Got mine today. So far, no known issues or problems. I'm very pleased with this pj. Yes, the handshake can take a while, but that is minor for me. I used Art's adjustments for Theater Black 1, but my calibration disk is in the mail and I look forward to doing a proper calibration.
Originally Posted by d james
I guess this is why so many directors choose 24 frames, since it does give that not quite reality look comapred to 60 frames and especially 120 frames. I wonder though if it is just because we are so used to seeing 24 frames that 120 doesn't sit right with alot of people.
I think you may have hit the nail right on the head...My 2 cents on Frame Interpolation:
I watched the opening scene of The Shining
on bluray. The camera pans across a lake and then over a forest, eventually zooming in on the car on the road. I was first of all impressed with the level of detail (water, forest) on the HD transfer for a movie this old and how good it looks on the Epson. With FI off, there was noticeable jerkyness in the motion (at least when sitting 9 feet from a 126" screen
). With it on, and with the PS3 set to output video as Art advised, the improvement was significant. What was really amazing, however, was watching the scene where Jack Nicholson goes for his job interview at the Overlook hotel. (I watched clips from several BD movies and this was the most pronounced) With FI on, there really was a "3D" aspect to the movie. My wife cares nothing about this stuff, but even she said "wow". However, as everyone else has noted, the FI creates a hyper realism that makes the movie look "shot on video". For example, in that scene where Nicholson is being interviewed, it reminded me of watching an interview on the Letterman show or something.
So, despite the advantages, we feel inclined to watch movies with the FI off. That seems to be the consensus here, although maybe we are selling ourselves short. I mean, techically, the quality of the presentation is increased when FI is on...at least in the sense that it is a closer approximation to reality. The problem is, we are completely used to watching movies with an artificially low frame rate that, in our minds, has come to represent "normal". I find it somewhat ironic that home theater enthusiasts often measure the quality of their setup by how close the projected image comes to approximating reality, but then when a new technology allows a huge leap towards
reality, it is almost universally rejected. Obviously, the "director's intent" argument immediately presents itself, but just how valid is that point? Remember that 24fps became standard for cinematic presentations in the mid 1920's simply because that was the technology available. Now, close to a century later, we are still using that standard despite huge advances in technology that allow for a much more realistic and accurate reproduction of reality..simply because we are "used to it". Arguably, directors nowadays who have the budget are forced to use either shoot on film or shoot digitally and convert to "filmlike" 24fps simply because it is expected
. Otherwise, they end up having their product look low budget or, at best, "experimental".
I have a lot of independent films, and the vast majority of them were shot on video due to budgetary constraints. I always wondered what it was that gave these films an "unprofessional" feel to them...and now I know! Unfortunately, I fear that part of my disdain for shot on video movies must come from their generally low budget nature. That is, movies that look "that way" are generally low budget, meaning they also are likely to have terrible acting and cheesy FX. Maybe if we simply watch enough quality movies with FI on, we will eventually overcome our largely artificial objections to the "shot on video" look, and maybe even come to prefer it for its increased realism and fluidity.