8 ms·
The thing I hate about "advice" like this is that it assumes that everyone likes the same things and feels the same way, and it comes across as an attempt to sh
by LeoPanthera 3y ago
The thing I hate about "advice" like this is that it assumes that everyone likes the same things and feels the same way, and it comes across as an attempt to shame anyone otherwise.
I like motion interpolation. I always have it turned on, and I chose my TV based on the quality of its motion interpolation.
Screens are so big these days, that if you're watching a 24fps movie, any panning movement becomes a horrible juddering shaking movement. Judder judder judder... ugh. I can't stand it.
With motion interpolation turned on, everything is silky smooth, and I can actually see what's on the screen, even when the picture is moving.
So no, I won't be turning it off, and I suggest that the next time you watch a shakey-cam action movie, you try turning it on too!
- Angostura 3y agoI understand and agree with what you are saying, but I think your preference for motion interpolation is quite unusual. Perhaps it is a preference that will change with generations.
- lupusreal 3y agoProbably not, young people watch most of their content on phones/etc, not big TVs with motion interpolation.
- nomel 3y agoThis is absolutely the case with all of the nieces/nephews that I know. They prefer that they see the majority of, tablets, which 81% of kids have these days [1]. [1] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiWxs6s7faCAxWBhu4BHfhxBycQFnoECBIQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Flibrary%2Fstories%2F2023%2F04%2Ftablets-more-common-in-households-with-children.html%23%3A~%3Atext%3DIn%25202021%252C%252081%2525%2520of%2520households%2C17%2520years%2520old%2520%25E2%2580%2594%2520owned%2520tablets.&usg=AOvVaw19iQbGRbXNfaugnb7VMVEY&opi=89978449 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
- jasonfarnon 3y agoThat number is a pretty high--looking at your link, living in a house with a tablet isn't the same as having a tablet. I have tablet from work but my kids don't use it or any other. BTW that's really cool that you could direct the highlighting in the URL like that. If it's not specific to census.gov, what is that called? What level of the stack is interpreting it?
- girvo 3y agoIts at the JS layer from what I can see: #:~:text=In 2021%2C 81%25 of households,17 years old — owned tablets. That query fragment is what triggered it, which means theres some Javascript taking that in and highlighting whats on the page
- TeMPOraL 3y agoSomeone tell the film industry, so that they stop lighting and color-grading the movies and TV shows for ultrabright, turbo-HDR-enabled expensive TVs - almost no one has those, and even those who do mostly watch on their phones. Maybe if the industry gets that memo, we'll once again have films and shows in which one can actually see what's happening.
- nickthegreek 3y agoI’d rather my films be graded for home theater use than phone use. HDR TVs these days are basically all TVs. Why should we all take a step back in quality when the hardware to view it decently is more affordable than it’s ever been? I don’t care how Oppenheimer looks on your phone I know Nolan would care even less.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoBecause who has home theater? I'd think it was mostly killed by the Internet, streaming, and the overall trend of cable-cutting, ditching TVs, and switching to computer and laptop screens for one's entertainment. (I guess at some point this must have reversed everywhere except the bubble myself and my friends and acquaintances live in...)
- js2 3y agoI have a home theater. I don't know how big the market is, but you can buy receivers from a half dozen manufacturers (Denon, Yamaha, Sony, Onkyo as well as a bunch of speciality brands), digital projectors (Epson, Sony, JVC, BenQ and also a bunch of speciality brands), and all manner of ancillary items (sound proofing, audio treatments, theater seating, etc). /r/hometheater/ has nearly a million members. https://www.avsforum.com/ https://www.avsforum.com/ is pretty active. TVs are still getting larger and they've recently crossed the 100" in size. So yeah, there's a least a few dozen of us!
- nickthegreek 3y agoI personally, have a 100” dropdown screen, ust projector and a Sonos surround. This last month, I helped my work buddy shop some deals and got him a 75” Dolby Vision TV and surround sound system with sub for $1200. These are affordable things.
- RussianCow 3y ago> I understand and agree with what you are saying, but I think your preference for motion interpolation is quite unusual. The number of TVs that have it enabled by default seems to indicate otherwise. I'm not saying that the manufacturers are correct, necessarily, but I don't think they would go through the effort if they didn't think enough people wanted it.
- gffrd 3y agoOr: it just "shows" better when they're demo'ing the TV to a potential customer, not unlike the hyper-saturated nature footage they use to get you to look at their TV and not the one next to it.
- RussianCow 3y agoI don't buy that. Why would motion interpolation look better in the store than it does in your own home?
- nemo44x 3y agoI think it’s because of the content used for it. Some things do look better. But movies absolutely do not.
- Timwi 3y agoBecause the store chooses to show footage for which it is optimized, not a movie. But there's also the consideration that it looks better at first sight when you walk past it, than it does when you watch a whole movie looking straight at it.
