"Frame Interpolation": Tell me if I've got this right - Page 7 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 36Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 198 Old 09-13-2017, 07:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,414
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1753 Post(s)
Liked: 1676
imo(and limited experience i'll admit) FI does not equal HFR

the 'most fair' example i can cite is using the FI on my f8500, which looks awful, unwatchable with most content imo(it is definitely not the best example of FI i've seen, but they all seem to mess with my eyes to some extent). watching 24/30fps content looks natural, but you lose all detail when it pans, so that's not perfect either. but, from the S&M disc, there is a 60fps shot of a person swinging on a hammock, and that little clip is the most natural, 'looking through a window' clip i have ever seen. so, FI on creates some kind of optical illusion that while retaining detail, makes the motion look sped up. FI off, you lose detail and get that juddery motion, but HFR at the source and i get the smooth motion with clear detail WITHOUT any kind of SOE. is this the common impression? or am i weird? haha

you could go back and forth on every other debate, and it's honestly not worth it. nothing you can tell me will change how i see things, and nothing i say will affect others. but i am curious if others have had a similar experience to me. i have not viewed HFR(other than the one short 60fps clip) much, so maybe there is some SOE with some HFR content? but i have seen a lot of different FI stuff and it does not compare for me, the HFR is clearly superior in my experience. I'd really like to see more HFR content(fix the problem at the source, right?), but i'm worried there's no point in doing that unless the rest of the population sees a huge improvement compared to what FI is already doing. HFR is quite a lot more hardware to replace than simply using FI on your display. is it worth the hassle? i think yes, but i have not heard many people confirm this observation

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1130K, 7.1/5.1.2 audio
Sources: HTPC(Enby), PS3, XBOX360, Wii
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 198 Old 09-13-2017, 08:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
AMartin56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,589
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2053 Post(s)
Liked: 1033
I can agree that the frame interpolation on a F8500 is the WORST. The 96hz film mode worked reasonably well but gave the image and instability I didn't like. I wish Samsung provided what they did for LCD TVs from that era.
AMartin56 is offline  
post #183 of 198 Old 09-13-2017, 11:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,061
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 690 Post(s)
Liked: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
But why does it need to be in "Display Devices"? Surely if you want to talk about HFR and Frame Interpolation, if it's in "Display Devices" that will mean the software only methods would technically be off-topic, even though software methods have been mentioned in this thread.
Considering that HDR and WCG are a subsection of "Display Devices" I think HFR and Creative Frame Interpolation would appropriately complement HDR and WCG. I don't think that software methods to achieve either of the two would be off-topic as you'll still be needing a display device to make use of such external solutions.

However, there is no reaction yet of any kind by the AVS decision makers regarding my request: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/43-for...s-hfr-cfi.html

Maybe you could join the request by voting with some "likes", consider it like a little petition on behalf of Frame Interpolation awareness.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
I have not viewed HFR(other than the one short 60fps clip) much, so maybe there is some SOE with some HFR content? but i have seen a lot of different FI stuff and it does not compare for me, the HFR is clearly superior in my experience. I'd really like to see more HFR content(fix the problem at the source, right?), but i'm worried there's no point in doing that unless the rest of the population sees a huge improvement compared to what FI is already doing. HFR is quite a lot more hardware to replace than simply using FI on your display. is it worth the hassle? i think yes, but i have not heard many people confirm this observation

I've studied the reviews following the theatrical premieres of Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, shot in 'native' HFR and the reactions of many critics were negative regarding HFR impressions, lamenting again, they'd be seeing a "Soap Opera Effect".


As a result James Cameron took the bull by the horns, declaring the Avatar sequel will probably feature a mix of various camera speeds (with the prospect that real footage will be displayed in 24p...).


As long as we only had Peter Jackson's The Hobbit in HFR there was a certain amount of uncertainty, whether some felt HFR distracting because it was combined with 'fake' CGI effects.


However, since Billy Lynn (which is available in HFR on the UHD Blu-ray disc and can be watched in HFR with a capable 4K display device) that suspicion apparently no longer holds any water as some people are still lamenting about a "Soap Opera Effect".


