Why is the Soap Opera Effect Considered Such A Bad Thing? - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 357 Old 06-02-2011, 10:05 AM
Senior Member
 
CatBus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post
But I think for almost all of them, they're 24fps because that was the only option.
This was also the case for black and white film. So, by that logic, colorization's okay for films created before color film was widely available? It really is the same dang thing, and I disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post
Artistry was not a part of the equation. I'll bet a lot of directors would have chosen a higher frame rate if it was possible.
Again, all media are limited. Oil, acrylic, watercolor, film, doesn't matter. You often get forced to use the medium that's available. However, once you have this medium, the artistry is in working with those limits (or "character" to put it positively) to create art. Art is definitely part of the equation--had different frame rates been possible, different films would have been created, not just the same film with a higher frame rate.
CatBus is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 357 Old 06-02-2011, 10:40 AM
Senior Member
 
rschleicher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Danville, CA
Posts: 258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I've been following this discussion with great interest, and learning a lot. But I am still confused by the difference between "dejudder" and "deblurring", in terms of what the algorithms are doing. My LG set has separately-controlled settings for dejudder and deblur (within its Tru-Motion settings menu). Not only is it not that clear to me what the differences are, but both settings are settable on a 0-10 scale, and it is not at all obvious what is actually variable....

I understand the concept of frame interpolation algorithms. Given a frame rate of 24 fps, and a TV with a refresh rate of 120 Hz. (My set uses 5:5 pull-down, so with 24 fps content and Tru-Motion off (both dejudder and deblur off, I presume), each frame is repeated five times. With Tru-Motion turned on (dejudder? deblur?), presumably some sort of algorithm is used to change the four "repeated" scans, to interpolate between the prior and next frame. How well this works is dependent on the quality of the algorithm, since it has to basically guess as to how things moved in the intervening time period between frames. Part of the dislike of frame interpolation may be due to algorithms that don't work well.

I haven't played around with my motion-related settings much. Presently I have Tru-Motion turned on, but with the dejudder setting at a low value (2, FWIW), and the deblur setting at a medium value (5). I did notice some level of SOE-like appearance during the chase scenes of "Salt". I believe my BD player is set to output 24 fps content. I also have an option turned on called "Real Cinema", or something like that, which MIGHT also have some sort of over-riding effect on the Tru-Motion settings - my manual is not very clear on this point.

My thoughts on the larger debate (for what they're worth, as a semi-newb) is that faster frame rates for content should be beneficial, even if there is a difference from the traditional look of 24fps film. But artificially creating intermediary scans via an FI algorithm will always have risks, based on the quality of the algorithm used. Simple linear interpolation between successive frames may not be sufficient. Perhaps algorithms that look backwards (and forwards) more than one frame to make a smarter decision would provide benefit, at the expense of more delay. (I have zero idea how the current algorithms work - perhaps they already look at more than just the prior and next frames?). I DO think that part of the issue is just the change away from a look that we have become used to, and fond of. But at the same time, I can see that interpolation algorithms may have flaws, and that the better answer over time is to have a faster frame rate in the content. (Even though many don't like THAT approach, either.) As an aside, I always thought that the look of daytime soap operas on TV was more than frame rate issues - I thought it also had to do with lighting, set design, etc. Because it always has seemed to me that actual soap operas look different from night-time sitcoms and dramas, where presumably the same video equipment is used. But perhaps that is a wrong conclusion on my part...
rschleicher is offline  
post #183 of 357 Old 06-02-2011, 10:55 AM
Senior Member
 
CatBus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by rschleicher View Post
My LG set has separately-controlled settings for dejudder and deblur (within its Tru-Motion settings menu). Not only is it not that clear to me what the differences are, but both settings are settable on a 0-10 scale, and it is not at all obvious what is actually variable....
This is actually a huge problem. Few manufacturers explain what exactly is happening when you enable certain features. For example, one setting (we'll call it deblur) would just use dark frame insertion, and the only negative effect from this should be that the image may appear dimmer (and depending on the brightness of the set, making things dimmer can be an improvement in its own right). The other feature (we'll call it dejudder) will insert interpolated frames into the film to make the motion in films appear more like the motion on television shows.

Your best option is turn one off and crank the other one to 10, and see what it does to 24P content (a Blu Ray film). If the image goes all smooth and buttery you got interpolation. Then do the same for the other one. My recommendation is turn on dark frame insertion at a level that keeps the brightness you want, and turn of interpolation entirely.
CatBus is offline  
post #184 of 357 Old 06-02-2011, 11:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
serialmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by rschleicher View Post
I've been following this discussion with great interest, and learning a lot. But I am still confused by the difference between "dejudder" and "deblurring", in terms of what the algorithms are doing. My LG set has separately-controlled settings for dejudder and deblur (within its Tru-Motion settings menu). Not only is it not that clear to me what the differences are, but both settings are settable on a 0-10 scale, and it is not at all obvious what is actually variable....

