Originally Posted by tgm1024
Like I said, there is only so much you can do with 24 fps. Large amounts of screen travel of discrete objects (high motion) will have a jittery effect even in a theatre because the brain cannot fill in the gaps well past a certain point. However, when you get up to 60Hz/120Hz (interpolated), then you get situations where that issue is far outweighed by the sample-and-hold smearing in your eye.
what "sample and hold" is. A display phenomenon.
No, a digital camcorder will record a series of frames, but if the shutter was fast enough to not be of issue then it's almost certainly the sample-and-hold nature of what you're displaying it on that is causing the blur.
OK - One more comment even though it is borderline hi-jacking the thread. But......it is important because the TV's we're discussing here are only capable of showing 24 FPS @ 4K.
I read a couple of pages of blur-busters and found it largely accurate and interesting, BUT........the point I was making is that almost ALL 24 FPS productions have large amounts of blur inherent in the frames themselves. So, when people are watching demos on this set and see blur I'll bet it is in the content itself. This can be easily verified by freeze-framing at any point where you perceive blur. Forget about LCD for a moment and just consider theater experiences. I watched Oz recently as well as the new Star Trek. Both were enjoyable, the latter, more so. They had one thing in common however - both blurred considerably whenever the camera panned at more than a snail's pace. I don't care whether you watched the flix on DLP, Plasma, LCD, or the theatre. They should all appear to have the same amount of motion blur. This was the case with "Hugo" which I saw in the theatre as well as at home on my Sharp 80-632U. The blur at home was certainly no more than I experienced at the theater.
I really wish that I could have watched CRANK at the theater to prove my point. I would bet a month's pay that the ultra-fast strobe effect would be displayed in full force as the director intended. This, despite the 48 or 72 frame display multiples.
So my point again is that 24 fps is not enough to adequately emulate realistic motion and NEEDS blur to smooth it out and fool the eye. I agree with you that there are other factors causing blur, but in my opinion they are almost insignificant compared to the blurring in the vast majority of 24 fps productions.
I did see "The Hobbit" a few months ago as a 48 FPS presentation. Much improved motion handling, significantly less blurring and couldn't help but notice that 48 fps allows faster panning without the horrible judder and extreme blur. I'm happy that Peter Jackson filmed it this way and confirmed to me again that 24 fps is a dinosaur that needs to go away as quickly as possible. Now that film is all but dead, why on earth are we clinging to this 100 Yr. old frame rate?
By the way I noticed that some of the images from blur-busters were borrowed from DisplayMate which reminded of a great article on motion blur written by Dr. Raymond M. Soneira the president of the company. The article is a few of years old but makes fascinating reading and is quite an eye opener. The main thing he points out and corroborates with blur-busters is that today's LCD are plenty fast enough so that pixel response time is not a factor. He also delves into display blurring - Highly recommended reading, and one that got me thinking when I read it quite a while ago.
Here's the link: http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Response_Time_ShootOut.htmEdited by billdag - 6/11/13 at 10:39pm