4 ms·

Motion Smoothing Is Ruining Cinema

9 points by gilad 7y ago

deathByEntropy 7y ago
At its core, tastes are subjective, and this is no exception. The appearance of video is harsh and artificial. It's cold, but also at times exceptionally clean, crisp and vivid. Music videos (as the very term suggests) often display a mastery of this style of production, which, when met with intent, can prove evocative in its own way. If you approach movies knowing that the motion smoothing is a side effect of the monitor, it's actually an interesting way to rewatch old movies and shows. It has a surreal effect, and the movies themselves are otherwise impossible to truly change. It is unquestionably the technology introducing a new layer of distortion. Which can only mean one thing: the preference is generational, and with time it might just so happen that a generation gap will erase all knowledge of the way things were, and there will arrive a new normal, distorted and alien to those who grew up exposed to the original norms.
- jgalentine007 7y ago
  I don't really agree. I think motion smoothing is a gimmick. Like 3d and curved TVs before it. It gave another metric (besides size) for manufacturers to compete on - 60hz, 120hz, 240hz etc. Motion smoothing just doesn't look better, especially when it is poorly implemented (the norm) - the motion tends to speed up and slow down, which is worse than the judder it is supposed to fix. Even properly sourced hi frame rate material looks bad - I saw the Hobbit in HFR and it was difficult to watch the seemingly fake production - my mind could no longer be tricked because there was so much detail in each second for it to reason with. Nevermind the extra lengths that Peter Jackson had to go through to properly light the film, and the extra detail needed in the set work, costumes and makeup. Change my mind!
  - dTal 7y ago
    It's still a generational, subjective, relearn-able thing. Assuming it's true that high framerates make it harder to trick the eye - so what? Nobody complained about Yoda blatantly being a puppet. There are lots of dimensions in which you can suspend your disbelief. If your assertion is true, it simply means we have to suspend our disbelief in makeup, set design etc just a little bit more, in exchange for vastly more realistic motion and artistic space in which to put detail. I think it's a win - I bet set design got a lot harder with the switch to color, too.
- FlagsAreFun 7y ago
  I mainly play video games at 60-144FPS. Panning shots in movies now look absolutely terrible and some shots have become basically unwatchable, looking jerky and unrefined. I feel like I'm missing a lot of information such as reading signs. That said, content needs to be authored with higher frame-rates in mind. Movies shot at 24FPS are reviewed, edited and produced according to the expectation it will be viewed that way.
  - pfranz 7y ago
    > Panning shots in movies now look absolutely terrible and some shots have become basically unwatchable, looking jerky and unrefined. I feel like I'm missing a lot of information such as reading signs. Like you were implying, they were shot, edited, and delivered with those limitations in mind. Of course, they were done for the cinema and home theater is a close approximation. I remember hearing cinematographers talk about working with IMAX and panning was something they specifically brought up. If you shot something in a way you would for 35mm (normal movies), things may jump 10+ feet between each frame. So you have to go much slower or choose not to use a pan. The same attention would be done if they used other tools like shooting digital or on video or were shooting for television.
rasz 7y ago
Old man yells at cloud. I bet he reminisces the "good times" at Yale learning on hand cranked 16mm. Dont want Motion Smoothing? Start shooting in 60Hz. > motion smoothing is fundamentally ruining the way we experience film and fluid perception of reality is ruining this journos life I bet
- RantyDave 7y ago
  Sadly, no. Watch the opening of "The Hobbit" at high frame rate. It looks like a Mexican soap opera. High frame rate also messes up things like motion blur (and blurring over more than one frame is horribly difficult).
- pfranz 7y ago
  > Dont want Motion Smoothing? Start shooting in 60Hz. A few like James Cameron and Peter Jackson have tried. Nobody liked it because it looked like a soap opera. I'm not against higher fps, but film has some historical limitations it clings to that remind us it's "film" such as 24fps and widescreen. The big complaint is that it's on by default--it's not something people are (explicitly) choosing. Personally, I hate motion smoothing. It's just a gimmick to add a bullet list to the box. I figure it might be useful for sports (I would say video games, but it generally introduces a noticeable lag). It sucks that it's on by default and not consistent or obvious to turn off. If you're happy to opt-in, you do you.
  - brokenmachine 7y ago
    >it might be useful for sports Nope, it's also terrible for sports.
  - im3w1l 7y ago
    I thought it looked fine. Besides, if you use a high framerate you can always sell a downsample and leave open the possibility of a remaster should tastes change later.
    - pfranz 7y ago
      The problem is the shutter value, which is another artistic choice that differentiates "film" from video and will contribute to the choppiness. Standard for film is a 180degree shutter (half open half closed when capturing). Originally, you had to physically advance the film to the next frame while the shutter was closed. Video would be effectively always open giving you a longer blur. If you shoot at a 60fps instead of 24fps you're going to have 2.5x less blur (and also 2.5x less light). So downsampling wouldn't look right at 24 or 30fps.
m463 7y ago
I remember I got a tv a many years ago that had a cinema setting with accurate colors. The only problem was that you pretty much had to watch it in dark room (LCD before LED backlighting). During the day I had to switch back to vivid. I will say that most aspect ratio problems have gotten better over the years (excepting maybe youtube)
Someone 7y ago
If I’m not mistaken, video already is broadcast at 50/60 Hz. If so, how do broadcasters turn a 24 frames per second movie signal into a 50/60 frames per second video signal? I would guess they use some (advanced) interpolation. If so, isn’t the problem one of a) interpolating twice instead of in one go and or b) using lower quality software inside the tv?
- paulryanrogers 7y ago
  IIRC it's called 3/2 pull down. Basically they double a frame every so often.

