AVS Forum banner

Is there a conflict between FI and being a Videophile?

  • I see no conflict between using FI and being a Videophile

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't care how it good it might look, FI is not accurate

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • If FI looks good, I will use it, regardless if they take away my Videophile Card

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 20 of 215 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Love it or hate it, it looks like Frame Interpolation is going to be with us from now on.


The discussions that I have read on this kind of technology so far focused only on whether it looks good or not. Soap Operaish versus non-soap-operaish.


However, there is another discussion that has not been had. The simple question is this, should we, as videophiles, embrace this technology at all, regardless of whether it looks good or not?


If our goal is accuracy to the source, there is no question that frame interpolation is incompatible with that goal. FI manufactures new frames; frames that were not in the original. Thus, watching a film with FI engaged is clearly not accurate.


Is there a videophile argument that exists that supports the use of FI?


I'd like to hear what it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
The true goal of any recorded material is to mimic real life, as humans view it. Real life doesn't have frames, we continuously sample dynamic images.


Thus to me, FI is closer to how the director really wants us to view the material, as if we are viewing it in person (true immersion).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,995 Posts
I chose "I don't care if it looks good or not, it's not accurate..." However, truth be told, I think it looks fine on sports but terrible, terrible, terrible on film-based content. And what kills me is that some televisions don't allow the viewer to turn it off. My mother has a Samsung LCD television that has a setting that "claims" to turn FI off, but clearly that setting doesn't really work as advertised since I can still see the effect.


A year or so ago, I was sitting in my workplace cafeteria listening to a couple of guys discuss how "Blu-Ray looks so REAL that it looks FAKE!" This comment mystified me, until I realized they were talking about the demo loop at best buy, which had FI turned up to high heaven, and they were mistaking the television's FI with the image quality of the BRD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,995 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_phew /forum/post/16992810


The true goal of any recorded material is to mimic real life, as humans view it. Real life doesn't have frames, we continuously sample dynamic images.


Thus to me, FI is closer to how the director really wants us to view the material, as if we are viewing it in person (true immersion).

Seeing as how this is your first post, I'm seriously wondering if this is a troll response, since you're pressing multiple videophile buttons in a videophile forum.... But I'll give ya the benefit of the doubt.



For starters, it is not true that the goal of any recorded material is to mimic real life. Take the movie 300 for example, or the movie 7, or any number of other films where a director seeks to achieve an effect that is considerably different than "real life."


Second point: FI has nothing to do with "true immersion," nor with the director's intent. If the director had wanted to mimic "real life" he could easily have filmed on standard video cameras using no artificial lighting, filters, or processing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,672 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_phew /forum/post/16992810


The true goal of any recorded material is to mimic real life, as humans view it.

It most certainly is not. Very few movies are intended to mimic real life. Most are, in some way, stylized in order to better compliment the atmosphere and story. Most films that don't, on initial inspection, look stylized, usually still are. Subtle palette restrictions or changes, grain introduction,minor defocusing, dynamic crushes etc are frequently working away in the background to pull us further in.


The goal of the recorded material is to capture and convey an intent,the goal of a recording medium is to provide as transparent a representation of that intent as possible
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,131 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_phew /forum/post/16992810


The true goal of any recorded material is to mimic real life, as humans view it. Real life doesn't have frames, we continuously sample dynamic images.

I categorically disagree with that, cinema is absolutely NOT intended to mimic real life, quite the contrary, it's intended to take us out of the real life we're in for the moment and transport us to a fictional place.


Take The Matrix, much of the movie has a green cast intentionally, that is obvioulsy not "mimicing real life".


Saving Private Ryan, most of the movie is shot with fast shutter speed, which gives the WWII parts of the movie a very sureal feel.


Speed Racer, the whole movie is made with super-saturated colors that are nothing like real life.


Slumdog Millionaire, the director intentionally used 12fps footage in some scenes to make things look different from real life:
http://prolost.com/blog/2009/2/24/sl...llionaire.html


The Lord of The Rings, there is no such place as Middle Earth, no such thing as hobbits, etc, etc.


The list goes on, but one thing is very clear, cinema is NOT intended to mimic reality, it's intended to be an escape from reality.


Now if you want to argue that FI helps get you personally more into the fantasy world created by the film, that's a different argument.


For me, FI makes me feel like I'm on the set watching actors act, not that I'm experiencing a fantasy world created by the director.

Quote:
Thus to me, FI is closer to how the director really wants us to view the material, as if we are viewing it in person (true immersion).

That's not the case of Slumdog Millionare's director (wish I could find that blog again). I'm guessing not in the case of Saving Private Ryan either.


"And those emotional moments, almost without exception, featured key shots captured at 12 frames per second (or less) and double-printed for a staccato, dreamy feel."