I understand the concept of frame interpolation algorithms. Given a frame rate of 24 fps, and a TV with a refresh rate of 120 Hz. (My set uses 5:5 pull-down, so with 24 fps content and Tru-Motion off (both dejudder and deblur off, I presume), each frame is repeated five times. With Tru-Motion turned on (dejudder? deblur?), presumably some sort of algorithm is used to change the four "repeated" scans, to interpolate between the prior and next frame. How well this works is dependent on the quality of the algorithm, since it has to basically guess as to how things moved in the intervening time period between frames. Part of the dislike of frame interpolation may be due to algorithms that don't work well.

I haven't played around with my motion-related settings much. Presently I have Tru-Motion turned on, but with the dejudder setting at a low value (2, FWIW), and the deblur setting at a medium value (5). I did notice some level of SOE-like appearance during the chase scenes of "Salt". I believe my BD player is set to output 24 fps content. I also have an option turned on called "Real Cinema", or something like that, which MIGHT also have some sort of over-riding effect on the Tru-Motion settings - my manual is not very clear on this point.

My thoughts on the larger debate (for what they're worth, as a semi-newb) is that faster frame rates for content should be beneficial, even if there is a difference from the traditional look of 24fps film. But artificially creating intermediary scans via an FI algorithm will always have risks, based on the quality of the algorithm used. Simple linear interpolation between successive frames may not be sufficient. Perhaps algorithms that look backwards (and forwards) more than one frame to make a smarter decision would provide benefit, at the expense of more delay. (I have zero idea how the current algorithms work - perhaps they already look at more than just the prior and next frames?). I DO think that part of the issue is just the change away from a look that we have become used to, and fond of. But at the same time, I can see that interpolation algorithms may have flaws, and that the better answer over time is to have a faster frame rate in the content. (Even though many don't like THAT approach, either.) As an aside, I always thought that the look of daytime soap operas on TV was more than frame rate issues - I thought it also had to do with lighting, set design, etc. Because it always has seemed to me that actual soap operas look different from night-time sitcoms and dramas, where presumably the same video equipment is used. But perhaps that is a wrong conclusion on my part...
This is very easy to define. There is no magic. Judder is what comes from 24fps video. this is alleviated by using pulldown of the 3:2 and 5:5 variety.
For sony this is cinemotion. For LG apparently this is dejudder.

Next up is interpolation. Interpolation is used on LCD televisions to alleviate an issue with LCD technology called sample and hold. Because the pixels do not flicker or pulse like crt and plasma the frame is lit the whole time. This is perceivable by your eyes and brain. the result is that you see this as a "held frame and when the frame changes you see it as blur.
Sony calls this Motionflow, LG calls this deblur.

As to why there are 10 levels of dejudder and deblur for lg I cant answer.

There are many methods to fix this issue and all of them are brand specific because they are patented designs. They do this because they know when one of the manufactures get this right they can sell the patented fix for alot of money.

Interpolation is not for a hyper real look or for 3d. Its to alleviate an issue with LCD tech. I for one am happy they are getting really good at getting around sample and hold. Plasma they never bothered to fix flicker and it is one reason I went LCD.
serialmike is offline  
post #185 of 357 Old 06-02-2011, 12:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 46
I recognize judder, stutter, and blur as common video problems.

Judder occurs when Telecine is used to insert 24fps source film frames into a 60Hz ATSC video broadcast. There are two flavors, the Telecine algorithym must do different things when inserting the 24fps film into the 1080i60 broadcast, or the 720p60 broadcast mode. Likewise, the de-judder algorithym must reverse such processing and recover the original 24fps signal correctly for the 120Hz/240Hz/480Hz/etc. screen refresh. In the simplest form, "judder" is just uneven motion, and when an object is moving, it appears to slow down and speed up instead of proceding at a steady pace. People are not in my experience very sensitive to judder, because they have lived with it their whole lives - judder was present 100% of the time in the old analog NTSC televisions when displaying 24fps film source.

"Stutter" is the term I reserve for the problem that occurs solely because 24fps film is too slow to provide a convincing simulation of smooth motion. In a darkened theater, such stutter is hard to see. In a partially darkened residential room, its a lot easier to see, because the room lighting is softly pulsing at yet another frequency, the 60Hz powerline frequency. Many HDTVs actually sync up the backlighting with the powerline frequency to avoid such visible interaction - which is a technique borrowed from old NTSC television design. Frame Interpolation is the answer for this particular problem, and this problem alone.