9 points by gilad 7y ago

At its core, tastes are subjective, and this is no exception. The appearance of video is harsh and artificial. It's cold, but also at times exceptionally clean, crisp and vivid. Music videos (as the very term suggests) often display a mastery of this style of production, which, when met with intent, can prove evocative in its own way. If you approach movies knowing that the motion smoothing is a side effect of the monitor, it's actually an interesting way to rewatch old movies and shows. It has a surreal effect, and the movies themselves are otherwise impossible to truly change. It is unquestionably the technology introducing a new layer of distortion. Which can only mean one thing: the preference is generational, and with time it might just so happen that a generation gap will erase all knowledge of the way things were, and there will arrive a new normal, distorted and alien to those who grew up exposed to the original norms.

jgalentine007 7y ago
I don't really agree. I think motion smoothing is a gimmick. Like 3d and curved TVs before it. It gave another metric (besides size) for manufacturers to compete on - 60hz, 120hz, 240hz etc. Motion smoothing just doesn't look better, especially when it is poorly implemented (the norm) - the motion tends to speed up and slow down, which is worse than the judder it is supposed to fix. Even properly sourced hi frame rate material looks bad - I saw the Hobbit in HFR and it was difficult to watch the seemingly fake production - my mind could no longer be tricked because there was so much detail in each second for it to reason with. Nevermind the extra lengths that Peter Jackson had to go through to properly light the film, and the extra detail needed in the set work, costumes and makeup. Change my mind!
- dTal 7y ago
  It's still a generational, subjective, relearn-able thing. Assuming it's true that high framerates make it harder to trick the eye - so what? Nobody complained about Yoda blatantly being a puppet. There are lots of dimensions in which you can suspend your disbelief. If your assertion is true, it simply means we have to suspend our disbelief in makeup, set design etc just a little bit more, in exchange for vastly more realistic motion and artistic space in which to put detail. I think it's a win - I bet set design got a lot harder with the switch to color, too.
FlagsAreFun 7y ago
I mainly play video games at 60-144FPS. Panning shots in movies now look absolutely terrible and some shots have become basically unwatchable, looking jerky and unrefined. I feel like I'm missing a lot of information such as reading signs. That said, content needs to be authored with higher frame-rates in mind. Movies shot at 24FPS are reviewed, edited and produced according to the expectation it will be viewed that way.
- pfranz 7y ago
  > Panning shots in movies now look absolutely terrible and some shots have become basically unwatchable, looking jerky and unrefined. I feel like I'm missing a lot of information such as reading signs. Like you were implying, they were shot, edited, and delivered with those limitations in mind. Of course, they were done for the cinema and home theater is a close approximation. I remember hearing cinematographers talk about working with IMAX and panning was something they specifically brought up. If you shot something in a way you would for 35mm (normal movies), things may jump 10+ feet between each frame. So you have to go much slower or choose not to use a pan. The same attention would be done if they used other tools like shooting digital or on video or were shooting for television.

rasz 7y ago

Old man yells at cloud. I bet he reminisces the "good times" at Yale learning on hand cranked 16mm. Dont want Motion Smoothing? Start shooting in 60Hz. > motion smoothing is fundamentally ruining the way we experience film and fluid perception of reality is ruining this journos life I bet

RantyDave 7y ago
Sadly, no. Watch the opening of "The Hobbit" at high frame rate. It looks like a Mexican soap opera. High frame rate also messes up things like motion blur (and blurring over more than one frame is horribly difficult).
pfranz 7y ago
> Dont want Motion Smoothing? Start shooting in 60Hz. A few like James Cameron and Peter Jackson have tried. Nobody liked it because it looked like a soap opera. I'm not against higher fps, but film has some historical limitations it clings to that remind us it's "film" such as 24fps and widescreen. The big complaint is that it's on by default--it's not something people are (explicitly) choosing. Personally, I hate motion smoothing. It's just a gimmick to add a bullet list to the box. I figure it might be useful for sports (I would say video games, but it generally introduces a noticeable lag). It sucks that it's on by default and not consistent or obvious to turn off. If you're happy to opt-in, you do you.
- brokenmachine 7y ago
  >it might be useful for sports Nope, it's also terrible for sports.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  I thought it looked fine. Besides, if you use a high framerate you can always sell a downsample and leave open the possibility of a remaster should tastes change later.
  - pfranz 7y ago
    The problem is the shutter value, which is another artistic choice that differentiates "film" from video and will contribute to the choppiness. Standard for film is a 180degree shutter (half open half closed when capturing). Originally, you had to physically advance the film to the next frame while the shutter was closed. Video would be effectively always open giving you a longer blur. If you shoot at a 60fps instead of 24fps you're going to have 2.5x less blur (and also 2.5x less light). So downsampling wouldn't look right at 24 or 30fps.

m463 7y ago

I remember I got a tv a many years ago that had a cinema setting with accurate colors. The only problem was that you pretty much had to watch it in dark room (LCD before LED backlighting). During the day I had to switch back to vivid. I will say that most aspect ratio problems have gotten better over the years (excepting maybe youtube)

Someone 7y ago

If I’m not mistaken, video already is broadcast at 50/60 Hz. If so, how do broadcasters turn a 24 frames per second movie signal into a 50/60 frames per second video signal? I would guess they use some (advanced) interpolation. If so, isn’t the problem one of a) interpolating twice instead of in one go and or b) using lower quality software inside the tv?

paulryanrogers 7y ago
IIRC it's called 3/2 pull down. Basically they double a frame every so often.