I'd say the goal of the director is not to make you feel like you're on the set viewing the acting in person, quite the contrary, I believe their goal it to immerse you in the fantasy world created by the actors, cinematography and special effects.


Now if FI does that for you, great. It does the opposite for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
To what extent is FI the manufacturers way of addressing memory effect issues with digital pixel arrays? - a CRT monitor will scan each frame it receives, with no memory of the previous frame, whereas most pixel arrays suffer from -to a greater or lesser extent- sample and hold effects/colour-stepping/smearing. FI may result in the image being closer to the source than expected by reducing these artefacts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,995 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Alison /forum/post/16993024


To what extent is FI the manufacturers way of addressing memory effect issues with digital pixel arrays? - a CRT monitor will scan each frame it receives, with no memory of the previous frame, whereas most pixel arrays suffer from -to a greater or lesser extent- sample and hold effects/colour-stepping/smearing. FI may result in the image being closer to the source than expected by reducing these artefacts.

Now that is an interesting point... And if it were true that it enabled LCD panels (for example) to overcome SAH, I'd entertain the notion that it might have some value beyond "sports."


However, in my experience, to my eyes, FI looks less like real 35mm film than does the same source on the same set WITHOUT FI. To me, FI always seems to impart a cheap cam-corder quality to everything it touches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by gremmy /forum/post/16992914


Seeing as how this is your first post, I'm seriously wondering if this is a troll response

You'll notice I've been a member for three years, and have read intently throughout that time. I just got my first projector yesterday (Epson 6500UB on Carada Masquerade 110" 1.78:1), so I finally have something to chime in about.


I still disagree with you about director intent. In 300, Snyder wants us to feel like we are present at the Battle of Thermopylae. Not sitting in a movie theatre watching 24 frames roll by every second. To me, FI improves immersion, since it makes the display look more like a 'window to another world' than a screen with rapidly changing static images.


Frame judder always reminds me I'm not 'there'. Different attitudes toward viewing I suppose; I want to feel like I'm witnessing the action live, but obviously some of you prefer to be reminded "it's just a movie".


EDIT: Note that the OP said 'videophile' not 'cinephile'. I agree that if you are a movie purist, and want to watch your movies the way they've been projected for the past century, then by all means, turn FI off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,995 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_phew /forum/post/16993082


You'll notice I've been a member for three years, and have read intently throughout that time. I just got my first projector yesterday (Epson 6500UB on Carada Masquerade 110" 1.78:1), so I finally have something to chime in about.

Then I'm glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Welcome to the conversation.


Quote:
I still disagree with you about director intent. In 300, Snyder wants us to feel like we are present at the Battle of Thermopylae. Not sitting in a movie theatre watching 24 frames roll by every second. To me, FI improves immersion, since it makes the display look more like a 'window to another world' than a screen with rapidly changing static images.

I doubt very much Snyder wanted us to feel like we were watching the Battle of Thermopylae on a budget camcorder or on a Soap Opera set either....


Like it or not, film-makers understand the concessions required by the medium they are working on (35mm film, for example) and make a series of artistic decisions to accurately capture their vision given those characteristics. One cannot change such a major characteristic of the medium (a tremendous artificial jump in frame-rate, for example) without having unintended consequences on the director's other artistic decisions, thereby doing more to harm than help the director's intent. I believe this is evident when one watches any film with FI turned on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Alison /forum/post/16993024


To what extent is FI the manufacturers way of addressing memory effect issues with digital pixel arrays? - a CRT monitor will scan each frame it receives, with no memory of the previous frame, whereas most pixel arrays suffer from -to a greater or lesser extent- sample and hold effects/colour-stepping/smearing. FI may result in the image being closer to the source than expected by reducing these artefacts.

I don't think that FI could have any effect on the sample and hold effect, which, to varying extents, is present in all digital displays, regardless of framerate. This is so because manufacturing new frames won't change a given pixel's response time or blanking time. If you accept that FI doesn't change pixel response or blanking time (the root cause of SAH) you have to agree that your premise is incorrect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,131 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_phew /forum/post/16993082


I still disagree with you about director intent. In 300, Snyder wants us to feel like we are present at the Battle of Thermopylae.

Agreed, we're supposed to be immersed in the fantasy world that is created by the acting and cinematography.

Quote:
Not sitting in a movie theatre watching 24 frames roll by every second.

Likewise we are not supposed to feel like we're standing on the set watching the actors act. This is where I think you're extending "intent" to far, if only rhetorically.

Quote:
To me, FI improves immersion, since it makes the display look more like a 'window to another world' than a screen with rapidly changing static images.

That's perfectly fair, like I stated above. To a large extent I get the same feel. Though my brain interprets it differently, to me, it ends up feeling like I'm looking through a window at the set, at the process of creating the film.

Quote:
Frame judder always reminds me I'm not 'there'. Different attitudes toward viewing I suppose; I want to feel like I'm witnessing the action live, but obviously some of you prefer to be reminded "it's just a movie".

I think it is differing attitudes. For me the fact that I know I'm not "there" allows my brain to suspend disbelief of what's going on, and I can sit back and become immersed in the story, the action, the cinematography. I can become immersed in the story itself.


With FI, it really does give the "I'm there" feel, however at least for me, "there" is on the set where the movie is being shot, not the fictional location that's trying to be created. I guess I don't feel you're really supposed to be "there" when you watch a movie. That's not to say I don't think you should be immersed, but I think immersion doesn't need the "I'm there" or "looking through a window" feeling FI gives. In fact IMO those feelings detract from immersion because we subconciously know that we'd never see those things looking through a window.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawguy /forum/post/16993137


I don't think that FI could have any effect on the sample and hold effect, which, to varying extents, is present in all digital displays, regardless of framerate.

But it does. SAH is basically the blur caused by our eyes moving in relation to the static image. Faster frame rates/more frames means our eyes go less far before a new frame is shown, thus reducing the amount of blur.

Quote:
This is so because manufacturing new frames won't change a given pixel's response time or blanking time.

SAH has nothing to do with pixel response time. But even so it's possible that with more frames, smaller changes will be required from one frame to the next, thus reducing the impact of pixel response.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,668 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 /forum/post/16993470


SAH has nothing to do with pixel response time. But even so it's possible that with more frames, smaller changes will be required from one frame to the next, thus reducing the impact of pixel response.

I stated that it has no effect on pixel response OR blanking time.


FI is meant to address motion issues caused by low frame rates.


Pixel response time can contribute to motion issues because, if pixel response time is low, we can see blur during motion. FI would have no effect on this kind of blur.


Blanking time (the amount of persistence of particular pixels) is the root cause of SAH. Merely manufacturing new frames does not address pixel blanking time at all. In fact, the remedies that have been devised to address SAH (Black or dark frame insertion) have nothing at all to do whatsoever with Frame Interpolation. They are compatible with each other but you need not have one to thave the other.


If your assertion that simply adding "more frames" was the answer, we would have it already. On the RS20, for instance, 24p material is displayed at a multiple of 24p, 96p, I believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
It has been well established that 24 frames per second became the standard not because it was the best, or even because it was the best compromise, but because it was the MINIMUM that could be comfortably viewed by the average movie goer with the equipment available at the time. That, in and of itself, doesn't make FI good..........................or bad, but there is nothing special about 24fps or the experience it provides, so if modern technology can create alternatives I'm all for exploring them. (especially if they can be truly turned on or off at the viewer's discretion).


Dick Fogg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,314 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_phew /forum/post/16992810


The true goal of any recorded material is to mimic real life, as humans view it.

Completely untrue. The goal of any created media is to impart information in a meaningful manner. You might as well try and argue that paintings should be valued according to how realistic they are... a viewpoint considered facile in the extreme for the last 300 years.


There is nothing remotely realistic about the film watching experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,314 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_phew /forum/post/16993082


You'll notice I've been a member for three years, and have read intently throughout that time. I just got my first projector yesterday (Epson 6500UB on Carada Masquerade 110" 1.78:1), so I finally have something to chime in about.


I still disagree with you about director intent. In 300, Snyder wants us to feel like we are present at the Battle of Thermopylae. Not sitting in a movie theatre watching 24 frames roll by every second. To me, FI improves immersion, since it makes the display look more like a 'window to another world' than a screen with rapidly changing static images.


Frame judder always reminds me I'm not 'there'. Different attitudes toward viewing I suppose; I want to feel like I'm witnessing the action live, but obviously some of you prefer to be reminded "it's just a movie".


EDIT: Note that the OP said 'videophile' not 'cinemaphile'. I agree that if you are a movie purist, and want to watch your movies the way they've been projected for the past century, then by all means, turn FI off.

Snyder wants the audience to feel they are watching a live action comic book. There are more "distancing" techniques in "300" that you can shake a stick at. What more do you want ? Leonidas winking at the audience?


You want realism ? Tape a camcorder to a dog's head , set it to autofocus at as wide an angle it wlll go to and after a couple of hours retrieve the tape, don't edit it at all....now you have the most accomplished film in the history of mankind...if you think that "realsm" and "immersion" are the alpha and omega of film-making.


I would also double check what refresh rate you are running at before waxing lyrical on the advantages of FI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by arefog /forum/post/16993642


It has been well established that 24 frames per second became the standard not because it was the best, or even because it was the best compromise, but because it was the MINIMUM that could be comfortably viewed by the average movie goer with the equipment available at the time. That, in and of itself, doesn't make FI good..........................or bad, but there is nothing special about 24fps or the experience it provides, so if modern technology can create alternatives I'm all for exploring them. (especially if they can be truly turned on or off at the viewer's discretion).