Blur is the simplest to understand and the hardest to eliminate. Blur occurs because of the slow mechanical shutter of a film camera. When photographing in low light conditions, the shutter must remain open longer to fully expose the film. The movement that occurs when the shutter is open is blurred on the film. This can be every pixel in a camera pan, or just the leading and trailing edges of a moving object. Of the several blur reduction techniques, the one that works best IMHO is called "pixel swapping". In the current video frame, on the leading edge of a moving object, identify the area being covered by the leading edge as the object moves, then swap in the pixels from the preceding source frame, before the object covered them. On the trailing edge, as the pixels get uncovered, swap in the pixel values from the following source frame. This results in an object that is moving without the blur that is present on the source film, but also an object that is slightly contracted in length, because the blurred leading/trailing edges are missing from the final image.

Judder removal, aka reverse Telecine, and de-blur are present and enabled on many HDTVs, and relatively few offer the options to turn these features ON/OFF. Frame interolation is only present on 120Hz/240Hz/480Hz/etc. displays, and ALWAYS can be turned ON/OFF in my experience.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #186 of 357 Old 06-02-2011, 01:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
walford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 16,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialmike View Post
This is very easy to define. There is no magic. Judder is what comes from 24fps video. this is alleviated by using pulldown of the 3:2 and 5:5 variety.
For sony this is cinemotion. For LG apparently this is dejudder.

As to why there are 10 levels of dejudder and deblur for lg I cant answer.

There are many methods to fix this issue and all of them are brand specific because they are patented designs. They do this because they know when one of the manufactures get this right they can sell the patented fix for alot of money.

Interpolation is not for a hyper real look or for 3d. Its to alleviate an issue with LCD tech. I for one am happy they are getting really good at getting around sample and hold. Plasma they never bothered to fix flicker and it is one reason I went LCD.
When 24fps content is converted to 60fp using 3:2 pulldown frame rate Judder is created not eliminated since all frames are not displayed the same number of times. When 24fps content is converted to 120 fps using 5:5 pulldown no frame rate conversion Judder does not occure since all frames are displayed 5 times.
The difference in deblur levels allows the user to specify if only the largest objects have FI applied (de blur level 1) or FI is applied to all objects (de blur level 10) when FI is applied to all objects artifacts apear on the smaller objects and more processing time is consumed causing lag for gamers.
walford is offline  
post #187 of 357 Old 06-02-2011, 02:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
serialmike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post
When 24fps content is converted to 60fp using 3:2 pulldown frame rate Judder is created not eliminated since all frames are not displayed the same number of times. When 24fps content is converted to 120 fps using 5:5 pulldown no frame rate conversion Judder does not occure since all frames are displayed 5 times.
The difference in deblur levels allows the user to specify if only the largest objects have FI applied (de blur level 1) or FI is applied to all objects (de blur level 10) when FI is applied to all objects artifacts apear on the smaller objects and more processing time is consumed causing lag for gamers.
Got ya. BTW for ALL gamers. When you own an LCD you should use game pr pc or graphics modes. This turns off ALL interpolation and pulldowns.

These things will lag the set somewhere in the area of 30 to 60ms more than the baseline 30-50ms that lcd runs.
serialmike is offline  
post #188 of 357 Old 06-02-2011, 11:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

"Stutter" is the term I reserve for the problem that occurs solely because 24fps film is too slow to provide a convincing simulation of smooth motion. In a darkened theater, such stutter is hard to see. In a partially darkened residential room, its a lot easier to see, because the room lighting is softly pulsing at yet another frequency, the 60Hz powerline frequency. Many HDTVs actually sync up the backlighting with the powerline frequency to avoid such visible interaction - which is a technique borrowed from old NTSC television design. Frame Interpolation is the answer for this particular problem, and this problem alone.

Higher NATIVE frame rate is the solution to this "stutter" / low fps judder problem. MCFI is trying to solve sample and hold effect of LCD. Otherwise plasma would have introduced SOE inducing high MCFI as well.
specuvestor is offline  
post #189 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 01:06 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

This was also the case for black and white film. So, by that logic, colorization's okay for films created before color film was widely available? It really is the same dang thing, and I disagree.

I think this is a good point, I wouldn't really care to watch a colorized black and white film. Please note that I'm not exactly in the pro-FI camp (in fact the one time I saw it I didn't like it), I just don't get the argument that blur from 24fps is a feature rather than a bug.

