HD Advisor returns with more answers

[AV_Integrated]

Frame Interpolation is a different story entirely. FI actually invents all new frames not found in the source, and inserts them between the original frames. This causes the picture to look very different. I'm pretty sure that's what he's seen in store demos.

It actually doesn't insert them between original frames.

The biggest issue with the cartoonish nature of FI is that it first removes the blur from the original frames. If you watch a new set with FI, you will see that the background seems to be very stationary while objects move in front of it. When you try to think about why it looks so '3D' the answer is because it actually looks like a viewmaster, or one of the old cartoons from Hanna-Barbara. You have still life objects being placed one on top of the other, and there is no blurring at all.

The problem is, our eyes EXPECT to see blur. Everything we see with any depth is always blurred around the edges. One things blurs into the next, and as things move, their edges are blurred constantly.

When a motion algorythm is applied to film, and the blurring is removed, you end up with something that looks like it was shot at 1/1000th of a second onto a digital camera. Then 1/120th of a second later, you get another frame that was shot at 1/1000th of a second.

This is the issue at it's core - they remove the blur, which is the natural result of objects moving, and what you end up with looks more like stop motion than film or even video.

Cartoonish is the general response to this look, but companies like Pixar go to great lengths to ensure that any character that is in motion carries motion blur with it. Video games these days incorporate motion blur to make objects appear far more natural.

Then, along come these 120hz TVs to mess it all up by getting rid of that blur and enhancing the edges.

[Fettastic]

There is a post at the top of this forums that has a list of 1080p displays that accept 1080p/24 resolution and displays that resolution properly at a multiple of 24hz. That's a REALLY good starting place.

Ah. This is my first time in this area so I hadn't seen that.

[MrAngles]

The bitrate thing may be a problem, but as you know disc drives always eventually get faster, so I don't see it that unlikely for Blu-ray to have fast enough discs.

As for bit depth, remember that 8-bit means 8 bits per channel, for a full 24 bit spectrum. Most TV's don't even support 12bpc right now, and most people wouldn't even be able to tell the difference anyway.

But if needed there are 400GB and 500GB Blu-ray discs in the making, and possibly even higher after that.

What would be the point? You would still have a disc that is completely incompatible with previous players, and by the time discs with that many layers could possibly be produced at mass production levels, it would be much more cost effective to use a smaller laser or some other technology. The only thing keeping the Blu-ray name would do is increase customer confusion.

[guitardave]

"However, Frame Interpolation has the nasty side effect of making film-based content look like it was shot on video."

And other negative FI posts...


I have to say, I have a Toshiba 42z3030 which has an anti-judder setting, and I have it on all the time.
The scene that i use to test it is on the Planet Earth blu-ray, 1st episode, there's a long panning shot. If I have the tv set to "Off", the pan is proper juddery, which I guess is 3:2. "Standard" setting is a smoother judder, if that makes sense - there's judder, but it's even. This is 24fps using 5:5, and if that's what you like, who am I to tell you otherwise? The setting I use is "Smooth", and the same panning scene looks as it should do - nice and smooth. That'll do for me! Of course, it's not perfect - it still struggles with vertical lines ie. door frames, windows etc etc. The juddery nature of a crap 24fps source cannot be completely vanquished - why don't they film at 60fps or something?! Then everything would be nice and smooth! But... I can't believe anyone would watch a film NOT in this setting?! Why would you want judder vision? It's so distracting! And I don't understand the comment that smoothing it out makes it look like video?!... It looks very much like quality HD to me, much better than any dvd, and waaayyyy better than any vhs video.

Anyway... If you like your judder, as I said before, who am I to tell you otherwise?!


Dave

[morphinapg]

What would be the point? You would still have a disc that is completely incompatible with previous players, and by the time discs with that many layers could possibly be produced at mass production levels, it would be much more cost effective to use a smaller laser or some other technology. The only thing keeping the Blu-ray name would do is increase customer confusion.

Like I said it would still be very compatible with older models by including a 1080p stream along with 4k.

[Lee Stewart]

"However, Frame Interpolation has the nasty side effect of making film-based content look like it was shot on video."

And other negative FI posts...


