AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panel General & New FP Tech › White Paper - Is Frame Interpolation Important?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

White Paper - Is Frame Interpolation Important?

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
The original article is at: http://www.projectorcentral.com/frame_interpolation.htm

The Projector Central site is highly reccomended by me.

The prior White Paper caused an interesting discussion, this one should as well. Both LCD and Plasma flat panels are available with Frame Interpolation, and the feature is gaining in popularity.

Is Frame Interpolation Important?

By Evan Powell, January 20, 2009

In the past four months we've seen several new 1080p projectors released with a feature known generically as frame interpolation. The new Epson 7500UB and 6500UB have it, as does the Sanyo Z3000 and the Panasonic AE3000. Epson calls it FineFrame, Sanyo calls it Smooth Motion, and Panasonic calls it Frame Creation. But it is all the same concept: the projector evaluates the differences between individual frames of film or video, and creates interim frames to be inserted between the real frames in the source. The objective is to reduce motion judder and provide a cleaner, more artifact-free viewing of film and video material.

Two complaints have been circulating about frame interpolation technology. One is that it can make a movie look more like digital video, something which people are calling, somewhat derisively, the Soap Opera effect. In essence, the complaint is that it makes a film, which has a slightly surreal and sensual quality, look like a CNN Situation Room HD broadcast, which by comparison is hard, cold, clear, and real (sometimes disturbingly real). When James Bond begins to look like Wolf Blitzer, you know you have a problem.

The second complaint is that, while frame interpolation can reduce or eliminate much of the film judder we see in movies, it sometimes introduces other artifacts which may be just as problematic. For example, instead of the judder, we may see some ghosting as subjects move across the screen, or some unnatural disintegration of the picture during momentary fast pans of the camera.

These complaints are well-founded. Some frame interpolation systems do indeed produce these undesirable side effects. But if it is done well, the picture can be virtually free of artifacts while it retains that mystical film quality. Ideally, what you will see is a clean, stable, but still filmlike image that many will find irresistibly engaging.

Not All Frame Interpolation Systems are Created Equal

We've said this before and we cannot emphasize it enough: Don't make the mistake of seeing a frame interpolation demo on a particular video product and assume you've seen what it will look like on all video systems. Each vendor approaches it differently. They use different algorithms to generate the interim frames. Some products generate more created frames than others. These differences cause the type and frequency of artifacts to vary from product to product.

In addition, the digital video look which people want to avoid in traditional movie viewing, varies greatly from product to product. It tends to be more exaggerated on smaller screens than on larger ones. If you are projecting a 60" diagonal image, the effect will be more obvious than if you use that same projector to throw a 120" image. The digital video effect can sometimes be more obvious and distracting on plasmas and LCD TVs than it is on the projectors we've seen.

When to use Frame Interpolation

Among the 1080p projectors that have frame interpolation, the Epson 6500 UB produce a more obvious digital video effect than do either the Panasonic AE3000 or the Sanyo Z3000. Thus, we would not use the 6500 UB's frame interpolation when viewing regular movies. However, this does not mean that it has no application. For example, if you happen to be a fan of animated films, the digital video effect is irrelevant. The Pixar movie Cars has a reasonable amount of judder and flicker when played at 1080p/24. But when you engage the frame interpolation system on the Epson 6500UB, it has nothing but a beneficial effect on the image. The picture is smoother and more stable. There is no soap opera effect to be concerned about since animated films are obviously not real. Frame interpolation can be beneficial for all animated films, from Toy Story to Shrek to Finding Nemo to Ratatouille.

If you watch a lot of sports in HD on channels broadcasting in 1080i, you may find frame interpolation particularly attractive. For whatever soap opera effects are present in the video system you have, they are irrelevant in sports--you want that maximum reality effect. Of course, Fox Sports, ESPN, and ABC all broadcast in 60p format, so frame interpolation is not needed. But with sports broadcasts in 1080i, it can help.

Similarly, music concerts on HD discs may be enhanced with frame interpolation. Again, if there is any soap opera effect, it is a good thing--you want the Eagles Farewell 1 Tour to look as real as possible. It looks amazing in HD DVD, and hopefully they will release it in Blu-ray one of these days.

