6 ms·

> It's like the frame interpolation that some TVs had to generate 120p frames from 60p. I actually prefer the original 24p (or 24p double-exposed to 48 like cin

by xur17 2y ago

> It's like the frame interpolation that some TVs had to generate 120p frames from 60p. I actually prefer the original 24p (or 24p double-exposed to 48 like cinema projectors do) for films. I realize that I might just be the exception here, but I honestly really like it.

kstrauser 2y ago
I'm glad other systems offer it as an option for people who enjoy it. I can't fathom the decision process that permanently enabled it for everyone.
- adamomada 2y ago
  They made the feature, they’re gonna enable it or nobody would use it and it would have been a waste of time making You’re really gonna hate the fact that 99% of people think this is what stuff on their digital television is supposed to look like. (Which is exactly why Roku did it)
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    That's just not true. My non-Roku TV has this as an option alongside dozens of others I can turn on and off. I'm gonna need to see some data on that. The nearly universally description I hear from regular, non-techie people is "my TV started looking weird", especially when they're watching content they're familiar with. If a brand new movie or show looked like this and that's the only way I'd ever seen it, fine, so be it. I remember seeing "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in soap opera mode on our then-new TV and thinking "WTF is this and how do I turn it off?". That's not what Indiana Jones movies are supposed to look like.
    - adamomada 2y ago
      > I'm gonna need to see some data on that. It’s enabled by default on all smart TVs. Q.E.D.
  - romwell 2y ago
    Which is why Roku decided to take away the option to disable it for people who understand and notice the effect and actively don't want it? Pardon me, it makes zero sense at all.
    - adamomada 2y ago
      I was trying to say that we’re in an extreme minority; they didn’t even think more than ten people would disable it. What’s the reason that makes sense? They forgot?
      - romwell 2y ago
        There were way more than 10 people who read, commented on, and liked that Verge article. Both your assumptions (that we're an extreme minority, and that Roku thinks that way) seem to be only supported by the conclusion you make from them. All that said, putting the feature in enabled by default and seeing how many people end up disabling it would be how they could be grounded in reality and avoid creating a shitstorm. Put another way, the best explanation for a metric not being collected is that it's not going to reflect well on the decision-makers. A way more realistic scenario than what you suggest (i.e. that it doesn't hurt Roku, or even makes business sense) is that it's an outcome of a promotion-driven development. Someone's getting a promotion for launching that "feature", and statistics that show that people turn it off the moment they realize it's there wouldn't bode well with that. Instead, it appears that the new feature has a 100% adoption rate among the targeted userbase. Modern problems require modern solutions, you know.
        devilbunny 2y ago
        Yeah, we are not an extreme minority. My wife - who really doesn’t notice SD vs HD, let alone 4k, if the aspect ratio is correct for the screen - went ape when we got a TV with motion smoothing. I said yeah, I hate that too, give me a few minutes to fix it, believe me I don’t want it.
        moomin 2y ago
  - olyjohn 2y ago
    If you have to force people to turn it on, maybe it sucks and you shouldn't waste your time developing it.
t0mas88 2y ago
Same for me. I can't stand watching sports with fast motion or large panning scenes on a low refresh rate screen. But agree with the post above that 24p double exposed is even better. Smooth and no artefacts. Luckily that's an option Sony TVs have by default if you pick cinema mode.
- adamomada 2y ago
  For sports it’s the one and only time I enjoy 60 Hz content, to the point that 25/30 feeds look like garbage. I mainly watch footer and hockey, slower sports it might not look so bad.

by xur17 2y ago

kstrauser 2y ago

I'm glad other systems offer it as an option for people who enjoy it. I can't fathom the decision process that permanently enabled it for everyone.

adamomada 2y ago
They made the feature, they’re gonna enable it or nobody would use it and it would have been a waste of time making You’re really gonna hate the fact that 99% of people think this is what stuff on their digital television is supposed to look like. (Which is exactly why Roku did it)
- kstrauser 2y ago
  That's just not true. My non-Roku TV has this as an option alongside dozens of others I can turn on and off. I'm gonna need to see some data on that. The nearly universally description I hear from regular, non-techie people is "my TV started looking weird", especially when they're watching content they're familiar with. If a brand new movie or show looked like this and that's the only way I'd ever seen it, fine, so be it. I remember seeing "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in soap opera mode on our then-new TV and thinking "WTF is this and how do I turn it off?". That's not what Indiana Jones movies are supposed to look like.
  - adamomada 2y ago
    > I'm gonna need to see some data on that. It’s enabled by default on all smart TVs. Q.E.D.
- romwell 2y ago
  Which is why Roku decided to take away the option to disable it for people who understand and notice the effect and actively don't want it? Pardon me, it makes zero sense at all.
  - adamomada 2y ago
    I was trying to say that we’re in an extreme minority; they didn’t even think more than ten people would disable it. What’s the reason that makes sense? They forgot?
    - romwell 2y ago
      There were way more than 10 people who read, commented on, and liked that Verge article. Both your assumptions (that we're an extreme minority, and that Roku thinks that way) seem to be only supported by the conclusion you make from them. All that said, putting the feature in enabled by default and seeing how many people end up disabling it would be how they could be grounded in reality and avoid creating a shitstorm. Put another way, the best explanation for a metric not being collected is that it's not going to reflect well on the decision-makers. A way more realistic scenario than what you suggest (i.e. that it doesn't hurt Roku, or even makes business sense) is that it's an outcome of a promotion-driven development. Someone's getting a promotion for launching that "feature", and statistics that show that people turn it off the moment they realize it's there wouldn't bode well with that. Instead, it appears that the new feature has a 100% adoption rate among the targeted userbase. Modern problems require modern solutions, you know.
      - devilbunny 2y ago
        Yeah, we are not an extreme minority. My wife - who really doesn’t notice SD vs HD, let alone 4k, if the aspect ratio is correct for the screen - went ape when we got a TV with motion smoothing. I said yeah, I hate that too, give me a few minutes to fix it, believe me I don’t want it.
        moomin 2y ago
- olyjohn 2y ago
  If you have to force people to turn it on, maybe it sucks and you shouldn't waste your time developing it.

t0mas88 2y ago

Same for me. I can't stand watching sports with fast motion or large panning scenes on a low refresh rate screen. But agree with the post above that 24p double exposed is even better. Smooth and no artefacts. Luckily that's an option Sony TVs have by default if you pick cinema mode.

adamomada 2y ago
For sports it’s the one and only time I enjoy 60 Hz content, to the point that 25/30 feeds look like garbage. I mainly watch footer and hockey, slower sports it might not look so bad.