|
Data Graham posted:I tried to show Office Space at a company movie night. The interpolating TV made it look like some guy was just walking around an office with a camcorder. It didn't even look like a "movie", didn't carry any of the "weight" that conveyed to people that they should be paying attention, and everyone else got bored and wandered out. 24 fps content should absolutely not be interpolated, but pretending 24 fps is somehow more intrinsically cinematic and not just what your brain is used to is dumb.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
My samsung from 2012 works fine to me. There were some issues at the beginning where Netflix wouldn't load things but eventually that got sorted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Germstore posted:24 fps content should absolutely not be interpolated, but pretending 24 fps is somehow more intrinsically cinematic and not just what your brain is used to is dumb. It's a whole nother thread's worth of argument, I know, but "what your brain is used to" is itself pretty important to the experience and to what "intrinsically cinematic" means, I'd say. It certainly had the effect of making people (including me) less involved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Well I guess that's what my parents' TV is doing, it's fancy HD cable but there's some sort of weird effect going on. I thought that 24 fps was perfectly fine for video, because every frame shown has some degree of motion blurring going on, which makes motion look smooth. For video games, which don't generally have this motion blur, you need higher refresh rates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
i want a tv that looks good for what my brain is used to is that too much to ask
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
24 fps can't do fast panning without becoming a choppy mess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Isn't two of the big reasons that it's settled at 24 fps, is that it's good enough for your brain to process fluid motion, but also the cost of film? No need to go higher if your brain says it's fine and waste money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
mng posted:Isn't two of the big reasons that it's settled at 24 fps, is that it's good enough for your brain to process fluid motion, but also the cost of film? No need to go higher if your brain says it's fine and waste money. It's fine for most situations. It only works because of motion blur, but that breaks down in some situations like fast pans. Cost of film isn't a constraint anymore so you still have the cost but no benefit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
mng posted:Isn't two of the big reasons that it's settled at 24 fps, is that it's good enough for your brain to process fluid motion, but also the cost of film? No need to go higher if your brain says it's fine and waste money. It's just barely fine. It annoys me when I'm watching an action scene and the entire screen is just one big blur because "24 fps is good enough." It looks like garbage and I'd prefer to be able to see what's going on in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Watch good movies without action scenes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Watch good movies without action scenes. There are also good movies with action scenes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Germstore posted:There are also good movies with action scenes. nah 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Bovril Delight posted:Get a receiver and you'll never use more than a couple. nevermind, I'm dumb Bonzo has a new favorite as of 21:31 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Ive never had a problem understanding what is going on watching at 24 fps
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Germstore posted:It's fine for most situations. It only works because of motion blur, but that breaks down in some situations like fast pans. Cost of film isn't a constraint anymore so you still have the cost but no benefit. Fast pans only look choppy when the 24fps is being converted to another frame rate via "pull down". If your set is capable of actual 24fps (or a multiple of 24 like 120) it will look smooth. "Pull down" causes some frames to be duplicated to fit into the number of frames the tv can display which causes the choppiness. It's a similar concept of how graphics only look right when viewed at their native resolution or a multiple of their native resolution. Frame interpolation can gently caress right off though. I hate watching a movie or tv show that has this effect on it. It makes everything look too smooth and just... off. GutBomb has a new favorite as of 21:36 on Mar 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
mng posted:Isn't two of the big reasons that it's settled at 24 fps, is that it's good enough for your brain to process fluid motion, but also the cost of film? No need to go higher if your brain says it's fine and waste money. 24FPS was standardized upon when sound movies began in the late 1920's. This also allowed a projector with a two blade shutter to flash each frame twice on the screen to minimize flicker. Now with digital projection it's a moot point but some people prefer the look and automatically equate a 24fps image as 'more cinematic'