- BikiniPrince 3y agoThey are in fact quite incorrect. These poor upscale features are horrors crafted in the early days of post-processing nightmares. Half of it was pitched to make football games appear more real. They all murder the soul of the film and jack up delay. The industry even had to invent a synchronized audio mechanism to compensate for the summoning of these Eldridge horrors. What I don’t mind are modern upscalers which look very nice on expensive sets. Other modern features like HDR are also lovely because they focus on reproducing the movie with vibrant lighting. Anyhow, one summer working in a television station will improve your acuity for these things. You might even come to understand how these old creations will be the downfall of civilization. As an aside, do not forget to surgically remove samba tv from any android set with adb.
- prometheus76 3y agoIt makes everything look like a cheap soap opera to me. I can't stand it. I think this might be either a generational thing or perhaps a cultural thing, or maybe some of both.
- j45 3y agoIt feels like the jump to 4K and 240hz tv at the same time as one groups normal and another groups exception may have something to do with it. Maybe the group who doesn’t want it too life like is inoculated, or the other way around.
- jjoonathan 3y agoI suspect it has to do with the degree to which your past was plagued with cheap soap operas vs poorly performing video games.
- thedougd 3y agoMaybe some people can pick up on the fact that those extra frames aren't real more easily than others. Some innate sense thrown off by the interpolation. Motion interpolation gives me an uneasy feeling more than anything. For example, some people can see a high frame rate and thus can't watch color wheel based DLP because they see rainbowing in the screen. I can't watch my old plasma in 48hz mode because it flickers. My spouse can't see the flicker at all.
- prometheus76 3y agoFor me, the interpolation really seems to separate the "layers" in a shot, and it just completely destroys the illusion of them not being a set with some lights. Like I said, it feels like a cheap soap opera from the developing country no matter what movie or show I'm watching. Some of the problem for me may be related to the fact that I worked as a camera operator and video editor during the years from transitioning from the old NTSC standard to HD, and I paid hyperattention to detail as HD came online. For some reason, the interpolation just screams "this is fake" to me.
- 3y ago
- malkia 3y agoSeriously... No! Our first LCD TV (several years old by now) had this, and watching LOTR on it - was wtf is this - am I in a theater? We both sit with my wife and watched it, and we were secretly annoyed but dared not to say or complain about it, because we just spent tons of money on it... Then we found it and fixed it! New TV I've got has the `Filmmaker mode` - wasn't sure what exactly is that, turned it On and yes - it's how it should be. This article cleared it for me now
- deanCommie 3y agoYou can also prefer to not like subtitles, and watch films dubbed from their original language. You can also prefer to not like black & white films, and watch the colorized versions done decades later. You can also prefer not to see nudity, violence, or profanity, and watch the edited-for-TV versions of those films. Finally you can prefer a totally different story or shot composition or artistic choices altogether, and ask Generative AI to recreate, reedit, or augment scenes to your preference. All of these are valid preferences and we have the technology to facilitate them for you. But 1) They should never be the default on any technology you acquire. That's the PRIMARY sin of all of the technologies mentioned by OP - it's not that they exist, it's that they're on by default, and since most humans never change the default settings on ANYTHING they change, they experience content in a way that as not intended by the original artist behind the vision. And 2) Well, this is subjective, and everything is a spectrum. But you are ultimately robbing yourself of the specific experience intended for you by the creator of the film. It's certainly within your right not to care and think that you know better than them, but on a spectrum of that philosophy, carried out across all of society, it's probably not a good thing.
- WheatMillington 3y agoOh look the exact type of shaming OP was talking about.
- russelg 3y agoAnd so they should be shamed. There are professionals working on every aspect of a film, and these options just shit all over their work, ruining their intended vision. Now if you're talking about watching YouTube or similar content then it's a different story.
- LeoPanthera 3y ago"Vision" implies that there is a choice. How many feature films have been made at a frame rate other than 24fps? Ever since the sound era, I suspect you can count them all on your fingers. So I don't buy this "vision" argument. It's just holier-than-thou. Directors choose 24fps because it's literally the only option. It's no choice at all. Forcing me to watch your movie as a jerky motion-sickness-inducing mess? I will indeed, to use your words, shit on it.
- jonstewart 3y agoMy mind is blown. I didn't think -anyone- could possibly like motion interpolation for watching movies. I hate it so, so much. I'm trying to understand your POV. How do you feel about watching movies in a theater? The frame rate there is low but the screen is so much larger.
- LeoPanthera 3y agoIt's even worse in theaters. The screen is HUGE. Panning motions are so bad they often give me motion sickness. There was one movie that they showed at 48fps - I think it was The Hobbit? I've forgotten. That was amazing. Blissful. My eyes have never been so happy. Even if I forgot the plot already.
- andersa 3y agoYep. Hate theaters for this reason. Absolutely unwatchable. My LG G3 with motion smoothing provides far better experience. Even in Avatar 2 they put some sections of it in lower frame rate for no reason and I noticed them instantly.
- satvikpendem 3y agoAvatar 2 in the 48 FPS scenes was jaw dropping, it looked so real, as if you were transported there. It does not look the same in the 24 FPS scenes and pulled me right out of the movie.
- Blackthorn 3y agoMovies have a different display though. Film shutters and whatnot. Helps a lot with keeping the motion from just being jerky. OLEDs don't have that, and attempts at black frame insertion don't really work there because they already struggle with brightness. Hence, a mild motion interpolation is useful. Different display technologies need different things. No difference from CRT filters on old video games played on modern screens.
- jnwatson 3y ago
- DHPersonal 3y agoI like the feature, too. I remember watching the Battlestar Galactica remake with the interpolation setting active and getting an even deeper sense of realism out of the scenes. They were already aiming for a documentary style with the camera work and special effects, so the higher prosumer framerate fit with the style very well. On other films and TV shows I like the interpolation for panning shots which jidder a lot on the standard framerate.
- V1ndaar 3y agoMy hope is that thanks to stuff like DLSS frame generation in video games (or maybe AR/VR) that the opinion of a majority of people will change over time. So that eventually maybe... we might actually see movies being filmed in higher framerates. People's conditioning really stands in their way, imo. The only bad thing about motion interpolation on most TVs in my book is the fact that the /implementation is often pretty bad/. If perfect frame interpolation was a thing, I'd watch everything upsampled to 165Hz of my monitor. Well, I do it anyway using the Smooth Video Project. But that also suffers from artifacts, so is far from perfect. Much better than judder though...
- andersa 3y agoDLSS 3 really is fantastic technology. It works amazingly well for interpolating a game from 60 to 120 (or higher). It fails pretty hard if you start with 24 though. We'll need something like RIFE for that, but currently no hardware exists that can run it in real time...
- BLKNSLVR 3y agoIsn't the manufacturer doing a worse/larger version of this assumption normalisation by having these things on by default? More articles explaining how to customise the settings is better than less because it draws attention to the fact these options are being forced on all consumers. Shaky-cam action movies are their own unique problem :) I think they exist because it saves a fair bit of cash on fight choreographers and the time it takes to train the actors to do it realistically. On the flip side, it really increases the respect I have for properly choreographed action scenes that are consistent and visible.
- dclowd9901 3y agoNo one was shaming you, get over yourself. The author repeatedly framed recommendations in the context of how the creators produced it. If you feel shame that’s all you.
- epgui 3y ago> it assumes that everyone likes the same things and feels the same way I don't think this is about feelings. (But it just might be in a small minority of cases IMO, and if it's the case for you, then all the power to you.) In the case of this article, all the points are about discernment. Some people not only notice the issues, but are also able to identify them and articulate precisely what is happening. The rest don't.
- sherry-sherry 3y agoJuddering 24fps footage means you have a display that isn't displaying 24fps properly (see here: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/motion/24p https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/motion/24p). The refresh rate and frame rate aren't matching, most modern TVs account for this and can correctly display it.
- LeoPanthera 3y agoIt's not that, because I experience exactly the same in movie theaters. I'm always amazed when people say it doesn't bother them.
- sherry-sherry 3y agoWe could be confusing terms here... I mean 'judder' as uneven frame times, it looks like things skip slightly out of time. Uneven frame times shouldn't even happen with a cinema screening unless something has gone terribly wrong.
- cityofdelusion 3y agoMost people see smooth movement. The brain usually interpolates for us as part of its normal wetware, such as blind spot filling, blur when moving your eyes quickly, low light vision, etc. People who are more visually sensitive and get motion sickness from moving pictures probably just have different circuitry that is more sensitive to the digital/analog mismatch. I would say your visual experience is fairly rare, but common enough that I regularly encounter people that have various issues with digital motion. I have no problems with low framerates myself, but I do find camera shake (especially as so common in video games now) to be nauseating, though it seems most people have zero issue with it.
- nunez 3y agoDon't know how you do it. I can't stand the jelly effect. Motion interpolation was the first thing I turned off when we got our A95K earlier this year.
- beltsazar 3y ago> The thing I hate about "advice" like this is that it assumes that everyone likes the same things and feels the same way It's so ironic that at the end you gave an advice: > I suggest that the next time you watch a shakey-cam action movie, you try turning it on too! Are you assuming that everyone likes the same things you like? I guess not. The same for the article—it doesn't assume that. No advice fits everyone, but good advice fits many people. And I'd argue that the article's advice fits many, if not most, people. TV is probably the only screen many people have that has motion interpolation on by default. They watch movies on theaters, PC monitors, laptops, tablets, and phones probably more than on TVs. Many people are already used to what movies "look like." Non-tech-savvy ones might not know what "FPS" means, but they would likely be able to notice that watching movies on their phone feels different from on a TV with the default setting. The article's suggestion to disable motion interpolation on TVs makes the watching experience more consistent across all screens.