AVS Forum banner

"Frame Interpolation": Tell me if I've got this right

31K views 217 replies 33 participants last post by  sage11x 
#1 ·
I've owned a Benq W1070 for two years now, and its performance has far exceeded it's cost. Colors are great and it's been dependable. Two minor cons to the W1070 for me are black levels and the loud fan.

But the main con to me is jittery/shuttering pans. This occurs on new and very old movies whenever there is camera panning.

Now doing some research I see the W1070's lack of Frame Interpolation is the reason. Frame interpolation would add or predict an image's motion between frames to lessen the shuttering. However frame interpolation has it's own side-effects like the soap opera effect or adding artifacts.

My list of questions:
So If I'm getting this right Frame Interpolation appears to be a band-aid for the real problem. I then have to ask what is the real problem? Is it that blu-rays are operating at too low frames-per-second? (What are they 24/30fps?) Does 4K UHD take care of this problem? I read in a few places that they are 60 fps? OR something else? I haven't been to a commercial theater for well over 5 years and they don't have that problem I'd assume...correct?
 
#3 ·
In mine, yes. In a commercial theater... don't remember, it's been years since I've been in one. Doubtful though... don't think people would put up with that.
 
#4 · (Edited)
Thanks for addressing the subject (despite my recent suggestion there is still no specialized thread for the issue of Frame Interpolation (FI) / Motion Interpolation / Motion Blur Reduction here at the AVS. :()


So If I'm getting this right Frame Interpolation appears to be a band-aid for the real problem.

IMHO, "band-aid" is an understatement for what I consider to be one of the most important (r)evolutions in image processing and improvement, which therefore had been the major argument for me to purchase an Optoma HD 83(00) a couple of years ago, thanks to its "Pure Motion Engine" (with equal performance available in the current Optoma HD 50)

Is it that blu-rays are operating at too low frames-per-second? (What are they 24/30fps?) Does 4K UHD take care of this problem? I read in a few places that they are 60 fps? OR something else? I haven't been to a commercial theater for well over 5 years and they don't have that problem I'd assume...correct?

The problem is of a basic nature. Traditionally, movies are shot with film cameras and a fixed speed of 24 frames per second (fps). During horizontal or vertical camera pans the image gets blurred and any kind of detail is lost in the blur (in contrast to our own eyes that "record" images at higher fps).


FI started back in the late 1990's when Philips Dr. Haan had the brilliant idea for European TVs (and their 50 Hz flicker problem) to not just repeat two identical frames but create a new one between two images, resulting in "Digital Natural Motion".


Ever since this kind of technology has significantly improved and been adopted mostly by flat screen manufacturers (e.g. Sony's "MotionFlow").


Currently all media (e.g. DVD, Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray) just store the original 24 fps recording, so it's up to the capabilities of the display (flat screen or front projector) to apply Motion Blur Reduction for the program content - or not.


However frame interpolation has it's own side-effects like the soap opera effect or adding artifacts.

"Soap Opera Effect" is a term coined by self-proclaimed purists which IMHO try to tell (I think "dictate" is more appropriate) us how we all should watch program content.


First we had the big "letterbox" debate (the purists won), now we have the big FI debate (purists try to win again, argue again with "director's intent" but never consider what renowned directors like Stanley Kubrick and James Cameron said on the issue of "letterbox" and in the case of Jim Cameron and now on "High Frame Rate").


If "Soap Opera effect" were a bad thing, than what we watch every day in our real lives is a "soap opera" (not too far from the truth, I'd guess...:rolleyes:), because the kind of "natural motion" we watch with the SOE is the kind of motion our eyes witness every day. I prefer to call it "Natural Motion Effect" instead.


Now, creating a new image in the fraction of a second to provide a transition between two frames and calculate the image detail otherwise lost in that transition because of the blur is such an accomplishment that I never get tired to marvel at.
However, fast moving objects in front of a fixed background is still somewhat difficult material that yields a somewhat obscure area around the fast moving object (but I experience that mostly in my "Pure Motion" setting "high").


My recommendation stands that prior to purchasing any front projector the user should try the FI the projector provides - and judge for him- or herself.


If I were to make a choice to either forfeit 3D or FI capability I would reluctantly but definitely forfeit 3D.