My main question I wanted to raise is, isn't it possible that the directors of movies might actually not object to people watching their films with FI? Again, the example of Peter Jackson, who is shooting the Hobbit in 48fps, and Lord of the Rings.
Airion is offline  
post #190 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 03:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

Higher NATIVE frame rate is the solution to this "stutter" / low fps judder problem. MCFI is trying to solve sample and hold effect of LCD. Otherwise plasma would have introduced SOE inducing high MCFI as well.

High end plasmas DID introduce FI. Such as Pioneer's PureCinema function on Kuro's with 72Hz refresh. This allows you to feed 1080p24 source and view it at 1080p72, where 2/3rds of the frames are interpolated. Stutter is eliminated from film-source material when you do this. However, PureCinema is a lame implementation of FI because of the too-slow refresh rate of 72Hz. The real benefits of FI kick in with 120Hz refresh, because the video processor can seamlessly switch between 24fps, 30fps, and 60fps video sources without generating artifacts. Some Kuro's attempt to auto-switch between 60Hz and 72Hz refresh when they encounter mixed frame rates on ATSC broadcasts, but the cadence detection function is slow and generates motion artifacts.

As for your comments about sample-and-hold blur, they apply to very slow panels with 60Hz refresh. Sample-and-hold blur has been insignificant in LCDs since the introduction of 120Hz and faster displays. Unfortunately, the LCD specifications for pixel switching are not standardized and cannot be compared from one manufacturer to the next. Some publish gray-to-gray switch specs, some publish black-to-black, and even if two manufacturers say they are publishing the same spec, there is no standardized measuring procedure. Lastly, with different types of active matrix LCD panels in use, pixel response specs should only be compared within the same technology type.

Admittedly, there still are 60Hz panels in production and sample-and-hold is a problem with those. But no 60Hz panels are found on high-end LCDs.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #191 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 07:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

High end plasmas DID introduce FI.

Yes I know... that's what I posted previously But the point I keep stressing is that visually the brain can see a difference of say 1 interpolated frame and 1 real vs 4 interpolated with 1 real. But LCD needs more interpolation in order to change the crystals and reduce sample and hold (see below)

Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

Think a few plasmas do use MILD MCFI. The kuro uses it under the "smooth" option.

There is big perceivable difference between interpolating 1 fake frame for 1 real vs 4 fake for 1 real.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

As for your comments about sample-and-hold blur, they apply to very slow panels with 60Hz refresh. Sample-and-hold blur has been insignificant in LCDs since the introduction of 120Hz and faster displays.

I don't think this is correct. The gist of sample and hold effect is that (assuming NO MCFI) a single 24fps frame stays in the retina for 42ms irregardless whether it is a 24Hz, 48hz, 72hz 96Hz or 120Hz LCD. It means fps-multiple pulldown is useless for LCD unless u have strobing or BFI to emulate a pulse effect to remove the image from the retina. That is why LCD is perfect for STILLS. The liquid crystal stays stationary whether it is 24Hz or 120Hz LCD TV. However the plasma will pulse at the frequency and hence flicker is most obvious on stills.

It is a separate issue from response time. Check out this thread and explanations from xrox
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1285072
specuvestor is offline  
post #192 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 07:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
specuvestor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

My main question I wanted to raise is, isn't it possible that the directors of movies might actually not object to people watching their films with FI? Again, the example of Peter Jackson, who is shooting the Hobbit in 48fps, and Lord of the Rings.

Don't mean to target you but if u refer to my previous post, question like yours is exactly why people need to understand the difference between native and FI.

Hobbit being captured at 48fps or heck 120fps DURING PRODUCTION is very different from Hobbit being interpolated to 120fps.
specuvestor is offline  
post #193 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 07:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

Don't mean to target you but if u refer to my previous post, question like yours is exactly why people need to understand the difference between native and FI.

Hobbit being captured at 48fps or heck 120fps DURING PRODUCTION is very different from Hobbit being interpolated to 120fps.

Well aware of that. My original post referred to FI as "artificial," by which I think I indicated that I fully understand that it's different from native. At this point, how natural FI is or how many artifacts it produces appears to be under debate here. Of course there are tons of variables, including the particular FI algorithm of the display, user settings, as well as source material.

My sense is, given what I've read here, that given the right FI algorithm and the right settings, FI artifacts can be kept to a minimum. This seems acceptable to me. It's not native, but we have to draw the line somewhere. My projector is 1080p but I don't get upset watching 480p or 720p content upscaled. Theoretically at least, given time for the technology to mature, I think FI can be perfected.

So again, back to my question, what would Peter Jackson think of us watching Lord of the Rings with FI? Do you think he would approve, or would the fact that it's not native bother him too much? Obviously no one knows unless we ask him, but I think people are too quick to equate technological limitations with a director's intent and ideals.
Airion is offline  
post #194 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 09:35 AM
Senior Member
 
CatBus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

So again, back to my question, what would Peter Jackson think of us watching Lord of the Rings with FI?