In the end, even if the frame interpolation system on your projector does have a particularly exaggerated digital video effect, this can work to your advantage in sports, music concerts, and animated films. You can always turn it off if you don't care for what it does to your traditional movies.

When it comes to traditional films, the digital video effect can be disturbing. We find that the Epson 6500UB produces a noticeably greater degree of undesirable "reality" than do either the Panny AE3000 or the Sanyo Z3000. Furthermore, on the Epson 6500UB there are occasional ghosting artifacts and other oddities. We don't see these nearly as frequently on either the Sanyo or the Panasonic projectors. For these reasons we consider the Epson implementation of frame interpolation, at least in its current iteration, to be the least successful of the three.

Conversely, the Panasonic AE3000 has the most robust and powerful frame creation engine that has appeared so far. When dealing with a 1080p/24 source, it generates three interim frames for every real frame, and plays them back at 96 Hz. (Panasonic is the only projector vendor that does this so far; both Epson and Sanyo generate one interim frame for each real frame.) In addition, there are two settings for Frame Creation on the AE3000--Mode 1 and Mode 2. Mode 1 evaluates the movement between two successive frames to generate its interim frames, and Mode 2 evaluates the movement between three successive frames. Mode 2 is clearly superior in its results, and again, neither Epson nor Sanyo have this capability.

Panasonic developed their own proprietary algorithms for Frame Creation in house. The result is an extremely smooth and artifact-free display of film. And in addition, the digital video effect is remarkably subtle in comparison to the Epson 6500UB. When the AE3000 is projected onto a 120" screen, the image looks like very clean film, not an ultra-real CNN HD video broadcast.

Is Frame Interpolation Important for You?

Well, only you can decide that. Personally, I am distracted by motion judder when I see it on the large screen. I was never bothered by it when watching a 42" plasma TV because the image was too small and the artifacts were less obvious. But at 120", the viewing experience is more immersive, and motion instability can be quite annoying. I'd rather have those artifacts gone if I have the option. So I am elated that vendors are now beginning to tackle this problem.

However, having said that, I should also say that motion judder is not a problem in all films. For example, the new release of Thunderball in Blu-ray has very little judder. The script is bad and the acting is worse, but at least the cinematographer knew what he was doing. In this film there is very little camera panning, and when the camera does pan, it almost always moves slowly enough to avoid the introduction of judder. You can watch this film in its entirety in native 24p and see almost no judder at all, which is rather remarkable. If you happen to be watching movies that were filmed in this manner, frame interpolation has no benefit.

On the other hand, the new Casino Royale Blu-ray, while it is a much better movie, is not nearly as successful in this particular regard. Moderate speed camera panning is rather frequent in this film, so you see a lot more judder. But it's great for us. We use a number of scenes in this film to exercise the various frame interpolation systems on the projectors that have come out so far.

And by the way, contrary to what one might assume, motion judder is not a problem that is limited to action movies. We've mentioned the film Swimming Pool on occasion before. This is an example of a very slow paced movie with no action whatsoever, and yet it is full of motion judder. It is not the amount of action in a film that produces motion artifacts, but rather the way the cinematographer handles the camera. So don't think that just because you are not watching stuff like 2 Fast 2 Furious that you won't be bothered by motion judder.

In the end, frame interpolation can be used with different types of film and video source material with great success. Sometimes it isn't necessary, and sometimes it helps enormously. Some frame interpolation systems are clearly more comprehensive than others, so as they say, your results may vary. We are extremely supportive of this new enhancement to video processing. Our hats are off to Panasonic in particular for showing how powerful the technology can be. We hope all vendors will give serious consideration to including it in their next generation video projectors.
post #2 of 34
Nice.