(IMHO at least Billy Lynn has revealed that Frame Interpolation can't be that unnatural if 'native' HFR reveals the same "Natural Motion Effect" some perceive as SOE)

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde

Last edited by Frank714; 09-14-2017 at 12:08 AM.
Frank714 is offline  
 
post #184 of 198 Old 09-14-2017, 12:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 2,843
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 592 Post(s)
Liked: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
It's ironic that more realistic motion should look more "fake" to me, but that was my impression and that was real 48fps not interpolation.
That pretty much sums up the complaints about FI from the "purist" crowd: it looks too real. Which is indeed ironic as technology marches forward with more lines, more bits, wider color space, etc. -- all in the service of a more realistic or "natural" look.

FI certainly makes Casablanca look more real (although 3:2 pulldown does render it well). I would say that with those old B&W movies, FI makes them look modern, like they could have been recently shot by a modern pro videocam with the color killed. I'm guessing that viewing a legacy artistic piece as if it were contemporary could produce a disconnect with some that is too uncomfortable to deal with. As for myself, I like to think it makes it almost tangible that Bogie, Stewart and Cagney are actually alive and kicking, not just memories.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #185 of 198 Old 09-14-2017, 12:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,061
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 690 Post(s)
Liked: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post
That pretty much sums up the complaints about FI from the "purist" crowd: it looks too real. Which is indeed ironic as technology marches forward with more lines, more bits, wider color space, etc. -- all in the service of a more realistic or "natural" look.

Good observation. I don't recall complaints from the purists when Blu-rays (or HD-DVDs) arrived that had been mastered from the original camera negatives. Matte paintings started to looked more fake and production screwups became visible (even 'worse' with UHD BD as we can now see when a live-action scene was out of focus) that had been previously obfuscated by the lower image resolution of physical film copies.

One could argue that HD makes us aware of things, the filmmakers didn't want us to see or notice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post
FI certainly makes Casablanca look more real (although 3:2 pulldown does render it well). I would say that with those old B&W movies, FI makes them look modern, like they could have been recently shot by a modern pro videocam with the color killed. I'm guessing that viewing a legacy artistic piece as if it were contemporary could produce a disconnect with some that is too uncomfortable to deal with. As for myself, I like to think it makes it almost tangible that Bogie, Stewart and Cagney are actually alive and kicking, not just memories.
I concur. When I first got my Optoma HD83(00) with the 4th generation Pixelworks Motion Engine for FI I felt compelled to rewatch all my films, including DVDs I hadn't touched for a long time. Moreover, thanks to FI the low resolution DVDs became somewhat "miraculously" watchable again, i.e. the standard NTSC resolution didn't bother me as much any longer as it had been doing watching DVDs without FI.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is offline  
post #186 of 198 Old 09-14-2017, 07:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 440 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
I've studied the reviews following the theatrical premieres of Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, shot in 'native' HFR and the reactions of many critics were negative regarding HFR impressions, lamenting again, they'd be seeing a "Soap Opera Effect".
As a result James Cameron took the bull by the horns, declaring the Avatar sequel will probably feature a mix of various camera speeds (with the prospect that real footage will be displayed in 24p...).
It depends what they mean by "soap opera effect". It could just mean to them that the motion, for a fictional film, looks very different than normal. It will be different to interpolation due to not having the artefacts that are introduced with interpolation due to incorrect predictions. Also just because some of the reviewers thought it looked like video/"soap opera" doesn't mean the majority of viewers disliked the look. The Hobbit trilogy was one of the biggest earners. Also, very few people have seen the Billy Lynn film at it's original 120 fps frame rate. Perhaps more people will be able to when new 120 fps capable TVs come out, once they broadcast in that etc. I thought the 60 fps UHD BD version of Billy Lynn looked good and more films should be shot in HFR, but that isn't the actually frame rate it was shot at (120 fps), plus it was shot for 3D and UHD BD can't do 3D. Also while the motion was a lot clearer/less juddery/stroby the clarity wasn't as good as it could have been, due to focus/lighting issues probably (depth of field etc.). So I don't think it is as amazingly clear as people claimed - but it has much less judder/strobing (and less motion blur).