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:Ive never had a problem understanding what is going on watching at 24 fps The only time I have was in the Bourne films because there are a ridiculous number of cuts that are really, really short and you're watching two guys dressed in black move around very fast at each other. The smart apps on my TV aren't awful, though the ones on practically every other device I own are better, but the dumbest thing is that the Netflix app doesn't support audio out better than stereo, which is just plain stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:Fast pans only look choppy when the 24fps is being converted to another frame rate via "pull down". If your set is capable of actual 24fps (or a multiple of 24 like 120) it will look smooth. "Pull down" causes some frames to be duplicated to fit into the number of frames the tv can display which causes the choppiness. Having the capability to display 24fps natively is one of the big upsides to high fps sets. But you are still constrained with how fast you can pan because blurring only do so much. The reason that it generally looks fine is because film makers know the limitation and don't exceed it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
It's funny how much people hate frame interpolation, a technology that is actually very cool and good and entirely optional. It's only a shame that there isn't a quick button on the remote to enable/disable it.. you usually have to dig down into menus and it tends to stay off because of that for most people. It is true that the interpolation and added clarity will make bad acting and budget special effects EXTREMELY visible and it removes some of the "movie magic" but if you have it enabled on a big budget 3d animated movie it looks loving stellar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yN3od3nie8 It's also very neat how it can often interpolate console games that are locked to 30fps so that it looks like they are running at 60 or 120fps. You will need to deal with 2-3 frames of delay though so it only works well for third person action games like GTA, uncharted, assassins creed etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
error1 posted:It's funny how much people hate frame interpolation, a technology that is actually very cool and good and entirely optional. It's only a shame that there isn't a quick button on the remote to enable/disable it.. you usually have to dig down into menus and it tends to stay off because of that for most people. Actually it still looks like garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Yeah gently caress high framerates, that's why the N64 was the best console all the games were so cinematic! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGI-gIMSQMQ That's also why I play quake on my 486 instead of a pentium 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
error1 posted:Yeah gently caress high framerates, that's why the N64 was the best console all the games were so cinematic! if you dont understand the difference between video game and movie picture processing, just refrain from trying to contribute.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
The Hobbit in high FPS looked stupid in slow scenes - like a Telenova soap opera but with obvious fake ears and feet - but great in action scenes. I think 24fps makes a movie look slightly 'unreal' which is what I've been used to my whole life. I'm curious how going to high FPS everywhere would change cinema for other people - I know I'd have a hard time adapting.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Movie snobs just melt down completely when you challenge their 90 year old video technology. It's incredible. Guess we're stuck with 24fps forever. The difference between a single interpolated frame and a keyframe is completely negligible. Why do you think modern video compression works? You can strip out a shitton of redundant data and just keep track of motion vectors, with full keyframes every 20-40 frames or when the picture changes too drastically. Interpolating every other frame uses the same concept, find the motion vectors and halve them to generate an intermediate state. It introduces slight artifacting where a foreground object is moving faster than a background object, someone is walking behind a grid, picket fence etc because you don't have all the information you need, but the advantage of not getting a headache easily outweighs the drawbacks of faint halos around complicated moving objects and the occasional garbled subtitle. Just from a engineering perspective it's really impressive how convincing and reliable the interpolation has become, it's a shame it's lost on a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
I find 60FPS weird in movies, but since I've only seen one its hard to judge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Eventually all the people that can't get on board with high-fps will be dead, but if we switch over now at least we won't create another generation of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Psuedo related refresh rates on CRTs below a certain #, I think 60hz or lower, would basically flicker for me. I could glance at a monitor and tell it was set below 75hz. It always weirded me out that it bothered me but not the people around me. Also I guess LCDs refresh in a different manner because 60hz on an LCD is fine. Anyone else have a problem viewing low refresh rates on CRTs? Also my Samsung LCD TV turned green but the solution was to clean the pins on a board for 2 ribbon cables (!) with alcohol which fixed it. And ^that is probably the biggest difference between 25 years ago and today. It's not so much the hardware but the fact that the information to fix it is so readily available. Information that you couldn't' dream of having back then is available in seconds. Kids don't know how good they have it today, hobby, home/car repairs, whatever 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Maybe they can make movies at 60fps (or higher) and then give TVs a "old timey idiot" mode so people like steinrokkan can make they movies look lovely and not ruin everyone else's experience. They could even sell shutter glasses that convert the real world to 24fps so your whole life can be an ugly movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
