or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Will Future Flat Panel Technology Reduce Judder Or Eliminate It Completely?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will Future Flat Panel Technology Reduce Judder Or Eliminate It Completely?

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
I realize most films are shot at 24fps so there is no escaping this one. Nevertheless, will future technology evolution or advancement in display panel reduce or eliminate judder completely(or perfectly) without introducing artifacts along the process?

I do know the higher-end LCD and LED panels have motion interpolation incorporated into their design. I have read mixed reception on this motion interpolation and am not sure whether it's a universal solution to minimize the effects of judder that is inherent in motion films. Despite the implementation of an even 4:4 or 5:5 cadence in some displays to minimize telecine judder often associated with 3:2 pulldown, a slight jerky quality is still present in most if not all motion films.

Is there any room to further improve or refine the current technology in plasma, LCD and LED (or OLED) to show less judder in whichever way possible? Either at the source level where motion films are shot, or at video level where motion interpolation(or whatever sort of methods) is introduced.

Which display is capable of showing less judder with further advancement in technology -plasma, LCD, LED or OLED? I do realize different folks will have different views, but is there a panel that exhibits less judder than the rest? If yes, what is it? Is there a general consensus that a particular display panel shows less judder than another one? Is it an opinion/judgment based on subjectivity(decision made based on feelings) or are there any scientific laboratory methods that verify on the degree of judder based on analysis or measurements? Possibly some technical reports that back up the claims?

Any insight appreciated.
post #2 of 45
We need frameless format but that's not going to happen anytime soon
post #3 of 45
"I realize most films are shot at 24fps so there is no escaping this one. "

This is going to remain the biggest problem because you are concerned about...

"... a slight jerky quality is still present in most if not all motion films."

Shooting in faster frame rates will help, which is happening a tiny bit in Hollywood, e.g. the Hobbit at 48fps.
post #4 of 45
Only option is increasing frames - in the source (48fps) or artificially (Motion Interpolation).

48fps thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1328745
post #5 of 45
Those are the cheap and cheerful options atm but animating 48fps sequence is going to be rough on the animators. I suppose they can use industry grade Motion-Interpolation to compile 48fps vid.
post #6 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielo TM View Post

Those are the cheap and cheerful options atm but animating 48fps sequence is going to be rough on the animators. I suppose they can use industry grade Motion-Interpolation to compile 48fps vid.

Animation has much lower requirements for frame-interpolation than real-world imagery. I'm quite sure that the interpolated images being generated inside of Pixar's labs are already quite good. This is not an area I'd worry about if 48fps catches on.
post #7 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Animation has much lower requirements for frame-interpolation than real-world imagery. I'm quite sure that the interpolated images being generated inside of Pixar's labs are already quite good. This is not an area I'd worry about if 48fps catches on.

Pixar have no need for frame-interpolation.

They can render at any framerate they want.
post #8 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by elario View Post

Pixar have no need for frame-interpolation.

They can render at any framerate they want.

Yes, which they do using.... frame interpolation.
post #9 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Animation has much lower requirements for frame-interpolation than real-world imagery. I'm quite sure that the interpolated images being generated inside of Pixar's labs are already quite good. This is not an area I'd worry about if 48fps catches on.


3D animation is one of the most complex elements in cinema production. I do animation as part of my 3D course and 24p is already hard enough. 48p essentially doubles the workload.

When you see a scene with CGI objects, everything has to be moved manually frame by frame. Imagine doing a 5 min fight sequence close to perfection. There are no shortcuts. Not yet anyway.

The only option I can see is interpolation. They can do multipass interpolation to screen out the errors.
post #10 of 45
Frame by frame? Its been that way all this time? Why couldn't you use some sort of motion blur... I remember having graphic software that would take a 15fps video and double the frames by taking the frame before and the one after and using only the moving parts (not the background, even if the camera is panning) of the frame to create an image from the two frames by rendering them into a new frame that isn't the frame before but isn't quite the frame after it.

I forgot what it was called though, I thought nowadays CGI could be done with every 3 frames, with the computer doing the rest... I guess that's the difference between CGI like "veggie tales" and "transformers".
post #11 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielo TM View Post

3D animation is one of the most complex elements in cinema production. I do animation as part of my 3D course and 24p is already hard enough. 48p essentially doubles the workload.

...

The only option I can see is interpolation. They can do multipass interpolation to screen out the errors.

Right.... That's what I keep writing.

Pixar has lots of computers and they keep buying more. If for some idiotic reason the world suddenly required 72 fps, instead of tripling their workload, Pixar would likely interpolate 2 frames in between each drawn frame.