re: using a mix of camera speeds - that was the intention with Billy Lynn... but they did very little of that (I thought I read somewhere they actually decided not to do it at all) due to it looking distracting
http://www.postmagazine.com/Publicat...e-Walk-i-.aspx
Quote:
...And then you go back to normal, but it doesn’t look normal anymore, now it looks bad, cause your eyes got used to the higher frame rate and you have to get used to that all over again. So, in fact, it was more distracting. The original idea was to do more of that, but as it turned out, we did a little bit of that but in much more subtle ways than it was originally planned
For Avatar sequels, if they have a mix (which is likely) it could just be the slow talking type scenes that are 24 fps and the faster action scenes, or perhaps even pans, in higher fps. But since there's likely to be so much CGI in the film, where every frame of the CGI parts may take a long time to render, it may be that it won't be up to the 120 fps standard of Billy Lynn - unless that is one of the reasons for moving the release dates back - to allow more time to do higher fps CGI - even up to 120 fps - but it is likely the motion capture won't do more than 60 fps (I think the last one ran at 60 fields per second on the motion capture stage) - so if the CGI ran at 120 fps it would be interpolated (but could be interpolation in 3D space - so different to TV type interpolation).

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 09-14-2017 at 07:34 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #187 of 198 Old 09-14-2017, 07:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
AMartin56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,589
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2053 Post(s)
Liked: 1033
I am probably one of the few frame interpolation fans that really enjoyed The Hobbit in HFR (especially the detail visible in the Goblin town sequence!) but thought Billy Lynn was an abomination. I suppose it doesn't help that the movie was horrible (other than that cheerleader being cute!).
AMartin56 is offline  
post #188 of 198 Old 09-14-2017, 08:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 2,843
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 592 Post(s)
Liked: 291
Quote:
FI certainly makes Casablanca look more real (although 3:2 pulldown does render it well).
Turns out TCM is showing Casablanca again this afternoon (Thursday 9/14). An excellent HD transfer.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #189 of 198 Old 09-14-2017, 09:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 440 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
Considering that HDR and WCG are a subsection of "Display Devices" I think HFR and Creative Frame Interpolation would appropriately complement HDR and WCG. I don't think that software methods to achieve either of the two would be off-topic as you'll still be needing a display device to make use of such external solutions.
Though if "HFR and Frame Interpolation" was the parent/main thread, it could have subthreads for HFR, another for Frame Interpolation, subthreads for the software side, another subthread for the hardware side (which could be Display Devices but could be other hardware that has frame interpolation options). Though HFR could also be a separate main thread.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #190 of 198 Old 09-14-2017, 09:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,655
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 430 Post(s)
Liked: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post
That pretty much sums up the complaints about FI from the "purist" crowd: it looks too real. Which is indeed ironic as technology marches forward with more lines, more bits, wider color space, etc. -- all in the service of a more realistic or "natural" look.

FI certainly makes Casablanca look more real (although 3:2 pulldown does render it well). I would say that with those old B&W movies, FI makes them look modern, like they could have been recently shot by a modern pro videocam with the color killed. I'm guessing that viewing a legacy artistic piece as if it were contemporary could produce a disconnect with some that is too uncomfortable to deal with. As for myself, I like to think it makes it almost tangible that Bogie, Stewart and Cagney are actually alive and kicking, not just memories.
That ("it looks too real") would NEVER sum up my complaints (nor most everyone else I'm familiar with who doesn't like it) about FI.

It's just a different variant of "unnatural" from 24FPS, is all. Each can look better or worse than the other, based upon content, and FI engine.

James

My Parlor and Theatre: "Jimbo's Dugout" : http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-gen...re-parlor.html

Actual phone call (see pic to left):
 Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"
Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."
mastermaybe is offline  
post #191 of 198 Old 09-14-2017, 09:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,655
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 430 Post(s)
Liked: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMartin56 View Post
I suppose the difference is that it you declare yourself a fan of chartreuse nobody goes out of their way to tell you your opinion is wrong.

