4 ms·

Peter Jackson's right you do get used to it after a while. I Bought a Samsung LED television that runs at 60 frames per seconds a couple of years back and it to

Peter Jackson's right you do get used to it after a while. I Bought a Samsung LED television that runs at 60 frames per seconds a couple of years back and it took me three months to get used to it. But now when I look at screens that run at slower frame rates, they just look dull and flat.

zoul 14y ago
Do you play media with high framerate on the TV? Because the display's framerate does not matter much if you still feed it 24-fps signal.
- twiceaday 14y ago
  It actually does, I believe those TVs interpolate the missing frames.
  - taligent 14y ago
    I have the TV it is a setting IIRC called Auto Motion Mode. It does indeed interpolate but there is an uncanny valley effect to it. It reminds me of movies where the audio is ever so slightly out of sync. You notice something is wrong but can't perceive what it is. BTW this setting is not what Peter Jackson is doing and should not be used as a comparison.
    - jsprinkles 14y ago
      Yeah, that was one of the first things I turned off. It makes action kind of bizarre. My Sharp came out of the box configured to interpolate to 240 Hz (what?).
    - shock-value 14y ago
      Actually I think it is useful to compare. Based on what I've seen, the interpolation tech is actually pretty good as long as there isn't too much movement on screen. And yet, in dramas especially, it still severely cheapens the look and makes everything look "unnatural". (Even when there is only smooth movement which is well interpolated by whatever algorithm it is using.) So what I am saying is, I actually think it is simply the higher fps that accounts for the distracting nature of these tvs (when interpolation is on). Not so much the actual interpolation itself, as I can only rarely detect artifacts.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
shock-value 14y ago
I don't know of any tv ever produced that is less than 50-60fps. Do you mean that it interpolates lower fps content to bring it up to 60? If so all I can say is, I am surprised you like that effect. I can't stand it and always disable it.
- demallien 14y ago
  Yes, I do mean interpolation. Just for the record, in the parts of the world where I have worked (Australia and France), a typical video stream, be it broadcast/pay-tv/dvd runs at 30fps or less. Recent televisions will interpolate to display frame rates up to 120fps. Like you, I hated the effect at first, but I left it running because I do STB user interfaces for a living, and I need to know what people that don't fiddle with their television are seeing. It's jarring at first because for reasons that I don't fully understand, you are able to discern where the light sources are in a scene when using this technique. You can see that big reflectors have been used for outside shots, or that there is a spot shining just off camera. This is what gives it that cheap video effect, because as anyone that works with video for a living can tell you, the crappy quality of home videos is mostly due to poor lighting. Cinematographers are going to have to work harder in the future to assure a more even light field in their shots. In the meantime, I have found that after using this type of display technology for more than a few months, you start to prefer the high frame rate to older technologies.
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  You may be thinking of fields per second rather than frames per second. Classic NTSC (used in North America and some other countries) runs at 30 frames per second. Each frame is made up of two fields, consisting of the odd and even-numbered scan lines respectively (this is called "interlace"), thus there are 60 fields per second. The PAL and SECAM systems (used in Europe and some other countries) run at 25 frames per second and 50 fields per second. In both cases, this was done because the power line frequency provided an easy-to-use reference signal for frame timing (the North American power grid runs at 60 Hz, most (all?) European countries use 50 Hz).

zoul 14y ago

Do you play media with high framerate on the TV? Because the display's framerate does not matter much if you still feed it 24-fps signal.

twiceaday 14y ago
It actually does, I believe those TVs interpolate the missing frames.
- taligent 14y ago
  I have the TV it is a setting IIRC called Auto Motion Mode. It does indeed interpolate but there is an uncanny valley effect to it. It reminds me of movies where the audio is ever so slightly out of sync. You notice something is wrong but can't perceive what it is. BTW this setting is not what Peter Jackson is doing and should not be used as a comparison.
  - jsprinkles 14y ago
    Yeah, that was one of the first things I turned off. It makes action kind of bizarre. My Sharp came out of the box configured to interpolate to 240 Hz (what?).
  - shock-value 14y ago
    Actually I think it is useful to compare. Based on what I've seen, the interpolation tech is actually pretty good as long as there isn't too much movement on screen. And yet, in dramas especially, it still severely cheapens the look and makes everything look "unnatural". (Even when there is only smooth movement which is well interpolated by whatever algorithm it is using.) So what I am saying is, I actually think it is simply the higher fps that accounts for the distracting nature of these tvs (when interpolation is on). Not so much the actual interpolation itself, as I can only rarely detect artifacts.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

shock-value 14y ago

I don't know of any tv ever produced that is less than 50-60fps. Do you mean that it interpolates lower fps content to bring it up to 60? If so all I can say is, I am surprised you like that effect. I can't stand it and always disable it.

demallien 14y ago
Yes, I do mean interpolation. Just for the record, in the parts of the world where I have worked (Australia and France), a typical video stream, be it broadcast/pay-tv/dvd runs at 30fps or less. Recent televisions will interpolate to display frame rates up to 120fps. Like you, I hated the effect at first, but I left it running because I do STB user interfaces for a living, and I need to know what people that don't fiddle with their television are seeing. It's jarring at first because for reasons that I don't fully understand, you are able to discern where the light sources are in a scene when using this technique. You can see that big reflectors have been used for outside shots, or that there is a spot shining just off camera. This is what gives it that cheap video effect, because as anyone that works with video for a living can tell you, the crappy quality of home videos is mostly due to poor lighting. Cinematographers are going to have to work harder in the future to assure a more even light field in their shots. In the meantime, I have found that after using this type of display technology for more than a few months, you start to prefer the high frame rate to older technologies.
Turing_Machine 14y ago
You may be thinking of fields per second rather than frames per second. Classic NTSC (used in North America and some other countries) runs at 30 frames per second. Each frame is made up of two fields, consisting of the odd and even-numbered scan lines respectively (this is called "interlace"), thus there are 60 fields per second. The PAL and SECAM systems (used in Europe and some other countries) run at 25 frames per second and 50 fields per second. In both cases, this was done because the power line frequency provided an easy-to-use reference signal for frame timing (the North American power grid runs at 60 Hz, most (all?) European countries use 50 Hz).