yeah, movies like Blade Runner that were so ugly compared to modern masterpieces like SpiderMan 511, helped immensely by the soap opera quality
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Wife & I watched Inside Out this weekend, and as soon as the movie started I saw it wasn't 24 fps. I was about to fiddle with the settings when 1) my wife said it didn't matter and she wanted to just watch the movie so quit screwing around with the TV, and 2) I realized that might be the native frame rate of the film. It's a recent Pixar movie, so...maybe? Are they simply making those movies at 30/60 fps now, and that's what you get? We streamed via iTunes -- no physical media. Interesting that my wife couldn't have cared less, and it drove me insane the entire
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Lincoln posted:Wife & I watched Inside Out this weekend, and as soon as the movie started I saw it wasn't 24 fps. I was about to fiddle with the settings when 1) my wife said it didn't matter and she wanted to just watch the movie so quit screwing around with the TV, and 2) I realized that might be the native frame rate of the film. It's a recent Pixar movie, so...maybe? Are they simply making those movies at 30/60 fps now, and that's what you get? We streamed via iTunes -- no physical media. You just found out that you are a broken brains weirdo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
60 fps in porn is cool tbh
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Far as I'm concerned, fps re: film is like aspect ratio. it's something the director can decide on based on their own artistic desire and I would therefore prefer to watch it in the intended form. It's not an all or nothing thing. Stuff that's already been shot should probably be watched at 24 fps or whatever, stuff shot in the future can feel free to go 60 or whatever and then you should probably watch it that way. However interpolating is like watching a 16:9 movie forced into 4:3. It's also goddamn black magic because gently caress you, you can't just make frames out of nothing. OK yeah, they're just copying frames, but still, it's loving weird. But like I said, if it's shot 60 fps go hog wild.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Things that are natively filmed at high frame rates and then displayed in the same frame rate look awesome. Things recorded at a lower frame rate and displayed at a higher rate using interpolation look unnatural and weird. It's not a matter of old vs new. It's a matter of making things look really weird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Light Gun Man posted:OK yeah, they're just copying frames, but still, it's loving weird. It's more than that. It's actual image processing creating "tween" frames between the real ones based on the differences between the previous and next frame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
thathonkey posted:It's hard to find a tv now that doesnt have any of the following horribly dumb gimmick features Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Germstore posted:24 fps content should absolutely not be interpolated, but pretending 24 fps is somehow more intrinsically cinematic and not just what your brain is used to is dumb. High frame rate has basically been tainted by cheap soap operas and camcorders. People have these two very prevalent points of reference about what footage looks like, so when a TV upconverts a movie to 48fps or higher of course it's gonna look kinda gnarly when a movie doesn't look like "a movie." I've talked to people that can't grasp what an aspect ratio is that still immediately notice motion interpolation and dislike it. It's OK for sports though There is one upside of TVs with like the 240hz refresh rates and that is the fact that 24, 30, and 60 fps all divide into it cleanly. I think this is supposed to benefit mainly movies with the result being cleaner individual frames.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
david's midnight magic
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
powerofrecall posted:High frame rate has basically been tainted by cheap soap operas and camcorders. People have these two very prevalent points of reference about what footage looks like, so when a TV upconverts a movie to 48fps or higher of course it's gonna look kinda gnarly when a movie doesn't look like "a movie." I've talked to people that can't grasp what an aspect ratio is that still immediately notice motion interpolation and dislike it. It's OK for sports though You only need 120 for those frame rates. You need 240 for 48 fps which I think is what the hobbit was filmed in I guess so it could be cleanly downsampled to 24.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
Sten Freak posted:Psuedo related refresh rates on CRTs below a certain #, I think 60hz or lower, would basically flicker for me. I could glance at a monitor and tell it was set below 75hz. It always weirded me out that it bothered me but not the people around me. Also I guess LCDs refresh in a different manner because 60hz on an LCD is fine. Anyone else have a problem viewing low refresh rates on CRTs?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2016 01:21
|
|