Speaking from the POV of a broadcaster, I am all in favor of the technology of frame interpolation. In fact, I hope it becomes so ubiquitous and so perfected that it allows broadcasters to begin to use 1080p24 as their standard format, which would allow higher quality at a reduced bit rate. Viewers could then decide for themselves what frame rate worked for them for particular content, and even customize it to different programs themselves. They could have their TV interpolate frames to give them virtual 1080p60 for a hockey game, or leave it alone to watch Casablanca at 24 fps. It would virtually remove the advantage that 720p has over 1080i30 regarding motion artifacts (or at least those that are not interlace artifacts), and could be used to help implement 3D, which will probably need a higher frame rate than 2D.
post #3 of 34
Did all of the other replys to the article get deleted or something??
I know there were more responses than just tomcasts to this article.

Did you ask the mods to remove all replys gary??
post #4 of 34
My take is like many in that article. I can see the "soap opera effect" as an added plus on some content but not non-animated movies. I for one dislike judder and if it can be removed without adding the video look it is more than welcome from my perspective.
post #5 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadmak09 View Post

Did all of the other replys to the article get deleted or something??
I know there were more responses than just tomcasts to this article.

Did you ask the mods to remove all replys gary??

I bet you're thinking about his other post he started yesterday about judder. Kind of redundant and a roundabout way to continue his crusade to get everyone to embrace his love for frame interpolation.
post #6 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCat View Post

from the POV of a broadcaster

a lot of times, what folks in the movie/broadcast industry think on this subject is second-guess. it would be nice to hear from more of them.
post #7 of 34
Thread Starter 
The reason for this thread is all the "me too" opinions around AVS Forum. Many members have looked at an imperfect first generation implementation of frame interpolation and have then written off the technology. The Panasonic projector is the first example of a 3rd generation frame interpolation design. There are a few decent second generation designs in the 2009 flat panels.

The message is, the feature is increasingly popular. In fact over a third of the HDTVs advertized in the weekend paper here in SJ have 120Hz/240Hz and FI. This white paper lays out the sources and circumstances where FI is beneficial, without attempting to obscure any problems associated with the feature.

Personally I find myself hoping that Panasonic can push the refresh rate on it's plasma panels to 120Hz, and fits them with FI engines similar to those in the Panasonic PT-AE3000 Projector. That is a display I would like to see.
post #8 of 34
To repeat a theme I mentioned in another related thread - I just don't see how video/film artifacts (other than the ones deliberately inserted by the Director) can be considered to represent the original intent of the movie's creator. Surely the Director does not want his actors moving in jerky motion, or pans creating unrealistic jaggies (again apart from movies where such anomalies are deliberate). I can see where a Director could prefer the grain of film and the imperfections of analog media over digital video and as something that works for him artistically, and conveys the "romance" of movies for him and many cinephiles. But for someone to say they prefer the film judder/jaggies and other uncontrollable motion artifacts because they maintain the original essence of the film just makes me shake my head in wonder.
post #9 of 34
I think that frame interpolation is a good option to have on a display. I sometimes use it, but usually have it switched to off.

The problem with motion interpolation is it's not real. It's not what the camera recorded. It's a guess at what a higher frame rate could look like. It will never get the guesses totally right and will always introduce it's own artefacts.

Now the strobing effect caused by 24fps shooting can be bad and that can be reduced by using the interpolation option, but again the interpolation isn't giving real frames and is only guessing at movement. I would really, really hate it if broadcasters output everything at 24fps, including real, live, stuff like sports, concerts, news, etc. and relied on those consumers with interpolation to try get back the real higher frame rates. It wouldn't work and would look really bad especially live things including sports, concerts, etc.

It would be much better if everything was shot and encoded on Blu-ray/broadcast at higher real full HD frame rates. For films, the output could default to 24fps if necessary, but if the consumer disliked the strobing/judder, they could increase the frame rate slightly or up to the actually shot frame rate. It would be easier to down-convert something shot on HD at a higher frame rate (perhaps with open shutters) to 24p than it would be to give accurate results guessing (interpolating) to give higher frame rates with smoother more-accurate motion from a 24fps source.

