Jump to content


Photo

120 Hz. display


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 23 September 2007 - 09:02 PM

It was bad enough when 16:9 consumer TV's came out and we couldn't ensure that our material was displayed in the proper aspect ratio. Now the frame rate can be altered by the TV as well!

Samsung recently introduced a feature called "Auto Motion Plus" into its new LCD TV's. This takes an incoming 60Hz. signal and uses interpolation to display the images at 120fps, real time. Ostensibly this is to "smooth out motion blur," but it really f%#*s up 24fps material.

I recently walked into a Circuit City store and saw Pirates of the Caribbean playing from a Blu-ray disc on one of these Samsung's, rendered at 120Hz. It looked like... video! Really clean, sharp, alias-free video, but the motion rendering didn't look anything like 24fps film. It made all the drama look much less dramatic and suddenly hokey and staged. The "veil" of 24fps had been lifted, and I felt like I was watching a video production of a stage play, albeit with really good production value.

Apparently the player was converting the 24P data on the disc to 60 for output, then the TV converting that to 120. What's odd about this high frame rate is that motion difference is even more exaggerated between static and fast-moving subjects. Static or slow-moving shots looked rather film-like, but fast action took on this hyper-real quality. It didn't blend together naturally like 24fps.

At least now there's an alternative available to certain forum members who have been advocating 60P for action films...

http://shop2.outpost...product/5353418
  • 0

#2 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11947 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 September 2007 - 09:40 PM

Are you sure it wasn't bob-deinterlacing the 29.97fps interlaced material?

That would be a reasonable thing to do to display interlaced material on an intrinsically progressive display; many LCD TVs, including mine, do this very poorly.

But yes, it would have a rather hideous effect on 3:2 pulled-down material.

Phil
  • 0

#3 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 23 September 2007 - 11:22 PM

Are you sure it wasn't bob-deinterlacing the 29.97fps interlaced material?


That just turns 60i into 60p, removing the combing artifacts but leaving the 3:2 cadence in tact. This was definitely a different motion rendering.
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 September 2007 - 12:41 AM

I'm sure that a movie is stored as 24P on the disk itself, so a 3:2 pulldown is only added by the player if the signal is going to a 60i monitor.
  • 0

#5 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 24 September 2007 - 01:00 AM

My Sony CRT HDTV has a "feature" on it called "3:2 Inverse Pulldown"...which is supposed to make 24fps footage that was transferred to 29.97 fps look more like its original 24 fps. Yeah, it doesn't do jack by what I can tell.

I just keep my DVD player and TV on Progressive and it's just gorgeous and looks as correct as possible to my eyes.
  • 0

#6 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 24 September 2007 - 01:24 AM

FWIW the "auto motion" did appear to work extremely well; the interpolation was very convincing and artifact-free. It really did look like the movie was shot and displayed at at least 60P. It just bugs me that consumers can now select this display option (knowingly or unknowingly), perhaps being told by a salesman that it looks "better." For sports, fine. For 24fps film, not so much...
  • 0

#7 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 26 September 2007 - 05:38 PM

I think it is the opinion of some members of the American Society of Cinematographers that some higher frame rate footage such as 48 frames per secound can be inserted in a film as an immersive special effect that can allow faster pans faster zooms and capture faster motion however they feel it is inappropriate to run the whole movie at this frame rate as it would be too immersive and destroy the film look. However they insist that this footage must be compatable with conventional 24 frames per second film prints
  • 0

#8 Eric Steelberg ASC

Eric Steelberg ASC
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 538 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 01 October 2007 - 05:17 PM

I saw the same thing on a new Sony Bravia showing the HD-DVD of Mission Impossible 3. It looked dreadful...no motion blur. Looked as if it was shot on an HD consumer camcorder. The salesman asked "doesn't it look good?" I replied "no actually, it looks terrible and if anyone one who made that film saw this they'd make you turn it off."

After all these years trying to get the "film look" on video cameras, not the displays are trying to take it away. I don't get it.
  • 0

#9 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 October 2007 - 07:11 PM

I saw the same thing on a new Sony Bravia showing the HD-DVD of Mission Impossible 3.

Did you by any chance get to see the same DVD on an SXRD tv? They seem better able to display motion, as the displays themselves tend to be faster than flat panels.
  • 0

#10 Greg Sparks

Greg Sparks

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 02 October 2007 - 08:18 PM

Did you by any chance get to see the same DVD on an SXRD tv? They seem better able to display motion, as the displays themselves tend to be faster than flat panels.