I think "director approval" is a bit of a red herring. For example, George Lucas approves of Greedo shooting first. Vittorio Storaro approves of cropping everything he's done to a 2:1 aspect ratio. People can approve of major (and bizarre) alterations to their films and that's a little beside the point. My opinion is that Jackson is pretty laid back and would approve of people watching it through a fish eye lens if that's what floated their boat.

The point is, there is this movie trilogy called Lord of the Rings by Peter Jackson. It's shot at 24fps. A lot of people like it, and a lot of people don't like it. There is a subset of people who don't like it who, if the film is sent through certain digital processing, would start to like it. If you're in this camp, frame interpolation is for you. I suppose there are other digital processes you could send it through. You could sepia the whole thing for a vintage look, you could crop it to 16:9 (people do this; I've seen them). You could use 2D-to-3D conversion on your set. These are all more or less equivalent to frame interpolation, because you're intentionally trying to alter the film you're seeing (rather than the unintentional alteration you get from your standard home theatre practical compromises).

Let's say LotR was shot in 48fps. It would have been a different film. At the very least, action sequences would have been shot differently, pans would have been faster, per-frame motion blur would look different. And probably quite a lot more. The way things were shot in the actual trilogy was BECAUSE of the limitations/character of 24fps. Even if FI could convert a film to what it would have looked like if it were originally filmed at 48fps, which it can't, it still runs into this basic problem.

As for feature vs. bug, here's the best analogy I can come up with. Remember NetHack? It used a text interface, because it had to. People played it at the time and liked it. Now text interfaces are passe. Now let's say some genius came up with a way to convert text interfaces on the fly to 3D-rendered gesture-controlled interfaces. That would be pretty cool, and it may even result in a good game. The game you would be playing, however, would not really be NetHack. The text interface is a bug. Text interfaces are terrible. And yet it's an integral part of NetHack, so it's a feature too. If you don't want to play NetHack without the converter, then it's pretty safe to say that you don't really like NetHack at all.

Which is why I don't disapprove of the FI feature being available, only to its being on by default. TV manufacturers should assume you like the movies you're watching.
CatBus is offline  
post #195 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 09:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,173
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

So again, back to my question, what would Peter Jackson think of us watching Lord of the Rings with FI? Do you think he would approve, or would the fact that it's not native bother him too much? Obviously no one knows unless we ask him, but I think people are too quick to equate technological limitations with a director's intent and ideals.

in The 10th anniversary dvd of The Frighteners the movie starts with a Peter Jackson interview, the guy is nuts.
8mile13 is offline  
post #196 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 10:09 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

I think "director approval" is a bit of a red herring. For example, George Lucas approves of Greedo shooting first. Vittorio Storaro approves of cropping everything he's done to a 2:1 aspect ratio.

Maybe you don't personally like these alterations, but I don't think you can make the point that these aren't artistic, that they aren't the will of the director.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

The point is, there is this movie trilogy called Lord of the Rings by Peter Jackson. It's shot at 24fps. A lot of people like it, and a lot of people don't like it. There is a subset of people who don't like it who, if the film is sent through certain digital processing, would start to like it. If you're in this camp, frame interpolation is for you.

I am absolutely not in this camp. Lord of the Rings is my favorite film(s), 24fps and all. As such, I wonder if both Peter Jackson and I would enjoy it with smoother motion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

I suppose there are other digital processes you could send it through. You could sepia the whole thing for a vintage look, you could crop it to 16:9 (people do this; I've seen them). You could use 2D-to-3D conversion on your set. These are all more or less equivalent to frame interpolation, because you're intentionally trying to alter the film you're seeing (rather than the unintentional alteration you get from your standard home theatre practical compromises).

I think you're drawing with too wide a brush. There's no evidence that Jackson feels that sepia is an improvement, so that's moot. He does seem to like 3D though, so this is a good question. However, I think 2D to 3D conversion is a different beast as there's no way to accurately infer from a 2D BluRay what the dimensions originally were. Different teams come up with different 3D conversions. FI meanwhile works on what I think is comparatively hard data. So I think they're less, rather than more, equivalent to FI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

Let's say LotR was shot in 48fps. It would have been a different film. At the very least, action sequences would have been shot differently, pans would have been faster, per-frame motion blur would look different. And probably quite a lot more. The way things were shot in the actual trilogy was BECAUSE of the limitations/character of 24fps. Even if FI could convert a film to what it would have looked like if it were originally filmed at 48fps, which it can't, it still runs into this basic problem.