Frame Interpolation has enriched my home theater experience to the point where I don't even mind watching a DVD instead of a Blu-ray. In my particular case the natural motion provided by my front projector adds a level of realism and immersion which is almost equal to the increased image detail and resolution provided by a Blu-ray disc. :)


P.S. Here is an interesting AVS thread on the issue of "High Frame Rate" which inevitably is somewhat related to Motion Interpolation: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-l...-smpte-hollywood-frame-rate-presentation.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaleNixon
#16 ·
If I were to make a choice to either forfeit 3D or FI capability I would reluctantly but definitely forfeit 3D.
Yeah...I agree. If there were a choice between a projector's FI fixing the problem or having 3D, I'd go without 3D as well.
 
#8 ·
Go ahead and use SVP for everything.

I watched the original Wizard of OZ and Star Wars films with it recently, it's like giving them both a massive facelift. Interstellar in particular was much better than in the movies, which was terrible for judder. Trust me I was like, man this is obvious, I don't understand why people tolerate it. Probably because of peer pressure / brainwashing to think that smoothness is somehow a bad thing. Your mind loves smoothness, it's the default setting.

The latest version of SVP is quite good and offers good artifact removal. I use the paid version, in fact I was a backer on Indiegogo.

Of course it's not perfect but with high bitrate rips you can get a very, very good result. On Star Wars episode IV, for example, the Death Star Run on a super high bitrate Bluray rip has no artifacts that I could see and it was a WAY better experience. Like seeing it for the first time again. It's a whole new ballgame when you're not starving your mind for pixels and forcing it to engage its suspension of disbelief instead of focusing on the action as if it were in front of you.

I haven't tried it on 2160p content so anyone running at that res might need a better GPU than an NVidia 970. But anyway, there's no way to rip UHD Blurays yet. As soon as there is, you can betcha that I'm going to be watching my (legally purchased) movies from my hard drive. Sadly there is no UHD TV or projector that offers FI.

The only scenario therefore that SVP doesn't cut it, is when you want to just throw in a 3D Bluray and watch it. Ripping can be a royal pain and raw rips take up a lot of space. But SVP makes an even more impressive difference for 3D content. Everything looks "solid" and real. It's really a stunning improvement. And FI built in to the TV or projector I admit is way easier and more convenient than SVP. Not sure how good the quality is. Personally I think the ability to get upgrades to improve the quality over time is a good reason for software-based interpolation instead of hardware.

Bottom line is FI is for 1080p content for now, only. So if judder bothers you, then hold off on UHD Blurays until FI becomes available at 4K or someone cracks AACS 2.0
 
#9 ·
Here's my suggestion if you hate judder... And not everyone will agree with me because it gets more complicated if you are looking for something beyond good FI.

Buy a Sony 45ES and turn Motionflow to 'Low'. You'll see a smidgen of SOE until you get used to it but pans will be smooth. IMO low isn't very aggressive and you won't see many artifacts.

Most people take the 'I turn that $@%# off' approach to FI so it's hard to get any reviews. But Sony's implementation is the best I've personally seen.

With the 45ES you'll also have roughly twice the contrast of your current DLP and the Sony is pretty much dead silent unless you are a few inches away from it.
 
#15 ·
Here's my suggestion if you hate judder... And not everyone will agree with me because it gets more complicated if you are looking for something beyond good FI.

Buy a Sony 45ES and turn Motionflow to 'Low'. You'll see a smidgen of SOE until you get used to it but pans will be smooth. IMO low isn't very aggressive and you won't see many artifacts.
Thanks for the recommendation. That was going to be one of my next questions: "What price point does "good" FI come into play?" Although I'm hoping to get a few more years out of my W1070 before upgrading.
 
#11 ·
I was really not sure the first time I've tried Frame interpolation 5 year ago, but the panning judder was becoming an issue for me so I tried.

yea at first the image seem like a live video feed. but you have to understand that you now see lot more frame then before so it is normal.

Took me like 1 week to stop seeing this so call 'soap opera effect'.

for me FI as been one of the best thing that ever come in my home theater. I've now been using it for 5 years on all content(movie, game, tv) I have an Epson 8700UB projector and set it to medium FI.

My only problem now is when I go to the theater or to a friend house where there is no FI. I am now having a very hard time watching anything without a smooth FI.

but yea the best advice is go see it for yourself. and remember that you brain will eventually forgot the "live video effect" you see at first.
 