It's not just the strobing effect that is the problem. Comedy TV programs on TV shot at 25fps just don't look real. You can practically see the frames as they draw themselves on the screen. Whereas a higher frame rate (such as 50-60fps) does look real. I'd much prefer if more TV and films were shot and broadcast (or released on Blu-ray) at higher frame rates.
post #10 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxdog03 View Post

I bet you're thinking about his other post he started yesterday about judder. Kind of redundant and a roundabout way to continue his crusade to get everyone to embrace his love for frame interpolation.

By "post", do you mean "thread"?
By "yesterday", do you mean "last Thursday"?



PS. Thanks for posting both Gary, I enjoyed reading them.
post #11 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew4msu View Post

By "post", do you mean "thread"?
By "yesterday", do you mean "last Thursday"?



PS. Thanks for posting both Gary, I enjoyed reading them.

Have you checked out the other thread? It appears that's where the majority of information is being discussed about frame interpolation as this one isn't getting much play.
post #12 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

The reason for this thread is all the "me too" opinions around AVS Forum. Many members have looked at an imperfect first generation implementation of frame interpolation and have then written off the technology. The Panasonic projector is the first example of a 3rd generation frame interpolation design. There are a few decent second generation designs in the 2009 flat panels.

The message is, the feature is increasingly popular. In fact over a third of the HDTVs advertized in the weekend paper here in SJ have 120Hz/240Hz and FI. This white paper lays out the sources and circumstances where FI is beneficial, without attempting to obscure any problems associated with the feature.

Personally I find myself hoping that Panasonic can push the refresh rate on it's plasma panels to 120Hz, and fits them with FI engines similar to those in the Panasonic PT-AE3000 Projector. That is a display I would like to see.

Yup the new TVs are better and better. I never even turn my interpolation off

If panny comes out with a 120Hz panel will they market it as 1200Hz (subfield)
post #13 of 34
dupe deleted (mods, take it away at your convenience)
post #14 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

The reason for this thread is all the "me too" opinions around AVS Forum. Many members have looked at an imperfect first generation implementation of frame interpolation and have then written off the technology. The Panasonic projector is the first example of a 3rd generation frame interpolation design. There are a few decent second generation designs in the 2009 flat panels.

The message is, the feature is increasingly popular. In fact over a third of the HDTVs advertized in the weekend paper here in SJ have 120Hz/240Hz and FI. This white paper lays out the sources and circumstances where FI is beneficial, without attempting to obscure any problems associated with the feature...

I agree. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater just because the early implementations of it might not be all that great. If we had banished the audio CD in 1982 because the first versions of digital audio were harsh and coarse (effectively 14-bit), we never would have had the significant improvements that make it a mature technology even the snootiest audiophiles today can't recognize in a double-blind test against analog.

The promise of the technology, yet to be seen, is what is exciting, not the early implementations. If my Sony lasts another 5 years I expect FI to be a mature technology by the time I have to replace it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsmith901 View Post

...I can see where a Director could prefer the grain of film and the imperfections of analog media over digital video and as something that works for him artistically, and conveys the "romance" of movies for him and many cinephiles. But for someone to say they prefer the film judder/jaggies and other uncontrollable motion artifacts because they maintain the original essence of the film just makes me shake my head in wonder.

My first inclination is to agree with you. But if you look at the issue a bit closer, some interesting arguments arise.

There may be no credibility to this at all, but Roger Ebert (and I wish I could find the actual text) once postulated a theory that 24 fps had a particular benefit over higher frame rates for a solid technological psycho-visual reason, which was that it fosters suspension of disbelief and draws the viewer into the action in a significant way. It is thought that the 24 fps frequency matches closer to brainwave activity (frequency-wise) that is related to dream states, or altered consciousness. That is probably the flip side of why people don't like the "soap opera" effect.

Possibly complete hogwash, but it never hurts to keep an open mind.
post #15 of 34
Some very interesting insights here.

First, I must object to the term "digital video effect". There is no such thing. The correct term should be "realism". By increasing the number of frames (regardless of whether they are original or created) the motion looks more natural and real, because it indeed is closer to the "infinite" rate we see in real life.

