Frame Interpolation as part of your Purchase Decision - Multiple Choice!

At first it was disconcerting to use this feature, but I stuck with it and have a TV without it. It gives a dimension to the picture that I like

I want motion options - Off, Frame Interpolation and Backlight Scanning (Sony xbr8,Sony hx909), .

No motion options or some frame interpolation options is not enough for me.

What would be a reason for anyone to not wanting/like an FI?

I think it would be great, are there any disadvantages of a FI Display?

It can make the picture look 3 dimensional. Some people don't like that. It takes about a week to get used to but now I wouldn't have a TV without it. Also, it's adjustable so you can gradually increase levels and fine tune as you like

FI was important to me & made sure the LED LCD I brought was able to separate both Blur & Judder in it's motion processing software

I have to say, it's not just bad films that look like soap operas. It's really most "film-like" likes. Some films are shot in such a way that the medium is part of the art. When those are frame interpolated on one of these TVs, to me they look flat-out awful. I would buy a next-generation frame-interpolated TV that was intelligent about how it used it and probably simply auto-defaulted to off on 24-frame content.

"But the effect is impressive to consumers and a major reason LCD is often chosen over plasma. "

I... just don't buy that... at all.... Is it a reason for some people? I'm sure it is. Bright room performance is the main reason LCD is chosen over plasma -- since most TV showrooms are bright. If anything, motion processing is the main reason LCDs are not chosen over plasmas.

Since frame interpolation and high refresh LCDs are relatively new, it seems pretty inaccurate to describe it as a main reason LCDs are chosen over plasmas. Regardless, I hate it and it looks terrible. I'm sure I'd also hate 2D to 3D conversion, but I'll never know because I'm not wearing glasses to watch TV.

As for frame interpolation, I believe that there is a new chip coming from someone for next year's LCDs that should massively improve the way that feature works and should yield some LCDs that are really good with it. I am certainly hoping it works out that way.

Frame interpolation/motion enhancement blows goats as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care less if a TV has it or not. It just makes stuff look weird in my experience.

I can view TVs without the feature at all and never miss it, TVs that do I have it I will turn it off.

It seems to be just fluff to get people to buy TVs based on "hertz ratings" or think they are good/bad based on that. You won't believe how many times I've heard "oh but this one has 120Hz" or just the mention of "120Hz" or "240Hz" in discussing why a TV is good. I just roll my eyes at those people ( ) because when you ask them what that means for them they can't really tell you. They give you inaccurate/flawed explanations of what they think it does, and it makes it clear how the manufacturers have made this point very confusing for consumers. I've even heard people tell me wild stories like "you need 120Hz if you're going to play videogames" LOL. If they knew what they were talking about they'd know that on most sets engaging that mode on videogames creates lag due to the processing, making most games less playable or even unplayable.

It's just like megapixels. More these days tends to reduce image quality, esp. in lower-light settings. The high-megapixel image sensors tend to introduce more noise just for openers and at high ISO, ugh...

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something.

Hopefully, they can stop with more spec nonsense and actually improve TV image quality from here.

there's something that i've always wondered. if your tv is 120Hz or 240Hz and interpolation is turned off, is each frame of a 24p signal still being repeated 5 or 10 times respectively and the tv is just not inserting extra frames?

edit: i found this interesting link from Samsung...http://support-us.samsung.com/cyber/...U1F&idx=155245

whats interesting is that most calibration settings for samsungs (which have separate blur and judder interpolation controls) say to set blur (for video signals) at 10 and judder (for film signals) at 0

I was quite respectful of others' preferences. I never said "if you like this, you're foolish" or anything else. What I questioned was whether it's a "main reason for people to choose LCDs" which is one of those baseless claims people like to make that has no real evidence.

First of all, it is indeed a relatively new feature. Even 120Hz LCDs are not that old or fully ubiquitous. You can't have the feature on anything with a lower refresh.

Second of all, it's not even on every high-refresh LCD.

Third of all, you can still like it, but stop claiming "many people prefer the 'live' effect of FI" when there just isn't evidence that's true.

"Re: 24p movies, there will always be some who feel they should only be viewed as they were filmed, just as there are those who feel that 480i should only be viewed as 480i (as opposed to deinterlaced, and up-rezzed)."

No, you are really not getting it. There is no crowd that is crying out for the integrity of 480i films. First of all, nothing was "filmed" in 480i. Some things were certainly videotaped in 480i, many movies were transferred from film to 480i, etc. But there is (a) no "integrity" to 480i material to preserve and (b) no real issue with deinterlacing 480i properly anymore (c) no way for a fixed-pixel display to actually avoid upscaling 480i unless you want to watch a tiny picture in the middle of the screen.

The people who are wanting to watch 24p material without it being sprinkled with frames not at all in any form of the material are not Luddites, they are people with a healthy suspicion of the technology's ability to deliver value as opposed to difference.

Again, I think you fail to even understand what the soap opera effect really manifests itself is. For decades in the videotape era, there was a huge difference on television between shows that were videotaped and shows that were filmed.

Videotape -- due to whatever limitations of brightness and whatnot that were required -- led to shows with bizarre, slap-you-in-the-face lighting and had a very unnatural cast. I'm not sure how old you are, but in the 1970s and 1980s it was instantly obvious which shows were videotaped and which were shot on film and transferred. There was no constituency for videotaped programs. They always looked bad.