#13 ·
I agree completely.

I only became used to it after a week or so, too. But once you go smooth, you can't go back. It ruined movie watching at the box office to a large extent. With my trusty old w1070 I get a better movie experience than most cinemas. Plus most cinemas have pretty poor black levels so they can't even compete on that.

Being able to pause the movie, make another drink or snack, and go to the bathroom without missing anything, is actually my primary reason. Plus the cost.

I've often wondered how good FI is in TVs and projectors compared to SVP.

3D movies in particular at the cinema I find terrible. But watching it at home ripped to SBS or O/U and then increasing it from 24p to 60p is a huge difference in the realism of 3D. Headaches go away, the effect is just awesome. I'm building a passive 3D dual projector setup so I can watch full res Blurays with the left and right eye presented at the same time and at 60fps, plus at double the lumens, that will be a good upgrade for me.
 
#22 ·
My Mitsubishi HC7900dw has a very good FI and I use it all the time set on its highest setting. The main draw back is the idiot directors that think shaky cam is a good thing and FI just can't handle it. I very rarely go to the theater but I did see Star Trek Beyond in an IMax and the motion judder was unbearable, can't wait to see this at home with FI.
 
#31 · (Edited)
Nice! Would love to see someone break it down.

One good source of an artifact I see regularly is on the Guardians of the Galaxy blu-ray. At the beginning when the Milano (his ship) is dodging the water spouts. There is a medium shot where he passes behind (or in front... I forget) of a spout of water on the right side of the frame. Bad FI REALLY chews up that shot.

Another good shot on the same disc... The interior of the ship in the next chapter when they pan over his Janisport back pack. Judder city....

I've thought about it more and without FI on my SXRD I'm actually bothered more by what I call 'micro judder' that I see almost constantly rather than just pans.
 
#32 ·
Nice! Would love to see someone break it down.

Although the comparison will probably not reflect the latest state-of-the-art. Here's why:


It's my understanding that JVC utilizes its own "Clear Motion Drive" FI technology.


Optoma on the other hand (BenQ perhaps too) has been utilizing the "Motion Engine" video processors of Pixelworks.


The PW9800 ME in the HD 82, later the PA 136 ME in the HD 83 and HD 50.
The latest PA 168 ME presented at the CES 2013 has probably only been used for 4K flat screens thus far, but what attracted my attention was this:


"Pixelworks’ portfolio of video display solutions includes patented Motion Estimation and Motion Compensation (MEMC) technologies and the industry’s only Halo-Free Frame Rate Conversion (FRC)."


http://www.pixelworks.com/?q=node/66


In plain language: Pixelworks claims that with the PA 168 Motion Engine there are no longer visible conversion artifacts! :cool:


So whatever FI comparison I'd do between Optoma and a JVC would just reflect the FI still being used in the current line of Optoma projectors (probably including the HD 90 and 91).


I anticipate this incredible sounding PA 168 to see implementation in the 4K DLP projectors of Optoma and BenQ next year, but these will carry a 5K price tag.



 
  • Like
Reactions: RLBURNSIDE
#33 ·
I purchased my first PJ and home theater set up and the first thing I noticed was judder. I even posted about it in another thread.

Not everyone is bothered by it though. It is very subjective. I am bothered by it and it takes me out of the immersion factor of having a 100" screen that I am only a few feet away from.

I honestly thought judder was a thing of the past when TV's started shipping with real 120Hz and 240Hz displays. I purchased a Samsung TV just because it was 240Hz. For a while I was using their "Smooth Motion" implementation which was really good because it had a 10 point scale. I would have it set at 4 which was just right. Sometimes a really hard scene would have artifacts, like Nick Fury walking under a helicopter in Avengers, but most of the time it was fine.

Then I turned it off because I bought into the purist aspect of film and directors intent. The movie would not have judder and seemed pretty smooth still. I assumed since my TV was 240Hz it was just showing a single frame 10 times since it was 24fps. I never noticed judder again...

Then I buy a BenQ HT4050 and a screen and all of a sudden judder is a problem . Watching Gravity and The Martian was horrible. The color and the contrast was amazing, and the size of the movie still blows my mind, but every time the screen hitches I have a mini-stroke. I may have to turn on frame interpolation and see how it goes.