I'll never understand why people feel the need to chime in on frame interpolation threads saying they hate it. Did the topic of the thread somehow come as a surprise to you after reading the thread title? Maybe the discussion isn't for you?
You make the same mistake. I- nor anyone else as far as I can tell- is telling anyone, at anytime, that their opinion is "wrong". I'm simply pointing out that there are some straw-man representations as to why some don't like FI. Like saying it looks "too real"...seriously, whatever the hell something looking more real than real can possibly mean.

Onward, what's so hard to understand? Why is your (or anyone else's opinion) more or less valid than mine? I cannot engage in a DISCUSSION and offer an opinion/experience on the subject?

Or can only those who like frame interpolation be authorized to comment as much? Bizarre.

James

My Parlor and Theatre: "Jimbo's Dugout" : http://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-gen...re-parlor.html

Actual phone call (see pic to left):
 Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"
Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."
mastermaybe is offline  
post #192 of 198 Old 09-14-2017, 09:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
AMartin56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,589
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2053 Post(s)
Liked: 1033
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post
You make the same mistake. I- nor anyone else as far as I can tell- is telling anyone, at anytime, that their opinion is "wrong". I'm simply pointing out that there are some straw-man representations as to why some don't like FI. Like saying it looks "too real"...seriously, whatever the hell something looking more real than real can possibly mean.

Onward, what's so hard to understand? Why is your (or anyone else's opinion) more or less valid than mine? I cannot engage in a DISCUSSION and offer an opinion/experience on the subject?

Or can only those who like frame interpolation be authorized to comment as much? Bizarre.

James
Personally I don't buy into the 'looks too real' argument myself but I won't apologize for assuming folks like yourself just crash these threads in an effort to shut them down. I've seen it too many times.
AMartin56 is offline  
post #193 of 198 Old 09-14-2017, 06:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,414
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1753 Post(s)
Liked: 1676
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMartin56 View Post
I can agree that the frame interpolation on a F8500 is the WORST. The 96hz film mode worked reasonably well but gave the image and instability I didn't like. I wish Samsung provided what they did for LCD TVs from that era.
i have played around with the FI on my jvc projector, as well as some lcd's(i have a samsung lcd in my bedroom, and i have a 'custom' setting that i like on it, but it's VERY low, like 1 or 2 out of 10). so i'm still pretty confident that there is something specific about FI that i find looks artificial, even with 'better' processing. and i totally agree, i wish samsung gave the same options on their plasmas. i'm not sure if they half-assed it because they felt plasma didn't need 'good' FI, and simply included it to try and please the people who like that SOE look. i mean, it DOES provide an extremely high SOE for anybody used to that. but it's nowhere near as natural looking as what you can get with the custom options on the lcds

then again, i still feel with the f8500 the problem is the source. feed it a higher frame rate(60fps is the highest i think it can handle) and it's the most natural looking motion i've ever seen


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
Considering that HDR and WCG are a subsection of "Display Devices" I think HFR and Creative Frame Interpolation would appropriately complement HDR and WCG. I don't think that software methods to achieve either of the two would be off-topic as you'll still be needing a display device to make use of such external solutions.

However, there is no reaction yet of any kind by the AVS decision makers regarding my request: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/43-for...s-hfr-cfi.html

Maybe you could join the request by voting with some "likes", consider it like a little petition on behalf of Frame Interpolation awareness.





I've studied the reviews following the theatrical premieres of Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, shot in 'native' HFR and the reactions of many critics were negative regarding HFR impressions, lamenting again, they'd be seeing a "Soap Opera Effect".


As a result James Cameron took the bull by the horns, declaring the Avatar sequel will probably feature a mix of various camera speeds (with the prospect that real footage will be displayed in 24p...).


As long as we only had Peter Jackson's The Hobbit in HFR there was a certain amount of uncertainty, whether some felt HFR distracting because it was combined with 'fake' CGI effects.


However, since Billy Lynn (which is available in HFR on the UHD Blu-ray disc and can be watched in HFR with a capable 4K display device) that suspicion apparently no longer holds any water as some people are still lamenting about a "Soap Opera Effect".