I'm quite sure they have lots of algorithmic interpolation techniques since (a) they've invented a lot of this stuff and (b) they've been doing it a long time and (c) their stuff is beautiful.
post #12 of 45
Interpolation is not always ideal because it destroys the organic feel. They can do minor interpolation here and there, but essentially it's more work load then before. Some complex scenes can't be interpolated.

PS: Just because they have powerful hardware doesn't mean they have the support as well. They take pride in their work, and interpolation is seen as cost cutting measure and not an artistic option.
post #13 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo_Dave View Post

Frame by frame? Its been that way all this time? Why couldn't you use some sort of motion blur... I remember having graphic software that would take a 15fps video and double the frames by taking the frame before and the one after and using only the moving parts (not the background, even if the camera is panning) of the frame to create an image from the two frames by rendering them into a new frame that isn't the frame before but isn't quite the frame after it.

I forgot what it was called though, I thought nowadays CGI could be done with every 3 frames, with the computer doing the rest... I guess that's the difference between CGI like "veggie tales" and "transformers".

Motion blur is added to hide the gaps between frames. IT's a standard practice when using low frame rate (24, 25 and 30).

If the motion is liner, then you can spread that across multiple frames. But complex scenes have to be done manually.

I didn't really appreciate 3D animation until I started doing it.

PS: According to Pixar, it takes a week to animate a 5 sec scene (I'm guess they mean per individual working on a character). So you can imagine how long it will take if the frame rate jumps from 24 to 48. Hopefully there'll be computer assisted animation programs in the future to take the load off.
post #14 of 45
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the responses.

May I ask which is the current display that implements motion interpolation with the least artifacts? In other words, which is the current best display that effectively deals with judder, although still flawed to certain extent? Sony, Sharp, Samsung, LG etc. ?

Any opinions appreciated.
post #15 of 45
You are apparently referring to 24fps Judder and not to 3:2 pulldown frame rate conversion Judder.
Set the setting for motion intrpolation to thel lowest value if set to the highest value artifacts are likely to be created around small items.
post #16 of 45
Digital cinematography will solve the problem as no film is used. The problem will still exist on the old movies which were shot of film.
post #17 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielo TM View Post

3D animation is one of the most complex elements in cinema production. I do animation as part of my 3D course and 24p is already hard enough. 48p essentially doubles the workload.

When you see a scene with CGI objects, everything has to be moved manually frame by frame. Imagine doing a 5 min fight sequence close to perfection. There are no shortcuts. Not yet anyway.

The only option I can see is interpolation. They can do multipass interpolation to screen out the errors.

If you have a 3D spaceship moving from very near the camera to far into the distance at constant speed and direction surely you wouldn't need to move everything frame by frame? Wouldn't you be able to set a 3D key frame position for the spaceship at the nearest point to the camera and another at the furthest point from the camera, and have the software generate all the frames in-between (using 3D interpolation), needing no more input from the animator than if they were animating 24 fps? Even if you wanted it to change direction you could surely add a few more keyframes and position them - you wouldn't need to animate every frame of it's motion, so for this example it shouldn't need any more work.
post #18 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeBiker View Post

Digital cinematography will solve the problem as no film is used. The problem will still exist on the old movies which were shot of film.

However they are converted to film as most theatre projectors show only 24fps filme at 48fps(each frame is shown is shown twice)
post #19 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by walford View Post

However they are converted to film as most theatre projectors show only 24fps filme at 48fps(each frame is shown is shown twice)

Yes, but when they convert it to film, wouldn't they just run 48 individual frames off the digital source material instead of just duobling up the 24??? With digital cinematography, the source frame rate is only limited by the devices used to create the source material. If the source Digital Camera is capable of 2260p at 120fps, then that's what you could reproduce in a digital theater without modifying the source material...
post #20 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by elario View Post

Pixar have no need for frame-interpolation.

They can render at any framerate they want.

Yes, which they do using.... frame interpolation.

Ummm, no... that's not Frame Interpolation... A COMPLETEY CGI generated environment can be rendered to video at any frame rate you so desire... assuming of course, #1 the rendering engine is programed with the ability to do that, and #2, the device used to play back the video supports that particular format....

Frame Interpolation is when a computer estimates what a middle frame might look like and inserts it inbetween two originals... Pixar films, such as Toy Story, run at 24fps because that is the industry standard...

When the standard changes to 48fps, they can do that as well. Of course they would most likely have to program a new graphics rendering engine to do it, but my point is, if they so desired, they could set their films to be produced at 480fps if they really wanted too. The graphics engines BUILD the source material, they are not "estimating" ANYTHING,

Pure CGI has no interpolation, only source rendering...

I don't mean to imply that this is easy... I realize that in the days of Toy Story and Jurrasic Park, each movement of each CGI object was done frame by frame by frame... however, the rednering engines (used by major studios), have some amount of "Rendering" motion estimation.... this is still not frame motion estimation...

