on television, we subconsciously are seeing characteristics and artifacts of the picture.

If you switch channels, I reckon most people could tell within a second whether what’s playing is a movie or a TV program.

Nowadays, as more movies are shot digitally, filmmakers are trying hard to work out what it is that makes a movie looks like a movie. Then they’re trying to alter the digital picture to replicate that look.

There are a number of things.

1. Depth of field. Simply put this means that in films, very often the foreground will be in sharp focus, whilst the background will be blurry/out of focus. TV camera lenses have traditionally been unable to replicate what we call that ’shallow depth of field’.

2. Grain versus noise. Both video and film picture are the combination of little dots. But film is made up from a random pattern of dots, whereas video is made up of absolutely square pixels. And it’s interesting that while stills photographers sometimes blow up grain, loving its natural texture, almost nobody ever loves video pixel noise. Some argue that it’s because the eye/brain prefers natural texture to artificial.
But certainly, when trying to make video look like film, one thing you can do is reduce the video noise, and actually degrade the picture a bit by adding a bit of sampled film grain. There are programs which can simulate the grain given by different types of film.

3. Gamma. It’s complicated but basically film and video react to light in different ways. Film still sees more detail in the brightest and darkest parts of the picture and sees colour in a different way. Another thing that filmmakers do to make digital images look like film is to alter the gamma, either in camera or in post-production.

4. Frame-rate. To bring this back to the original subject, traditionally the biggest give away that one is watching a video-originated image and not film is the frame rate. In the US, video cameras shoot 60 frames a second. They cheat a bit to do this. Imagine the picture broken down into horizontal lines. Then imagine that these lines are numbered 12345, etc. On the first frame, video cameras record lines 2,4,6,8, etc. Then on the second, they record 1,3,5,7,9 etc.
This is known as interlacing.

Nowadays, we can set digital cameras to not do this. We change them to film in what’s known as a ‘progressive’ mode, which shoots full 24 frames a second.

In the old days, filmmakers used to go to great lengths to get rid of this interlacing.

We would literally throw away all the information for lines 1,3,5,7,9 etc., and duplicate the information for lines 2,4,6,8.
Why?
It was clear that the higher frame-rate was a give-away that the image had been shot on video not on film. So even if we degraded the picture somewhat by throwing out half the data, it still sort of looked ‘better’.

Why would it be so important to filmmakers (most of us anyway) that we shoot something that looks like film, even if it isn’t?

I think the answer is because audiences react differently to video and film. They don’t know they’re doing it, and it’s working almost entirely on a subconscious level, but when someone thinks they’re watching a movie, their mindset is that this is something more special, bigger budget, more worthy of their attention.

So imagine the frustration of filmmakers when new TVs undo all of the work we have put in to making something look like film and make it look indeed like a ’soap opera’. Modern TVs can get rid of all the lovely ‘film grain’ we’ve programmed in - they brighten and alter the picture undoing all our work to match a film gamma, and worst of all, they increase the frame rate, adding digital artifacts at the same time.

I don’t know of any filmmaker who would want you to watch his film looking like that.

So, as a previous poster said - if you’re watching sports or video games, or indeed soap operas, fine.
But if you’re watching a movie, and you want to watch it the way the director made it, switch as much of that video enhancing crap off as you can!

Paul Spurrier

That's a great writeup. But it brought up a couple thoughts....

"But what we end up with is every other frame being a frame made up by the computer as a poor approximation of what that frame would look like had it ever been filmed - with all the errors, artifacts, and inaccuracies of a process done at incredibly high speed."

This is actually not entirely accurate. When you're FI-ing 24fps to 60fps, what you end up with is every frame is interpolated, none of them are original.

"What a CG digital compositor would probably do is grab from frame b the bit of grass that was behind the ball in frame a, and grab from frame a the bit of grass that was hidden in frame b.

But this simple task would take an effects artist a few minutes per frame at least.

Your TV is having to do this in 1/24 of a second.

Which is impossible.

So it cheats. It uses warping and other motion compensaton/interpolation techniques to create inbetween frames that sort of fool the eye.

But what we end up with is every other frame being a frame made up by the computer as a poor approximation of what that frame would look like had it ever been filmed - with all the errors, artifacts, and inaccuracies of a process done at incredibly high speed."

I had to think of a minute to remember how this works, but what happens is FI algorithms actually work in two directions, forward and backward. To continue the football example, I think we can all follow how it's "easy" for the processor to move the football and cover up some grass as it moves forward. But what about the grass that didn't exist that needs to be created? This is where the backward motion vectors come in, basically it's no different processing wise than going forward, it takes grass from future frames and moves it to earlier generated frames, like if you were playing the video backwards.

Here's the actual "script" to do it in AVISynth on a PC:
AVISource("c:\test.avi")
super = MSuper(pel=2)
backward_vec = MAnalyse(super, isb = true) # compute the backward motion vectors
forward_vec = MAnalyse(super, isb = false) # compute the forward motion vectors
MFlowFps(super, backward_vec, forward_vec, num=120, den=1, ml=100) #"magic" function to get 120 fps

I've said a few times, I'm still amazed by how "well" FI can work for it's intended purpose, that is increasing the framerate of video. And how few obvious artifacts it creates. But even then something is lost when you increase the framerate of film, and that's not something I like.

This is actually not entirely accurate. When you're FI-ing 24fps to 60fps ...What projector here interpolates from 24fps to 60fps?

--Darin

One thing that is referenced above and is true for sure is that depth of field differences between film and HD video cameras has a HUGE impact on the judder we see.

With film based sources, judder is minimized because the background is generally out of focus, and our brains do not perceive the judder. With HD sources, often the entire image can be in focus, or close to in focus. This makes judder much worse.

What projector here interpolates from 24fps to 60fps?

--Darin

Sorry, should have said 60fps or higher ;) Or maybe "high FI"

But I think the Optoma 8200 might.

Sorry, should have said 60fps or higher ;) Or maybe "high FI"But then it isn't true that all the frames are fake. 24Hz to 96Hz has 1/4th of the frames as real, at least according to the documentation for one or more of these projectors on how they work.

--Darin

With film based sources, judder is minimized because the background is generally out of focus, and our brains do not perceive the judder. With HD sources, often the entire image can be in focus, or close to in focus. This makes judder much worse.

Maybe with your brain, but not mine, I see judder all the time on film and hate it.

But then it isn't true that all the frames are fake. 24Hz to 96Hz has 1/4th of the frames as real, at least according to the documentation for one or more of these projectors on how they work.

--Darin

How technical is that documentation? Because I don't think that's true, the reason being the compensated frames have less blur and less noise than the originals, and you need to do the same to the originals or they will look out of place.

Most of the "documentation" I've seen for motion compensated FI, or just standard interpolation for that matter, just describe it as filling in points between existing ones, but that' not true, interpolation results in every point/frame being recreated. Now it's true that the ones that line up with original sample are very, very close to the originals.

How technical is that documentation? Because I don't think that's true, the reason being the compensated frames have less blur and less noise than the originals, and you need to do the same to the originals or they will look out of place.

Most of the "documentation" I've seen for motion compensated FI, or just standard interpolation for that matter, just describe it as filling in points between existing ones, but that' not true, interpolation results in every point/frame being recreated. Now it's true that the ones that line up with original sample are very, very close to the originals.
I'm not convinced that you're right. Just imagine a simple horizontal camera pan with 1 pixel per frame over a (still) scenery. All FI would have to do is to add an intermediate image with 0.5 pixel movement. FI would simply copy the frame and move it 0.5 pixels. So why would it have any less blur or less noise than the original frame? And even if that was the case, whenever I analyze bitrate starved Blu-Rays, I notice that some frames (usually I frames) contain grain and some (usually P/B frames) don't. In motion this obvious difference between the different frames is barely visible. So I don't think it's a problem if some frames have less blur/noise than others. If that is even the case with FI.

Maybe with your brain, but not mine, I see judder all the time on film and hate it.

I do too. I am just saying that it is worse on HD video.

I'm not convinced that you're right. Just imagine a simple horizontal camera pan with 1 pixel per frame over a (still) scenery. All FI would have to do is to add an intermediate image with 0.5 pixel movement. FI would simply copy the frame and move it 0.5 pixels.