I don't see why this is a problem. Yes, if it was shot in 48fps then some shots might have been more ambitious with motion. I don't understand why this would mean that the original scenes would be hurt by smoother motion.
Airion is offline  
post #197 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 10:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

in The 10th anniversary dvd of The Frighteners the movie starts with a Peter Jackson interview, the guy is nuts.

Never seen that film nor the DVD so you're leaving me in the dark. Seriously guys, I'm opened minded about this, but I feel like I'm not getting any convincing answers to my question, just deflections.
Airion is offline  
post #198 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 10:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,173
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus; View Post

I think "director approval" is a bit of a red herring. For example, George Lucas approves of Greedo shooting first. Vittorio Storaro approves of cropping everything he's done to a 2:1 aspect ratio. People can approve of major (and bizarre) alterations to their films and that's a little beside the point.

In the dvd releases of THX1138 and Star Wars scenes were added, we see stuff like this a lot - directors approve extended versions, censored versions, director cut etc...., for a purist this would mean that we are no longer looking at the original movie and its original frames, this is not that much different from FI because when adding frames you also are no longer looking at the original framed movie.
8mile13 is offline  
post #199 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 10:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,173
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Never seen that film nor the DVD so you're leaving me in the dark. Seriously guys, I'm opened minded about this, but I feel like I'm not getting any convincing answers to my question, just deflections.

Its a must see movie.
8mile13 is offline  
post #200 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 10:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Its a must see movie.

Fair enough
Airion is offline  
post #201 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 10:52 AM
Senior Member
 
CatBus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Maybe you don't personally like these alterations, but I don't think you can make the point that these aren't artistic, that they aren't the will of the director..

I wasn't saying they weren't artistic or the will of the director, I was saying the will of the director is pretty much irrelevant once the film is completed. If they come back later and release a Director's Cut (or EE), I don't pretend that's the same movie. It's a totally different movie which may be better or worse than the original.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I am absolutely not in this camp. Lord of the Rings is my favorite film(s), 24fps and all. As such, I wonder if both Peter Jackson and I would enjoy it with smoother motion.

Okay maybe I was a little black-and-white there. You may like the films a lot, but still be bugged by the 24fps character, and that may justify altering the films. The real question is, did 24fps always bug you for every movie you ever watched? If not, I suspect there may be a social factor contributing, a.k.a. a "fad".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I think you're drawing with too wide a brush. There's no evidence that Jackson feels that sepia is an improvement, so that's moot. He does seem to like 3D though, so this is a good question.

There's no evidence Jackson feels 48fps or 3D is an improvement for LotR. Some directors shoot in black and white for some movies and color for others, and not because it's the only technology available at the time. Woody Allen, the Coen Brothers, etc. It doesn't mean either is a better tech for all films. Jackson shooting the Hobbit in 48fps and 3D doesn't mean anything at all for LotR. If Jackson decided his next film would be in black-and-white, does that mean we should start watching LotR in black-and-white?

The film is what it is. Altering it is altering it. You can like it either way and that's fine but you can't alter it and then say it's not really an alteration because of some external factor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

However, I think 2D to 3D conversion is a different beast as there's no way to accurately infer from a 2D BluRay what the dimensions originally were. Different teams come up with different 3D conversions. FI meanwhile works on what I think is comparatively hard data. So I think they're less, rather than more, equivalent to FI.

...as is sepia conversion. The point is not the predictability of the results of the alteration, it's the alteration itself. You may like smooth motion. Jackson may like smooth motion. The only wrinkle is that these movies do not have smooth motion.

We're not really in disagreement if you can say: "I like these films, but I like them better if I run the through a digital converter that significantly alters the appearance of the film". My position is that altering films in such a manner should be an opt-in proposition, not an opt-out one. That's all.
CatBus is offline  
post #202 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 11:21 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

I wasn't saying they weren't artistic or the will of the director, I was saying the will of the director is pretty much irrelevant once the film is completed. If they come back later and release a Director's Cut (or EE), I don't pretend that's the same movie. It's a totally different movie which may be better or worse than the original.

Depends on the film and director I think. I think a lot of studios demand a short running time against the will of the director. I think Ridley Scott has been a victim of this, especially with Kingdom of Heaven. But in the case of Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson, you're definitely right. He understood that sitting in the theater for three full hours is different than a 4 hour DVD where you can take a break at any time. Indeed it's not that one version is right and the other wrong, they're just different and good in their own way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

The real question is, did 24fps always bug you for every movie you ever watched? If not, I suspect there may be a social factor contributing, a.k.a. a "fad".