I agree that 24 fps gives a certain feel, and I would have no problem if some movie directors chose to use it from time to time for that effect. But I see no reason whatsoever that everyone should continue to "default" to that frame rate in 2009. If video equipment in Hollywood, in homes and in theaters was equipped to deal with 60 or even 120 fps, I predict most directors would not choose to stay at 24 for all the content they create.

It was suggested in a post above to make 24 the standard to make things easier for everyone, although leaving open the choice for the viewer to enable higher higher fps. That would be a big mistake. I would rather like to see that tv channels broadcast in as high a frame rate as possible, but always showing content in the original frame rate. I would like to watch the news in full frame rate while a movie should be broadcast in its original frame rate leaving the option up to me and my display whether to use frame interpolation.

So I'd like the option to view things in its original state but I oppose any holding back of higher frame rate on content that supports it. We should move toward supporting (and using) higher frame rates just like we moved toward color tv.
post #16 of 34
"The objective is to reduce motion judder and provide a cleaner, more artifact-free viewing of film and video material"

The original and primary objective was to reduce sample and hold induced motion blur on flat pannel LCDs without having to use black frame insertion which lowers maximum brightness and contrast. The fact that it also removes film judder is a happy side effect.

"The second complaint is that, while frame interpolation can reduce or eliminate much of the film judder we see in movies"

I am not eccentric enough to view film judder as a desirble thing. It is a unwanted effect

"mystical film quality." "digital video effect" "soap opera effect" "noticeably greater degree of undesirable reality"

What on earth are they.

Traditionally the difference in film and video looks is caused by the difference in cameras and frame rates used, effecting dynamic range, gamma, color, deph of focus used in motion shots. I can see frame interpolation making motion scenes have more detail sharpness so increasing depth of focus, and making motion smoother as if it was shot at a higher frame rate. But the main complaint has been it makes the image look hyper real, odd unnatural. Motion has natural blur and is not perfectly smooth in the real world.

Oh and no one watches anything at 24fps like it was shot. Cinemas uses 48fps or more usually 72fps by repeating frames, otherwise it would be unwatchable due to flickering. LCD holds the frame untill the next one, doing this without frame interpolation or black frame insertion induces sample and hold motion blur not present at the cinema.
post #17 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by mad_arab View Post

First, I must object to the term "digital video effect". There is no such thing.

I agree; let's call it what it is - the "cheap ass video look".

Your side will probably win this war as the masses do seem to crave gimmicks, but personally that look drives me up the wall.

To each his own.
post #18 of 34
Thread Starter 
You guys are stirring the pot on the ongoing LCD vs. Plasma debate. Although I personally agree with your comments and I use FI on my HDTV pretty much all the time, this is still a minority viewpoint here.

The real problem is that Plasma displays DO NOT HAVE the 120Hz and 240Hz screen refresh rates that along with the FI feature, produce the ultra-realistic images. Thus those AVS members who prefer the look of a Plasma display have only ever had (and still only have at the beginning of 2010) access to very lame implementation of frame interpolation. Even the ever-lauded Pioneer Kuro's (frozen forever in 2008-vintage designs) never had access to effective implementations of FI, simply because they maxxed out screen refresh at a relatively slow 96Hz.

Panasonic today has the leading implementation of a frame interpolation engine in it's new video processor designs. The new and wildly popular Panasonic PT-AE4000U front projector offers a modest advance over last year's remarkable PT-AE3000U. To quote from Projector Central's review:

Quote:


"Panasonic uses the marketing term Frame Creation for its frame interpolation system. The AE3000 had three options for Frame Creation: Off, Mode 1 and Mode 2. Mode 1 buffered two frames and created one or more interim frames from those. Mode 2 buffered three frames and created one or more interim frames. Mode 2 was more comprehensive, but created more video delay.

The AE4000 incorporates the second generation of this system, and is thus called Frame Creation 2. It has the same Mode 1 and 2 as the original, but it has a new Mode 3. This also buffers three frames for analysis, but it performs much more processing to achieve a better result. Video delay in Mode 1 is modest, more noticeable in Mode 2, and more visible yet in Mode 3. Modes 2 and 3 put the picture visibly out of synch with the audio. Thus an audio delay is required to keep the picture and sound in synch when using the Frame Creation system.

