AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panel General & New FP Tech › Time to Upgrade, Motion Blur Driving Me Crazy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Time to Upgrade, Motion Blur Driving Me Crazy

post #1 of 38
6/17/10 at 3:24pm
Thread Starter 
I've had my Sony KDL-52W3000 for almost 3 years now and I want to upgrade to something bigger and better. My main gripe about it is the amount of motion blur I notice. After doing a lot of reading on the past couple of days the general consensus for motion blur is that Plasma is best. Having never owned a Plasma or spent a lot of time watching one I was pricing out some options (at Direct Buy) in my price range ($2200CDN). Just for curiosity sake I priced out some LCD's that were in my price range as well.

Plasmas:
LG 60PK550
LG 60PK950
Samsung PN58C540
Samsung PN58C6400

LCDs:
Sharp LC 60E88UN
LG 55LE5500
LG 55LE7500
LG 55LE8500
Samsung UN55C6400
Samsung UN60C6400

Projector:
Panasonic PT-AE4000

I had stopped at Costco to pick up something un-related and they had side by side the LG 60PK550 and a Samsung UN55C6400, and a third Samsung Plasma which I forgot to take the model number, all playing their demo content (which I'm sure isn't ideal). On longer camera pan shots I noticed there was still a lot of motion blur on the LG and I found it distracting, while the Samsung which was running 120Hz was better but not to the extent of an annoying SOE on that shot. I didn't catch any movie closeup scenes that I usually notice the SOE effect on, but there was a golf tip demo and it seemed about the same on both sets.

I also realize that there can be some blur in the content itself. I tested my current TV with my Casino Royale Blu-Ray and pausing it to check for blur. There were some scenes where the blur disappeared and some where it remained, so I guess the blur in this case was not consistent throughout the movie. Does 120Hz remove the blur in the source as well?

After all that info, my question is this: If Plasmas' are supposed to have that much less motion blur even compared to the 120Hz LCD's, but from what I saw side by side with the LG and Samsung's is it just my eyes? I wouldn't mind trying a Plasma, but from what I saw on display the motion blur on them still bothered me. I'm sure they're not calibrated, but would that help? I also don't mind sticking with an LCD 120Hz, preferably LED, but I don't think I'll get up to a 60" for my price range. I'm also not sure if there are 120Hz LCD's that will allow for camera pan's without blur while minimizing/preventing SOE on close up shots of movie characters. I get the feeling that this is something I'm just going to have to deal with.

I'm open to suggestions for models other than the ones I listed. I will most likely be going back to price out some more LCD models after my comparison experience.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 38
6/18/10 at 7:30am
Today's LCd's are much better than LCD's 3 years ago,the last 5 years i bought 4 LCd's so i know what i am talking about.

When you buy a 1080p LCd/Plasma you wil get the best results with a blurayplayer(dvd's and bluray discs)and a HDsatellite receiver/HDcable receiver(SD and HD),D65 Video Bias Lighting & Bias Lighting, Viewing Distance thread .

Plasma vs. LCd video

ccfl-edge lit-local dimming thread

local dimming list thread


If you want to know more about Plasma Flatscreens go to AVS Plasma Forum.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 38
6/18/10 at 7:48am
A plasma is better at eliminating motion blur caused by moving objects.
It does not eliminat motion blur in the content itself such as slow paning film based content.
When playing a game the fps of the game itself is often slower then 60fps.
A 240Hz LCD may be a better choice for you then a Plasma.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 38
6/29/10 at 12:44pm
Thread Starter 
It's been a few weeks since my original post. I've had a chance to go view some more Plasmas vs LCD (60/120Hz). I honestly cannot see an improvement in Plasmas vs regular 60Hz LCDs. They both have the same amount of motion blur. So in that sense I think I've made up my mind on a 120Hz LCD (I didn't see any improvement over 120Hz with 240Hz).

I think I've narrowed my choices down to two brands: Samsung & Sony.

Samsung:
UN55C6300/6800
UN60C6300/6800
LN55C630
LN60C630

- I read on the AVS Forums that Samsung have the best range of controls for Blur and Judder reduction (more than just Off, Low, High), so that is a definite plus.
- I do like the LED screens overall, although I am concerned with the banding that users in the official thread are observing. I know that a lot of people only post when they have an issue, so should be more sets that are fine than those with defects. I'm not sure how much of an issue this would be.
- I am interested in the 6800's mainly because of Precision Dimming. Is it really worth it or does it cause more issues?