That's all it would have to do, but it doesn't know that, all it knows is to analyze motion and compensate for it.

So why would it have any less blur or less noise than the original frame?

Because the noise (for sure) and maybe blur too, don't follow predictable motion like the rest of the detail/objects in the frame. This means the noise is "lost" in the process of compensating frames, because it's random and thus vectors can't be generated for it. FI has an inherent motion compensated denoise function to it.

That's all it would have to do, but it doesn't know that, all it knows is to analyze motion and compensate for it.

Because the noise (for sure) and maybe blur too, don't follow predictable motion like the rest of the detail/objects in the frame. This means the noise is "lost" in the process of compensating frames, because it's random and thus vectors can't be generated for it. FI has an inherent motion compensated denoise function to it.
You make it sounds like all FI implementations would first remove noise and blur and then create new frames based on the cleaned up frames. Maybe some FI implementations do it that way, but it surely is not the only way to do things. E.g. you could use the cleaned up frames only for motion vector calculations and then create the new frames based on the original non-cleaned up frames. Actually it would be quite easy to do it that way.

You sound very confident in your descriptions of how FI works in detail. Do you have exact technical information about the internals of all the various FI implementations out there? Or are you just guessing?

You make it sounds like all FI implementations would first remove noise and blur and then create new frames based on the cleaned up frames. Maybe some FI implementations do it that way, but it surely is not the only way to do things. E.g. you could use the cleaned up frames only for motion vector calculations and then create the new frames based on the original non-cleaned up frames. Actually it would be quite easy to do it that way.

That's not exactly what I'm saying. I'm not saying FI intentionally removes noise, I'm saying it's a side effect of the process. FI, AFAIK, is done by analyzing motion in the picture, generating motion vectors and then "moving" content around based on those vectors, and the relative position in the frame sequence from the original frames.

A side effect is that noise tends to get lost in the process because it is by it's nature random and thus isn't accounted for in the compensated frames.

You sound very confident in your descriptions of how FI works in detail. Do you have exact technical information about the internals of all the various FI implementations out there? Or are you just guessing?

Not all (of course), but I've played with MVTools (including MVFlowFPS, MVFlowFPS2) in AVI synth to do offline Frame Interpolation. There have been a couple threads in the HTPC forum about how to deal with film/3:2 cadence judder with AVISynth. MVTools is quite interesting as if you read up on it, it gives you some interesting insight into the principals (but not necessarilly implementation of) FI.
eg:
http://avisynth.org.ru/mvtools/mvtools2.html

That's not exactly what I'm saying. I'm not saying FI intentionally removes noise, I'm saying it's a side effect of the process. FI, AFAIK, is done by analyzing motion in the picture, generating motion vectors and then "moving" content around based on those vectors, and the relative position in the frame sequence from the original frames.

A side effect is that noise tends to get lost in the process because it is by it's nature random and thus isn't accounted for in the compensated frames.
I don't think the current FI algorithms try to "understand" every atom in the filmed scene in perfection and then calculate a new frame based on that physical information by using some kind of retracing or something funny like that. Instead I think the algorithms are a lot simpler. They try to find out which part of frame 1 is moving where in frame 2. Then in order to create frame 1.5, I believe the moving parts of frame 1 are simply copied. And I don't see how noise would go away by doing that. But even if it did, I still think it's not necessary to manipulate the existing frames. If the difference between the original frames and the intermediate frames is too big, the FI algorithm could (and should) do some more manipulations to the intermediate frames to make them more similar to the original frames - instead of dumbing the original frames down.

Not all (of course), but I've played with MVTools (including MVFlowFPS, MVFlowFPS2) in AVI synth to do offline Frame Interpolation. There have been a couple threads in the HTPC forum about how to deal with film/3:2 cadence judder with AVISynth. MVTools is quite interesting as if you read up on it, it gives you some interesting insight into the principals (but not necessarilly implementation of) FI.
eg:
http://avisynth.org.ru/mvtools/mvtools2.html
So let's get that straight: The available projector documentation describing how FI works seems to claim that the original frames are not modified. Darin and I also guess that the original frames are not modified. You guess different. Now that's 3:1 votes... :p

I don't think the current FI algorithms try to "understand" every atom in the filmed scene in perfection and then calculate a new frame based on that physical information by using some kind of retracing or something funny like that. Instead I think the algorithms are a lot simpler. They try to find out which part of frame 1 is moving where in frame 2. Then in order to create frame 1.5, I believe the moving parts of frame 1 are simply copied. And I don't see how noise would go away by doing that.

Well every FI I've seen, even those like the AVISynth ones where you can sort of see the guts of what's going on, look like the end result is denoised.

But even if it did, I still think it's not necessary to manipulate the existing frames. If the difference between the original frames and the intermediate frames is too big, the FI algorithm could (and should) do some more manipulations to the intermediate frames to make them more similar to the original frames - instead of dumbing the original frames down.

It depends on where your going. If you're going to an even multiple (120Hz) then you can do that, that's what MSU_FRC does. But if you're going to 60Hz from 24, none of the original frames are usable because the timing of the frames isn't right.

Well every FI I've seen, even those like the AVISynth ones where you can sort of see the guts of what's going on, look like the end result is denoised.
Can you step through the FI, frame by frame, on any projector or LCD display? Or are you saying that when you activate FI on a projector/LCD display, the end result looks (in real time playback) denoised to you compared to having FI turned off?

It depends on where your going. If you're going to an even multiple (120Hz) then you can do that, that's what MSU_FRC does. But if you're going to 60Hz from 24, none of the original frames are usable because the timing of the frames isn't right.
Agreed. But then doing 24 -> 60 is pretty stupid IMHO.

Can you step through the FI, frame by frame, on any projector or LCD display? Or are you saying that when you activate FI on a projector/LCD display, the end result looks (in real time playback) denoised to you compared to having FI turned off?

End result normally.

Agreed. But then doing 24 -> 60 is pretty stupid IMHO.

3:2 pulldown of 24->60 is what most people hate about film (at least that's my impression). So I see FI being more valuable in a 24->60 case than 24->120 where you can just do n:n pulldown to eliminate the judder without any of the nasty side effects.

3:2 pulldown of 24->60 is what most people hate about film (at least that's my impression). So I see FI being more valuable in a 24->60 case than 24->120 where you can just do n:n pulldown to eliminate the judder without any of the nasty side effects.
Using FI just to avoid adding n:n pulldown functionality to a display sounds pretty retarded to me. Any display manufacturer doing this should go out of business at once, please.

I don't disagree. ;)

I'll also admit that 300 was a horrible example of a director's intent to immerse. Most of that movie is probably closer to the scene in a typical gay bar than an accurate depiction of the Battle of Thermopylae.

Oh boy.:(

Art

... So I see FI being more valuable in a 24->60 case ...AFAIK there is not a single company that offers 24->60 FI.

DNM in WinDVD is. And I think DNM on the older Philips sets was. Fortunately we've got 120Hz/96Hz sets now.

Videophiles should accept and appreciate a well engineered frame insertion implementation. However, true filmophiles never will.

DNM in WinDVD is. And I think DNM on the older Philips sets was.
The Philips E-Box receivers did DNM as well. They accepted 480i input with 2-3 pulldown and produced 480p60 output with frame interpolation.

A Videophile sounds like someone I wouldn't want around my children...:)

Just watch the damn show and enjoy it!...For God's sake....:D

Can we agree on the following:
480i60 video deinterlaced to 480p60 is not FI. No new interpolated frames are created, the better deinterlacers will apply motion compensation to the progressive frames.

480i60 film source IVT to 480p60 is not FI. No new interpolated frames are created, existing frames are repeated via 3-2 pulldown.

DFI/BFI is not FI, No new interpolated frames are created.

Good high level description of Sony's DFI (MotionFlow) from a few years ago:

http://www.grobi.tv/system/galleries/download/downloads/GROBI-SONY-VPL-VW200-Motionflow-100hz.pdf

One could argue that without BFI you don't have the film look, flicker and all :D

A Videophile sounds like someone I wouldn't want around my children...:)

Just watch the damn show and enjoy it!...For God's sake....:D

So far I've had a 100% response of, "Hot damn! That's the best home presentation I've ever seen." That's because I'm so anal and make sure everything is 100% perfect. I do enjoy the show, but it took much time and effort to do so.

