[Archaea]

I was a Best Buy last week and saw a 40" samsung 120hz tv with a 25,000:1 contrast ratio running a 120hz with a blue ray player running pirates of the carribean. It was so clear and perfect it looked fake, like silly soap opera cinema. In fact I thought it was un-edited raw extra features or something because it had lost the "cinema" look. But as I watched for a few minutes I realized it was the normal film rolling. I can't believe how different that film looked. I asked the salesman why that film looked so different on that particular demo display and he said because it was running at 120hz.


That seems weird to me, like the hz refresh wouldn't matter that much?


Any one else seen this? Where a movie looks so good as to almost be distracting because it loses the cinema/film look? What causes that? Is it the super high contrast ratio? 25,000 to 1? The refresh rate - 120hz? The quality of the 1080p display?


I've never seen another display ever that was that clear - and the 40" display was only about 2,200 or so. I was amazed and a little disturbed because you could see EVERYSINGLE pore/blemish whatever on their skin and it looked like real life - not a movie/tv.


In fact I was a bit dumbstruck that Kierra Knightly looked more like a real typical woman rather than the god of beauty she seems at the theatre!

 

[Icehouse]

A month or so ago I saw Transformers running on a 120HZ LCD and I personally thought it looked very strange and gave me a mild headache after a few minutes of looking at the screen.


It gave everything a glossy sorta look and not in a good way.

 

[brentsg]

They had AMP running, which creates additional frames of animation to smooth motion. It also introduces visual artifacts that you will notice when you watch a bit more.

 

[Chris3G]

it's not 120hz that causes this, it's the motion processing feature (called auto motion plus on a samsung) and it can be turned off.

 

[NMJack]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea /forum/post/12867339


......it almost looked fake.

Actually, it was 50% real and 50% fake. A fake frame was inserted between each real pair of frames. Love it or hate it, that's where the CE manufacturers are taking us. As long as there is an off switch, I don't mind a bit.

 

[dad1153]

^^^ Agree, as long as its an option and not a forced feature I'd like my 60Hz 1080p LCD to be able to display some movies (particularly CG animated movies) with that so-smooth-its-unreal look. On the same set-up Archaea saw "Pirates..." in (a Sammy 40" 71F model with AMP turned on) I've seen in other stores Blu-ray and/or HD-DVD movies like "The Fugitive," "Spider-Man 3," "Open Season," "Transformers" and "Gridiron Gang" that either looked phony as hell ("Gridiron...") or so smooth its was just distractingly pretty ("Open Season" and "Spider-Man 3"). Definitely a YMMV scenario but at least is there's a 'Turn Off' option you can still watch movies at film-like speed if your purist cinema-loving heart so desires.

 

[dajet00]

What TV is Archaea talking about?

 

[taurus2007]



Quote:
Originally Posted by dajet00 /forum/post/12868561


What TV is Archaea talking about?

Samsung LN-T4071 with contrast ratio as 25,000:1 and 120Hz.

 

[Gary McCoy]

I own the LN-T4669FX which is very similar. Occasionally running with AMP on, I see the effect you are talking about. 120Hz refresh and 24Hz source video and AMP are all required for this - and source film or video that is perfectly exposed and perfectly in focus. Suddenly, it's as if the screen disappeared and you were looking through glass into another world.


By the way, no 60Hz HDTV can do this. Both 120Hz panel refresh and 24Hz video source with 5:5 pulldown are required for smooth motion.


You will occasionally see this complete image clarity when viewing 1080i60 OTA source, but for the most part with static images only - the Samsung video processor falls back into "cadence detection" or 3:2 pulldown, but when the camera pans and every pixel of every frame is changing, the video processor cannot keep up and the image blurs.


Still, it's worth paying for 120Hz just for the HD disks.

 

[Elysium420]

I love leaving AMP on High, gives all my DVDs a LIVE look, like I'm there filming the actors, it freaks alot of people out when they see it haha. I tried leaving AMP off to watch a movie and you can DEFINITELY see the "sluggishness" of normal films, I had to turn it back on high cause it was giving me a headache, I guess I'm so used to it now

 

[golfreak]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea /forum/post/12867339


I was a Best Buy last week and saw a 40" samsung 120hz tv with a 25,000:1 contrast ratio running a 120hz with a blue ray player running pirates of the carribean. It was so clear and perfect it looked fake, like silly soap opera cinema. In fact I thought it was un-edited raw extra features or something because it had lost the "cinema" look. But as I watched for a few minutes I realized it was the normal film rolling. I can't believe how different that film looked. I asked the salesman why that film looked so different on that particular demo display and he said because it was running at 120hz.


That seems weird to me, like the hz refresh wouldn't matter that much?


Any one else seen this? Where a movie looks so good as to almost be distracting because it loses the cinema/film look? What causes that? Is it the super high contrast ratio? 25,000 to 1? The refresh rate - 120hz? The quality of the 1080p display?


I've never seen another display ever that was that clear - and the 40" display was only about 2,200 or so. I was amazed and a little disturbed because you could see EVERYSINGLE pore/blemish whatever on their skin and it looked like real life - not a movie/tv.


In fact I was a bit dumbstruck that Kierra Knightly looked more like a real typical woman rather than the god of beauty she seems at the theatre!

