With all due respect to creaters and cinematographers, we appreciate your uniqueness. We understand you are artists with visions to convey and take great pride in them. You go to a sports bar and want to reach up to the set and turn off judder/blur? Why would you be compelled to turn off a process that enhances realism out of sheer disgust? Again, with all due respect, you sound like a spoiled child stamping his feet to get his way because self expression revolves around you, the center of the universe. Do that in reality and a bouncer will escort you to the door quicker than you can burp that last swig of beer.
The ball is thrown. He was in. No he was out. Without being there and seeing with our own eyes, we'll never know. Let's wait for the instant replay. Darn it, it's not clear! They have judder and blur turned off. It's up to what the ref saw. This game is rigged. Naw, it's just being presented as the league intended.
Their coming around the final turn, neck and neck. This is going to go all the way to the wire. Who won? Don't know, wait for the photo finish. Well, what did it look like to you? Don't know, that dude reached up and turned off smooth motion. Looks great though eh?
After reading further comments here, my thoughts wander. You've turned on interpolation motion enhancement and see things much clearer. Now you see apparant green screen scenes. You see obvious props. You notice things from the vhs/dvd/blu-ray days you never saw using your older display now that you've upgraded to 4k. The things you see now, you weren't/aren't supposed to see. These are production flaws. You can't stand it. The reality makes your eyes bleed. You discover your favorite actress has developed crows feet and the make-up didn't quite cover them up. You're furious. She's furious. You never saw that before. The algo guess work is clearly adding false information to those additional frames. You are told realism is bad and definately not how the creator intended it. You prefer the grain of film vs video to cover up those flaws, to set a mood and bring out artistic value. The bad guys spurs clank when the saloon doors swing open. He's a villin and that sob's name is SOE. You know exactly how to deal with him and bring your favorite actress back to life.
I get this feeling when a scene is/was shot, someone's standing there on the set looking around exclaiming how unconvincing the scenario mock up looks. Someone else taps them on the shoulder and says, not a problem. They'll never decipher it by the time it's on the screen. But then, we do. Disaster scenes don't look like disasters. They look like debri has been cleverly placed one piece at a time. Those bloody scenes of past that stick in your childhood memories were meant to do exactly that. Now that you view them more clearly today, they are laughable. Blood doesn't look like blood and that chainsaw doesn't have teeth on it. I can understand from these perspectives how motion processing/SOE could be unsatisfying.
I think some of this is part of the SOE complaint. You want to be fooled. When you aren't, you've been robbed of how the experience was intended. Perhaps low budget productions suffer the most and are the first to line up and convince you to blur your vision to get the full experience? I prefer to keep it real and look out a fog free window for exactly what the source actually is even if my display has to guess. That rapid frame machine gun pan is far from "acceptable". It's an insult to my eyes. I want to feel like I'm standing on the set when I'm viewing my display. Not in some drug induced coma that seperates fantasy from reality.