For example, an animator maps out the skeleton points of an arm and hand, making a fist and pounding down on a table... The rendering programmer might manually program 24 frames of movement in one second... given the skeletal reference points, the rendering engine can then map any number of frames in that one second of time. If the frame rate is set to 48fps, the engine could then map one middle point of movement inbetween each of the points that the programmer mapped already. If the frame rate were set to 72, the engine could map two more points between each of the 24 original reference points... Because the original 24 points are already set, the motion itself would not change, only the frame rate would increase... but the speed of the fist clenching and the arm being swung down would remain the same.

This is of course "all in theory"... but it can be done. My main point is that even with the computer filling in the "gaps" between the programmers original points of movement, it is still not "frame interpolation".... Frame Interpolation is when two entire frames are analyzed and intermediate frames are placed between them...

what I've described above is interpolation of sorts, however, since the rendering engine (which prouces the source material) is actually processing the frames themselves, the "frames" are not interpolated.
post #21 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryder_78 View Post

Which display is capable of showing less judder with further advancement in technology -plasma, LCD, LED or OLED? I do realize different folks will have different views, but is there a panel that exhibits less judder than the rest? If yes, what is it? Is there a general consensus that a particular display panel shows less judder than another one? Is it an opinion/judgment based on subjectivity(decision made based on feelings) or are there any scientific laboratory methods that verify on the degree of judder based on analysis or measurements? Possibly some technical reports that back up the claims?

Any insight appreciated.

Plasma
Based on the technology itself and how it works.. plasma is most likey NOT going to be able to produce any signifcant method of Frame Interpolation. That's because it's design is based off of a 60fps standard... yes... even the 600Hz "Sub-Field Drive" plasmas. (10 pulses of light, per pixel, per frame, multiplied by 60 frames per second... 10pulses x 60fps = 600Hz). The best Plasma can do thus far is break down the pulses and rebalance the pixel light color/light distribution, thus allowing the frames to be repeated so that 24Hz source material can be displayed at 96Hz. But at 96Hz, it is still the same original 24 frames being displayed 3 times each before moving on to the next frame. No interpolation, but it does remove a significant amount of time in which the "black frame" in between the video frames is displayed to the screen. This does effectively help to reduce the 24fps judder.

LCD based technolgies:
Frame rendering and refresh rate are handled by two different pieces of hardware in the TV and they work together to display the image. In the early 120Hz models, the 120Hz refresh rate was not engaged unless the Frame Interpolation was enabled... however, in "most" of today's BRAND NAME models, if your LCD says 240Hz, then your screen refresh rate will be 240 frames per second wether you are watch 24p material, 60fps material, or 120Hz Frame Interpolation material. Some of these TVs also have the ability to perform the same frame multiplication that the Plasma TVs use... Thus removing a significant amount of "black frame" time, effectively smoothing the frame transitions, but keeping true to the 24fps without editing the original source material.

Personally, I love frame interpolation and here is what I would reccomend for those interested in buying an LCD with this techology...

1. BRAND NAME TV
Don't buy anything less than Vizio (and then make sure to get the extended warranty)

2. 240Hz, nothing less. If you want ZERO artifacts from the Interpolation, get a 240Hz TV. Although, the latest 120Hz from SONY, LG and Samsung are really nice at it... very seldom there will be screen tearing. I've never seen it on any 240Hz TVs, or my 480Hz Vizio.

3. My preferences...
***It works best with CGI Animated Movies (Toy Story). The characters really pop out and come to life!
***Second best with Sci-Fi, worked fantastic with Star Trek
***Don't use it with Dramas, seems to take away from the visual effect
Everything else is up for grabs... Armaggedeon, pretty cool... Bourne Identity, not so much.
post #22 of 45
"what I've described above is interpolation of sorts, however, since the rendering engine (which prouces the source material) is actually processing the frames themselves, the "frames" are not interpolated"

It's interpolation, as I said above several times. Just because the interpolated frames are included in your disc doesn't mean they weren't interpolated.

I can understand how my use of that word might have confused some people, but I never stated nor implied that Toy Story 7 would interpolate frames on your BluRay player. What Pixar does every time they use their computer-aided tools is interpolation. It might be the most sophisticated animation interpolation engine on the planet, but it's still interpolation.
post #23 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

"what I've described above is interpolation of sorts, however, since the rendering engine (which prouces the source material) is actually processing the frames themselves, the "frames" are not interpolated"

It's interpolation, as I said above several times. Just because the interpolated frames are included in your disc doesn't mean they weren't interpolated.

I can understand how my use of that word might have confused some people, but I never stated nor implied that Toy Story 7 would interpolate frames on your BluRay player. What Pixar does every time they use their computer-aided tools is interpolation. It might be the most sophisticated animation interpolation engine on the planet, but it's still interpolation.