A Videophile sounds like someone I wouldn't want around my children...:)

Just watch the damn show and enjoy it!...For God's sake....:D

Do you go into car forums and tell those guys to stop obsessing over their cars as well? :rolleyes:

This is AVS...we're here to learn how to refine our HTs in order to obtain the most enjoyment from of them. Why are you here?

Can we agree on the following:
480i60 video deinterlaced to 480p60 is not FI. No new interpolated frames are created, the better deinterlacers will apply motion compensation to the progressive frames.

Agreed, but to add, while motion compensation is used, the source content already had 60 fps worth of information.

480i60 film source IVT to 480p60 is not FI. No new interpolated frames are created, existing frames are repeated via 3-2 pulldown.

Agreed as well.

DFI/BFI is not FI, No new interpolated frames are created.

Yup.

One could argue that without BFI you don't have the film look, flicker and all :D

I don't think you need B/DFI to have the film look. I know at 48Hz my DLP still looks like Film without B/DFI. Of course that's not to say that it looks exactly like a film projector either ;)

A Videophile sounds like someone I wouldn't want around my children...:)

Just watch the damn show and enjoy it!...For God's sake....:D

Why are you here, at an AUDIO and VIDEO forum?

Using FI just to avoid adding n:n pulldown functionality to a display sounds pretty retarded to me. Any display manufacturer doing this should go out of business at once, please.


Nevertheless, this is definately going on in the flatpanel businees. Several sets lack a 72/96/120 Hz mode, but has 24>60HZ FI. Sony, Philips and Samsung all have had sets on the market with such a setup. On these sets, one could argue that getting rid of 2:3 by doing FI, is no worse than having 2:3 inthere. However, both clashes with the idea of being a videophile, so that's basically an academic discussion. If you're a videophile, you should want neither.

It never seizes to amaze me how difficult it is for a lot of people to comprehend that film is not supposed to look like real life. If you don't like that Frank Miller is not at all trying to recreate real life, go watch some sports channels, or go outside and watch the friggin' reality, because then you basically don't like the movie. If you don't like the movie the way it its, don't watch it. And no, most film makers would NOT use a higher frame rate if they had the choice. On the contrary, a lot of TV shows are shot at 24 fps even though they could easily use 60 fps (or, in Europe where I'm from, 25 fps instead of 50 fps), quite simply because the producers think it looks better. Actually, I'm having a lot of issues with programs that were shot at 50 fps, and then converted to 25 fps to create a kind of film look, because the producers thought it looked too smooth (do this to interlaced recordings, and you end up messing everything up, but that's another story). So, if you like smoothing everything out to make it look "more real", be my guest. Just don't fool yourself that this is what the filmmaker would do if he could. Some would, but not many.

I was thinking about this thread some more. I'm not a videophile. I'd lable myself more as a movie buff. :)

Makes home theater life a little easier on me cost wise.

However, both clashes with the idea of being a videophile, so that's basically an academic discussion. If you're a videophile, you should want neither.

Is that by definition or by your interpretation?

It never seizes to amaze me how difficult it is for a lot of people to comprehend that film is not supposed to look like real life. If you don't like that Frank Miller is not at all trying to recreate real life, go watch some sports channels, or go outside and watch the friggin' reality, because then you basically don't like the movie.

I think thats a poor - even bordeline ignorant - example. First; i get that Sin City isnt supposed to look "real life", but i hardly think judder is an effect he was going for. Second; thats movie isnt the benchmark. There are tons of movies made to look much more "real" than that one.

In my opinion, its for the best we get options. I hope the technology matures and that it will become optional in all PJ`s. I havent had enough experience with it to say if i really like it or not myself though. At the very least, i find it interesting.

It never seizes to amaze me how difficult it is for a lot of people to comprehend that film is not supposed to look like real life. If you don't like that Frank Miller is not at all trying to recreate real life, go watch some sports channels, or go outside and watch the friggin' reality, because then you basically don't like the movie. If you don't like the movie the way it its, don't watch it. And no, most film makers would NOT use a higher frame rate if they had the choice. On the contrary, a lot of TV shows are shot at 24 fps even though they could easily use 60 fps (or, in Europe where I'm from, 25 fps instead of 50 fps), quite simply because the producers think it looks better.

I've noticed the same thing. The "bigger" shows all seem to be shot primarily in 24fps, stuff like CSI, Stargate*, etc. Every once in a while you'll see them change mid-show to video and back, and it's a kind of startling difference.

IIRC I think some of the Star Trek series were shot at 24fps except for the model/CG shots which were done on Video (30/60i).

So yeah, even if 24fps was chosen for "shaky" technical/financial reasons, it's something that's become ingrained in the motion picture production culture and I think it will last long past when it's no longer technically necessary for aesthetic reasons.

I think thats a poor - even bordeline ignorant - example. First; i get that Sin City isnt supposed to look "real life", but i hardly think judder is an effect he was going for. Second; thats movie isnt the benchmark. There are tons of movies made to look much more "real" than that one.

I disagree. There are countless "TV" productions that use 24fps completely by choice, even when higher frame rates are readily available. Using 24fps isn't something that can just be written off as being "forced" on creators.

I dont agree. I, like you, think 24fps has been ingrained in the industry. Its more just a standard than a choise for creators im guessing. The format yields no other benefits than presenting media in a way we have been used to watch it.

Im guessing producers are just scared of changing it. And they are right to be. Just look at the comments in this thread.

It never seizes to amaze me how difficult it is for a lot of people to comprehend that film is not supposed to look like real life. If you don't like that Frank Miller is not at all trying to recreate real life, go watch some sports channels, or go outside and watch the friggin' reality, because then you basically don't like the movie. If you don't like the movie the way it its, don't watch it. And no, most film makers would NOT use a higher frame rate if they had the choice.

Did not like 300, have not bothered seeing The Spirit or SinCity, etc... Not my cup of tea. So one less customer for Frank Miller movies of comics for grownups. I do however like MirrorMask by Dave McKean and Neil Gaiman.

I thought there were alot more differences than just frame rate between film and video, these other differences like gamma (especially shadow details and highlights), color (more natural less poster book), contrast (frequency response) and noise (film grain vs digital artifacts) might be a good reasons to choose film over video. As video is a poor relative to film on everything except fps. I think they have been trying to get video cameras to produce images that look closer to film camera quality for years. 24fps vs 48fps is still a choice based in part on production cost and cinemas being capable of showing the finished results. A chicken and egg situation. The introduction of sound forced frame rates to be increased, or people would still be saying <24fps was videophile. Now with digital sound the director can use frame rates lower than 24fps if they like, but most do not. Sound was a major inovation, Color was a major inovation, 3D might be a major inovation. Increasing frame rates is a incremental improvement, no extra bums on seats due to the hype of a few extra frames per second. If frame interpolation takes off in flat panels maybe DCI 2K 48Hz will be used for more than just 3D films or CGI films.

I can understand the dislike of frame interpolation especialy with detail enhancement, but not of higher frame rate sources. Since smooth motion can be achieved with >16fps the only benefit of higher frame rates is the ability to have a sharper - more detailed image with out inducing the perception of stuttering motion. I thought a sharper more detailed image was what all the excitment over high definition was about. Is not more better?


I don't think you need B/DFI to have the film look. I know at 48Hz my DLP still looks like Film without B/DFI. Of course that's not to say that it looks exactly like a film projector either ;)

I agree that dlp does not look like it needs frame interpolation or black frame insertion to solve sample and hold effect, as I do not see any sample and hold effect blurring on my dlp. But having learnt that modern displays do not flicker like film print projectors or crt tvs. How is Dlp 48Hz? Benq W5000 is a 5xspeed 7segment color wheel. The frame rate might be 24fps but if it is only showing each frame twice like a film print cinema 48Hz I would expect dlp rainbow city. 5 x 60Hz (the default speed of color wheels) is 300Hz. But the black periods would be for spoke time between each segment rather than between each complete frame, so 300Hz is way too low.

Is that by definition or by your interpretation?

That is my interpretation, sorry if that wasn't clear. As far as I am aware, there is no "official" definition of "videophile".



I think thats a poor - even bordeline ignorant - example. First; i get that Sin City isnt supposed to look "real life", but i hardly think judder is an effect he was going for.

I can't say for sure, but it is very possible that it was. As I said, a _lot_ of TV material is shot at 24 on purpose, to get the film look. It is indeed very possible that given the choice, Frank Miller would choose 24 fps rather than 60, and I happen to believe that it's "borderline ignorant" to automatically assume that he would choose 60 fps.

Second; thats movie isnt the benchmark. There are tons of movies made to look much more "real" than that one.

I didn't even mention that movie. But of course there are tons of movies made to look more real than Sin City, since that isn't _at all_ ment to look more real. Like I said, I will not rule out that there are certain film makers, Scorcese for instance, who would like to use a higher frame rate, but most of them would not. And that's not something I'm making up, this is what I have been hearing when asking people within the movie business about their opinion on frame rate. Of course, I haven't asked everyone, but then again neither have you.

For the record, years ago I was a strong advocate of FI, when Philips came out with DNM, for the same reasons that have been expressed here. However, the more I learned to see movies from an artistic point of view, the less I liked FI. Now, I hate it. I got smarter. So it's not a case of me just not giving it a chance, if anyone was wondering.

One thing that people seem to be missing here: If the film maker actually wanted to deliver higher frame rates to us, they could basically release films in 720P/60, or 1080i/60. They could even pre-FI the film if they wanted to.

In my opinion, its for the best we get options. I hope the technology matures and that it will become optional in all PJ`s. I havent had enough experience with it to say if i really like it or not myself though. At the very least, i find it interesting.

Oh, I agree, I see no fault in giving people the choice of FI, as long as I can get rid of it and as long as it doesn't take anything else away from the product to get it. What I would _seriously_ be offended at would be FI in a commercial theatre though. And I do think that we need to stop fooling people into thinking that FI means getting closer to director's intent. It is exactly the opposite, whether you like it or not.

I dont agree. I, like you, think 24fps has been ingrained in the industry. Its more just a standard than a choise for creators im guessing. The format yields no other benefits than presenting media in a way we have been used to watch it.

Im guessing producers are just scared of changing it. And they are right to be. Just look at the comments in this thread.


Then how do you explain that often here in Europe people shoot a show at 50 fps, and then convert it to 25 fps to make it "look right"?

Don't get me wrong, if a show or movie was shot at 50 or 60 fps and made to look right with that framerate, I would want it to be shown at that framerate. It's not like I want to force 24/25 fps onto stuff that wasn't shot that way. I'm just saying that whether by choice or by force, if the movie was shot at 24 fps, any decent filmmaker will be aware that this is the format they're using, and work with that format to make it look as good as they are capable of, WITHIN that format. Changing the FPS is interferring with that format, in exactly the same way as changing the aspect ratio. It changes the look of the film, and unless you have a sticker on the cover saying "please use FI on this movie if available", you should automatically assume that 24 fps is the best format to use for this film. If it so happens that the director wanted to use 60 fps but couldn't, that's just too bad. You don't get that choice, since 24fps FI'd to 60 will not give you the same result as if it was originally shot at 60 fps. The cinematographer may have chosen different shutter speeds, different effects etc. simply because of the limitations of 24 fps, and when FI'd it very often does NOT look "more realistic", it just looks wrong. You mess up the work that was put into the movie. If you like it, fine. But don't kid yourself, it's not what the movie maker wants you to do. I will repeat that until you can find 5 respected film makers that tells me otherwise.

Then how do you explain that often here in Europe people shoot a show at 50 fps, and then convert it to 25 fps to make it "look right"?

Don't get me wrong, if a show or movie was shot at 50 or 60 fps and made to look right with that framerate, I would want it to be shown at that framerate. It's not like I want to force 24/25 fps onto stuff that wasn't shot that way.

So what are you really saying? european film-makers screw up the framerate on purpose by default in a matter you dont prefer? Im sorry, i cant explain why.

Like I said, I will not rule out that there are certain film makers, Scorcese for instance, who would like to use a higher frame rate, but most of them would not. And that's not something I'm making up, this is what I have been hearing when asking people within the movie business about their opinion on frame rate. Of course, I haven't asked everyone, but then again neither have you.

Ill choose to believe you, but untill i hear their reasoning, im leaning towards dovercats chicken and egg explanation above, wich to me sounds much more plausible than adding judder as an artistic effect.

I do think that we need to stop fooling people into thinking that FI means getting closer to director's intent. It is exactly the opposite, whether you like it or not.
I haven't had a chance to really evaluate FI myself yet, so I'm in a neutral position right now. However, either claiming that FI gets us nearer to the director's intent or gets us further away is both just speculation and not fact. Directors do not have a choice at this point in time. If they had a choice, how many would choose a higher framerate than 24p? We don't know. Maybe none. Maybe all. Probably some would choose a higher framerate and others would choose 24p. Maybe 24p would remain the main framerate, with a higher framerate being the exception. But in any case, since directors don't really have a choice right now we can't really know the director's intent for sure.

Many TV shows being shot in 24p/25p may be an indication of what many directors prefer, however, their only alternative is interlaced. So the true reason for choosing 24p/25p could also be hate of natively interlaced recording. Or maybe they prefer the look of film, and AFAIK typical film cameras usually only support 24p/25p.

But apart from what I wrote above there's something else. There are 2 purposes to FI:

(1) Making motion smoother.
(2) Reducing motion blur caused by SAH.

It is clear that (1) is problematic. It makes movies look a lot different and although we don't know for sure for every director, there's a good chance that this goes against director's intent at least in some cases. So using an FI implementation which changes the look of film by making motion more smooth would be a bad thing to have always on in a commercial theater.

However, (2) is not problematic at all. In commercial theaters (with film projectors) movies are displayed with a shutter which helps a lot getting SAH down. With hold type projectors we have noticeably more SAH than we have in commercial theaters. So reducing SAH is definitely getting us nearer the director's intent. Which means that if an FI implementation were able to keep the film look, but still reduce SAH, that should be noted as a good thing in everyone's book.

Many TV shows being shot in 24p/25p may be an indication of what many directors prefer, however, their only alternative is interlaced.
720p60 is a progressive option.
In commercial theaters (with film projectors) movies are displayed with a shutter which helps a lot getting SAH down. With hold type projectors we have noticeably more SAH than we have in commercial theaters. So reducing SAH is definitely getting us nearer the director's intent.
DCI projectors have SAH in commercial theaters, so maybe SAH is the director's intent as well.

720p60 is a progressive option.
True, forgot about that! :eek:

DCI projectors have SAH in commercial theaters, so maybe SAH is the director's intent as well.
You don't mean this serious, do you? What comes next? If DCI projectors for whatever reason use single chip DLP, then suddenly the rainbow effect is the director's intent, too? :rolleyes: Come on. I think it's clear as day that *new* artifacts introduced by DCI projectors (which film projectors never had) can not possibly be the director's intent.

I haven't had a chance to really evaluate FI myself yet, so I'm in a neutral position right now. However, either claiming that FI gets us nearer to the director's intent or gets us further away is both just speculation and not fact. Directors do not have a choice at this point in time. If they had a choice, how many would choose a higher framerate than 24p? We don't know. Maybe none. Maybe all. Probably some would choose a higher framerate and others would choose 24p. Maybe 24p would remain the main framerate, with a higher framerate being the exception. But in any case, since directors don't really have a choice right now we can't really know the director's intent for sure.

We can get a pretty good idea from looking at TV productions. As mentioned a couple times. Productions for TV have the option to use 30, or 60 fps if they wish, yet most (aside from sitcoms and documentaries) use 24fps.

Many TV shows being shot in 24p/25p may be an indication of what many directors prefer, however, their only alternative is interlaced. So the true reason for choosing 24p/25p could also be hate of natively interlaced recording. Or maybe they prefer the look of film, and AFAIK typical film cameras usually only support 24p/25p.

Oh, and here's another one, how many people shoot home movies at 1080p24 now on their HD cams? I seem to recall at least one friend (don't have many with HD cams) commenting that they like 24fps better.

But apart from what I wrote above there's something else. There are 2 purposes to FI:

(1) Making motion smoother.
(2) Reducing motion blur caused by SAH.

It is clear that (1) is problematic. It makes movies look a lot different and although we don't know for sure for every director, there's a good chance that this goes against director's intent at least in some cases. So using an FI implementation which changes the look of film by making motion more smooth would be a bad thing to have always on in a commercial theater.