I just assumed that any new PJ or TV would have dealt with this problem already. I was quite shocked.
 
#43 · (Edited)
Then I buy a BenQ HT4050 and a screen and all of a sudden judder is a problem . Watching Gravity and The Martian was horrible. The color and the contrast was amazing, and the size of the movie still blows my mind, but every time the screen hitches I have a mini-stroke. I may have to turn on frame interpolation and see how it goes.
DLPs have much better motion handling capability than LCD TVs so seeing judder more pronounced doesn't surprise me. DLP is just exposing the judder, but fundamentally, it's there.

240hz LCD can't transition fast enough and it's likely only 120hz with maybe a black frame inserted (i.e. the backlight is turned off 1/2 the time). 240hz 1080p LCDs are only starting to trickle out now, with transition times remotely fast enough to see a (tiny) improvement over 144hz.

Simply playing back 24 frames per second multiple times won't make judder go away, it does reduce flicker in the old analog cinemas but that's because of the shutter. But inserting black frames in between duplicated frames (like 48hz = frame 1, black, frame 2, black, or 96hz = frame 1, frame 1, black, black, frame 2, frame 2, black, black) doesn't actually get rid of the fact that the delta between successive frames is too large with not enough inherent motion blur to mask judder, so if you have a superior projector technology like DLP (for motion), then it's more obvious. I can see judder in commercial cinemas easily : as soon as stuff moves quickly, chances are if it's not incredibly blurry it's incredibly choppy or some combination thereof.

If you interpolate 24p to 48p, you bring 180 degree shutter angle worth of motion blur to 360, unless the interpolation engine removes the inherent blur from the source material and then re-adds it in an appropriate amount. The pixelworks FI tech probably works on this principle, I'm going to investigate (this has bearing on my work).

The great thing about HDR is that, despite the fact that it exacerbates the perceptibility of motion artifacts like judder (your eye is attracted to sudden changes in luma channel therefore it's attracted to precisely the wrong parts of the frame : those areas with the most jumpy, high frequency changes), motion interpolation should work better than on SDR, because there's more pertinent luma gradient information to exploit, more separation between neighbouring luma values to inform edge and consequently motion detection. HDR also accentuates noise but that will only make temporal noise removal work better as well. This step is likely done at the studio but not always. Plenty of SDR Blurays are quite noisy with film grain because they didn't want to blur out high frequency detail, but with temporal denoising that's not really an issue : noise like film grain persists only in one frame at the same position so comparing succeeding frames (adjusting for motion) can tell you where in the current frame to ignore in favor of a temporally reprojected pixel in the prior frame. This is in the same ballpark of metadata that FI needs to work, namely motion between frames. So it makes sense to add temporal denoising option to FI for content with lots of transient noise like film grain or live video. Most pro video editing packages have temporal denoising but how good they are at preserving legit high frequency content is up for debate.

Regardless, video pixels have been processed countless amounts before getting to your eye, and sometimes the aesthetic or technical choices that producers or editors make are not those that you would take. I've met plenty of pros who just don't really grok the fundamentals of how the eye works. At 24p the frames are persisted way too long on the retina for ultra high frequency detail to be ignored, such as film grain or noise. Low ISO type noise from digital sensors is similar to film grain and is often visible with black levels fluctuating. But at high enough framerates, those minute differences disappear as your mind synthesizes them into an average. 24p is simply not high enough framerate, even 60p isn't. You need 83hz or above, the rate at which your eyes dart around to combine multiple angles into one synthetic image. Then transient per frame noise will disappear. However that still won't make judder disappear entirely, if objects jump more than 1 pixel between frames i.e. the shutter angle isn't 360 degrees (360 degrees is perfect blur, no judder at all possible).

In an ideal world, when you do interpolation, you should still do it to a whole integer multiple of the input framerate, so like 3:3 (72hz) or 5:5 (120hz) treating each new frame in the 24p source as a keyframe which is displayed with the minimal amount of processing.

There are some interesting papers out of Siggraph this year including variable framerate interpolation and temporal denoising / deblurring / interpolation / supersampling in a single pass (judder is just another way of saying : a shear in the temporal / frequency domain). Since shears can be detected easily, they can be undone. But having better (less banding, HDR), less noisy inputs will definitely let algorithms like FI work their best. Plenty of talk at Siggraph about how HDR source material impacts the performance of many computer vision techniques and improves results (since colour detail is preserved in both dark and bright areas of the frame, detection routines that depend on subtle differences in colour or intensity will all be immediately improved with HDR input).
 
