Current HD standard is a FAIL

[Kayembee]

Stop this "you don't see more than 24fps". This is absolutly WRONG, stop defending this. The number will change from one to another yes, but 24 is below average. It is the concept of what is defined by seeing more than 24fps that is wrong.

Well, this has been interesting.

Simps, I don't think anyone's saying motion artifacts can''t be seen at 24FPS; I've seen 'em
many times. What I wonder is if that's what you're seeing when you say it's obvious on your
home system, or if some subtle flaw exists in your equipment, malfunction, perhaps, or a setup
error. I'm puzzled since what you describe sounds so much worse than artifacts I see. I wonder
in particular, because I'm not clear yet if the problems you see are only at home, or are at
least as visible to you in a theater. Because motion artifacts from 24 FPS frame rate should be
about equally visible in either place.

If you ever get a chance, see one of Ray Harryhausen's "Dynamation" pics in a theater,
something like JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS or SEVENTH VOYAGE OF SINBAD. These are good
test reels, because old-fashioned stop motion aniimation like this lacks all motion blur in
the animated sequences. It makes effects of low frame rate really obvoius; even people who
don't understand the reason say it looks a little odd.

If the images look as odd ("laggy") on the big screen as on your smaller one at home, then
your equipment is probably fine, and your eyes are just especially sensitive to an
admittedly marginal frame rate of 24FPS. But if these films look much smoother on the
big screen, something else is going on, probably something to do with your equipment.

Kayembee

[simps]

Video related issues are kid stuff. This is just a matter or spend some time understanding it. Everything is so logical, everyone can do it. It is just plain easy, nothing to grab about. This is not cosmology or quantum mechanics discussion. The logic of those subjects are different and NOT obvious, and involves vector spaces, crazy maths like tensor equations, multivariable calculus, etc. We are not discussing these complicated subjects. We are talking about trivial logical stuff.

The slow 24fps is just a part of the problem. The other part is the fact that the 1080p from bluray is crystal clear, very sharp, and that will demand more fps to flow smooth.

If you can't understand the first half of the issue, than you have no way to see the second half of the issue, than you just can't see the big picture.

Look, if you don't see or feel this issues, than for you there is no issue at all, or if you do recognize there are some issues, they are just acceptable for you. So you have no problem with it, you are happy with it.

Leave the discussion for the ones who DO feel and see a problem on it.

For any reasonable person, the fact that you can't tell any difference from a 1000fps movie to a 2000fps movie, means that those rates are higher then what you can see or feel.
And if you CAN (and I do) detect a difference from 24fps to 60fps, means that you can detect AT LEAST, the lower rate, 24fps in this case.

So this is the proof that you can see 24fps or more. Looks like you are not convinced about it, and I couldn´t care less. Now, we could start that internet war, where I would paste links about articles showing you this, and you would paste your links, but this is just patetic.

If you want to believe that 24fps is enough, fine by me, leave the discussion for the reasonable people with normal eyes (not defective ones) that DO find 24fps too low.

[simps]

The effect is larger on a 52"tv 1080P/24 because of the cystal clear and sharp frames. Cinema don't have crystal clear frames

A 70mm print at the theater is sharper than a 1080p HDTV. What matters isn't simply the size, it's a combination of size and the distance your viewing it from. Watching a 20" monitor from 2 feet away is the same as watching a 50" TV from 5 feet away (all else being equal). Other factors that will make a difference include the brightness of the display, the room lighting, etc.

Man you don't need to complicate what is obvious. To project a screen the size of cinema, and make the picture look acceptable of course the resolution needs to be higher, and pictures will be sharper at some point close to the projector etc. Of course when I say that cinema picture is blur compared to 1080p, I am already computing that on cinema you are far away, the screen is much larger, etc etc etc. We don't need to get into every detail of such a simple thingy. The fact is you a 1080P the image will look MUCH more clear and sharp then the image you see on a cinema. When I say that everything is included, the stupid large size of cinema screen (that makes the image spread and it hurts the quality, and make it blur compared to a 1080P on a 52" TV, also the way TV display in pixels make it even sharper, contrast on LCD is STUPID LARGER too, everything in included).

It is a fact that a frame from 1080P, in your head when you are watching is MUCH more crystal clear and sharp that the same frame in cinema. That is it, simple as that, you don't need to complicate what is obvious.

[jagabo]

If you ever get a chance, see one of Ray Harryhausen's "Dynamation" pics in a theater, something like JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS or SEVENTH VOYAGE OF SINBAD. These are good test reels, because old-fashioned stop motion aniimation like this lacks all motion blur in the animated sequences. It makes effects of low frame rate really obvoius; even people who don't understand the reason say it looks a little odd.