Sony:
KDL52EX700/701
KDL60EX700/701

- From what I read in the official thread for this line is that people are choosing them because of issues they've had (banding) with other brands and aren't experiencing them with these Sony's.
- Supposedly the options for blur and judder reduction aren't as extensive.
- There is a bit of flash lighting around the edges which isn't a deal breaker for me as much as banding would be a problem.
- They are a bit more money, but I would be ok with that if it means better quality & performance.
- After almost 3 years with my current Sony I am still happy (aside from the motion blur) with the rest of the picture quality and minimal clouding & flash lighting.

In case I do buy direct from the manufacturer I'll call both Samsung and Sony to see how their warranties cover bad banding and backlight issues that affect picture quality.

I'm going to do some investigating into projectors that might have the features that I want for a decent price.

I would appreciate any feedback & comments on my points & questions is possible.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 38
6/29/10 at 1:06pm
You can still find large 2009 full backlit local dimming sets in your price range(lg, vizio). The precision dimming on Samsung's 2010 models is poop compared to the full backlits.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 38
6/29/10 at 9:56pm
There is still a big difference in terms of motion blur between your average 120hz lcd and your average 1080p Plasma. You'd have to get a 240hz backlit local dimming led with motion enhancer and have all the settings exactly right to get anywhere close to 1080 lines of motion resolution. Any new 1080P plasma will have 1080 lines of motion resolution or close to it. You'd need a motion resolution test patter like this to really see how big the difference between a given plasma and LCD is.
BTW, I'd say watch the video on a CRT computer monitor if possible because most LCDs will not be able to truly show you the real difference in the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMIPi9bx1GE
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 38
6/30/10 at 6:28am
If you feel a 60hz LCD (or any LCD for that matter) and a modern PDP are motion-resolution equivalent, trust me, motion handling isn't an issue for you, lol.

James
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 38
6/30/10 at 7:13am
The fact of the matter is that most motion blur is present in the filmed source material, and is an artifact of shooting in reduced lighting with longer camera shutter times.

Additional motion blur is inserted by the Telecine process - although some people can easily tell the difference between shutter blur and telecine blur, because telecine blur has an element of uneven or "jerky" motion.

In fact, a good (or even average) MCFI implementation in many 2009 and most 2010 HDTV models is capable of eliminating much of the visible blur from both of these sources. The resulting image has in many cases less blur than the source material.

As long as you have no objection to this as a matter of principle (which I do not) then MCFI is the best thing to happen since color film. To me, the series-of-slides appearance of 35mm material in a theater (or the strobe-light effect as some call it) has always been visible and annoying. The first generation MCFI implementations in 2007 were the first time I got some relief from this all-too-visible blur.

It bothers me not at all to view an image with less blur than the source material. Some argue that this "violates the Director's intent". I think that is pure hogwash. Once there was a huge installed base of 24fps 35mm projectors, a Director either bought into the inherent motion blur present in a standard established by Thomas A. Edison in 1896, or accepted a severe constraint on the distribution of his film to the very few theaters which could project higher frame rates.

FINALLY we have relief from this issue. But any display that refreshes at less than 120Hz is positively lame at motion blur reduction. While I agree that the visible difference between 120Hz and 240Hz is small, the 240Hz sets have two advantages over the 120Hz sets. First, the extra bandwidth of the 240Hz video processor gives you digital filtering and image processing options not available in other sets. Second, the 240Hz sets offer 3D images that flash the entire frame, versus that lame checkerboard pattern approach that causes additional ghosting.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 38
6/30/10 at 8:22am
I can't stand the "soap opera" look that MCFI gives movies.

There will always be some blur due to the nature of filming (exposure time). All I can say is that watching soccer on my old LCD made the soccer ball into a fuzzy oval. On my new plasma, it stays a crisp sphere.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 38
6/30/10 at 9:40am
24 fps film properly reproduced looks like, well, film to me and I like the appearance of film.

Sports, docs, TV shows, and everything else that's produced at 60 is fine by me as well- no interpolation needed, thanks.

Movies looking like movies seems to still be very popular.