#34 ·
So is this panning shudder/jutter a digital problem? That is, If I was watching the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey on a large commercial theater screen back in 1968 (when everything was analog...movie was shot on film / movie was being projected from film) was I seeing the shudder/jutter back then?
 
#35 ·
I personally do not think that judder is a problem in movie theaters. I am aware of judder, I hate judder, and I also go to the movies all the time. I live like a block from an IMAX theater. I have not noticed judder in a movie. I think that I would have noticed it since I have read about it and I notice it on my displays at home. I have noticed other little issues with background image flicker (which cnet called shifting lines) but that is rare. The projectors used for commercial movie theaters and the video source is multitudes better than what I have at my house and I assume that is why I don't see judder in the theater but I do see judder at home.

Plus I do not know what the refresh rate is on my projector. It is not a stat that they readily divulge. Or maybe it is called something different. But no where in my stat sheet is there anything that says refresh rate=.
 
#37 ·
Judder is usually most apparent in landscapes, flying, fast action, panning scenes. It's really bad on high contrast material, like in Interstellar it was crazy bad at times on that ice planet.

And, sorry to say, HDR makes it worse. 50 nits theater showings mask all kinds of sins. Bring that up to 100 nits and you'll see it way more.

It's been written many times on AVS : they don't call them flicks for nothing. flicks = flickering. Because the framerate is way too low.

They take 24p and show the same frame twice, which is particularly bad for the mind to perceive motion smoothly because as you track things going across your retina, what actually hits your eyes is this: FRAME A -(hold it.....)--- BLACK --- FRAME A -(hold i....)-- BLACK -- FRAME B -...etc

So in reality the fact that 24p is double strobed, it short-circuits your mind's internal interpolation and you see stuttering. 24, 48, 60, even 120p are nowhere near high enough framerate to smoothly track objects moving across the screen. The only way to have smooth motion is for there to be 1 pixel of travel laterally, per frame. That means your framerate determines how fast objects can move, without either teleporting to a new discrete position (discontinuous motion), or how blurred they get (assuming a non-zero shutter angle).

Sadly even many people working in digital films today do not "grok" the fact that 180 degree shutter angles are not enough to elimininate motion blur, and are content with the status quo of a combination of stuttering and motion blur, which is completely unnecessary as 60fps and even 120fps are common. Luckily I work in native 60p all day long but 90p and 120p are both way better (yet still nowhere near good enough to compete with the human visual system).

Never let anyone tell you that 60 frames per second is enough, let alone 24p. It's a fact that you can verify easily for yourself. Just look at this little UFO guy moving around and change the velocity and see motion artifacts live:

http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates

Ask yourself : is the UFO on the top line clear? No.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a moving one is worth a million:

http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=quebec.jpg&pps=960&pursuit=0&height=0

Again, is 60hz giving you a blur free / stutter free panning? Obviously not.

The frame rate you need to track objects moving on a computer (or movie theater) depends on how fast those objects are moving. Your eyes and mind track moving objects VERY well, and synthesize multiple samples (using ocular microtremours aka spatiotemporal supersampling) into a coherent image.

Bottom line : those who say you can't notice more than 60fps have probably never used a monitor that does 144hz, or played a game with it. Or studied how sample and hold displays work. I highly encourage people here to educate themselves via the articles on Blurbusters.com

Blur is a way to mask judder, but 24p movies don't have enough blur to mask it, they typically have half as much as they need. But directors leave the judder in there because otherwise it's too blurry. They sacrifice smoothness for a dull, blurry image.

24p sucks.
 
#42 · (Edited)
When I saw The Hobbit with 48 fps in the movie theater, I couldn't help but notice quite a lot of motion blur in the Troll king's underground lair, which was totally absent when I played the BD at home.


Come to think about it, The Hobbit should be a perfect FI test candidate (for the JVC and in general) as Peter Jackson probably did a lot of dynamic camera pans, then freed from the shackles of 24 fps.