I have to say, I have a Toshiba 42z3030 which has an anti-judder setting, and I have it on all the time.
The scene that i use to test it is on the Planet Earth blu-ray, 1st episode, there's a long panning shot. If I have the tv set to "Off", the pan is proper juddery, which I guess is 3:2. "Standard" setting is a smoother judder, if that makes sense - there's judder, but it's even. This is 24fps using 5:5, and if that's what you like, who am I to tell you otherwise? The setting I use is "Smooth", and the same panning scene looks as it should do - nice and smooth. That'll do for me! Of course, it's not perfect - it still struggles with vertical lines ie. door frames, windows etc etc. The juddery nature of a crap 24fps source cannot be completely vanquished - why don't they film at 60fps or something?! Then everything would be nice and smooth! But... I can't believe anyone would watch a film NOT in this setting?! Why would you want judder vision? It's so distracting! And I don't understand the comment that smoothing it out makes it look like video?!... It looks very much like quality HD to me, much better than any dvd, and waaayyyy better than any vhs video.

Anyway... If you like your judder, as I said before, who am I to tell you otherwise?!


Dave

Planet Earth was shot with HD-CAM's recording at 1080i. That is how it is laid down on the HDM. There shouldn't be any judder because there is no 3:2 Pulldown used. That is only required with film based content shot at 24 FPS. PE is 1920x1080x60i

[morphinapg]

And I don't understand the comment that smoothing it out makes it look like video?!... It looks very much like quality HD to me, much better than any dvd, and waaayyyy better than any vhs video.

Anyway... If you like your judder, as I said before, who am I to tell you otherwise?!


Dave

Lower frame rate increases the dramatic effect. It sort of separates the movie from reality, which is good. By video they don't mean VHS, video means something that is filmed at 60Hz (or higher I guess). Things that are shot with video are things like talk shows, reality shows, game shows, behind the scenes footage etc. Things that are supposed to look like the real world. I tried FI before and while cool, I don't like it because it makes it seem more like I'm watching the behind the scenes footage and less like a movie.

[MrAngles]

Like I said it would still be very compatible with older models by including a 1080p stream along with 4k.

It would be cheaper to make a flipper disc similar to HD-DVD hybrids, or a single-sided dual-format disc, than it would be to make an 6 to 8-layer BD disc, if a 6+ layer BD could even be played on existing equipment, which is unlikely. Otherwise we may as well be currently watching 1080p content on 6-layer DVDs.

[MrAngles]

crap 24fps

This is how we know we are not in a film appreciation forum.

[Josh Z]

Planet Earth was shot with HD-CAM's recording at 1080i. That is how it is laid down on the HDM. There shouldn't be any judder because there is no 3:2 Pulldown used. That is only required with film based content shot at 24 FPS. PE is 1920x1080x60i

IIRC, Planet Earth was shot at 1080p/25fps, which was frame rate converted to 24fps for the Blu-ray. That frame rate conversion was the cause of most of the judder issues on that title.

[Lee Stewart]

IIRC, Planet Earth was shot at 1080p/25fps, which was frame rate converted to 24fps for the Blu-ray. That frame rate conversion was the cause of most of the judder issues on that title.

Looks like we both need to check our facts.

The entire series--spanning nearly 2,000 shoot days--was captured in 720p, 1080i and 1080p--as well as a few sequences on HD-friendly 35mm film. Discovery HD will air the series in 1080i. Dolby 5.1 Surround Sound also will be featured, although much of the audio was laid in later (along with narration by actress Sigourney Weaver)--especially footage obtained from the heligimbal, which was too far away from its prey to record pertinent audio (which, in turn, would have been drowned out by aircraft engines).

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/12848

HDD's review says 1080i AVC for the encode. Is that not correct?

[Monty HD]

In response to the first question I wonder if he's looking at TVs that are 120Hz which are doing 5:5 on 1080p24 source material as opposed to his set doing 3:2 pulldown?

I was thinking the same thing. I looked up the specs on his Mits and noticed that is was not 120hz.

[crazzeto]

Looks like we both need to check our facts.



http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/12848

HDD's review says 1080i AVC for the encode. Is that not correct?

It's not correct, at least certainly not for the UK version which I own.

[Lee Stewart]

It's not correct, at least certainly not for the UK version which I own.

Well - let's see a link.

[Scooby]

There should will be no loss in quality doing so.

Fixed it for ya.