The sharpness is only part of the problem. If you single step through those movies you will see the motions are un-natural and sometimes at 12 fps, not 24 fps. A short sequence from Jason and the Argonauts, slowed down to 5 fps:

jason.avi

[lordsmurf]

I had to study frames-per-second back in college, and this was some number of years ago. People truly cannot see faster than 30fps, with most seeing in the 15-20fps range. This was related especially to subliminal advertising

There's a difference between being able to tell something happened and being able to comprehend what that thing was. You can easily detect a a single "wrong" frame in the middle of a 60 Hz video even if you can't say exactly what it was.
60.avi

This is sort of my point. To say "it's the framerate being too slow" is 100% speculation on the part of simps. Something may be wrong, but without better process of elimination (for which I see zero evidence of, in this case), it's impossible to suggest framerate in and of itself it to blame. Other problems are at fault -- equipment from filming or playback is most often the true problem. The framerate was fine.

[simps]

Yeah, it is not the frame rate been slow that causes jerkness. I am speculatin that. Must be some kinda mysterious thing cause this. Maybe some dark energy going on the hardware. Something wrong with something... Lets develop a theory on that. Better, lets see what some experts have to say about this so complicated and mysteious issue. Something must be wrong, lets think about it for a minute people.. Hope some new young Einstein might help us on this one. This one is hard, maybe we should get together on the weekends to work some hours on this issue. We need to find what is wrong... Some mysterious thing causing this...

You know people, I am out. You won't see another post from me on videohelp. Not blaming the site or anything... great site, great forum. It is just that after thinking about it for a moment, I am really wasting my time here, so I am out.

Keep the thread up, some good stuff here, but I won't be arround anymore.

[]'s
Simps

[Squash]

Hate to see you go, simps. You've sparked a lively debate here. People get worked up over this kind of stuff and you got caught in the crossfire. It happens to everybody. Don't take it personally.

If it's any consolation, I support your framerate theory. I've whipped up a few frame-interpolated versions of jagabo's excellent pan scene from 2001. I reduced the resolution to DVD levels to make it easier to play the high frame rate versions, but the jerkiness is still apparent at the lower res. The original resized version is provided for comparison. The 48fps version looks better than the 24, but the playback only really starts getting smooth in the 96fps version. It's especially noticeable in the door frames to the left in the last second. There's some artifacting, but I didn't take any time fine-tuning the script.

I played jagabo's hi-def pan.avi through my WDTV player into the Samsung. Jerky as hell with the AMP turned off, smooth as butter with it on. Please at least come back and let us know if the new TV works out for you, maybe it can help someone in the future. Best regards.

Here's the files:
pan24fps.avi
pan48fps.avi
pan96fps.avi
pan120fps.avi

[jagabo]

I'd like to hear what simps has to say about the 120 Hz TV. When I first looked at them (when they first came out) I decided it wasn't worth the extra $1000 it cost at the time. And I found the artifacting a bit annoying. The cost differential isn't so big now and I'm sure there's a little less artifacting.

[Squash]

The interpolation artifacts seem to be pretty mild these days, at least with the Samsungs. The first night I had my A650 120Hz set, I watched an episode of "Lost" and the movie "Bolt". There was a brief (maybe 5 seconds) scene in Lost (woman walking through jungle) and about a 10 second scene in Bolt (hamster in glass ball rolling through grass) in which there was a thin, diffuse halo around the woman/ball. About 15 seconds total out of two and a half hours of video. Occlusion effects like this seem to be pretty tough to overcome in interpolation, from what I've heard.

I've read reports of an artifact that was present in earlier versions of the Samsung interpolation method that was called "TBE" (triple ball effect), in which a fast moving object like a basketball or football would have ghostly duplicates in front of and behind the main ball. I saw a picture of the effect over at avsforum, but I have not been able to spot this (and I've tried), so I guess they took care of that one.

As for the "soap opera effect", it's rarely evident to me on an AMP setting of medium, though on "high" it's pretty noticeable, but can be good for some sources, particularly porn. The medium AMP setting takes care of the judder. Even on "low" it gets rid of most of it.

I've read that the newer B650 models have, in addition to the A650 AMP settings of off, low, medium, and high, an added customizable setting with two 0-to-10 sliders, one for motion blur, the other for judder. I haven't noticed any problems with motion blur on mine, though.

I bought my set knowing I had 45 days to return it, which just passed last week. I've been very happy with it so far.

[DarrellS]

The problem I have is not the jerkiness that you guys are showing but with some HD channels on my COX digital cable and Samsung 1080p LCD, the picture looks like an acid trip or something. Everything seems to melt into itself (morphing might be a better word) with the slightest movement and there is a slight posterization and grainy look.

Most of the channels look fine but a lot of the movies on AMC-HD look pathetic. It looks like someone took a 512x288 movie and upconverted it to 1280x720 (or higher) and lowered the bitrate and framerate.

[jagabo]

If it's any consolation, I support your framerate theory. I've whipped up a few frame-interpolated versions of jagabo's excellent pan scene from 2001. I reduced the resolution to DVD levels to make it easier to play the high frame rate versions, but the jerkiness is still apparent at the lower res. The original resized version is provided for comparison. The 48fps version looks better than the 24, but the playback only really starts getting smooth in the 96fps version. It's especially noticeable in the door frames to the left in the last second. There's some artifacting, but I didn't take any time fine-tuning the script.