...and is most definitely a film to be experienced with FI if we intend to honor the director's intent (which remains obscured in 24 fps). ;)
 
#44 ·
I'd love to try SVP on a native 48p Hobbit copy, bringing it up to 144hz on my monitor, but I'm not sure why 48p input material would be perfect test candidate. You mean to compare the 24p version and the 48p version? I'm pretty sure the 24p version was taken from the 48p version and downsampled. So re-upsampling it back to 48p (or more) wouldn't be a fair test. I remember reading that Jackson was conservative and didn't exploit 48p to the fullest.

I know people who worked on it, (in fact I work with them) but they are rather tight lipped about it. I'll try to find out about how the 24p version was made, if it was from the 48p and what types of digital shutter angle they used.

Hopefully a 3D, HDR, HFR upgrade to the UHD Bluray and HDMI specs will make 48p happen. I would rather Jackson went directly to 60p instead of 48p, but apparently 48p was easier for commercial theaters to use, since they project 24p material two frames at a time anyway. I am not sure, but DCI projectors can probably do 60p, not just 48p. Maybe there was a bandwidth limitation for 4K. One would think that 60p digital filming would be more mature after over a half century of 60hz television experience, compared to 48p, but my knowledge is limited in this area. I'll try to find out.
 
#46 ·
I watched Skyfall last night and turned BenQ's frame interpolation called Motion Enhancer to low. There was not many artifacts and the setting was not very aggressive at all. However, I still noticed a hitch in a scene. I am starting to suspect that what I am seeing and what others may be seeing is not judder but the PJ dropping a frame. I noticed this problem years ago on a Samsung and there was several threads started about it.

When the displays processor is having a hard time with the content is would randomly drop a frame in order to catch up. It is not repeatable and incredibly frustrating. If you rewind the movie it won't happen again. I suspect this because judder should be repeatable since it happens as a result of a panning scene. What I am seeing is more random and will happen even on a still shot. The movie just skips for a heartbeat. It is annoying and very noticeable. Has anyone else seen this?
 
#47 · (Edited)
The movie just skips for a heartbeat. It is annoying and very noticeable. Has anyone else seen this?

:eek: Yuck. What Blu-ray player are you using and how is it set up?


I vaguely remember that the output has to be 23.976p (fps).


Wikipedia "24p": "An added technical problem is that the popular Matroska (.MKV) video container format allows novice users to declare that 23.976 video is 24.000, and this can result in codec conversion errors with concomitant video stuttering (due to frame "dropping" and "cloning") and loss of audio sync."


I made the same observation when I had my external HD-DVD drive send the images via the XBox 360 to my Optoma HD 83(00).
For some reason I can't watch my HD-DVDs on the external HD-DVD drive on my Optoma with Pure Motion FI on. I suspect that there's something not set right with the digital video output of my XBox 360.


Other than that all other program content (satellite receiver, Pioneer DVD, Oppo Blu-ray) shows up frame interpolated without any of these artifacts you've been describing, fortunately.


P.S.
Came across Evan Powell's treatise from 2008 on the subject of 24p and Frame Interpolation. Written in an entertaining and graphic style, I'd say this treatise is worth a read and covers the essentials. Highly recommended to anyone who wants to understand both items:

http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm?page=What-Causes-Judder


:)
 
#48 ·
I purchased Samsung's HT-J5500W which is a Blu-ray player and an AV receiver.

I do not run video from a PC to my projector. It would have to be a Bluray player of some sort. Is there a better option for Bluray player that will perform better?

I assumed that all blu-ray players where the same when it came to the video signal it puts out, you just pay more or less for features.
 
#49 ·
And you can exclude that it might be a problem with your BenQ (i.e. you tried another video source, DVD and/or TV receiver that directly links to the BenQ)?


Would like to be able to assist but I'm not familiar enough with Samsung or BenQ.
 
#53 ·
I've been using FI for years and not that long ago the only thing that worked with Blu-ray was AMD's smooth motion.
They had it for regular DVD for a very long time, but I don't remember any plugins of any sort _ that goes back to version 10 (that's when I started using Power DVD)
Chainik over at SVP has always claimed that it never worked with Power DVD and it never will.

Have you tried DmitriRender, that's what I'm using now ?
Very little halo artifacts and very smooth.

The down side is it has trouble with small fast moving objects, the parachute scene in Kingsman goes all to hell.
Also in Train Your Dragon 2 when Toothless is skimming along the ocean at around the beginning of the move, it can't deal with that either.