Dick Fogg

The fact that 24 FPS was a limitation that had to be lived with ultimately became an intrinsic part of the 'look of film.' For that reason, I am not a fan of frame interpolation on film-based sources.


That said, I can buy the argument that there's nothing sacred about 24 FPS -- if a director wants to create a film at 60 FPS, for example, I'd want to play it back at that frame rate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tlniec /forum/post/16994331


The fact that 24 FPS was a limitation that had to be lived with ultimately became an intrinsic part of the 'look of film.' For that reason, I am not a fan of frame interpolation on film-based sources.

Exactly, I think we have all been conditioned to think that 24 fps=cinema. If we don't see sickening frame judder every time the camera pans, then we think we must be watching a "soap opera". I am trying to be open-minded about FI in movies, but admittedly I've had limited experience with it. Football is my #1 most important viewing activity, and most folks agree that FI is a big plus for sports.


I'll also admit that 300 was a horrible example of a director's intent to immerse. Most of that movie is probably closer to the scene in a typical gay bar than an accurate depiction of the Battle of Thermopylae.
 

·
Guest
Joined
·
867 Posts
They way I see it CRT phoshors have lag time and display interlaced. Single chip DLP uses a color wheel, etc... Displays do not work as the film makers intended, you are not seeing the film by a series of distinct flashing frames. The frames are being held on screen longer than they should be. Each frame is a reference for a moment in time, holding it for longer than that moment causes motion judder. While displaying it for only the moment for which it is relevent can cause flickering on bright displays. Frame interpolation is suppose to solve these problems by generating additional frames, so motion is smooth and the display does not flicker.


Is it the film makers intent for the film to have unnatural motion judder or to flicker. Film print projectors do not hold the frame too long as they do not have the same limitations as crt or single chip dlp in how they make the image, so obviously they did not intend you to see motion judder. Cinema screens are relatively dim and the speed at which the eye/brain process the image is determined by the brightness, so flickering was also not intended.


You may argue that ideally with a projector you want to emulate the cinema including the frame rate. To do this you may need to emulate the cinemas relatively dim screen brightness levels. But brighter images are naturally more engaging, have better color and look sharper with better depth of field, due to the eye having better color perception in brighter conditions, and the iris being smaller and having higher contrast sensitivity. If viewing in a non batcave dedicated room, brighter may also be a necessity.


It is seen to be true to the film makers intent to lower the black level of the image to improve contrast beyond a film print projector. If having a brighter image is viewed the same, since there is a movement to increase screen brightness, then something has to be done about flickering or motion judder.

EDIT Added paragraph.

Besides increased brightness another "improvement" to the film image makes frame interpolation possibly desirable. Detail enhancement used on some blu-ray players increases the visibility of motion judder as it increases the contrast in middle sized details. Film normally has high contrast in large details and falling (but still present) contrast in smaller details, while video has a more level contrast across different sized details. So this also adds to the video look.


I see nothing wrong with frame interpolation and if it makes the image look subjectively better or I am distracted by motion judder or flicker I would use it.


I prefer an image that looks like I am there, rather than watching an image. If this is not viewed as a good thing why bother with projectors with better contrast ratios than a film print projector. Since the main advantage of higher contrast is more depth of image, it looks more real - like you are there. For that matter why bother with a big screen at all, since the point of a big screen is to immerse you in the action by occupying more than the central detail sensitive part of your vision so it looks more real. Part of good film making in my opinion is using visual clues to trick the viewer into seeing a two dimensional image as three dimensional, otherwise we might as well use the style of ancient Egyptian art to tell the story.

EDIT two more added paragraphs of me ranting

I am not a purist and also see nothing wrong in removing film grain, as long as you do not simultaneously remove image detail like skin pores and subtle variations in peoples skin tones, etc...


The soap opera look people seem to hate I think is caused by the differences between film and video.

Film in comercial cinemas use a different color gamut and greyscale color temperature. Digital cinemas have a higher bit rate for finer graduations of greyscale and color hues than Blu-ray. Contrast is also different from video, film has a higher gamma (more contrast) in the middle of the gamma curve and a different shaped gamma curve with gentler more natural highlight compression and shadow compression. Film contrast is also high in large details and falls (but continues to be present) in small details.

Video often has sharper and less natural looking compression of shadow detail and highlights. This can cause reduced color saturation in the dark colors and increased saturation in bright colors, shifting colors in hue towards their nearest primary or secondary color, giving less natural more poster book colors than film. Video contrast is relatively constant in large and small details. Detail enhancement often used in video can cause a contrasty edge not usually present in film.
 
1 - 20 of 215 Posts
Top