The so-called "soap opera effect" brought on by frame interpolation systems is not some film-grain-type thing where us "purists" are sitting there debating whether or not that fleck on Ingrid Bergman was the director's original intent or whether it was introduced by Samsonyizio's FineTruMotion System.

Instead, the effect is this unnatural cast to the image that makes it look like, well, a soap opera. And it's not pleasing to the eye.

There is a second issue regarding motion on LCDs which is that for years and years even moderately trained eyes would see motion on LCDs and realize that no matter the source, it looked flat out terrible. This is because -- and this is proven, not some opinion -- the actual resolution of the LCD TVs when displaying motion dropped like a stone.

I presume the advent of high-refresh LCDs from a technology perspective was designed around the lack of motion resolution (yes, it has a marketing implication, but I don't believe we got high refresh just so they could market it). And, in fact, high refresh LCDs that are done well often look a lot less terrible with sports and chases and such. For years, I couldn't watch anything where the "motion breakup" immediately took on this terrible, digital appearance. It almost felt like LCD used to macroblock everything that moved.

I think we've come a long way with LCD motion (although to me every Sharp is still terrible) and we can thank, in part, high refresh dislays. That said, just because you have high refresh doesn't mean you should make up frames in between those that exist to use it. Things that are literally recorded in 24p -- a lot of BluRay based on the inherently 24-frame film upon which it was shot originally -- often don't benefit from the TV guessing what frames to slide in between those that exist.

I have not seen Star Trek on a good frame-interpolating TV so I don't want to claim it doesn't look amazing, maybe it looks amazing. But the notion that taking say the Wizard of Oz and making it look like it was shot on the set of Days of Our Lives is technological progress is silly. And based on what I have seen with film sources and frame-interpolating TVs -- good film sources -- I can't stand the way the very character of the image is altered for the worse. You can and that's fine. Just try to avoid mischaracterizing what is happening and why the rest of us hate it.

Just a few FI complaints on the LCd FORUM.

Most of those who complain are Plasmaowners(why constantly complaining about a tech you don't use anyway?I don't get it.).

I don't agree with FI but I think FI is important to LCD to reduce the Hold Effect, so it does have its place.

I like how people who own something they've chosen over something they find inferior are unqualified to comment on it.

This thread sets up a fake poll that determines nothing relevant (where is the choice to say "no, I hate the feature") and then sets out to mis-explain the limitations of the technology. My choice to respond to that is hardly "constant complaining".

My post was a kind of general observation.

I would like to see a ''I hate FI'' and a ''FI needs to improve first'' option in the poll.

I myself do not like FI on my XBR8 and OFF sucks but i do like the XBR8 BacklightScanning option.

"There have been multiple polls on this subject over the last year or two, and not just by me. What is CONSISTENT in these polls is that at least 60% of buyers/users prefer Frame Interpolation's benefits, while 40% are either against, or haven't tried it."

What I hope is you are not including this pool. This pool captures no such data of any kind. It in no way validates any claim that people want or don't want such a feature. The choices in the poll do not even lead to a valid, non-scientifically sampled result. This poll essentially only attracts people who are already in favor of frame interpolation, which no matter what fancy words you put around it, is a guess at what hypothetical interim frames should look like.

I also love your tendency to add words to my posts to somehow effort to reduce the credibility of what I'm saying. I never used "color cast" I used "cast"... but anyway...

I am laughing at your hypothetical throngs surrounding 120Hz LCDs. Surely they would still be there, no, to see the "amazing" 240s?

Also, plasma uses sub-field processing with a refresh rate approximately 5x LCD, so I'm going to state unequivocally that it has nothing to do with why LCD outsells plasma.

I'm going to go farther and state that frame-interpolating LCDs are not even outsold by plasmas in the 50-65" category, which is pretty much the entirety of the plasma market at this time.

LCD outsells plasma for numerous reasons primarily surrounding price and availability in numerous sizes where plasmas are not available (due to them being non-economical to build). LCD also sells plasma because it looks better in a bright room, tends to be less reflective, etc.

Very very low on the list would be "LCDs handle motion better than plasmas" a statement most objective people would agree is the opposite of true.

"I think we've come a long way with LCD motion (although to me every Sharp is still terrible) "

With motion processing on, off or both?

Please explain. I am considering the 60e88 but thought I could see a difference in how well it handled motion.

Thanks

Since this is a current thread I will ask the question. Do those of you that have compared 60hz against 120hz think that the increased refreash rate has any benifit. i am considering an LG 32ld450, (1080p 60hz) or a 32ld520 or 32ld550, (1080p 120hz w tru motion). Also does using tv as computer monitor make a difference. I will be watching some BD output as 24p from my player.
I have searched about different pull downs and am still a bit confused. Any tips will be appreaciated.

Just trust your eyes... choose that which your eyes are more comfy with.

If it helps to reduce your cognitive dissonance, think it is primarily 2 reasons: motion resolution and hold effect.


With ref to point 2 above, I think higher refresh rate will only be useful if u change the fps and force the TFT pixel to refresh, that's where FI comes in.

TV does a lot of video processing while monitors reproduce as faithfully as possible within the hardware specs.

I would only consider FI in my next purchase if it is adjustable as per the latest Samsung implementation. I'm not at all opposed to FI, but I find heavy Soap Opera Effect to be distracting, so I would want to be able to dial it down to minimum while still reducing motion blur.

I currently have a set only capable of 60hz with no FI at all and I have no problem with motion blur with Blu Ray movies, so I wouldn't have a problem playing BD's at 24p with no FI active.