The Frame Creation system reduces motion judder in increments-it is somewhat reduced in Mode 1, more so in Mode 2, and virtually non-existent in Mode 3. It accomplishes this with only occasional subtle artifacts. Depending on the material being viewed, Frame Creation can impart a hyper-reality to the image, making a movie look as it if were made with an HD videocam rather than a film camera. Some people like this effect, and others find it quite objectionable. Either way, this effect on the AE3000 and AE4000 is subtle when compared to competing models from last year on which the effect is more pronounced.

One demo that is quite interesting, if you ever have the chance to stage it, is to run a projector without frame interpolation side by side with the AE4000. When the pictures are adjacent to one another and the AE4000's clean, stable image is used as a reference, it is startling to see just how much judder and instability there is in the picture that is not being processed with frame interpolation.

The bottom line is that some users will want to use Frame Creation on everything they watch. Some will prefer to use it selectively, on material like animated films and sports broadcasts. Some won't use it at all. But it is nice to have the option."

The Panasonic Plasma displays are very popular here - and indeed they should be, they offer an astonishing array of features and outstanding video quality at a bargain price. But they lack a fast enough refresh rate that can fool the viewer into believing that they are looking through a pane of glass into a different world. Panasonic is IMHO the technical leader in consumer-level video processing engines, yet their most advanced VP design can only acheive it's true potential on their new 120Hz LCD front projector.

We are also approching another technological junction in the road (so to speak) with the highly-anticipated consumer-level 3D video displays. There are already astonishing LCD computer monitors in the under-30" sizes that are capable of up to 120Hz (in some cases higher) screen refresh rates, and with built-in jacks for controlling the LCD shutter glasses that are used for 3D gaming. For the first time, flat panel LCD monitors are replacing CRT monitors at the very high-end performance levels.

Again, Panasonic has claimed the technological high ground by announcing that they will ship 3D-capable HDTVs in 2010. I decided to delay my long-overdue projector upgrade in my home theater until I saw the new 3D Panasonics, both the front projectors and the new flat panels. After being blown away by the movie Avatar, I think that pretty soon, there will be 3D-capable Home Theater displays, and obsolete Home Theater displays.

But this being AVS, I'm pretty sure there will be those that disagree, and brand 3D as a gimmick. Be that as it may, I'm pretty sure that the new 3D-capable displays will be among the highest-performing displays for conventional 2D images as well.
post #19 of 34
The terminology of "film" vs "video" is dated. What is really meant is 24p vs 50/60hz motion refresh. Much of material shot for cinema uses electronic acquisition.

I'm not clear why 96hz wouldn't be adequate for smooth motion from 24P material. Normally 24P uses a 180 degree shutter angle which is 1/48th of a second. This is the primary reason why there is judder as motion blur is too short to cover from frame to frame. It's like temporal aliasing and is why wagon wheels can turn in reverse. However at 96hz the motion blur effectively covers 2 frames. It seems going higher in frame rate is overkill if the shutter time stays the same.

The line in the OP on how 720/60P has an advantage on sports over 1080i30 (aka 1080/60i) is widely disputed. Both system refresh motion at the same rate: 60hz. It is true that interlace artifacts can be noticeable on fine lines during slow movement, such as boundary lines on a basketball court. However on faster motion the shutter blur becomes an issue which limits resolution but also helps with motion smoothness. 1080i also offers higher horizontal resolution and static vertical resolution. Cameras operated in interlace mode can have up to 2x the light sensitivity which can improve depth of field for sharper images. It's all a trade off.

Another video production standard looming on the horizon appears to be 1080/60P & 50P. Much like 1080/24P it will allow for optimal conversion to 1080i and 720P standards, and will allow for improved slow motion. 3Gbs support is gradually increasing.