IMO, whether the director would have used a higher frame rate for a movie is completely immaterial. They didn't, and thus every choice they made is influenced by the 24fps frame rate. Messing with that is no better than Pan & Scan or colorizing.

People like P&S too, that's their perogative, but they shouldn't try fooling themselves into thinking FI'd result is "director's intent" any more than P&S.

However, (2) is not problematic at all. In commercial theaters (with film projectors) movies are displayed with a shutter which helps a lot getting SAH down. With hold type projectors we have noticeably more SAH than we have in commercial theaters. So reducing SAH is definitely getting us nearer the director's intent. Which means that if an FI implementation were able to keep the film look, but still reduce SAH, that should be noted as a good thing in everyone's book.

But 2 can be eliminated without FI by the use of D/BFI and n:n pulldown.

But 2 can be eliminated without FI by the use of D/BFI and n:n pulldown.
It can be reduced by D/BFI - on the cost of (a) added flickering and (b) light loss. If you try to keep flickering and light loss at a minimum, the SAH reduction suffers. D/BFI adds new problems. It's still a good solution IMHO. But:

If there was a clever FI variation which only reduced SAH without changing the look of film, what would there be left to complain about? I'm not saying that such an FI variation exists. Maybe it doesn't, maybe it never will. But we don't know that for sure.

However, (2) is not problematic at all. In commercial theaters (with film projectors) movies are displayed with a shutter which helps a lot getting SAH down. With hold type projectors we have noticeably more SAH than we have in commercial theaters. So reducing SAH is definitely getting us nearer the director's intent. Which means that if an FI implementation were able to keep the film look, but still reduce SAH, that should be noted as a good thing in everyone's book.

Films use 24fps x 2 = 48Hz despite >16fps being enough for smooth motion and 24fps originally being needed for sound. Because the viewers flicker threshold is about 40-60Hz depending on image brightness. Cinemas are dark so can get away with 48Hz. Below 30Hz is going to always cause viewers to see flickering, and in early cinema they did, so I guess some would argue the directors intent of those early films was destroyed by technical improvements removing the flicker. The length of the first shutter blanking period between frames is dictated by the mechanical operation of the projector advancing the frame, the length of the second shutter blanking period has to be the same as the first, to reduce the perception of flickering. Sample and hold motion blurring was viewed as a price worth paying being the lesser of two evils, but some talk as if it was an artistic objective and worth protecting for the sake of artistic integrity.

Should early black and white silent films have added flicker to make them truer to the original movie theater experience? If 3D is successful this time, and takes off as a home format. Would people be opposed to old 3D analgraph films being remastered using modern techniques. Would it be seen as a betrayal of the directors original artistic vision?

I was going to post this earlier but now seems like a good time as the conversation has finally shifted to what I was going to point out.

I think this thread shows more about peoples' cultural bias of Movie = 24 fps film than it does about FI. We have all had a lifetime of experience where Movie = 24 fps film and you can see from the comments that it is more about that bias. "FI just looks wrong" "I know when it is incorrect", etc. I understand where this comes from because I have seen these TVs and that is the first bunch of thoughts that pop into my head. However I recognize that is my personal bias and not some carved in stone rule that says all movies must be 24 fps film or it is wrong and loses all artistic integrity.

Don't believe you have a bias? How many of you consider movies like The Godfather or 2001 A Space Odyssey to be films, movies like Armageddon and The Day After Tomorrow to be popcorn movies and shows like Friends and Seinfeld to be TV shows? Since when did the medium become the indicator of quality considering every one of them was shot on 24 fps film? My biggest frustration is that the elites in the industry (not deragotory but those in control of such decisions) are still stuck in the mindset of using 1940's film technology when so much more is available today. I don't think I will still be around when the young of today, who don't have such a bias towards "the film look" finally get in charge and we start to see some real improvements and options like high frame rates and more natural color spaces and gray scales many years into the future.

I am willing to be that those who hate FI would be complaining about how bad a movie looked because of FI if they were shown a movie in a theater on a digital projector they were told had FI but the movie was actually shot 60 fps and no FI was used.

I think this thread shows more about peoples' cultural bias of Movie = 24 fps film than it does about FI. We have all had a lifetime of experience where Movie = 24 fps film and you can see from the comments that it is more about that bias. "FI just looks wrong" "I know when it is incorrect", etc. I understand where this comes from because I have seen these TVs and that is the first bunch of thoughts that pop into my head. However I recognize that is my personal bias and not some carved in stone rule that says all movies must be 24 fps film or it is wrong and loses all artistic integrity.

I don't completely agree. Even with FI on 60i/p content, FI looks "wrong" a lot of the time. As was pointed out earlier, something is often not quite right
with "FI'd" motion, perhaps due to using a simplistic linear interpolation rather than something more advanced (like spline interpolation).

Don't believe you have a bias? How many of you consider movies like The Godfather or 2001 A Space Odyssey to be films, movies like Armageddon and The Day After Tomorrow to be popcorn movies and shows like Friends and Seinfeld to be TV shows? Since when did the medium become the indicator of quality considering every one of them was shot on 24 fps film?

Oh, I know that (given what I've seen, eg with TV shows that switch between film/video in an episode) that for fictional content, I prefer the "unreality" of film.

But I do believe it's possible to separate biases from a more objective discussion of FI's (de)merit's regarding film content.

It's just like the argument about Original Aspect Ratio vs Pan & Scan, we've all got our biases/preferences in that area too. Some prefer having their 16:9 TVs filled, while some prefer the wider presentation of scope. But regardless, most serious viewers agree that OAR is the way to go.

My biggest frustration is that the elites in the industry (not deragotory but those in control of such decisions) are still stuck in the mindset of using 1940's film technology when so much more is available today. I don't think I will still be around when the young of today, who don't have such a bias towards "the film look" finally get in charge and we start to see some real improvements and options like high frame rates and more natural color spaces and gray scales many years into the future.

I don't agree, I don't think it's as simple as the "elites" holding the industry back. We've been using the example a few times lately, but go look at TV shows. Look at all the fictional TV shows produced today, in a world full of 60fps capable cameras, and delivery systems also capable of of 60fps.

How many are "making use" of 60 fps? Few in my experience. This to me appears to be 100% a creative choice to use 24fps to create a certain aesthetic, not something forced down by the "elites".

I am willing to be that those who hate FI would be complaining about how bad a movie looked because of FI if they were shown a movie in a theater on a digital projector they were told had FI but the movie was actually shot 60 fps and no FI was used.

Until we start seeing significant content made in 60fps or higher, we won't really know how those who appreciate film's attributes will react.

It's a very hard question to answer without actually seeing it. "Video" has a very different look to film, and I think it would require different choices be used in the creation of the content to make it work for fictional/surreal content. That's one problem wtih FI, it doesn't account for that.

Sort of like 3D or color, certainly the creator has to make different choices to make those work well vs 2D/B&W, different choices would be needed for 60fps vs 24fps. So I reserve final judgment on "high frame rate" motion pictures until I see a few.

As I've said many times already, the question of whether to FI is a "good" think to use on 24fps content is an entirely different question from whether high frame rates could/should be used for motion pictures.

I don't agree, I don't think it's as simple as the "elites" holding the industry back. We've been using the example a few times lately, but go look at TV shows. Look at all the fictional TV shows produced today, in a world full of 60fps capable cameras, and delivery systems also capable of of 60fps.

How many are "making use" of 60 fps? Few in my experience. This to me appears to be 100% a creative choice to use 24fps to create a certain aesthetic, not something forced down by the "elites".

I think you just proved my point. With so many directors/producers out there creating so many TV shows, you would think that some of them would use 60fps or 30fps but they don't. I really, really doubt "everyone" thinks 24 fps film is the best way to shoot a show. There has got to be an edict coming down from above or those shooting it are still stuck with the bias that "it just doesn't look right" if it isn't 24 fps film.

So it's a giant conspiracy to "crapify" our video content? :rolleyes:

You don't mean this serious, do you? What comes next? If DCI projectors for whatever reason use single chip DLP, then suddenly the rainbow effect is the director's intent, too? :rolleyes: Come on. I think it's clear as day that *new* artifacts introduced by DCI projectors (which film projectors never had) can not possibly be the director's intent.
I don't know what each director's intent is. Maybe it is flicker, or maybe it is SAH, or both. Maybe it is scratches and other film print artifacts (a la Grindhouse).