One of the most demanding halo artifact tests is the movie "The Shawshank Redemption".
At the end of the movie when Morgan Freeman goes looking for this box under the lava rock, the driver who drops him off passes in front of this corn field. It's a very complex back ground for any FI algorithm to deal with, DM deals with it pretty good, I could never get SVP to handle it to an acceptable limit _ if you tone down the halo effect, then you loose smoothness.
I would spend an afternoon frustrating myself, tinkering with the settings.
My 300es handles it the best, it's barely noticeable, but then it doesn't work very well in other scenes.

I like DM because it's simpler to install and there are no endless adjustments, it's pretty much plug and play.
It makes no use of the CPU and relies solely on the GPU, the downside being you need a good video card.
My GTX 980 runs at around 75% doing FI, upscaling to 2160p and running MadVR, not so bad really when you consider the load.
You can turn down the percentage that DM uses, and even then it's still quite smooth.
It costs 10.00 bucks too, but so does SVP.

http://www.dmitrirender.ru/
 
#54 ·
24fps material will always look peculiar with FI, especially if done on the fly. Prerendered to a higher frame rate will have better results but visible artifacts will remain. Whether the viewer finds those flaws acceptable is their prerogative.

Material with an increased native frame rate will inherently have less blurred visual information which reduces the typical FI artifacts since the processing does not need to interpolate as much pseudo visual detail. Potentially providing a more broadly acceptable result.

Superficially FI seems analogous to compression codecs but the vital difference remains that a video codec repurposes and reconstitutes reference image information; whereas FI must offset and further create its own imagery from inherently flawed blurry information. Sometimes the results are near seamless but for many the SOE persists and is more commonly visible.

The Hobbit trilogy is an interesting point for evaluation in respects to the point of FI versus HFR but is inherently flawed for several reasons.
Mainly the blu-ray transfers have been processed to introduce more conventional 24fps blur which further reduces the increases motion resolution the original 48fps version has.

The reason many felt the trilogy exhibited the SOE at 48fps is because of the intermediate state in how motion is captured in equal parts increased motion resolution but retaining more blur than found in 60fps material. As well judder remains evident but once more less than 24fps but not in parity with 60fps.

This quasi-state of being smoother and clearer is hindered by 48fps not being sufficiently fast enough to come into parity with the more seamless motion reproduction of 60fps material.

Applying FI will not accurately replicate the 48fps experience due to lacking the increased detail found in the originating source. It may create a sufficient approximation for those that prefer FI but it will never achieve accuracy and transparency. Especially in an on fly application, offline rendering will be better yet will remain flawed.

Also commercial cinemas are typically projecting 24fps material at 72 or 96 fps to reduce/eliminate flicker.
 
#55 ·
Given a choice I would rather have FI with artifacts then 24 (23.976) fps flicker.
Play the Blu-ray of Narnia's Voyage of The Dawn Treader.
Right at the beginning of the movie there is this odd pan of these cathedral spires, it's a flickey mess of vertical and horizontal lines as the camera moves and pans around the structure.
This scene looks so much better with FI; even a bad one.

I'm patiently waiting to do FI on UHD Blu-ray.
The low frame rate totally destroys any definition gained of tress and small back ground objects when the camera is panning.
 
#56 ·
UHD frame interpolation is going to be tricky. The simplest answer is : wait until there are displays with 4K FI chips in it, and buy those. So, a time + money fix. I'd rather be more pro-active and I prefer watching stuff on my PC anyway, so rips are really the best answer. No, I'm not advocating piracy, just the ability to play back our own legally purchased content, whether on disc or streaming services, the way we want. Right now, you can't even buy UHD streams unless it detects you have a valid UHD TV connected. And then the content is encrypted too.

So no matter whether it's UHD Blurays or UHD streams, they are doing their best to make it impossible for legal customers to play back their content at a different framerate than native. Of course they are in their right to try and protect their profits, just as we are right to want to be able to watch our own legally purchased items the way we want.

What does that leave? Well, stream/disc rips. I'm sure some Netflix app will get hacked and the bytes dumped eventually. So that's one way to apply PC-based frame iterpolation. Basically, play by the honour system which is subscribe to a service, but then don't use it and get the ripped content elsewhere. Or rip it yourself (preferred). Both options suck but there is no other way.