I keep wondering that as FI becomes more commonplace if viewers will become increasingly dissatisfied with the 24P look. It seems that many already have while others still see it as a cheap look. The 24P look has been around for generations now so we all equate it to the look of cinema. However as a new generation grows up with seeing features with a smoother look on video displays, will the 24P appeal finally fade? James Cameron has promoted 48fps which, while many think is still way too slow, would dramatically reduce judder. I've wondered if (or more likely when) a feature is made at 60fps as there really is less of a barrier using electronic cameras. This would seem ideal for 3D as realism is a goal.

Finally I've also speculated whether professionally interpolated Blu-Rays would be released. While better care could be taken to minimize artifacts compared to a real time device, there is the limitation that the fastest rate is 1080/60i. Perhaps a better approach may be to add interpolation data on a Blu-Ray disc and let the player do the processing.

I must admit that so far I haven't been overly impressed with the FI on consumer displays. I haven't seen the mentioned projectors in this mode so I can't give a definitive response. The displays I have seen seem to make the image sort of rubbery, even when there isn't noticeable artifacts.

CES should be interesting this year. 3D was widespread last year and I expect it to dominate this time. I'll try to see if FI has improved.
post #20 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvernon View Post

I agree; let's call it what it is - the "cheap ass video look".

Your side will probably win this war as the masses do seem to crave gimmicks, but personally that look drives me up the wall.

To each his own.

If you read what I actually wrote, my opinion would be to leave stuff at its original frame rate and leave the choice of whether to enable FI it up to the consumer. This is in the context of broadcasting. But there is no reason whatsoever to default to 24 fps for news, sports etc when you have the technology to shoot it in higher fps. I'd like movies (or anything really) to stay at its original frame rate whether its broadcast or released on Bluray. Give the consumer the choice of whether to apply enhancements, but don't stick to old limitations when making new stuff unless its an individual artistic choice by a director.

What I do object to is the notion that anything higher than 24 fps is labeled with a derogatory term. It makes no sense that in order to tell a fictional story you would have to resort to the limitations of video technology of the 1930s in order to keep the "fantasy" alive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TVOD View Post

Finally I've also speculated whether professionally interpolated Blu-Rays would be released.

Unless the original version is included (and is the default option) I don't like this idea. But I must admit I'm very curious to see how the result would look given the best possible treatment.
post #21 of 34
mad_arab,

I agree with you about news, sports, etc. No problem there. They can record that as fast as they want. I just don't want to go to a theater and instead of seeing a film wind up seeing what looks like the news and sports instead. Unfortunately, for me anyway, that seems to be the way we are headed.
post #22 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by mad_arab View Post

Unless the original version is included (and is the default option) I don't like this idea. But I must admit I'm very curious to see how the result would look given the best possible treatment.

The TV sets can recover the origional 24fps content by using Inverse Telecine (IVTC) techniques and many of them do from 1080i or 720p film based content. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine
post #23 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

The problem with motion interpolation is it's not real. It's not what the camera recorded. It's a guess at what a higher frame rate could look like. It will never get the guesses totally right and will always introduce it's own artefacts.

To characterize the signal processing going on in frame interpolation as "guesses" reveals a lack of appreciation for what's going on there. You might as well dismiss scan converters while you're at it. It's almost like listening to a DSL bitsteam over a loudspeaker and calling it "noise."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCat View Post

There may be no credibility to this at all, but Roger Ebert (and I wish I could find the actual text) once postulated a theory that 24 fps had a particular benefit over higher frame rates for a solid technological psycho-visual reason, which was that it fosters suspension of disbelief and draws the viewer into the action in a significant way.

Roger Ebert lost a lot of credibility by dismissing 3D as a distracting fad, as his reactionary attitude would be expected to do.

I would be surprised if Ebert again goes the Luddite route regarding Avatar.
post #24 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post

"Roger Ebert lost a lot of credibility by dismissing 3D as a distracting fad, as his reactionary attitude would be expected to do.

I would be surprised if Ebert again goes the Luddite route regarding Avatar.

Well, I'm proud to be a card carrying Luddite then.

To me 3D is the hokiest thing to come along in many a year. Granted, I am a cranky old fart but does storytelling and acting not mean anything nowadays? Do we just have to have gimmicks to get the younger generation into theaters or to buy discs for home?