My answer to this is definitely yes, 24fps blur has always bugged me. Slow left to right pans are painfully blurry to me and I've never understood why that was acceptable. They look so ugly, I don't know why film makers ever bother with these shots. This is part of why I don't agree with you that film makers adjust their shooting to facilitate the 24fps limitation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

There's no evidence Jackson feels 48fps or 3D is an improvement for LotR. Some directors shoot in black and white for some movies and color for others, and not because it's the only technology available at the time. Woody Allen, the Coen Brothers, etc. It doesn't mean either is a better tech for all films. Jackson shooting the Hobbit in 48fps and 3D doesn't mean anything at all for LotR. If Jackson decided his next film would be in black-and-white, does that mean we should start watching LotR in black-and-white?

Considering the Hobbit is a prequel, I think the fact that he's willing to visually deviate from the original Lord of the Rings is a strong endorsement for 48fps 3D. The Hobbit is not simply his next film, it's directly connected to Lord of the Rings. The films are intended to be connected, continuous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

We're not really in disagreement if you can say: "I like these films, but I like them better if I run the through a digital converter that significantly alters the appearance of the film". My position is that altering films in such a manner should be an opt-in proposition, not an opt-out one. That's all.

Oh I agree, it should be an option. That's all I want, the option. Heck, as I said I didn't like the look of FI when I saw it in a demo. I might well hate the look of Lord of the Rings with FI compared to what I originally saw. I just don't think I should feel like I'm necessarily defying the artistic preferences of Peter Jackson if I happen to try and enjoy an artificially smoother version.
Airion is offline  
post #203 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 11:26 AM
Senior Member
 
rschleicher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Danville, CA
Posts: 258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

When 24fps content is converted to 60fp using 3:2 pulldown frame rate Judder is created not eliminated since all frames are not displayed the same number of times. When 24fps content is converted to 120 fps using 5:5 pulldown no frame rate conversion Judder does not occure since all frames are displayed 5 times.
The difference in deblur levels allows the user to specify if only the largest objects have FI applied (de blur level 1) or FI is applied to all objects (de blur level 10) when FI is applied to all objects artifacts apear on the smaller objects and more processing time is consumed causing lag for gamers.

Walford, thanks. I think your explanation is making the most sense for me. I think that my de-judder setting may be a moot point for when I am watching something coming from my BD player, since I have it set to provide 24 fps output, and my 120 Hz. TV implements 5:5 pull-down, to repeat each 24 fps frame five times. So there is no judder to de-judder.... If the source was set to provide 60 fps output, then there would be some judder for the set to try and process out.

I also agree that for my LG set it is probably the de-blur setting that is doing FI - your explanation of how the 1-10 scale is basically determining how "thoroughly" the algorothm is applied (only the largest objects, or progressively more objects) also seems sensible. I will play around with the settings, and may end up just turning Tru-Motion off completely, at least on the settings that apply to my BD player's input.
rschleicher is offline  
post #204 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 11:34 AM
Senior Member
 
CatBus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

I a lot of studios demand a short running time against the will of the director.

In those cases, I generally prefer the Director's Cut, but the theatrical cut can still have merit, even if it was contrary to the director's will. Ever seen the Director's Cut of Cinema Paradiso? Talk about a testament to the merits of merciless, aggressive editing...bleagh...

Like I've said, though, the will of the director was never that relevant to me, except in the quality of the film it produced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

They look so ugly, I don't why film makers ever bother with these shots. This is part of why I don't agree with you that film makers adjust their shooting to facilitate the 24fps limitation.

Fair enough, I've seen a lot of disastrous 24fps pans too that were clearly someone behind the camera just screwing up. The problem for me is that disastrous pans is typically less than 10 seconds of the film, and I wouldn't want to alter a whole movie to improve those 10 seconds of obvious incompetence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

Considering the Hobbit is a prequel, I think the fact that he's willing to visually deviate from the original Lord of the Rings is a strong endorsement for 48fps 3D. The Hobbit is not simply his next film, it's directly connected to Lord of the Rings. The films are intended to be connected, continuous.

The Silmarillion would actually seem ancient/retro/classic in black and white. Never say never

I think we're as communicated on this topic as we're going to get.
CatBus is offline  
post #205 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 11:42 AM
Advanced Member
 
Airion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

Fair enough, I've seen a lot of disastrous 24fps pans too that were clearly someone behind the camera just screwing up. The problem for me is that disastrous pans is typically less than 10 seconds of the film, and I wouldn't want to alter a whole movie to improve those 10 seconds of obvious incompetence.

I think this is a good point. For the vast majority of a film's running time, I think 24fps is perfectly fine. As you say, instances of blurry 24fps pans amount to a small fraction of a movie. I wonder if FI algorithms can be made to leave a movie alone except for such short ugly pans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

The Silmarillion would actually seem ancient/retro/classic in black and white. Never say never

This is an awesome idea
Airion is offline  
post #206 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 12:06 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
ed3120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 301
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I understand how people could dislike frame interpolation and artifacts and other effects of manipulating content that was already 24 FPS.

