My frustration w/### Hz technology, silence no longer!

Panasonic bought the Kuro tech from Pio and they are implementing it into their PDP's. Hopefully next year they equal the Kuro in black level.

LCD's suffer from possible motion blur due to their Smooth and hold which means the image stays on the screen untill displaced.
This causes two potential kinds of "Judder" there is 24fps Judder which is cauusd by the slow 25fps capture rate of movie filme cameras. This is best reduced/eliminated by using frame interpolation to insert additional frames on 120Hz or 240Hz LCD models.
There is also what is known as 3:2 Pulldown which both LCD and Plasma sets suffer from when converting 24fps content to 60 fps. 120 Hz LCD sets can eliminate this by using 5:5 pulldown. Some Plasmas can refresth at 72 HZ, 96Hz, or 120Hz also to elimnate 3:2 pulldown Judder.
Many users like yourself apparetly don't like frame intepolation of film based content on 120 or 240Hz since in crates what is called the "Soap Opera Effect" You can disable this capability on these models and sitll use 5:5 pulldown to eliminate 3:2 pulldown judder.
Also if the new top of the line LCD have a 240 HZ models in order to provide 3D capability in addition to superb 2D Picture Quality and other new functionality capabilities.

I never thought that "live" and "fake" can be used in the same paragraph, hoping for that paragraph to make any make sense.

Did you notice how we, the real humans, move? Did you notice any 24fps-type jerking in your friends? If anyone in my family walked like that I would be calling 911. Luckily they all move like on 10 PM news. -

I still find the soap opera effect the coolest things since sliced bread. Its an option. Many non videophiles and some videophiles, like myself, enjoy the look it gives. It originally looked so bad to me back on the samsung 4071f model about 4yrs ago because everything looked to be in fast forward. About a week after griping about it, my mind came adjusted to it and ive loved the effect since. They do offer an on/off option, and whether u like it or not, all tvs one day will offer it. Its beginning in the plasma market on the samsung pnxxc8000 and is already in the smaller sized lcds and each year smaller yet.

sounds like whatever set you saw with these actors walking in a jerking motion needed an adjustment. Don't call 911, call someone who can actually adjust a set properly.

A lot of movies i watch on my (european) 100hz Sony LCd look 3D-ish i do not see any problem with that .

Ah yes... Lets drag this topic out of the grave again, what's it been 8-10 months? The "coolest thing since sliced bread" and "videophile" in the same statement on the frame interpolated image is just plain funny.

To reiterate my point from the last time this topic was broached, the display device should just be a method of transmitting the info fed it, it should not create the content. The screen should be a neutral component, nothing more nothing less.

You are certainly free to screw up the image any way you want, but I get very angry with manufacturers who push this crap as something to aspire to.

FYI the 60Hz video displays we all grew up with do not look anything remotely like film. In fact if you take the 24fps film and display it in a room with lighting that varies in intensity at 60Hz (like conventional flouresecent lighting) then you get horrible flicker and headaches. That is why commercial theaters are darkened, to suppress flicker from a too-slow frame rate.

When watching video in even semi-darkened room, some means of suppressing the flicker must be used. For decades the main technique used to make CRT TV displays viewable without flicker was to power the CRT B+ plate voltage from a high voltage power supply which imposed a 120Hz "ripple" that basicly caused a 120Hz brightness change in sync with the 60Hz room lighting.

But the cost of this 60Hz synchronizing was unnatural motion that was not seen in a real theater, caused by the Telecine process that matched the 24Hz film frame rate to the 60Hz display frame rate of a TV. Both 60Hz plasma and LCD displays have this unnatural motion. The thing is, we have all been watching it for decades and the compromised motion looks "normal" to us.

120Hz and 240Hz displays look different because for the first time, a layer of distorted motion has been lifted from your viewing experience. YES, it does take a period of mental adjustment. Once you have waited through that period, and your mind has adjusted, the "realer than film" motion will not look unreal. In fact you will notice the Telecined motion in 60Hz displays as a flaw, one that you never noticed before.

Notice that I have not yet said anything about frame interpolation that inserts extra frames between source frames. I have only talked about removing Telecine, or displaying a Blu-Ray at 24Hz without using Telecine at all. Frame interpolation is yet another step towards realism (defined as an image that resembles the real world versus film) and every 120Hz or 240Hz display lets you turn the frame interpolation on or off as suits you. But when you turn it on, the video processing algorithyms can process several adjacent video frames and produce an image with less blur than the source film. That does indeed make film (with blur induced by film shutters) look more like video (with very fast electronic shutters). That too takes a mental adjustment period.