I couldn't agree with you more.

The first time I saw the Sony 120mhz and motion plus, I was like whoa....

It does look so real that it loses the "cinema" look to it.

 

[nm88]



Quote:
Originally Posted by NMJack /forum/post/12867794


Actually, it was 50% real and 50% fake.

Actually, it was 20% real and 80% fake, but who's counting.

It's silly to have any fake frames; it completely ruins the film.

 

[raven69david]

I ran into the same issue when i went to CC 2 weeks ago to pick up something totally unrelated to TV's. They had a 46" samsung 4671 playing in the front. It looked like i was looking out of a window or as described above "like a soap opera" type look. I thought it was some special demo DVD made to show off the set. I was surprised when they took the BR DVD out and showed me it was straight out of a consumer case. One week later I sold my Pioneer 5070 and purchased my XBR4.


This is what i have been looking for in a set for quite some time. Now that i've found it, i'll be quite happy for many years to come (or until the next best thing comes out). LOL

 

[NMJack]



Quote:
Originally Posted by nm88 /forum/post/12869805


Actually, it was 20% real and 80% fake, but who's counting.

My 50/50 was based on the reports that Sammys take a 24fps source, perform 3:2 to create the usual 60fps and then interpolate between each of those to get to 120fps. I personally have no idea how they do it...

 

[tracemhunter]

I absolutely hate the motion setting. I was at Fry's a couple of days ago looking at TV's and they had it on one of the Samsungs. Another customer was looking at the same TV and mentioned how messed up it looked. I turned the setting off and the TV looked great after that. Once the guy figured out how I turned it off he bought the TV. The AutoMotion looks weird and ruins the film look.

 

[Shin CZ]



Quote:
Originally Posted by nm88 /forum/post/12869805


Actually, it was 20% real and 80% fake, but who's counting.

It's silly to have any fake frames; it completely ruins the film.

What part of 'subjective' don't you understand?


You may find it silly, others don't.

 

[Gary McCoy]



Quote:
Originally Posted by nm88 /forum/post/12869805


Actually, it was 20% real and 80% fake, but who's counting.

It's silly to have any fake frames; it completely ruins the film.

When you take two real video frames, and interpolate frames in-between the frames in the video feed, you call it "fake"? I would not - because 99% or so of the pixels are the exact same in all the frames. The frame interpolation only occurs when the difference from one source frame to the next is averaged togather. The result is that a moving object has a smooth transition from it's position in one frame to the position in the next.


I have ALWAYS been bothered by the strobe effect in a theater when viewing 24Hz film. 24Hz is just NOT SMOOTH ENOUGH to effectively portray rapid movement on screen. the new 120Hz sets are fixing a problem present in even the BEST 24Hz film source.


It's not the same as altering the aspect ratio, artificially sharpening the image, or enhancing the film colors in the DVD mastering process. Those things are changing the Director's intent and altering the film. But no Director wants the image to strobe during movement - that's a limitation imposed on his photographic vision by the slow 24Hz film rate, a relic of early primitive camera mechanisms and film projectors. If we had 48Hz film, then frame interpolation would not be needed. But we do not - so we NEED 120Hz displays, and they IMPROVE upon the original film.


It is true that artifacts exist due to imperfect frame interpolation. However, the frame interpolation itself is such a benefit, I suffer the artifacts gladly.


I will never again buy an HD display that will not support 120Hz refresh.

 

[nm88]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy /forum/post/12872143


When you take two real video frames, and interpolate frames in-between the frames in the video feed, you call it "fake"?

Of course it's fake, because that information doesn't come from the source and it's just a guess as to what might have been.


Even if you like the effect, it is, objectively speaking, fake, like colorizing a B&W film. Some people like colorized films too; I don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy /forum/post/12872143


The result is that a moving object has a smooth transition from it's position in one frame to the position in the next.

The problem is, that moving object was NOT necessarily in those guesstimate positions during that time, so everything looks artificially smooth. With film, half the temporal data is missing, and no algorithm can properly recreate it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy /forum/post/12872143


I have ALWAYS been bothered by the strobe effect in a theater when viewing 24Hz film. 24Hz is just NOT SMOOTH ENOUGH to effectively portray rapid movement on screen.

You're absolutely right, 24 fps is too slow for fast motion, and the shutter being closed half the time gives a noticeable strobe effect. But the solution is to record at a higher frame rate, not to put in fake frames to try to trick the viewer into believing the frame rate was higher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy /forum/post/12872143


It's not the same as altering the aspect ratio, artificially sharpening the image, or enhancing the film colors in the DVD mastering process. Those things are changing the Director's intent and altering the film. But no Director wants the image to strobe during movement

Actually, they do want the "film look," which includes 24 fps and a shutter angle that leaves the film exposed for only half the time. That's why TV shows are recorded on film, or 24 fps video, and why even film makers who use modern HD video cameras still try to recreate the film look. Fake interpolated frames are an abomination to director's intent, if you care about it.

 

[Cattledog]

Film is fake. Life is real.

 

[MrSkyline]

i had the same thought when i saw a 120hz tv for the first time, but on the other hand, i'd expect it to be just awesome when playing games on an xbox or a ps3, anyone has an opinion on that?