Surely they're interpolated points/vectors (ie. interpolating the position between keyframes in the animation) rather than interpolating 2D frames like a TV does (well also B/P frames of mpeg - sort of). ie. they're interpolating the 3D position/rotation of objects (or parts of objects etc) in 3D space then rendering that to still images rather than interpolating still images.

The big difference between that and what a TV does is that with 3D animation is that the TV is 'guessing' or estimating the position of things based on 2D images, whereas in the animation it's not guessing in that way, but moving things in virtual 3D space, so it shouldn't have a lot of the problems of interpolation that TVs have with guessing based on 2D images (and, after the TV's interpolation has moved something (and don't current TVs move whole macroblocks instead of just the objects that are in motion?), trying to fix the background, etc.)
post #24 of 45
Yes, Joe, I'm not questioning that. It's doubtless many orders of magnitude more sophisticated. The point I start making many posts ago is that they don't draw every frame. They set a bunch of points and vectors and rules and the computer does a lot of work to help them.

If/when higher frame rates catch on, it's not going to do much to alter the workflow at Pixar. They will doubtless create more base frames and have the computers do the rest. And I'm sure they are constantly refining how they produce the images they produce anyway even at 24fps. It's just the way they do things; a healthy perfectionism.
post #25 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

If you have a 3D spaceship moving from very near the camera to far into the distance at constant speed and direction surely you wouldn't need to move everything frame by frame? Wouldn't you be able to set a 3D key frame position for the spaceship at the nearest point to the camera and another at the furthest point from the camera, and have the software generate all the frames in-between (using 3D interpolation), needing no more input from the animator than if they were animating 24 fps? Even if you wanted it to change direction you could surely add a few more keyframes and position them - you wouldn't need to animate every frame of it's motion, so for this example it shouldn't need any more work.

Sorry I didn't see your post earlier.

If the motion is liner, yes you're spot on. But when animating non-liner movements such as facial expressions, body movement etc. it is difficult because you would have to key in every frame.

Most people don't realize how difficult it is to animate something. After experiencing it for myself, I have the ad most respect for them
post #26 of 45
^^ Correct... that is why the brain can see that MCFI on TV looks weird

But since some animated frames are interpolated during production, that's why MCFI doesn't look half as bad on animations. Real life however is not frame based. They are analog based. So we see SOE when too many frames are being interpolated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJamaX View Post

This does effectively help to reduce the 24fps judder.

LCD based technolgies:
Frame rendering and refresh rate are handled by two different pieces of hardware in the TV and they work together to display the image. In the early 120Hz models, the 120Hz refresh rate was not engaged unless the Frame Interpolation was enabled... however, in "most" of today's BRAND NAME models, if your LCD says 240Hz, then your screen refresh rate will be 240 frames per second wether you are watch 24p material, 60fps material, or 120Hz Frame Interpolation material. Some of these TVs also have the ability to perform the same frame multiplication that the Plasma TVs use... Thus removing a significant amount of "black frame" time, effectively smoothing the frame transitions, but keeping true to the 24fps without editing the original source material.

There are many types of judder. High refresh rate does not remove low fps judder. It helps to reduce telecine or cadence judder. 30fps or future 48fps will reduce low fps judder.

Refresh rate on plasma and LCD are not the same thing as the tech is different. Refresh without MCFI on LCD is useless. I always refer people to this short discussion:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1285072
post #27 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

^^ Correct... that is why the brain can see that MCFI on TV looks weird

Bingo

I'm not sure how we can process the data in non-liner form. Either way it'll be difficult to produce natural motion when there are limited numbers of frames to work with. Maybe it's best to blue the pixel during motion to simulate realistic motion.
post #28 of 45
But even now, there is not a single consumer grade MCFI capable of producing artifact free image due to lack of pixel level interpolation.
post #29 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielo TM View Post

Bingo

I'm not sure how we can process the data in non-liner form. Either way it'll be difficult to produce natural motion when there are limited numbers of frames to work with. Maybe it’s best to blue the pixel during motion to simulate realistic motion.

Well they could interpolate with non-linear motion if they analysed more than 2 frames before interpolating (I think some TVs do have an option to analyse >2 frames). eg. you could see whether an object was accelerating/decelerating and/or following a curved path to more accurately place it in the interpolated frames. It still wouldn't be as accurate as by using actual higher source frames/fields per sec though.

Quote:


But even now, there is not a single consumer grade MCFI capable of producing artifact free image due to lack of pixel level interpolation.

I don't think even pixel level interpolation is artefact-free.
post #30 of 45
I believe I read that one of the TVs uses 8 frames to compute non-linear positions.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Will Future Flat Panel Technology Reduce Judder Or Eliminate It Completely?