It all depends upon whether or not you prefer your 2010 video display to be emulating the look of 35mm film (a standard established in 1896 by Thomas A. Edison) or something more modern. Yes it is a matter of taste, and I think we can do better than Edison - but that is my taste.

By this logic we should not have equalizers and volume control.

I've seen this analogy used by you and a few others in this forum and not really sure why it's so commonly used by some of you. Do you honestly think that today's 24fps film is the same as the 24fps film shot in 1896 when Edison first developed it? The basic principle may be similar but the technology is way more advanced and improved. That would be similar to saying the 4 stroke gas engine first developed by Karl Benz in 1885 is no different than a 4 stroke gas engines built today in the modern car.

It's the effect of MCFI designed to convert low-motion (24, 25 and 30p) to high motion >48p.

Samsung and LG offer users the option to control blur and judder reduction as where Sony do not.


VT20/25. If it's too expansive, there's always the V20 and the LG direct-LED models.

Sony's MotionFlow Clear ( xbr8,xbr hx909) works really well and it delivers 1000 lines motion resolution.

Go play with a HX909 with MotionFlow set to Clear 2 and Cinemotion set to OFF, and report back!

No, you use equalizers to produce as accurate sound image as you can. Just as you use the sets controls to create an image that is as close to the standards set for accurate display. And yes, there is a standard for displays. No panel is perfect but many can come close.

The whole problem with film is the too-slow frame rate of 24fps. That was a compromise set in 1896 because it was the slowest frame rate that the majority of the audience would accept as simulated motion. The motive to slow things down as much as possible was the cost of the film stock, which used a nitrate substrate and silver emulsion. Edison kept going until he had both camera and projector designs that could be produced at a bearable cost using the materials and machine tools available in 1896.

That is why the commonest form of film has the 35mm width, the sprocket hole pitch, and the frame rate of 24fps - compromises that technology forced upon Edison in 1896.

YES, we now have safer non-flammable film, color emulsions, better lenses, projector shutters that flash each frame twice to reduce flicker, the advances in multichannel sound, etc. etc. I never said that film technology had not advanced since 1896, only that the standard was set by the limits of technology in 1896. The various large format films up to the IMAX formats never succeeded in the marketplace well enough to replace the 1896 Edison 35mm film standard.

I refuse to accept the technological limitations of 1896. If they still insist upon making 24fps movies, then I want MCFI to insert additional frames between source frames. If MCFI also reduces the blur caused by the camera shutter being open too long, that is great too. I don't want a CRT or a plasma panel that attempts to simulate a steady state image with flashes of light - I want an LCD that simulates steady state reality with a steady state video image.

Indeed, it is precisely because LCD displays don't have the horribly dated look of film that I want one.

No, we use equalizers to make the sound what we like it to be.

For your claim to be true we would have to have a reference sound and adjust the equalizer for the reference - presumably the original recording in a studio or on stage - to match what is coming out of our speakers at home. Lacking this ability to compare the two we have no way to make it "accurate".

An equalizer is intended to be used to help balance a particular speakers sound and to compensate for room acoustic problems. You take a TV set and put it in 10 different rooms with the same signal and it will show the same quality of picture. You take a sound system and put it in 10 different rooms with everything else being equal and it could have 10 different sound qualities. That's where an equalizer can help compensate for those differences. With that being said, I have never used an equalizer in my home theater system and never felt the need to.

Sure you can use an equalizer to adjust the sound to your liking just as you can use the picture controls on a TV set to your liking, but just as in TV where calibration is intended to adjust the TV to a standard the same should be done with an equalizer. An equalizer is like the picture controls on a TV not motion flow where it puts extra synthesized frames into the actual picture. Most calibration discs also include a way to calibrate your sound along with proper adjustment of picture controls.

So Why Use an Equalizer?
1. To increase the naturalness or intelligibility of the sound system.
2. To increase the gain or volume of the system before feedback occurs.

Equalizers,when used competently,can do wonders for your system,but when used badly...

Compensation for Room Acoustics
Equalizers cannot alter a room's reverberation time characteristics or remove the unwanted echoes that can destroy clarity and intelligibility.
The difference you hear between an empty church and one full of people is the result of changing reverberation times due to the increased absorption from the congregation.
The equalizer can't fix the acoustical problems caused by the physical construction and geometry of a room,but it can help relieve some of the symptoms.
You must be extremely careful not to destroy sound quality in your attempt to compensate for a difficult room.

How to Adjust Equalizers
An equalizer is typically adjusted by a professional with the use of a test instrument such as a real time spectrum analyzer (RTA).
Test equipment is expensive,running between $800.00 and $5000.00 for a 1/3 octave band analyzer.



Internet Sound Institute - Equalizer link.

Actually, equalizer can be used for both purposes.

It can be used to correct some of the inaccuracy of the speakers/headphones

It can also be used to boost certain frequency to obtain more pleasing sound. I prefer slightly sparkling highs, so I boost 16k to my preference.


MCFI is also optional. It's not forced upon and I often don't understand why people debate it to such an extend.

24p judder is pure evil.....anyone who wants to see 24p judder to get the film effect is evil too......hello Lucifer!!!

Is there a chance that Hollywood might switch to 48 fps in the next 10 years?

60fps isn't the Holy Grail--72fps would be better.

Can you imagine what 72fps uncompressed broadcast ultra HD would look like?

I wonder if we'll ever see 1080p/60 broadcast in the next 50 years?

I'm not against frame interpolation--I just think the current attempts at it suck.

It does have the potential to get better and be acceptable to people like me who curently don't like it but could if it didn't have artifacts.

LCD at 480 HZ might be nice.

That's why I compared an equalizer to picture adjustment controls on a TV as opposed to frame interpolation. The equalizer isn't putting anything into the sound that isn't already there, it's just adjusting it.

In response to Gary, I want my film based content to look like film and my HD video content to look like HD video and not film. I want my display to as accurately as possible reproduce the signal as intended by the producer/director. That is my taste. Maybe there are paints better today than used by Da Vinci to paint the Mona Lisa. That doesn't mean that I would want someone to paint over the Mona Lisa, even if the process were reversible. Just my 2 cents. You can adjust your display anyway you want.

No chance at all. There are over 300,000 35mm "Edison standard" film projectors installed worldwide, and the "look of film" is the look of 24fps. In fact during the silent film era studios were often criticized for "cheating" the 24 fps standard, frame rates of as slow as 16fps were often used, purely to save the cost of B&W silver emulsion film stock. (The "Keystone Cops" serials were filmed at 16fps and played back at 24fps for laughs.) But once "talkies" came along, film prints with audio were basicly fixed at 24fps to preserve the sound track intact.

What is replacing film is the DCI standard for Digital Cinema. This allows 2K (2048x1080) at 24fps or 48fps, or 4K (4096x2160) at 24fps alone.

Whether we will ever get the Blu-Ray standard extended to allow a 2K/48fps DCI print released for 1080p48 distribution on disk is anybody's guess. Until then, the only solution for the look of 24fps is MCFI.

IMO, 48/72p is a must for S3D. I can't bare to stand strobing/judder effect during motion.

The problem has always been interpolating frames in "real-time" and low-motion doesn't help matters due to high latency (lack of information). Thankfully, people are taking serious interest in MCFI and other frame-rate conversion methodologies as way to provide better temporal resolution (especially in 3D)

PS: It took us years to develop and solve the de-interlacing issue and hopefully it won't take such prolonged period to develop a high-grade MCFI (or an alternative FRC). Maybe be they could interpolate multiple frames using various methods and use the error-free segments to compose the final frame...?

The correct analogy is like this:

the actual sound you would hear live is to the sound you hear at home from your speakers

as

the actual scene you would see live is to the scene you see at home on your TV set

as opposed to:

the camera output to the scene you see at home

Aside from the the imperfections and the artifacts FI still exhibits, that "fake" frame my TV set creates from the two frames it received was actually present in the original scene except that the camera failed to recognize it and pass it on to me because cameras are strobed at finite and relatively low rates. To claim that an imperfect device like this should be an object of admiration as "art" is crazy. You can get used to a nail in the shoe but it doesn't make a good shoe. To object to higher frame rates because some got used to 24fps would be an equivalent to objecting to having that damn nail removed from your shoe.

Bottom line: The "original" is not what the camera outputted but what went into the lens. And what the camera "saw" I would see as well had I been there but couldn't. Which is an un-digitized continuous scene, not a 24fps rendition of it.

Equalizers are capable of putting into the sound what was not there: additional power that alters the power distribution of the original.

Frame interpolation is no more correct than 3:2 pulldown is. It's simply a method of dealing with a technical shortcoming of LCD which comes with its own shortcomings (processing artifacts, linearizing motion which is non linear). Some people like it, some people don't, but there never seems to be an end to the conjured up B.S. that gets thrown around here in what appears to be an attempt to defend frame interpolation.

I agree that there's no need to argue this issue in the first place - if you like frame interpolation use it; if you don't, turn it off. Easy.

It's "a" solution. Not the only solution and some like it and others don't care for it. Great thing about it, it allows us choices.