(IMHO at least Billy Lynn has revealed that Frame Interpolation can't be that unnatural if 'native' HFR reveals the same "Natural Motion Effect" some perceive as SOE)

so i'm SOL because there's absolutely no reason to make native HFR material if FI 'works just as well' for most people. nuts

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1130K, 7.1/5.1.2 audio
Sources: HTPC(Enby), PS3, XBOX360, Wii
Control: Harmony One

Last edited by fierce_gt; 09-14-2017 at 07:03 PM.
fierce_gt is offline  
post #194 of 198 Old 09-14-2017, 06:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,414
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1753 Post(s)
Liked: 1676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

re: using a mix of camera speeds - that was the intention with Billy Lynn... but they did very little of that (I thought I read somewhere they actually decided not to do it at all) due to it looking distracting
http://www.postmagazine.com/Publicat...e-Walk-i-.aspx
it could be interesting to see a director use 24p for 'memory' scenes instead of that 'faded colors and washed out blacks' effect they often do. i wonder if we would associate the 24p look with an 'old' video in a more subtle way than washing out the whole image(i'm really not a fan of that effect, the tv show Suits does it all the time...)

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1130K, 7.1/5.1.2 audio
Sources: HTPC(Enby), PS3, XBOX360, Wii
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #195 of 198 Old 09-15-2017, 12:11 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,061
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 690 Post(s)
Liked: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Though if "HFR and Frame Interpolation" was the parent/main thread, it could have subthreads for HFR, another for Frame Interpolation, subthreads for the software side, another subthread for the hardware side (which could be Display Devices but could be other hardware that has frame interpolation options). Though HFR could also be a separate main thread.
Absolutely. And apparently there'd be the need for a thread titled like something "Soap Opera or Natural Motion Effect" so that those that dislike FI and its effects would have a platform where they could express themselves.


But thus far none of the AVS decision makers has officially responded to my request, perhaps I'm mistaken thinking AVS stands for AudioVideoScience and instead it is really AudioVideoSmalltalk.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
So i'm SOL because there's absolutely no reason to make native HFR material if FI 'works just as well' for most people. nuts

I don't know if you'd be sadly outta luck. Ultimately it will be an film industry decision to see where HFR is going, but given negative reactions by vocal critics (first The Hobbit, next Billy Lynn) and the apparent reaction of Jim Cameron to those critics (Avatar sequel will feature different camera speeds) I'm not that optimistic.


On the other hand, if FI for display devices at home gains further traction, the film industry will eventually have to answer why films at home have less motion blur and judder than those they watched in a theater.


Already for my taste there was still too much motion blur and judder in The Hobbit with 48 frames per second. I found the film in my home theater (PureMotion FI set to "high") much more immersive.


But bottom line remains: IMHO, HFR will have a hard time if the visual results aren't noticably better than what good FI in your home display device can accomplish these days.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde

Last edited by Frank714; 09-15-2017 at 12:28 AM.
Frank714 is offline  
post #196 of 198 Old 09-15-2017, 03:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,414
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1753 Post(s)
Liked: 1676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post

But bottom line remains: IMHO, HFR will have a hard time if the visual results aren't noticably better than what good FI in your home display device can accomplish these days.
i'd argue that HFR is worlds better than FI, but if i'm in the minority, it makes no sense to spend big bux upgrading hardware from source to display, just to get similar results as turning on a feature. what happens in the theater doesn't matter to me, any more than how it leads back into the home. my days of commercial theaters are pretty much over. they'd have to be cheaper than viewing at home to get my attention.

my question was if others feel that HFR is vastly different than FI for them. i find FI 'funny looking' and completely unnatural/unwatchable, but HFR content so far seems to look totally natural to me. i'm guessing i probably need to survey more FI haters, since i imagine anybody that views FI as equal to HFR is more likely to be a fan. i mean some people are different, but most people that don't like FI aren't upset with it looking too clear, or too smooth, but that it gives an optical illusion making it look unnatural(it looks sped up to me), which at least for me, appears to be resolved by using HFR content instead.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1130K, 7.1/5.1.2 audio
Sources: HTPC(Enby), PS3, XBOX360, Wii
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #197 of 198 Old 09-16-2017, 10:48 PM
Senior Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 208
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Liked: 49
I find interpolation looks much better to me on 3D titles (set to max here on my Epson projector), but somehow it looks "weird" on 2D titles. The Epson projector produces motion artifacts on both, but they seem to stand out more on the 2D material (maybe because there's already some crosstalk artifacts on many 3D titles as it is). Those artifacts (when noticed) are extremely irritating. I find the "low" setting acceptable for 30 fps material (whether it's output that way from a KODI box that won't do 24fps whether due to firmware changes like FireTV or the movie was encoded at 30/60fps instead of 24), but the Epson projector cannot reliably/smoothly do 30fps output material at medium/high interpolation settings. It chokes sooner or later.