One thing I wanted to point out: most people will be viewing those AVI files on a 60 Hz display (except those still using CRT monitors). So they will see only some of the frames in the 96 and 120 fps files (or they will get tearing if their player doesn't support frame switching during vertical refresh). The 120 fps video should look very smooth because exactly half the frames (every other one) will be thrown out. The 96 fps video will show some judder as ~37 percent of the frame will be dropped. Below is a 60 Hz interpolated version that plays just as smoothly as the 120 fps version on my computer.

pan60fps.avi

[Cornucopia]

Man, the OP was a troll.

All that "it's not rocket science" and "if you can't see what I do, you can't even comment" kind of stuff. Talk about your circular reasoning, psuedoscience.

Guess what, it may not be "rocket science", but it is "color theory", "psycho-visual processing", "kell factor", "field of view vs. resolving power of the eye" and many more true scientific words that ACTUALLY DO AFFECT what is percieved. Any REAL ENGINEER would know that.

One of these days, I'll create a good example that compares the frame rates, with and without interpolation/motion blur, and with or without pulldown, as a blind test similar to what I did with ROF and the MP3 vs. CD fiasco. That should put a few nails in the coffin.

Scott

edit:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Notice how he pulled a Cartman "screw you guys, I'm going home" when it got too dicey...

[Supreme2k]

I'm always boggled at the things that will cause people to leave a message board. Simple disagreements are always at the top of the list. And I'm not referring to heated debates, name-calling, or flames, but very simple disagreements.

[edDV]

I'm always boggled at the things that will cause people to leave a message board. Simple disagreements are always at the top of the list. And I'm not referring to heated debates, name-calling, or flames, but very simple disagreements.

I think he had display setup problems. He should post back and let us know.

[DereX888]

Well,
1 - don't buy LCD screen for movies. LCD technology is perfect for computer generated graphics, not to display motion pictures lol
2 - Everyone knows 24fps is not good and more fps is better. But 24fps is the cinema standard, it won't change because you (and me) don't like it, it will be here probably long after us, and as such it is simply pointless to discuss it...

[raffie]

When I was like, 13 and watched my 1st movie in a cinema, this is what I really noticed and was curious about, how is it that with wide pans, slow or fast, motion gets so 'shocky'. I didn't understand it. After that, I got over it and watched movies for what they were.

1. A video image is perceived through a series of pixels (even your 40yr old TV on analogue cable) Even with a 320x240 resolution image on that 40yr old TV, you brain gets FOOLED into thinking there is an image, proving how LOW a threshold our brains have into getting fooled.
2. Motion is perceived through a continuation of stills. You get FOOLED into thinking there is motion. Some ppl get fooled more easily than others.

Both with the image and the motion -unless one has really bad eyesight- it has more to do with the brain then with the eyes.

[vhelp]

while browsing around over the weekend at bestbuy, I happen to pass a demo where they were playing one of the latest kong movies. They had all the tv showing the same movie, and one special setup for the new 120Hz display. And all I can say is: you can keep the 120Hz set. As I watched the video (notice I said, video) it hurt my eyes and my head. I couldn't tell if the movie was fake or louzy. They took a good 24p, movie and turned into a video-like movie for that so called "extra" smoothness that this discussion has been agonizing over, and ruined the movie experience. All it does is draw you away from the movie as you stand there trying to figure out how they did that or why or you can't decide that you like it or hate it and want to tell the salesman that it looks good even though you want to turn and puke.

I was disapointed.

-vhelp 5115

[edDV]

I just bought a used Sony PVM CRT pro monitor for editing on my Mac. Can't really see interlace errors on a computer LCD or LCD-TV. Too much processing going on.

The purpose of a pro monitor is to show true image quality without correction, warts and all.

[raffie]

while browsing around over the weekend at bestbuy, I happen to pass a demo where they were playing one of the latest kong movies. They had all the tv showing the same movie, and one special setup for the new 120Hz display. And all I can say is: you can keep the 120Hz set. As I watched the video (notice I said, video) it hurt my eyes and my head. I couldn't tell if the movie was fake or louzy. They took a good 24p, movie and turned into a video-like movie for that so called "extra" smoothness that this discussion has been agonizing over, and ruined the movie experience. All it does is draw you away from the movie as you stand there trying to figure out how they did that or why or you can't decide that you like it or hate it and want to tell the salesman that it looks good even though you want to turn and puke.

I was disapointed.

-vhelp 5115

See the difference:

60fps: || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||
24fps: || ~ ~ ~ || ~ ~ ~ || ~ ~ ~ || ~ ~ ~ || ~ ~ ~ || ~ ~ ~

|| = actual frame shot
~ = fake frame interpolated by 120Hz TV

As you can tell there are actually more interpolated frames shown then there are original ones shown. The interpolated frames are generated on-the-fly by the TV, so I could understand why this is a bad idea.
What we talking about is up the framerate while shooting film, not adding fake frames inbetween.