Most every film you see will have been "proofed" on a variety of displays. It will have been proofed on DCI machines, film machines, CRT TVs, maybe even LCD and plasma panels.

One think you can be pretty sure of is that it was never checked/proofed/QC'd on anything with FI enabled.

Ill choose to believe you, but untill i hear their reasoning, im leaning towards dovercats chicken and egg explanation above, wich to me sounds much more plausible than adding judder as an artistic effect.

I know a local film director, I can get him to chime in. But once again, the best example I can give you of people deliberately adding judder, is content recorded at 50 fps converted to 25 fps before broadcast. This is a deliberate, artistic choice, whether you like it or not. If you can't explain why they are doing it, maybe it's because your notion that film makers would generally use higher frame rates if they could, is wrong.

I think you just proved my point. With so many directors/producers out there creating so many TV shows, you would think that some of them would use 60fps or 30fps but they don't. I really, really doubt "everyone" thinks 24 fps film is the best way to shoot a show. There has got to be an edict coming down from above or those shooting it are still stuck with the bias that "it just doesn't look right" if it isn't 24 fps film.

Or, perhaps, they're right and it DOESN'T look right if it isn't 24 fps? If you want to recreate reality, yes higher fps's would be needed. But even game shows is often toned in a certain way, to create some obscure fairytale-reality rather than made to make you think you were there. Lowering the frame rate helps your brain interpret what you're seeing as something artificial, not reality, and this is most of the time actually what they are trying to achieve, like it or not. I've had a _lot_ of people who are by no means videophiles, and completely ignorant to how stuff is being recorded (and have never heard of 24 fps) say that the picture on their new FI'ing flatscreen looks "odd", looks "too real", looks like "behind-the-scenes footage" etc. I've had people not buy sets that do this, until you tell them they can turn it off. Of course, I've also met a lot of people who loves FI and don't want to live without it. But basically an FI'ed image looks wrong to a lot of people, not just videophiles or dinosaur movie makers.

I know a local film director, I can get him to chime in. But once again, the best example I can give you of people deliberately adding judder, is content recorded at 50 fps converted to 25 fps before broadcast. This is a deliberate, artistic choice, whether you like it or not. If you can't explain why they are doing it, maybe it's because your notion that film makers would generally use higher frame rates if they could, is wrong.

Broadcast 50fps is usually interlaced. It maybe de-interlaced before digital compression.

Since you obviously mean 50fps progressive I will hazard a guess as to why.

I expect the reason 50fps progressive is used in recording is to get the best compromise picture quality on standard and high definiton. A 50fps progressive source can be converted to standard definition pal 50fps interlaced with the need for less pre-smoothing to remove line twitter, than a 25fps progressive source. The 50fps progressive source can also be conveted to 25fps progressive for high definition broadcast tv. The reason it is not kept at 50fps progressive for high definition broadcast I expect is at least partly due to bit-rates. Broadcasters may view sports coverage as needing/deserving higher frame rates and bit rates, but if 24fps is good enough for a Hollywood blockbuster it is going to be seen as good enough for a TV program. Keeping it at 50fps progressive but starving it of bit-rate is going to get a worse picture quality than using 25fps. Viewers expect high definition to have a detailed image, and I expect are more likely to complain if the image looks blocky or soft, than if the movement is not smooth.

I do not know about high definition progressive broadcasts, but for standard definition satellite tv stations in the UK starving bit-rates is the norm. Broadcasters do not like wasting bit-rates. For the main UK terrestial digital tv channels goverment legislation dictates resolution and bit-rates, so the public is not put off the digital switch over by a noticeable drop in picture quality.

If 50fps progressive to 25fps progressive conversion is done for purely artistic reasons would not recording the original material at 25fps make more sense in emulating the film look. The 50fps recording has higher temporal resolution, turning it into 25fps progressive is going to be more complicated than just dropping every other frame, unless the aim is to create motion artifacts. I assume the shutter time on a 50fps progressive camera is going to be faster than on a 25fps progressive camera. So displaying the end results at 25fps progressive might get you a sharper image with more motion judder then using a 25fps progressive camera.

Or, perhaps, they're right and it DOESN'T look right if it isn't 24 fps?
I contend that is a lifetime of bias. Soap Operas are quite popular and they don't use 24 fps film and no one is complaining "It looks like a behind the scenes video". They don't complain because that is what a lifetime of experience has told them it should look. If they went to 24 fps film people would notice that it doesn't look right.

So it's a giant conspiracy to "crapify" our video content?
Nice ignorant comment. It isn't a conspiracy. It is more likely a bias and also self-defense to protect a lifetime of experience using film that they worry might not translate as well to high frame rate digital. Studios may also not want to fight the public's bias when they hear so many people think that higher fps doesn't look right and just go with what has worked for the last 60 years. Why risk having a movie tank just because a majority of the people don't like the way it looks when compared to all other movies? Plus digital can always be downgraded to give the 24 fps, grainy, and shouldered 12-13 bit contrast of film instead of noiseless 16+ bit linear contrast possible with digital. All the benefits of the cost reductions and eco-friendly advantages from not using film with the ability to look just like it. A total digital system from recording to display but still having the same film look we all know and are resistant to move away from.

So far I've had a 100% response of, "Hot damn! That's the best home presentation I've ever seen." That's because I'm so anal and make sure everything is 100% perfect. I do enjoy the show, but it took much time and effort to do so.

I get the same response as you do. :)

I have a dedicated batcave, with a 9 foot screen and a 1080p PJ, but I'm sure your equipment is superior to mine. Not too many people have seen front projection setups in dark rooms outside of the theatre, so they have no frame of reference. (On the subject of theatres, I am usually disappointed in the contrast, and clarity, of the picture since going to front projection in my home 6 years ago.)

My take on FI is that I welcome new technology. I think it can enhance video, or CG, based content. However, I would only want 24p to be smoothed out a bit, or I would not use it for that. As long as it can be disabled, I don't believe anyone should make too big a fuss over it.

Truth be told, nothing we watch is in the exact same format as when it was originally displayed. It has been altered or compressed in some way or another.

I contend that is a lifetime of bias. Soap Operas are quite popular and they don't use 24 fps film and no one is complaining "It looks like a behind the scenes video". They don't complain because that is what a lifetime of experience has told them it should look. If they went to 24 fps film people would notice that it doesn't look right.


Nice ignorant comment. It isn't a conspiracy. It is more likely a bias and also self-defense to protect a lifetime of experience using film that they worry might not translate as well to high frame rate digital. Studios may also not want to fight the public's bias when they hear so many people think that higher fps doesn't look right and just go with what has worked for the last 60 years. Why risk having a movie tank just because a majority of the people don't like the way it looks when compared to all other movies? Plus digital can always be downgraded to give the 24 fps, grainy, and shouldered 12-13 bit contrast of film instead of noiseless 16+ bit linear contrast possible with digital. All the benefits of the cost reductions and eco-friendly advantages from not using film with the ability to look just like it. A total digital system from recording to display but still having the same film look we all know and are resistant to move away from.

I tend to agree bias plays a big part aswell.

I contend that is a lifetime of bias.

So what if it is?

Soap Operas are quite popular and they don't use 24 fps film and no one is complaining "It looks like a behind the scenes video". They don't complain because that is what a lifetime of experience has told them it should look. If they went to 24 fps film people would notice that it doesn't look right.

I frankly doubt that.

Nice ignorant comment. It isn't a conspiracy.

That's what your posts sound like.

It is more likely a bias and also self-defense to protect a lifetime of experience using film that they worry might not translate as well to high frame rate digital. Studios may also not want to fight the public's bias when they hear so many people think that higher fps doesn't look right and just go with what has worked for the last 60 years. Why risk having a movie tank just because a majority of the people don't like the way it looks when compared to all other movies?

So what's wrong with that? If people prefer the slightly "unreal" look of film for fictional, escapist entertainment? What's wrong with that?

So what's wrong with that? If people prefer the slightly "unreal" look of film for fictional, escapist entertainment? What's wrong with that?

