Motion Enhancement and the illusion of movies

quote:

The artifice of the set and of the acting seems to emerge and the whole scene becomes obviously "false", but strangely because the scene appears too life-like.

Seems like a psychedelic effect to me (call it "video ambience")–if the impact is reduced because it has made the succession of images easier to interpret, this would be much akin to a bit too much ambience (i.e., room sound) in the audio domain.

i am a big fan of motion enhancement, well, when i say that what i mean is not at the moment.

to me its like looking through a window. when people move trees shift it just looks a lot more natural. i dont want it to look like a film, i want to be watching an event as the third person in the room ect.

however
(theres always a however)

the systems to provide this enhancement are not good enough yet. artifacts are everywhere and they are very distracting. so i leave it turned off.

where are my bluerays recorded in 1080/100P ???

stu

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
I have just purchased a Sony XBR6 LCD TV and a matching Sony Blu-ray player. The TV plays Blu-ray movies in a native 24 fps format. The refresh rate of the TV is 120hz so it just repeats each movie frame 5 times. OK, fine. But it also offers is "motion enhancement" setting which artificially interpolates frames to fill the 120hz capability. When this is enabled for movies (e.g. "There Will Be Blood"), the sense of believability (or suspension of disbelief) evaporates for me. Paradoxically, the image becomes to "real" and non movie-like. The artifice of the set and of the acting seems to emerge and the whole scene becomes obviously "false", but strangely because the scene appears too life-like.

This may not make sense to most, but has anyone else noticed this? It is much less an issue with documentaries (e.g. Planet Earth) and does admittedly smooth the panning of images.

LOL. You are hopeless (too life-like and it is not a good thing?) So what exactly do you want? You got the best, sit back and enjoy the shows (smile).

quote:

Originally posted by Tuan:
LOL. You are hopeless (too life-like and it is not a good thing?) So what exactly do you want? You got the best, sit back and enjoy the shows (smile).

If we're talking about having the best, I'd like to have the lead role in my favourite film.

quote:

Originally posted by Tuan:

LOL. You are hopeless (too life-like and it is not a good thing?) So what exactly do you want? You got the best, sit back and enjoy the shows (smile).

Oh, Im enjoying the show (and also hopeless, as you say). My post wasn't a complaint, though. The Blu-ray on the XBR6 is pretty special.

Loewe Aconda, £125.

Mmmmm

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:
Loewe Aconda, £125.

Mmmmm

£125? Seriously?

Yep; one went on eBay last week for £79. Truly incredible bargain when you recall they sold for up to £2k...

M

As a professional cinematographer, I am appalled by these new 120hz TVs. This is a gimmick created by TV manufactures to sell new sets. There is not a director, producer, or cinematographer who wants their film to look like the tv news. This is as bad as colorizing black and white films.

I only hope this feature can be turned off. I dread to think this is the future. It's truly awful.

Chris Bell,
Director of Photography

Thanks for that, Chris.

I was unaware of the true visual effect of the 120HZ interpolation until I bought my new TV. I had assumed it would be a good thing though. How wrong I was. Fortunately, it can be turned off and is indeed turned off on my set for movies (always) and for most other things (it doesn't seem too bad for some wildlife and landscape documentaries with panning shots). But I just can't watch movies with it turned on - something is definitely "wrong". The Blu-ray picture is otherwise stunning, though.

The biggest problem is that we're all trying to use the 24fps de facto standard in which so many films are shot. 24fps always was, is and ever shall be total garbage. It's way too low to be able to manage motion properly.

Part of what gives films their aesthetic is the motion blur inherent at 24fps. This is, in part, what creates the suspension of disbelief. When everything is super sharp and "live" it's harder to get the viewer to accept the premises of the story. It's easier to accept what is not quite real. 24 frames a second is where you get persistence of vision. It is important to remember that when you go to the movie theater, you are seeing it at 48 fps. The projector has a bow-tie shaped mirror shutter and the image is projected twice onto the screen.

Not everything should be shot at 24. TV news, wildlife docs, live concerts look better in my opinion at 720 60p (or 1080 60p which is not a broadcast standard yet).

Chris Bell

I totally agree that it is about "suspension of disbelief". With higher frame rates (even interpolated), it seems like you're watching a documentary about the movie - not the movie itself. It is mainly noticeable with human movement. I'm firmly with Chris on this one.