It's hard to tell from Sony's product blurb, but I THINK that the new SXRD's "Motionflow" technology will take a 24P signal, and multiply that frame rate by factors of 24, such as 48 or 96kHz. Then if it detects 60P material, it will up that to 120kHz. At least that's my interpretation of the following:

Motionflow? 120Hz High Frame Rate Technology
Taking motion performance to the next level requires innovation and expertise. Enter Sony's Motionflow? High Frame Rate technology. Motionflow? detects the incoming video signal and applies the appropriate processing for optimum motion reproduction. Taking full advantage of film sourced 24fps encoded content available on DVD and Blu-ray Disc, Motionflow? eliminates the need for 3:2 pulldown and delivers smooth, judder free video, faithfully preserving the integrity of the original film. When 60fps content is detected, Motionflow? doubles the amount of frames and uses real-time calculation to create a new level of natural motion reproduction. You'll experience movies and sports with a greater sense of realism than ever before.

Of course, to take advantage of this, if I interpreted it correctly, you need a blu-ray/HD-DVD player that is actually putting out a 24P signal.
  • 0

#11 Greg Sparks

Greg Sparks

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 12 October 2007 - 06:53 PM

Ya know, I didn't think about 120 being a factor of 24 also. Duh! So, while I'm feeling dumb, I still don't know if the Sony directly multiplies the frame rate from 24fps or goes through some whacky number crunching to do so.
  • 0

#12 Evan Winter

Evan Winter
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 December 2007 - 01:24 AM

I was doing some last minute holiday shopping and saw this on a 42' display in Best Buy. The TV was showing Pirates of the Caribbean and I was absolutely appalled. I remember thinking, at first, that I must be looking at behind-the-scenes footage.

What made this all the more worrisome is that the display had its 'Dynamic' setting on (the TV had 'Standard', 'Dynamic', and 'Movie' settings). The Dynamic setting, as far as I could tell, increased the brightness on the image and then cranked the contrast to bring the image back but in a much poppier and saturated way.

It was unnerving to hear passersby oooh and aahh at the 'incredible clarity of the image'. Meanwhile, all I could think was that Pirates now looked like a cheap indie knock-off or a CGI laden National Geographic documentary. Like other posters I couldn't imagine why, after trying so hard to make video look like film, TV manufacturers are now destroying hard work by 'turning' film into video with the mere flick of a switch.

It was, I'll admit, interesting to see some of the extra detail contained in the image that is hidden by more typical display settings. When flipping back and forth I could see and then 'disappear' a zit (half-masked by foundation) on Keira Knightley's chin.

I played with the TV and its functions for a good half hour in the store because I had never seen anything like it. When the auto motion plus effect was on it looked to me like a combination of extreme noise reduction (in terms of movement smearing), but with added sharpness, extra depth of field (or at least the appearance of extra depth), and that extra je ne sais quoi that one always associates with video capture.

Perhaps the most interesting and frightening thing was that all the wardrobing, sets, make-up, and even the lighting started to look second rate. It seemed like I was seeing too much and too deeply into the artifice of the movie.

I'm also pretty sure Dariusz Wolski would have had a fit had he seen his work transformed in this way. :o

Evan W.
  • 0

#13 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 25 December 2007 - 01:43 AM

The "veil" of 24fps had been lifted...


More like raped.
  • 0

#14 James Baker

James Baker
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 December 2007 - 04:27 AM

HD? What does it really mean?

"Hand over your dollars?"

It's a free for all.

If there was an actual definition/standard then perhaps consumers wouldn't be so befuddled as to what to consume.
  • 0

#15 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 25 December 2007 - 09:48 AM

It's nothing new. Everyone has a version of it. Sony calls thiers Motion Enhancer. I don't know what Phillips calls theirs. Panasonic, and the others have it too but don't give it a fancy name. Most consumers who see it think it is amazing. But remeber, when asked most consumers will also tell you video looks more life like than film as surveys have shown year after year.


Personally, I have to agree wiht James here. HD is a great gimmick and right now most folks who own an HDTV set don't get HDTV pictures but think they do so all these other gimmicks are just that to feed the masses and get tehm to buy more TV sets which was the reason why they got together in 1982 to form the group that would put forth the motions ot create HD. Even cable companies are playing off peoples ignorace with one in my area telling folks if they don't upgrade ot HD by next year they will not be able to watch TV when over the air TV switches to digital transmission which of course has zero to do with watching cable TV and will only affect the 17% of teh US who use rabbit ears and the 23% of homes that have an additonal set not hooked up to cable.
  • 0

#16 Marc Alucard

Marc Alucard
  • Sustaining Members
  • 176 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 December 2007 - 12:33 PM

It's nothing new. Everyone has a version of it. Sony calls thiers Motion Enhancer. I don't know what Phillips calls theirs. Panasonic, and the others have it too but don't give it a fancy name. Most consumers who see it think it is amazing. But remeber, when asked most consumers will also tell you video looks more life like than film as surveys have shown year after year.