For escapist entertainment computer games seem to be more popular or at least more profitable than film. They have sharp motion detail and high frame rates, not blurry motion detail and low frame rates like film. So I think attitudes towards picture quality will change.

The major poblem with higher frame rates with a sharper more detailed picture in fast moving scenes, I think will be knowing where to look, keeping the viewers attention where the director wants it, and motion sickness. For computer games the player controls the action so these are not so much of a problem. Likewise with sports viewing the viewer is normally following the ball. But with film action scenes it gets more complicated. A recent reviewer of the Avatar demo (3D CGI 48fps) complained fast moving scenes where confusing, jarring, too much happening too fast.

You could be right - some of the viewers of Fridays preview complained of motion sickness too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8214078.stm

I went to the world's first screening at the BFI Imax, and I felt sick watching the 3D footage. The use of stereoscopic 3D and the CGI motion-capture does not work well with Cameron's swooping, jerky camera movements. It feels like you're riding a simulator rather than viewing a film. That said, the visuals are fantastic - a real leap forward in film-making technology.
Seb King, London, UK

Gary

For escapist entertainment computer games seem to be more popular or at least more profitable than film. They have sharp motion detail and high frame rates, not blurry motion detail and low frame rates like film. So I think attitudes towards picture quality will change.

But you are personally involved in a game, a games purpose is to place you in the center of the action. Contrast that with a movie where you are (generally) a passive observer.

Gary's quote is somewhat enlightening as well:
It feels like you're riding a simulator rather than viewing a film.

This is, IMO the central issue with FI. The way movies are shot on 24fps film is different than is required for high frame rates. I'm not saying you can't make good movies at high frame rates, but I think it will take time to learn the new tricks and techniques necessary to make it work as well as the time tested techniques used with 24fps film. Creators will need to learn how to make use of higher frame rates without making it seem like a cheap ride/gimmick.

So what's wrong with that? If people prefer the slightly "unreal" look of film for fictional, escapist entertainment? What's wrong with that?

Nothing, it's kept me off IV drugs for years.;):D

Art

This is, IMO the central issue with FI. The way movies are shot on 24fps film is different than is required for high frame rates. I'm not saying you can't make good movies at high frame rates, but I think it will take time to learn the new tricks and techniques necessary to make it work as well as the time tested techniques used with 24fps film. Creators will need to learn how to make use of higher frame rates without making it seem like a cheap ride/gimmick.

I agree 100%

Nothing, it's kept me off IV drugs for years.;):D

Art

Interesting qualifier.

;)

Is there any (downloadable) content out there which is NOT tv-material 60fps? So a 2:35:1 .mkv movie or something like that? I would like to see how this looks like.

It has been well established that 24 frames per second became the standard not because it was the best, or even because it was the best compromise, but because it was the MINIMUM that could be comfortably viewed by the average movie goer with the equipment available at the time. That, in and of itself, doesn't make FI good..........................or bad, but there is nothing special about 24fps or the experience it provides, so if modern technology can create alternatives I'm all for exploring them. (especially if they can be truly turned on or off at the viewer's discretion).

Dick Fogg


QFT

The only reason people like 24 fps is because we grew up with it and our brains are programmed to think 24 fps = cinematic, 60 fps = documentary.

QFT

The only reason people like 24 fps is because we grew up with it and our brains are programmed to think 24 fps = cinematic, 60 fps = documentary.

There is some truth to that but I don't think it is the whole truth.

There is still the subject of what the artist/craftsperson wishes to achieve and the general effect of how an image looks to the viewer.

In other words, high resolution still photography can portray a scene very realistically. Yet there may be many instances to prefer a painting of the same scene, which may not be as perfectly realistic, but which may put the viewer in a different state of mind. Or it may editorialise, artistically, about the scene, so the image isn't supposed to be simply "realistic" but is mediated by the artist. The mind can slip into another sort of world to accept the image in a way that isn't quite the case with the super-real photo of a scene.

In other words: People don't necessarily prefer a painting vs a photograph because "we all grew up thinking paintings = the way things are supposed to look." It's just the case that paintings tend to look different. And the painting may be preferred because it looks different than strict reality and this has some welcome effects for the viewer.

Likewise with film. There are lots of processes for shooting film that make it look different than HD footage or from "reality." (Not to mention the 24fps tends to give it away). The fact that it does can be appreciated not simply out of habit, but because it brings something a little different to the table than stark realism. While there are certain mechanical limitations to film (e.g. the low 24fps sample rate), there's still quite a range available in terms of the filmaker in terms of shooting for clarity and realism vs more artistic flourishes. If film making were simply going for clarity and realism, film-makers could be lighting and shooting and designing for the most realistic images possible. But very often they don't do that. We see via choices of film stock, lighting, printing (among many other choices) that film-makers often wish to mediate the image, artistically, rather than resort to the most realistic image they can produce.

(Which isn't to negate the pleasures of also having alternatives, like higher frame rates, HD-cam footage or whatnot).

Yes, the argument that 24fps is standard for movies only because we're "trained" to think that is drastically oversimplifying the situation IMO. It's been said before but movies, cinema (fictional at least) isn't about giving you a window to look through, it's about telling a story and immersing you in the story.

For me, high frame rates (video) make me feel like I'm looking through a window from my room into another (or outside), where as lower frame rates (film) allow me to completely forget I'm in my room and just become immersed in the story/action/environment.

Film doesn't transport me there, IMO it's better, it let's me "let go" and become immersed in the (often otherwise unbelievable) story unfolding before me.

There is some truth to that but I don't think it is the whole truth.

There is still the subject of what the artist/craftsperson wishes to achieve and the general effect of how an image looks to the viewer.

In other words, high resolution still photography can portray a scene very realistically. Yet there may be many instances to prefer a painting of the same scene, which may not be as perfectly realistic, but which may put the viewer in a different state of mind. Or it may editorialise, artistically, about the scene, so the image isn't supposed to be simply "realistic" but is mediated by the artist. The mind can slip into another sort of world to accept the image in a way that isn't quite the case with the super-real photo of a scene.

In other words: People don't necessarily prefer a painting vs a photograph because "we all grew up thinking paintings = the way things are supposed to look." It's just the case that paintings tend to look different. And the painting may be preferred because it looks different than strict reality and this has some welcome effects for the viewer.

A photo of a painting does not do the painting justice, a photo of the real world does not do the real world justice. Photos are extremely contrast compressed and have a more limited color pallet, they are flat like paintings but unlike the painter can not compensate for the fact that we do not see the world like a camera, are brains alter the size of objects we perceive and determines the distance they look to be. The painter may also be better skilled in creating a pleasing or emotionally evocative composition. Paintings are also often larger than typical photos and displayed in better viewing conditions and at a greater viewing distance. We recognize photos as photos not more real, put a photo on the wall and I am unlikely to try and walk through - into it.

If you are saying paintings maybe prefered to photos because they look less real and evoke an emotional response, then I think that has more to do with the ability of the artist to create the scene rather than being limited by having to replicate reality. For films I think that is more in the realm of composition of the scene, stage sets, costumes, makeup, lighting, etc... or using post production to alter the image. Films tend to have higher production values and bigger budgets with more highly paid talent than many TV shows.

If something is 24fps or 60fps its main effect is on moving object resolution, this strikes me as a very limited way of effecting the emotional impact of a scene. Would you view using a lower resolution in non-moving scenes as a good artistic method of improving films.
The benefit of motion blur is I think that it makes the viewer focus on the non-moving (in relation to the camera) part of the image, it directs you to look where the film maker wants you to look. This makes scenes with rapid movement flow more smoothly and less confusing. The lower resolution also makes special effects and the like cheaper as they do not have to fool the eye under close scrutiny.

The other usual differences between 24fps and 60fps are down to the difference between film and video. Film looks more real than video not less, video traditionally has a distinctive video look. Film looks better due to Gamma (especially shadow details and highlights), color (more natural less poster book), contrast (frequency response) and noise (film grain vs digital artifacts). Video may look more detailed (due to not having contrast - frequency response naturally rolling off at higher frequencies - smaller details) more colorful (due to poster book colors - over saturated colors the further you get away from white) and more in your face (due to having more rapid less natural compression of shadow detail and highlights) but that is not more real looking. Likewise commercial cinemas use a different gamma curve and larger color gamut than TVs, so produce a more real looking image. Video I think can look more striking, while film can look more natural, with video you are looking at it, with film you get immersed in it.

The lower resolution also makes special effects and the like cheaper as they do not have to fool the eye under close scrutiny.



This isn't true at all. Motionblur whether real or synthetic is very adept at complicating VFX work. Rendering convincing motionblur and matching it to real photographic elements is still quite tricky. Nailing the correct motionblur on cgi is critical to making it look realistic.

Yes, the argument that 24fps is standard for movies only because we're "trained" to think that is drastically oversimplifying the situation IMO. It's been said before but movies, cinema (fictional at least) isn't about giving you a window to look through, it's about telling a story and immersing you in the story.

For me, high frame rates (video) make me feel like I'm looking through a window from my room into another (or outside), where as lower frame rates (film) allow me to completely forget I'm in my room and just become immersed in the story/action/environment.

Film doesn't transport me there, IMO it's better, it let's me "let go" and become immersed in the (often otherwise unbelievable) story unfolding before me.

I agree to some extent with your immersion argument; however, I find FI does exactly that (is immersive) with music concerts that have been filmed live. This is were "being there" works and is immersive. FI also gives animation a much more "3D" look and again, for me and the people who watch with me, is very immersive. I find FI with normal movies distracting. I wouldn't buy a projector that didn't have this feature. Since most projectors with FI have different levels of engagement (aggression) one can "dial in" a certain "look" or just leave it off.

I think it looks silly and aweful and distracting.
Also, nothing like real life.
I think you can gather my vote from that.

I think it looks silly and aweful and distracting.
Also, nothing like real life.
I think you can gather my vote from that.

For all content? Including video based, and sporting events?

I agree if you are talking about film based content only.

Art

We can argue about whether or not the origins of 24 fps were imposed limitations or not. But regardless of the reason why it started, the fact is that at this time 24 fps is often used by artistic choice, intentionally, for visual effect. Grain isn't part of "real life" either and is an artifact by any definition, but just like grain, the artifact of 24 fps judder can be used as an aesthetic device. If it is, then it should stay.

Consider television HD shows like LOST that are intentionally shot with 24 fps cameras to produce 24 fps judder on purpose, rather than using "more real" 30 fps or higher HD cams. Whether the director chooses this because audiences are conditioned to respond to 24 fps judder a certain way or not isn't relevant to the argument: the fact that it's what the director wanted you to see if the overriding principle plain and simple. Just like with grain or altered color saturation or any other "artifact" an artist may choose to use for effect for whatever reason.

However, if a particular 24 fps source wasn't shot with the intention of 24 fps for artistic effect, I think that there's more room for adaptive processing on the display side. If the makers of Toy Story only chose 24 fps because they had no other choice given the necessity for theatrical release, but were intending to produce the smoothest motion that they could, then I see nothing wrong with frame interpolation to render the most "perfect" motion possible. If the makers of an IMAX film wanted their film to have the most natural motion possible, then interpolating frames is entirely consistent with that artistic intent.

If the makers of LOST wanted me to see 24 fps judder as part of their visual style, then it should stay as-is.

Just like grain reduction, it all depends on what the director intended. If it's there by design, it should stay there. If it's not there by design, then there's room for processing that attempts to better approach the optimal image that was desired by the creator, but not able to be obtained due to limitations of the medium that he/she would rather have avoided.

How do you know which is which? Beats me. Which is why I don't think that anyone should get religious about these things. As long as the blu-ray preserves the original format, warts and all, then consumers can choose to view the works of art "as is" to play it safe or can take liberties by processing in whatever way they feel is reasonable. As long as the source signal on the Blu-ray disc remains faithful to the original master in the vault, then everyone can have their cake and eat it according to their tastes, with no compromise to the original for those who wish to take no chances and view in high-fidelity to the original at all times. Those who care to modify an image for display in their own home theater to suit their tastes should be free to do so. As long as everyone is educated and informed about the art of film and makes their own informed decision, everything is fine.

Being faithful to the artists intent I think is going to become increasingly difficult in that the blu-ray discs, players and display are increasingly all trying to "enhance" the picture quality. Producing a striking picture quality consumers and popular magazine reviewers seem to prefer. With Blu-ray the hyper and colorfull look of discs that have been re-mastered with noise reduction, detail, contrast and color enhancement. Then some blu-ray players have their own noise reduction, detail, contrast and color enhancement, etc... post-processing built in. Then the display has a pile more enhancements and maybe an expanded/vibrant color mode.

Hopefully like the fad in hifi for graphic equalizers and digital sound proccessing modes adding reverb, delay, etc... It will eventually pass as viewers realize that strikingly different looking is not in the long run better looking or more engaging or enjoyable to watch.

For all content? Including video based, and sporting events?

I agree if you are talking about film based content only.

Art

In my opinion, yes for anything.
Video based content can look hokey enough.
For sports, there is so little blurring even to my eyes on a plasma that it certainly looks worlds better.

I think it looks silly and aweful and distracting.
Also, nothing like real life.
I think you can gather my vote from that.

I agree with you that the awful and distracting 24 fps motion judder has to go!! ;)

-Suntan

I’ll just throw in that I’m personally tired of the constant defense that “the director intended it to look like…” comments.

Sorry, but I (and all of you) constantly bellyache about stupid things in movies that the director, or someone, “intended” to be in there. Whether it is the completely hokey notion that a person can be thrown threw a couple of walls, yet their speed does not decrease at all while they travel. That Tom Cruise is supposed to look like a war weary, one eyed, one armed German. Or that a man and a woman are in what appears to be a dark cave with just a makeshift torch held by the man to light the scene, yet the woman seems to be perfectly rim lit…

Come on, movie making is not sacred. A lot of the movie “magic” is just tired old rehash, and the choice of film speed that the director chooses is fair game too.

Down with motion judder.

-Suntan

I agree with you that the awful and distracting 24 fps motion judder has to go!! ;)

-Suntan

This is the one thing that bothers me most when watching my new Samsung a900b. Even with 48 fps FI, the motion judder is, well, just very distracting.

On my Madrigal MP9 CRT, this was a very slight problem at worst.

No wonder 120 FI is so popular with so many.

I don't get why anyone would want to put up with it. In real life, healthy people do not appear to have some terrible neurological disease and window blinds do not jitter uncontrollably.

Or, maybe that was the director's intent
;-).

I guess a $6k+ processor is in my future.

I would like to see an anti-judder tech that detects only camera movement and smooths that, but leaves character movement alone.

What do you think? Is that possible?

Well, I sometimes love FI. I had been wondering why certain clips at the stores looked so real (the dreaded soap look), like I've seen a U-571 clip in the sub that seems to show up in many demos, that I really like with 120Hz FI on. It looks so immediate and real. I recently bought a 55" Samsung LED and I have been able to play with the FI settings. I think I really like it on when certain genres are playing. I really seem to like it with sci-fi, most action, and horror and of course "live" TV and animation. I don't like it with more "serious" fare, like drama, "period" pieces, comedies and just when it doesn't seem to visually suit the piece. I have an Epson projector right now and sometimes think I miss it when I'm watching, so yesterday, I ordered a new JVC HD550 which has FI.

Hmm, but I also saw Dark Knight then on a JVC HD350 (they didn't have the 550 in stock) and didn't mind no FI at all. It was gorgeous the way it was. I guess time will tell.

I would like to see an anti-judder tech that detects only camera movement and smooths that, but leaves character movement alone.

What do you think? Is that possible?

I have a Sanyo Z3000 projector and I believe its FI processor works exactly that way. I have been told by a source that I trust that the "low" FI setting just interpolates pans. The Medium and Hi settings work on progressively smaller areas of the image.

Dan

I have a Sanyo Z3000 projector and I believe its FI processor works exactly that way. I have been told by a source that I trust that the "low" FI setting just interpolates pans. The Medium and Hi settings work on progressively smaller areas of the image.

Dan

Fry's has a ton of new model tv's set up. I spent a bit of time with a 55" led unit that had fi on low and it was difficult to tell it was using fi. No soap affect, just clear on pans and motion. We looked at another display and when the characters were running the fi made their movements look a little "puppety". So, even on tv's, the tech is hit and miss.