I also understand how people think that 48 FPS is not much of an improvement over 24 FPS.

What I don't understand is how anyone feels that original content filmed at 24 FPS is better than if that original content were shot with the same film equipment, but at a higher FPS, such as 48. I'm not saying those people are wrong, but I don't understand how limiting a frame rate to a lower number could ever yield a better experience than that same original content at a higher frame rate.
ed3120 is offline  
post #207 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 12:17 PM
Senior Member
 
CatBus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed3120 View Post

What I don't understand is how anyone feels that original content filmed at 24 FPS is better than if that original content were shot with the same film equipment, but at a higher FPS, such as 48. I'm not saying those people are wrong, but I don't understand how limiting a frame rate to a lower number could ever yield a better experience than that same original content at a higher frame rate.

I'm not sure I feel that way, but there are two observations I could make on your hypothetical scenario:

1) If you were shooting at 48fps, you wouldn't shoot the same content. Why avoid certain pans to avoid the judder that's not going to happen anymore? Why have your shutter speed set to cause a blur appropriate for 24fps film? Basically I don't think the "exact same content at two different framerates" scenario is plausible. Different frame rates implies different content.

2) There are aesthetic reasons someone may want to make a 24fps film even in a world where everything has gone to higher framerates. Just like people make black and white films now and then today. That, in part answers "I don't understand how limiting a frame rate to a lower number could ever yield a better experience than that same original content at a higher frame rate". Easy! If realism isn't the goal, all bets are off. Black and white is hardly realistic. And really, I don't think realism is the goal nearly as often as you may think it is.

That said, I don't think 24fps is innately superior or anything like that, and I am inclined to believe higher framerates are generally beneficial. So maybe I'm not the type of person you were referring to.
CatBus is offline  
post #208 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 12:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,173
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus; View Post

There's no evidence Jackson feels 48fps or 3D is an improvement for LotR. Some directors shoot in black and white for some movies and color for others, and not because it's the only technology available at the time. Woody Allen, the Coen Brothers, etc. It doesn't mean either is a better tech for all films. Jackson shooting the Hobbit in 48fps and 3D doesn't mean anything at all for LotR. If Jackson decided his next film would be in black-and-white, does that mean we should start watching LotR in black-and-white?

From reading his blog it is clear to me that he would have shot LotR (and he will shoot all his future movies) 48fps if that was possible, quote '' we've actually become used to it (48fps) now, to a point that other film experiences look a little primitive.''
http://www.filmbuffonline.com/FBOLNe...es-per-second/

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

The Silmarillon would actually seem ancient/retro/classic in black and white.

The Silmarillion is not a JRR Tolkien book, his son took some of JRR unfinished writings and made a book out of it, you could call it a frame interpolated book . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion
8mile13 is offline  
post #209 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 12:42 PM
Senior Member
 
CatBus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

From reading his blog it is clear to me that he would have shot LotR (and he will shoot all his future movies) 48fps if that was possible, quote '' we've actually become used to it (48fps) now, to a point that other film experiences look a little primitive.''
http://www.filmbuffonline.com/FBOLNe...es-per-second/

Good to know, but you know how I feel about "director's intent" arguments. Still, it may mean something for those who give weight to those things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

The Silmarillion is not a JRR Tolkien book, his son took some of JRR unfinished writings and made a book out of it, you could call it a frame interpolated book . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion

It's not frame-interpolated, it's just got multiple authors (film equivalent: Superman II). If the unfinished book was completed by a computer algorithm designed to make old difficult books read more smoothly like more modern ones, it would be frame interpolated. Still, I get the joke
CatBus is offline  
post #210 of 357 Old 06-03-2011, 03:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mailiang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Springsteen Country
Posts: 6,882
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed3120 View Post

What I don't understand is how anyone feels that original content filmed at 24 FPS is better than if that original content were shot with the same film equipment, but at a higher FPS, such as 48. I'm not saying those people are wrong, but I don't understand how limiting a frame rate to a lower number could ever yield a better experience than that same original content at a higher frame rate.


I think it depends on the picture. The texture of a film is often driven by it's dramatic content. For example, classics like Casablanca or even the more recent Schindler's List, would lose their impact if they were in color and/or digitally enhanced. The look of those films is what creates a certain ambiance that was unique to that era. I mean why should an old style western have the same look as a film that's based on a video game? I believe that digital video is the future, but I don't believe it's technology will limit how we watch movies. I think it will just give us more choices.


Ian

The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others

mailiang is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off