But even 24fps material has artifacts due to blur, etc. being smoothed. This is disconcerting, to say the least and it's up to the individual whether it's "worth" having smoother motion over motion related artifacts as both are a form of distortion compared to the real world.

The so-called "soap opera effect" is simply one's brain seeing smooth motion as looking like soap operas. I see it. It's NOT just because it's "smooth" or ALL TV shows would look "soap opera like" and they DON'T. There's something "fake" about it (probably because the interpolated frames are too mechanically smooth like a CGI "morph", particularly a first generation MORPH that looks utterly UTTERLY CHEESY).

I agree that real material filmed at higher frame rates (e.g. The Hobbit at 48fps) looks far more realistic, but even there I noticed moments during the film that looked fake as hell. Noticeably, the part where the camera whirls around that castle that Sauron was infesting. It was too smooth and looked like CGI. Why? Because no plane, helicopter or anything on Earth could circle around a castle like that at that speed and so it looks like a computer animation. At 24fps, it looks slightly less computer-like due to being less smooth which we don't associate in our brains with rendered animations (one's brain tends to compare things to other things it's seen before and hence CGI animation and "soap operas" come to be described.

The bottom line is frame interpolation isn't acceptable in the long run whether you prefer it to 24fps or not. The movies should be filmed at higher frame rates. But then if someone wanted to convert down to 24fps, high motion pans would need a computer to add "blur" or it will look like a CHOP FEST (actually it probably will anyway; good directors avoid fast pans on film for this very reason).

Frankly, instead of going to a (mostly pointless for the home) 8K disc next, maybe they could focus on computer editing 24fps films (to remove motion artifacts and frame by frame convert to quality high motion) and thus making high frame rate versions go go with their HDR and WCG. The problem with the latter is that they are sometimes being exaggerated so you'll "notice" a difference; otherwise, why would you pay for a 4K set even if you can't see it at actual viewing distances compared to mere 1080p, particularly for "4K" titles that are really just 2K upconverts).

In my opinion, the whole industry is running out of options to keep selling us the same movies over and over and over and over again (made 10x worse by endless remakes, sequels and adaptions). At some point, they're going to have to make NEW movies again or the whole industry will just plain die (as it deserves to if they can't take chances any longer. We don't NEED another Casablanca or Maltese Falcon. The originals are already perfect. Just looks at the shoddy attempt at a new Total Recall that isn't 1/10 as good as the original. WTF are wrong with these people?) You want to remake something? Remake a BAD film with potential instead of a good one and somehow make it worth watching.
MagnumX is offline  
post #198 of 198 Old 09-17-2017, 01:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 440 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
The movies should be filmed at higher frame rates. But then if someone wanted to convert down to 24fps, high motion pans would need a computer to add "blur" or it will look like a CHOP FEST (actually it probably will anyway; good directors avoid fast pans on film for this very reason).
The computer doesn't really need to "add" blur - or at least not artificial motion blur. Basically if they shoot at 120 fps open shutter they can blend 2 or 3 frames together to get motion blur (that would be less than or greater than the normal 180 degrees, but not equal to it because you can't really do that (accurately) with that method) - like Ang Lee did for the Billy Lynn film. If they wanted exactly 180 degrees 24 fps they could shoot 240 fps open shutter and blend 5 frames together (or shoot at eg. 48 fps and open shutter and use every other frame for the 24 fps verison - unlike the Hobbit films where they didn't shoot open shutter 48 fps - I think they shot 270 degrees or something so that they got less motion blur per frame of the 48 fps version).
Joe Bloggs is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP

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