And for UHD Bluray rips, that will likely happen eventually but what if I just want to buy my own discs, rip it myself, then play it back from the hard drive? Even doing that for regular Blurays is such a pain. I own plenty of Blurays and 3D Blurays and often end up watching ripped versions instead of the actual content I purchased, hence lower quality due to compression. This also sucks.

Ideally, the best solution would be an outboard video processor that works at 4K, compatible with both SDR and HDR, and then you can use it whenever you want, on whatever types of sources you want. I know there is a market out there for this, as plenty of UHD TVs and projectors only have FI at 1080p, plus PC-based streaming is encrypted end-to-end so that's a dud too. The question is, why doesn't anyone release a Darby-like VP with FI on it (that hopefully has regular updates to fix issues).

ps thanks for the tip Jeff, I'm going to definitely try out that other software.
 
#60 ·
UHD frame interpolation is going to be tricky. The simplest answer is : wait until there are displays with 4K FI chips in it, and buy those.

Apparently, these already exist since 2014:


“Pixelworks is very pleased to work with Skyworth to lead the way in delivering Ultra HD 4Kx2K TVs to the China market,” said Graham Loveridge, SVP Strategic Marketing and Business Development of Pixelworks. “The combination of unprecedentedly high resolution, price point, and superior video display processing will quickly affirm Skyworth’s leadership position in this all-important market.

Pixelworks’ PA168 MotionEngine was designed from the ground up to address the Ultra HD market and solves the most complex and persistent problems associated with displaying video at high resolutions and refresh rates. Pixelworks’ advanced video display solutions include patented Motion Estimation and Motion Compensation (MEMC) technologies and the industry’s only Halo-Free Frame Rate Conversion (FRC)."


I bet the PA168 will be implemented at least into Optoma's upcoming 4K DLP projector, given their previous business and partnership history.


I should probably get in touch with Pixelworks and ask them which manufacturers they supply with their motion engine, if they are allowed to say so.
 
#57 · (Edited)
I'm hoping for Cyberlink to release an UHD version, then I just have to buy a new video card to use AMD's SmoothMotion.
I was told there will be a product and drives by 2017, I remain hopeful and skeptical and the same time. :rolleyes:

I did look into a video processor with FI and there is none, probably because most people don't' like FI and the fact it would be expensive.
It would have to have the equivalent of a GTX900 or 1000 series video card in it for it to work, the cost would be around 1500.2000...
I would pay that much with no problem because I find frame judder so intolerable, but again most would just say, "why would I pay all that just so my movies can look like a soap opera" ? :mad:

Perhaps some of the new 4K DLP's will have FI and with my luck, I would be really bothered by rainbow effect _ I've never owned a DLP, so ignorance is bliss.
 
#58 ·
They could make a dedicated chip that could handle FI. The problem is most who buy video processors($$$) are old purists like me, who grew up watching film projectors flickering. So I don't know how much market there would be.

Maybe in 2017 cyberlink will have a UHD player... the rumors i hear are they have to wait on new silicon from intel that has added hardware protection so they can't crack UHD like they did dvd's and blurays.
 
#61 ·
I don't understand why they don't release a standalone interpolator box, let those who want it buy it separately, and keep the projector cost down for those who don't.

Plus, all the installed base of UHD TVs who have a certain percentage who would miss FI, they have no recourse except to wait and upgrade their TVs again.

If they combine it with SDR-to-HDR conversion, bonus. I would pay several hundred for a top of the line interpolator that "just works" and looks great.
 
#62 ·
I contacted Oppo to suggest something along these lines and here is what they replied:


"Frame interpolation is designed to be handled by the display, not the player, since the player can only output at 50/60Hz, and frame interpolation is generally done at 120 or 240Hz.

All the player can do is take the source and leave its frame rate alone (ex. 24Hz in and out) or take the source and add frames to increase the frame rate (ex. 24Hz to 60Hz).
We can't go higher than 50/60Hz since displays are not designed to accept higher frame rates.
The only time this is not correct is when you are talking about device like monitors, but monitors use DVI dual-link or equivalent technology, and HDMI is single-link only."


Of course, considering the Sony 4K front projectors have no FI for UHD content at all (although I know at least one Sony 4K user who will be buying the Oppo UDP-203...) already 48 fps to eliminate the worst judder and motion blur would be a step forward rather than to have no FI at all, IMHO.




 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top