Winky, I have seen 100hz LCDs of very good qaulity and what struck me was how 'real' it made things.

I remember watching a few scenes from Star Trek Next Generation. And it used to be a fav when I was younger, at 100hz it became all to clear that the scene was a set and not a start ship. Hard to explain but I know where you are coming from.

The reason the suspension of disbelief has to occur is because directors and cinematographers have to use clever techniques to get around the 24fps limitation. All this business of running cameras on tracks to keep up with the objective, smooth panning etc. are all due to 24fps.

It's an outmoded outdated useless minimum standard which even domestic equipment has outgrown.

The motion enhancement mainly ruins shots that have people moving through them. If we went to higher frame rates, would the cinematographers have to invent techniques to stop the actors moving?

The higher frame rates does smooth out the background movement when panning; but this doesn't quite gel with your assertion. Running cameras on rails and panning makes the background move relative to the actor. The 24hz limitation would therefore be better met by keeping the camera still and allowing the actors to move through the shot. The shots where this happens though, are better at 24Hz than with the higher rates.

I'm confused. But I do know I can't watch movies with the motion enhancement turned on.

No, the point of running on rails and panning is to keep the object at the same distance and in the same 2D space on the film in order to keep that section in focus, a bit like we do when we track a moving object. However, when the camera does this, it's shooting frames at 24fps and we pick up on the background (and sometimes foreground) discontinuities because of this.

LOL! Sorry Frank, you are way off on this one. The dolly is a tool to move the camera. Sometimes to track with the talent, sometimes to push-in or pull-out for dramatic effect. It is, however, not to maintain focus. The 1st assistant camera is in charge of focus. He measures the distance from the talent to the camera (focal distance). His primary job is to "follow" the focus when the talent moves. It is all done with measurements and marks which the actor has to hit. He never looks though the camera view finder to judge focus. It is a very difficult job, and good focus pullers are in high demand and are well respected members of the crew.

You can complain all you want about 24fps. There is not a single studio who would switch to a higher base frame rate.

Chris

Thank God! Apparently I'm not crazy after all. This has been driving me nuts, what with no one else around me who notices. I can occasionally get a nod of agreement from someone, but it's clear they don't get what I'm talking about.

Here's another vote for the "hoaky" effect created by 120 Hz LCDs. Although my father does not yet have a Blu Ray player, his DVD upconverting player so mangled every notion of an enjoyable movie experience that I had to turn off the Bourne Ultimatum. I simply couldn't stand it. Every subtle micro-managed attempt at imagination was ruined with every dynamic shot. And yes, I would certainly agree, that it is motion that becomes ruined.

I have held out buying a HDTV for a while now - for many different reasons, most of which were the lowered price expectations. Now that I'm ready, I can't decide what to buy. I much prefer the picture of Plasmas, but I hate that they use twice the energy as LCDs.

Frankly, my 25" Sony Trinitron puts out a grand enough picture for me; I would just like to increase the size and adapt to a widescreen more than anything. And saving space by putting on the wall is also a nice feature, otherwise I'd likely opt for a DLP since they're so cheap relative to size.

Testify. I was at the "in-laws'" a few weeks back and we watched "Fargo" - a great movie. I couldn't figure out what was wrong. It looked like it had been shot on home video. I now realise that they had some sort of interpolation turned on. It was an LG TV, I think. They were probably re-scaling/zooming to fill the frame, too. The combination was awful (But still a great movie). I was too polite/cowardly to say anything about the picture quality.

I just tried Blu-ray "Ratatouille" with the interpolation turned on. But even GCI is better without it. The only thing that works better (IMHO) are the landscape panning shots like those featured in BBC's excellent "Planet Earth" series.

quote:

Originally posted by Aric:
I much prefer the picture of Plasmas, but I hate that they use twice the energy as LCDs.

They don't

http://www.plasma-lcd-facts.co.uk/myths/energy-use/

Some detailed power consumption results here.

I haven't ploughed through it so I'm not sure what it shows if anything.

I saw a 70 inches LCD Bravia XBR flat-screen TV from Sony yesterday powered by a PS3. The picture looks amazing.... Only one problem: The asking price is 19,000 Canadian dollars. Well, compare to Naim top-end pieces, it sounds like a real bargain.