That doesn't mean people like me are anti-new-technology, we're just for tech that actually improves upon what were seeing, not just altering it.

I've felt and still feel that most think interpolation is useless for 60hz and simply "alters" or even degrades film. If you feel it doesn't, god bless ya and implement like some do ketchup...put it on everything and enjoy life.

James
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 38
6/30/10 at 11:44am
Without disagreeing with anything said, there is no implementation of video in any display technology that I would mistake for film. I include my video front projector and roll-down screen that I view in a darkened room. That comes closer than any flat panel I have ever seen - but it still doesn't look like film.

What I think motivates most people - especially plasma devotees - is that plasma sets more than any other display technology, LOOK like film source telecined on 60Hz direct-view CRT technology. Which is not at all what film in a theater looks like. But it does have the comfortingly familiar look of the TVs we grew up with.

My pick for "Best video" would be a Blu-Ray source, played at 24fps, with MCFI switched ON. The best source with the clearest display. The fact that the MCFI processes several frames to eliminate exposure blur from the source is just great with me. On well-photographed HD material, the illusion of reality - not film - is what I see and desire. That material shot on HD video with very short electronic shutter times is clearest, and benefits the most from intermediate interpolated frames.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 38
6/30/10 at 12:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Without disagreeing with anything said, there is no implementation of video in any display technology that I would mistake for film. I include my video front projector and roll-down screen that I view in a darkened room. That comes closer than any flat panel I have ever seen - but it still doesn't look like film.

What I think motivates most people - especially plasma devotees - is that plasma sets more than any other display technology, LOOK like film source telecined on 60Hz direct-view CRT technology. Which is not at all what film in a theater looks like. But it does have the comfortingly familiar look of the TVs we grew up with.

My pick for "Best video" would be a Blu-Ray source, played at 24fps, with MCFI switched ON. The best source with the clearest display. The fact that the MCFI processes several frames to eliminate exposure blur from the source is just great with me. On well-photographed HD material, the illusion of reality - not film - is what I see and desire. That material shot on HD video with very short electronic shutter times is clearest, and benefits the most from intermediate interpolated frames.

+2 for this and your last post on this thread. You speak the truth Gary!

Even Robert Ebert said he really enjoys 48fps over 24fps for film content moving forward (new production)!

Semi-OT, but related:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...NTARY/61204001
Quote:


For years and years I have stubbornly been writing about MaxiVision 48, a system that provides a 400 percent improvement in picture quality over current 35 mm projection and involves a per-booth cost of only about $12,000 (only the front end of the projector changes; the housing remains the same). MV48 shoots at forty-eight frames a second but doesn’t require twice as much film; because of the way it uses the real estate on a frame of film, it needs only 50 percent more, and it has an economy mode that slows to the standard 24 fps. It can switch seamlessly between frame rates, because it doesn’t use sprockets to pull the film through but a nonvibrating electric motor and compressed air (that means no scratches). In March 2006 I visited Eastman House in Rochester, New York, and had a talk with their best film people. They all knew about MaxiVision, they all knew Kodak could sell more film if it were introduced, and not a single person in the room thought they had seen digital projection comparable even to ordinary 35 mm. But they said Kodak was being “repositioned” as a digital company and would not be investing in new film projection systems. That may work in the short run and be suicidal in the long run.

In the past, theaters have responded to competition from other media by upgrading their projection. Radio brought the talkies. TV brought wide screen. Stereo brought surround sound. All of these revolutions required visionaries in Hollywood boardrooms. The time is here for someone to step up to the plate with MV48. The obvious candidate is the IMAX chain, which could use MV48 to project a picture at much higher quality than current IMAX offerings and at smaller cost, because the big 70 mm IMAX format is costlier and more cumbersome than MaxiVision. That there is an eager market for high-quality sound and picture is shown by the success IMAX has had with ordinary 35 mm films like "Batman Begins" and "King Kong," not to mention the enormous success of its 3-D version of "The Polar Express." If Polar Express could be released in 3-D and flat versions, why not in MV48 and standard versions? The IMAX box office alone makes it plausible.

So, we keep getting stuck with 24fps... perhaps 3D will help 2D in this regard as well!
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 38
6/30/10 at 12:30pm
Gary here are some of my thoughts from another thread, about why I feel the elimination of blur actually creates a less realistic image.

"I have a theory about why so many of us dislike interpolation. In real life our eyes focus and track a particular subject, and the rest of what we're seeing is unfocused, unclear, and blurry. For instance if I'm watching a person run by me, they remain focused and "tracked" but the background is not. Or, if I'm looking at something stationary and someone runs quickly past me, they will appear blurry and out of focus. 24 fps film sorta mimics this. High frame rates, or interpolated images, makes everything less blurry and thus weird looking.

The way the background moves during pans and zooms in an interpolated image is what's most bothersome to me. When I "pan" with my head or eyes in real life there's all sorts of blurring, juddering, etc. Pans with frame interpolation are unnaturally smooth. They also make everything look like that awful "pan and scan" nonsense you get when movies are reformatted to 4:3.

I guess what I'm saying is that judder and blur are present in our natural vision, so eliminating it from our televisions is not good.

The exception may be on wide views of things like sporting events, where the camera moves slowly relative to the action, and where everything you're looking at is at a similar distance. Perhaps this is why some people who don't like it say it's ok with sports? I'm open to suggestion here.

One thing I definitely don't like about it with sports is the way it affects slow motion replays. There's a very particular look to slow motion that it totally eliminates. Makes slow mo replays look like those scenes out of the Matrix."

What's your take on that?
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 38
6/30/10 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgb32 View Post

+2 for this and your last post on this thread. You speak the truth Gary!

Even Robert Ebert said he really enjoys 48fps over 24fps for film content moving forward (new production)!

I agree with both of you guys. 24fps looks so outdated once you get used to higher frame rates. It definitely doesn't look like what I see when I look out the widow. I would quickly get to the eye doctor if I saw that much judder and blur in my vision. Higher frame rates just look more real and put you in the movie. It almost looks like 3d without the glasses.

I do admit that too much MCFI can make movies look like videogames. It's smoother than real life. So you have to walk a fine line.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 38
6/30/10 at 1:36pm
@greenjp:
I will interject my thoughts as well. You are certainly on to something. I see often people arguing against 24fps by saying that we don't see in 24fps. They're right, but only for what we are focusing on as you stated. If I wave my hand in front of my face it looks like I have FI on, if I wave it in my peripheral vision, it looks blurry.
When the camera is focused and tracking a subject on 24fps film, I don't see any judder or blur on the subject, I don't see his eyes and mouth moving like a slideshow. If the camera circles around a subject on film, the only thing that appears blurry is the background(if subject is close, foreground blurry if subject is far), as it should if you were focusing on subject with your eyes.

I don't think it's just the fact that 24fps mimics our natural vision though, I think it has to do with the fact that at 24fps, our minds are tricked into thinking the camera is actually our eye. If we were actually there, the periphery would be blurry, we could only focus on one part of the scene. And as long our minds are tricked into thinking that the camera is our eyes, the director and director of photography are able to deliver an experience.
With FI enabled, we are watching a recording of the events instead of experiencing them. The camera is no longer our eyes and we are back in reality, watching a screen. I wonder what a director of photography would say about FI.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 38
6/30/10 at 2:23pm
Some of us have never liked 24fps. I went to my first movie (The Angry Red Planet, 1959) during the Christmas holidays in 1959. I was 8 years old. The giant spider-monkey flickered across the screen in a series of flashes. I saw a series of distinct images, not a moving picture. The people I was with obviously saw something different, they did not believe me when I described what I saw.

Regular old TV, which was pretty exclusively film-based material with telecine in the 1950's and 1960's, was actually better in that the telecine and phosphor persistence of a vacuum-tube black and white television smoothed the jerky flashes of film. I learned to tolerate the all-too-visible motion artifacts (I didn't have any real choice).

The actual 35mm 24fps standard was set in 1896 by Thomas A. Edison. The frame rate was a compromise between film cost (black and white film used a precious metal silver emulsion) and reliability (machine tools of the era were working at the limits of precision with the available steel alloys to manufacture his film cameras and projectors). Edison selected 24fps which was literally the point where 90% of his audience quit complaining about jerky motion.

By the 1920's there were tens of thousands of 35mm theaters, all running at 24fps. That set the standard for over 100 years - competing film formats died.

That still leaves 10% of the general population - including me - who simply cannot accept 24fps as a credible imitation of movement. Most of you are obviously in the 90% share that see moving pictures as a reasonable imitation of reality. But I am not one of you, 24fps is absolutely annoying. The first relief from this problem came about in 2007 when I acquired a 120Hz Sansung LNT-4669. Smooth motion, at last. I have not turned off the MCFI processing in over 2 years.

My Samsung when displaying the BBC series Planet Earth (HD-DVD at 1080p and 24fps, with MCFI ON) was literally the first time I ever felt that I was looking through a window into another world. It was the first time (short of some rare experiences with 48fps IMAX simulator rides at theme parks) that I was not toubled by the flicker and flash.

For me, MCFI is a crucial and significant advance in the display of video. Those of you fortunate enough to be 90% of the human race for which 24fps is "good enough" really should count your blessings.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 38
6/30/10 at 2:45pm
It is worth noting that the todays 24fps film cameras use a 48 fps shutter speed in order to reduce motion blur caused by the length of time the camera lens is open. Also the movie projectors in theaters use a 48fps shutter speed so that they display each 24 fps frame twice.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 38
6/30/10 at 2:46pm
I had a friend like that at my previous school, I forget why it's like that for some people. Something with the brains!!!

Though yeah, I wish planet earth was filmed at a higher framerate
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 38
6/30/10 at 2:59pm
walford, the term "shutter speed" is incorrect in the context you used it. Modern film cameras are variable speed, they can be "undercranked" to speed up motion (for special effects) or "overcranked" to produce a slow motion effect. Both are seldom used techniques anymore - special effects tend to be created on computers nowadays - so 24fps is almost always what gets recorded on film. That is a variable frame rate - but the shutter speed is the amount of time each frame gets exposed, just as in a still camera.

It is true that modern 35mm projectors "double flash" the 24fps film print at 48 flashes per second - but they are flashing each frame of film twice, which is a flicker-reducing technique that is unrelated to motion blur reduction.

You are obviously in the majority that don't see the 24fps issue.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 38
6/30/10 at 5:19pm
And some still call this fossil - the 24fps junk - an art.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 38
6/30/10 at 5:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

walford, the term "shutter speed" is incorrect in the context you used it. Modern film cameras are variable speed, they can be "undercranked" to speed up motion (for special effects) or "overcranked" to produce a slow motion effect. Both are seldom used techniques anymore - special effects tend to be created on computers nowadays - so 24fps is almost always what gets recorded on film. That is a variable frame rate - but the shutter speed is the amount of time each frame gets exposed, just as in a still camera.

It is true that modern 35mm projectors "double flash" the 24fps film print at 48 flashes per second - but they are flashing each frame of film twice, which is a flicker-reducing technique that is unrelated to motion blur reduction.

You are obviously in the majority that don't see the 24fps issue.

I agree and am only stating that the standard shutter speed for Film based cameras is still 48 fps. Of course digital created content can be different.

see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_speed
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 38
6/30/10 at 7:41pm
perhaps you are looking for shutter angle.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 38
6/30/10 at 8:26pm
Raz: yep, were all idiots- us dolts who view it as a medium of artistic expression that isn't intended to appear like video or anything else for that matter.

Unfortunately for you, it hasn't and won't be changing (even with 3d) anytime soon, so I suggest you get used to suffering with us.

Gary, I understand your points, so with all due respect: ketchup away my friend!

James
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 38
7/1/10 at 5:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Raz: yep, were all idiots- us dolts who view it as a medium of artistic expression....

James

I wrote: And some still call this fossil - the 24fps junk - an art.

You call it "artistic" and I agree that some call it "art" or "artistic". How did you leap from our agreement on this matter to "we are idiots" is beyond my comprehension. Can you connect those two dots for me?
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 38
7/1/10 at 5:22am
Sigh. Connect the dots? Beyond your comprehension?

Really not that deep.

If you asked 50 intelligent people to read your comment, what do you suppose the majority would say you're inferring about people who feel 24 fps is "art"?

James
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 38
7/1/10 at 5:33am
Gary:

I wouldn't say I or most feel 24 is "good enough", it's just better than what it turns into after any measure of FI. Matter of fact, it likely IS good enough for the overwhelming majority, as I don't see any production company in the world producing movies at 60, lol.

I don't think anything speaks to the popularity of it (24) more than the fact that every movie house in the country still utilizes it. I mean really, what would be the cost to begin shooting films at a higher FR and institute a new PJ in a movie house? At $9 a ticket and $6 for a bucket of popcorn, you can bet the cost would be miniscule to the average theater...especially if the end game meant a clearly preferable product.

This is a touchy subject just because there are a marked few who seem to be bothered by it. The rest of us, epspecially after HD, seem to be in no rush to change anything about the appearence of a movie.

Humorously, where would we be today if interpolation hadn't been brought about as a band-aid for the motion-cancer that is all over LCD televisions?

So, you folks clearly are indebtted to LCD tech and its inherent problems with displaying moving images!

James
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 38
7/1/10 at 9:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by craiglc15 View Post

I agree with both of you guys. 24fps looks so outdated once you get used to higher frame rates. It definitely doesn't look like what I see when I look out the widow. I would quickly get to the eye doctor if I saw that much judder and blur in my vision. Higher frame rates just look more real and put you in the movie. It almost looks like 3d without the glasses.

I do admit that too much MCFI can make movies look like videogames. It's smoother than real life. So you have to walk a fine line.

I feel the same way.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 38
7/1/10 at 10:20am
here's the problem: what's the % of movie directors, critics, and FANS feel a movie SHOULD appear like you're looking out a window?

I think many would be shocked by the answer.

Just the thought of the Godfather or Goodfellas appearing like I'm looking out a window...

I understand we'll never agree on this, so with that, I'll relent.

James
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 38
7/1/10 at 11:12am
I think both of you are complaining about the visible results of early implementations of MCFI which did indeed have some visible flaws. But in the second half of 2009 there were significant improvements in almost every available HDTV implementation of MCFI. In fact the very best MCFI I have ever seen is in the Panasonic PT-AE4000U front projector. This implementation analyses three adjacent source frames to produce a single output frame. This tends to smooth motion and reduce visible artifacting a great deal. In fact it did justice to a 120" image.

I think those of you who are fortunate enough to accept 24fps as smooth motion are too quick to judge the minority of us who cannot. I see silky smooth motion in real life with it's equivalent "infinate frame rate". If you want to know what a movie is like for me go into a darkened room and shine a strobe light on moving people.

Nor should the momentum established by the 35mm 24fps standard be minimized. The second most common film format in theaters is IMAX 15/70. It's a commercial failure, hardly any movies are shot in that very much superior format. Almost every film shown in IMAX theaters is an optical enlargement of a 35mm print with heavy digital retouching, the so-called "IMAX DMR" process. Other film formats such as the MV48 that rgb32 talked about, or the once popular 70mm ("with six-track Dolby Stereo") are virtually non-existent today. Nobody releases any movie exclusively in any alternate film format because they want commercial success, so even if they offer alternative distribution prints, they always have 35mm/24fps.

Nor should the cost of upgrading a film projector be minimized. A new 35mm projector is about $50,000, and you need two per theater screen. Therefore in the 20-screen theater nearest to my home, adding a $15,000 MV48 upgrade to their 40 existing 35mm projectors (and their two spare projectors) would cost $630,000. All for a film format that is hardly being used. Not to mention, if you want to buy the cheapest of the four models of IMAX 15/70 projector, it will set you back $400,000, or $800,000 per theater screen.

If any distribution media ever displaces the 115-year-old Edison 35mm/24fps standard, it will be a pure digital format like D-Cinema.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 38
7/1/10 at 11:57am
Well, I for one am speaking of ANY FI I've witnessed to date, 2010 incarnations included. With variable implementations like Samsumgs AMP, I still find too much artifacting going on for my tastes by the time FI becomes "effective", again, one man's "effective" is another's degradation.

Last, again, I wouldn't call 24 film "smooth" by any means, especially if the bar for smoothness is the human eye's perception of reality.

It's film, and I became accustomed to and developed a liking for it a long, long, time ago. I realize a person in your shoes developed the very opposite feeling, likely in a shorter amount of time, unfortunately.

100 times more people I know despise Crocs than 24fps film and those things are still all over the god damn place...good luck extinguishing 24fps!

James
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panel General & New FP Tech › Time to Upgrade, Motion Blur Driving Me Crazy