"Oh dude, it was awesome - Adam Sandler's head came right out of the screen!"

I'll pass, thank you.
post #25 of 34
Thread Starter 
You are missing the point. The movie Avatar is certainly among the best films of 2009 - maybe THE best. The 3D feature made it more spectacular than ever, but the quality is still there in 2D.

I understand your concern. The film Jurassic Park made it possible to put extinct critters onscreen, and also made possible a series of craptacular SyFy channel bad movies that existed for no other reason than it became cheaply possible to put visual effects critters onscreen.

There have already been bad 3D films, like the 2008 Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D. That does not mean there can be no good 3D films, it only gives bad movie makers another opportunity to make bad movies, by pretending that the 3D effect will pad box office sales. Which it will not, you will still need a good script, a good Director, and good actors.

Ebert got converted by Avatar. Maybe you should see it. In fact, maybe you should see it in 3D.

I too am an old fart. But I have seen Avatar twice.
post #26 of 34
Gary,

I'll give it a shot. Two of my kids have seen it and rave about it. The only complaint they had was the long lines at the theater. It is showing here in Phoenix at the Harkins Arizona Mills theater in both 3D and IMAX 3D.

Nice to meet another old fart here.
post #27 of 34
Well, Gary, Just got back from the regular digital 3D (non iMax) showing. Our taste in movies and apparently politics as well differs greatly.

I lost interest when Pocahantas showed up out of nowhere to save what's his name's ass about a half hour into the movie. After that I just enjoyed my popcorn, watched the pretty scenery, and ignored the Hollywood leftwing propaganda machine.

3D wise, I suffered way too many Jared-Syn flashbacks.

Just not my cuppa.
post #28 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post


Personally I find myself hoping that Panasonic can push the refresh rate on it's plasma panels to 120Hz, and fits them with FI engines similar to those in the Panasonic PT-AE3000 Projector. That is a display I would like to see.

How would that benefit movies?


There's no reason to operate the panel at 120Hz in order to convert low-motion to high-motion.

Also, low-level MCFI responsible for converting 24, 25 and 30 to 50 and 60 is noting new. It was first featured in Philips CRTs back in 2002/2003 and was later used by InterVideo's WinDVD 6.

And it only works with contents that are stable and continues. The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions feature several segments with alternate frame rate.


PS: Rather than converting low-motion to high-motion, I prefer something in between.
post #29 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielo TM View Post

How would that benefit movies?

It would benefit movies for some of the same reasons mentioned in the PC article as well as this thread, particularly movies that are not film-based.

Low-level MCFI can be applied favorably in a number of instances. For example, it can help make motion more smooth and fluid for CGI and digitally animated movies (i.e. Pixar, Dreamworks) as these presentations are not real or intended to be in any sense. Also, some of the more effective implementations of MCFI can sometimes smooth out the motion without completely destroying the 'film look' by setting it to low or medium.

Finally, it can also aid motion perception for movies with a harsh, uneven frame rate, such as the Matrix series as you mentioned, as well as in non-traditional, non-licensed video content.

The point is that right now, plasma owners do not have the option to enable such a feature. And it would be a welcome inclusion on future PDPs for the reasons listed, especially if done as effectively as in Panasonic's FP line.
post #30 of 34
I am aware of the benefits of well-implemented low-level MCFI, but the panel doesn't have to operate at 120Hz to have such feature.

Also, the uneven frame rate found in Matrix Reloaded causes the low-level MCFI to 'act up'.

For an example; when the agent jumps on the truck and as the camera pans, the frame-rate jumps as the MCFI doesn't know how to accurately process it.

The same is true of the back-drop used in the fighting scene (between the agent and Morpheus), which features two sets of frame rate. The live action is ~24p, but the back-drop is unknown.

When presented with such complexity, low-level MCFI usually fails. Also, real-time MCFI can only be so good as it is based on interpolation (aka guessing). In order for accurate representation, the frame may have to be interpolated number of times, which will undoubtedly lead to greater input lag.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panel General & New FP Tech › White Paper - Is Frame Interpolation Important?