Personally, I have to agree wiht James here. HD is a great gimmick and right now most folks who own an HDTV set don't get HDTV pictures but think they do so all these other gimmicks are just that to feed the masses and get tehm to buy more TV sets which was the reason why they got together in 1982 to form the group that would put forth the motions ot create HD. Even cable companies are playing off peoples ignorace with one in my area telling folks if they don't upgrade ot HD by next year they will not be able to watch TV when over the air TV switches to digital transmission which of course has zero to do with watching cable TV and will only affect the 17% of teh US who use rabbit ears and the 23% of homes that have an additonal set not hooked up to cable.



Most of the 120hz HDTVs are line doubling. 24p is a great feature if your player AND display support it.

The cable and satellite companies should be flogged for selling and delivering a compressed signal and calling it HD.

Let's see what the CES show brings next month.

How many people on the board even have HD displays in their homes?

I have a HD projector and a HD-DVD player. "Blade Runner" and the Kubrick films made it all a worthwhile purchase for me.

Cheers,
Marc

Happy Holidays to all!!
  • 0

#17 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 25 December 2007 - 12:51 PM

I had no intention of getting an HD display anytime soon, but figured for the $1k I paid for my fathers 42" Panasonic I bought him a few months back, I might as well get one. And now I'm glad I did. I like the bigger screen. I still watch only digital over the air on it and SD satalite and componant DVD but just the greater contrast ratio of the set makes it all look better. Eventually I guess I'll update my sat box to HD, but just don't find I watch enough, nor care enough to need it.

As for these sets, yes it's line doubling and tweening that most use to make it look sharper. Of course the question has to be, do you always want some of the blur to dissapear or is it part of the intrinsic value of watching a movie?
  • 0

#18 Marc Alucard

Marc Alucard
  • Sustaining Members
  • 176 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 December 2007 - 01:13 PM

Of course the question has to be, do you always want some of the blur to dissapear or is it part of the intrinsic value of watching a movie?


I suppose that depends on the content, and origination format.

To the best of my knowledge, don't most modern theater film projectors show each frame more than once?

Digital projection and HD cameras and post flow will change what we expect to see on the screen.

Personally I want to see what the film maker intended.

I still have a SD projector to watch satellite and SD-DVDs. I have over 2000 SD-DVDs and half of them are old films that are 4:3 aspect ratio.
  • 0

#19 James Baker

James Baker
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 December 2007 - 02:24 PM

I have a 36" Sony CRT HDTV, the last of the CRT sets (no longer available as of this fall '07.) It has a built in tuner but it's not hooked up to any television service. It's hooked up to a Denon DVD player and it's only use is for watching films on DVD. SD DVD, and not HD DVD.

An article about HD DVD: http://money.cnn.com...01-21882911.htm

"Another factor holding back adoption of a high-def standard is the consumer's love of DVDs. Many are satisfied with the quality of standard-definition digital discs, especially when played in newer DVD players that can "upconvert" the video quality to near high-def.

Movie director Michael Bay in early December complained on his official Web site that Microsoft MSFT is providing financial backing for HD DVD because it wants both high-def disc formats to fail.

"That is the dirty secret no one is talking about," said Bay, director of the recent hit film "Transformers." "They want confusion in the market until they perfect the digital downloads." Microsoft sells HD movie and TV show downloads to its video game consoles through its Xbox Live Marketplace."

When being a consumer becomes too much work, and it all becomes a sea of intentional confusion, then it's time for me to quit consuming. :P

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
  • 0

#20 Mike Panczenko

Mike Panczenko
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera
  • Philadelphia, USA

Posted 25 December 2007 - 02:56 PM

[quote name='Marc Morrison' date='Dec 25 2007, 10:13 AM' post='210462']
To the best of my knowledge, don't most modern theater film projectors show each frame more than once?


Yes, but that doesn't have to do with motion blur. While motion photographed and played back at 24fps will look like smooth motion, it will flicker to the eyes (which is a seemingly paradoxical statement, but in actuality, not. ) To get rid of the flicker, you have to project something at 50fps. So each frame in a movie is shown multiple times so as to cross that threshold and get rid of flicker.
  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Visual Products

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider