5 ms·

I wonder if you'd have the same reaction to a movie properly authored at 120Hz without the subtle artifacts.

bozhark 3y ago
Nah it’s much better at higher Hz
hug 3y ago
There's a point at which these things balance out and work. I'm not sure that 120 frames per second is high enough, but it's much closer. We have anecdotal evidence (the fact that everyone hated The Hobbit) that 48 frames per second isn't. One of the rules of cinema and shooting at low frame rate is to use "180 degree shutter" (a term that comes from the spinning shutters used in old film cameras), or in other words a shutter that is open for half as long as the frame rate. i.e.: If you're filming at 24 frames per second, use a 1/48th second shutter speed. The reason for this is that 24 FPS @ 1/48" exposure film adds enough motion blur to each exposure that any movement that occurs over a small number of frames is naturally smeared by a consequence of the exposure time, but anything that is relatively steady across frames tends to look crisp. If you shoot at 24 FPS @ 1/1000", you end up with something that looks like a fast flipbook of static pictures. 24 FPS just isn't fast enough, and people can see that each individual frame doesn't contain movement. Anecdotally, 120FPS @ 1/1000" on a 120Hz display doesn't exhibit this same problem, at least to me or people I've shown it to, although some people will notice it "feels fast". 48 FPS @ 1/96" seems to be the worst of both worlds: Too fast a shutter for motion blur to compensate nicely, too slow a frame rate to to make it look seamless, so it ends up in the uncanny valley where people know there's something missing, but not what. The frame interpolation feature that people seem to hate is almost directly designed to fall into this horrible territory.
- andersa 3y ago
  > Motion blur Motion blur doesn't work on modern TVs (i.e. OLED). They will display a static, blurry frame for 1/24 of a second, then snap to the next one practically instantly with a clearly visible jump. What I get in the end is a juddering mess that is also blurry, so I can literally see nothing.
  - hug 3y ago
    Motion blur doesn't really work in that way on any device, but what you're missing is that the content's captured frame rate has a relatively important relation to the display frame rate: You can't usually change one & not the other without making everything look worse, at least to most people, and this is what a lot of modern TVs do. Naive interpolation of inter-frame content is awful, is what a lot of TVs do to implement their smoothing feature, and is why everyone complains about it. The reason a lot of people hated The Hobbit may be partly because of this problem: It was shot at a 270 degree shutter to try to get a bit more motion blur back into each frame, which to a lot of people felt strange.
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
      Interestingly, some of The Hobbit fan edits changed the frame rate back to 24fps; watching those on my regular IPS screens, they look just fine.
  - kalleboo 3y ago
    I wonder if these 120 fps panels are fast enough to do black frame insertion to mimic the effect of film projection
    - andersa 3y ago
      I tried the black frame insertion mode on mine, but I can see the strobing, so it is extremely uncomfortable to look at.
  - cityofdelusion 3y ago
    There ought not be any juddering since that is an artifact of a varying frame rate rather than a static frame rate, nor should you be "literally seeing nothing". You might be more visually sensitive than the average person, who seems to not care about these things. It reminds me of my spouse, who is really good at detecting motion at night where I see nothing, almost like a super power.
- lmm 3y ago
  > We have anecdotal evidence (the fact that everyone hated The Hobbit) that 48 frames per second isn't. Maybe, or maybe we just haven't adapted to 48fps yet. Something I heard a lot about The Hobbit was that the outdoor scenes looked great whereas the indoor seens looked like film sets - which, well, they were film sets, and making a set that looks "natural" will require new techniques. Everyone hates early stereo mixes (e.g. The Beatles), not because stereo sound inherently sounds bad but because production takes time to adapt to new technology.

Nah it’s much better at higher Hz

hug 3y ago

There's a point at which these things balance out and work. I'm not sure that 120 frames per second is high enough, but it's much closer. We have anecdotal evidence (the fact that everyone hated The Hobbit) that 48 frames per second isn't. One of the rules of cinema and shooting at low frame rate is to use "180 degree shutter" (a term that comes from the spinning shutters used in old film cameras), or in other words a shutter that is open for half as long as the frame rate. i.e.: If you're filming at 24 frames per second, use a 1/48th second shutter speed. The reason for this is that 24 FPS @ 1/48" exposure film adds enough motion blur to each exposure that any movement that occurs over a small number of frames is naturally smeared by a consequence of the exposure time, but anything that is relatively steady across frames tends to look crisp. If you shoot at 24 FPS @ 1/1000", you end up with something that looks like a fast flipbook of static pictures. 24 FPS just isn't fast enough, and people can see that each individual frame doesn't contain movement. Anecdotally, 120FPS @ 1/1000" on a 120Hz display doesn't exhibit this same problem, at least to me or people I've shown it to, although some people will notice it "feels fast". 48 FPS @ 1/96" seems to be the worst of both worlds: Too fast a shutter for motion blur to compensate nicely, too slow a frame rate to to make it look seamless, so it ends up in the uncanny valley where people know there's something missing, but not what. The frame interpolation feature that people seem to hate is almost directly designed to fall into this horrible territory.

andersa 3y ago
> Motion blur Motion blur doesn't work on modern TVs (i.e. OLED). They will display a static, blurry frame for 1/24 of a second, then snap to the next one practically instantly with a clearly visible jump. What I get in the end is a juddering mess that is also blurry, so I can literally see nothing.
- hug 3y ago
  Motion blur doesn't really work in that way on any device, but what you're missing is that the content's captured frame rate has a relatively important relation to the display frame rate: You can't usually change one & not the other without making everything look worse, at least to most people, and this is what a lot of modern TVs do. Naive interpolation of inter-frame content is awful, is what a lot of TVs do to implement their smoothing feature, and is why everyone complains about it. The reason a lot of people hated The Hobbit may be partly because of this problem: It was shot at a 270 degree shutter to try to get a bit more motion blur back into each frame, which to a lot of people felt strange.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    Interestingly, some of The Hobbit fan edits changed the frame rate back to 24fps; watching those on my regular IPS screens, they look just fine.
- kalleboo 3y ago
  I wonder if these 120 fps panels are fast enough to do black frame insertion to mimic the effect of film projection
  - andersa 3y ago
    I tried the black frame insertion mode on mine, but I can see the strobing, so it is extremely uncomfortable to look at.
- cityofdelusion 3y ago
  There ought not be any juddering since that is an artifact of a varying frame rate rather than a static frame rate, nor should you be "literally seeing nothing". You might be more visually sensitive than the average person, who seems to not care about these things. It reminds me of my spouse, who is really good at detecting motion at night where I see nothing, almost like a super power.
lmm 3y ago
> We have anecdotal evidence (the fact that everyone hated The Hobbit) that 48 frames per second isn't. Maybe, or maybe we just haven't adapted to 48fps yet. Something I heard a lot about The Hobbit was that the outdoor scenes looked great whereas the indoor seens looked like film sets - which, well, they were film sets, and making a set that looks "natural" will require new techniques. Everyone hates early stereo mixes (e.g. The Beatles), not because stereo sound inherently sounds bad but because production takes time to adapt to new technology.