HD sucks?

[burgerkingdiamond]

I got a 55" LCD TV this year with 120HZ refresh rate. I tried watching some blurays on it and was extremely disappointed. They look horrible. The motion is so weird and jittery (I don't know exactly how to describe it). It's like watching a cheap soap opera or something. It doesn't look like you're watching a movie. It's like you're standing on the set watching the actors. Luckily if I turn on the gaming mode it get's rid of whatever BS image processing is going on.

Has anyone else experienced this?

[njiska]

Yep, that's the image smoothing bullshit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation

Turn it off, rip out the components if you can and burn it in a fucking fire because it's pure fucking garage!

See this for some more info: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6792632-1.html

[StarCreator]

Turn it off, rip out the components if you can and burn it in a fucking fire because it's pure fucking garage!

Is it big enough to store my car in?

Another HD picture quality hint that a lot of people don't know - on most flat panel displays, when you're feeding HDMI in, your sharpness should be set to 0. Yes, zero. The rationale - pixel-driven formats like HDMI already pass as clear an image as it's going to get and any processing you introduce on top of it just serves to mess up what's already there.

Also, you've already said so, but it's often not a bad idea to just turn "Game Mode" on and leave it on full time. Game Mode reduces input lag by cutting large portions of the TV's post processing out the chain.

[njiska]

Turn it off, rip out the components if you can and burn it in a fucking fire because it's pure fucking garage!

Is it big enough to store my car in?

Another HD picture quality hint that a lot of people don't know - on most displays, when you're feeding HDMI in, your sharpness should be set to 0. Yes, zero. The rationale - pixel-driven formats like HDMI already pass as clear an image as it's going to get and any processing you introduce on top of it just serves to mess up what's already there.

You can also try to see if your display has a "Game Mode" - it's often not a bad idea to just turn it on and leave it on full time.

Bad phone auto-correct. Bad!

If the display has a professional or cinema mode that might also be an option.

[Kiel]

You just need to go into the menu and turn it off. Duh.

[burgerkingdiamond]

You just need to go into the menu and turn it off. Duh.

I said that I found gamin mode and turned it on the picture improved. I'm just wondering why that shit is there in the first place. It looks horrible.

[Davey]

Maybe I'm naive, but I assume they did some market research and found that more people liked it on than off, hence the default setting. Personally, I find it pretty terrible. It might be good for nature programs or sports, since being "too real" wouldn't be an issue there.

[burgerkingdiamond]

Maybe I'm naive, but I assume they did some market research and found that more people liked it on than off, hence the default setting. Personally, I find it pretty terrible. It might be good for nature programs or sports, since being "too real" wouldn't be an issue there.

I wonder how it would look for animated CGI stuff like Wall-E... I bet that Planet Earth would look nice since that's a case where realism is actually point. But for movies it sucks. I can't say that loud enough!

[StarCreator]

My brother actually swears by the motion interpolation stuff, saying it makes things "look 3D". He even gets mad at me for wanting to turn it off, and I've totally just walked out of watching movies with him over stuff like this.

[njiska]

My brother actually swears by the motion interpolation stuff, saying it makes things "look 3D". He even gets mad at me for wanting to turn it off, and I've totally just walked out of watching movies with him over stuff like this.

He's entitled to his opinion, but at the end of the day he is wrong. It's a bastardization by the simple nature of it manipulating the original source material. On top of that there's a provable psychological reasons for why lower frame rates are better.

[neorichieb1971]

Raw data is the best way.

sharpness = 0 (zero) is a good tip. Its a post processing process which adds a filter to the picture which shouldn't be there.

Never use the brightest default (Vivid as its usually known). Backlight should be on 2 or 3 at max. Brightness should be 50-55%, contrast for me is usually 65-75%.

If you have other bright things in the room and you watch in the dark, turn them down to zero to stop reflections/distractions.

Always feed your TV the highest resolution your TV caters for. This is considered 1:1 pixel mapping and will stop as many post processing routines as possible.

[moh]

This is no less of a gimmick then 3D TVs.

the industry is looking for new ways to revolutionize the television viewing experience (aka they need to release something new with a huge price tag) and these stupid ideas are all that they're coming up with =P

[njiska]

This is no less of a gimmick then 3D TVs.

the industry is looking for new ways to revolutionize the television viewing experience (aka they need to release something new with a huge price tag) and these stupid ideas are all that they're coming up with =P

I'll argue that. 3D can at least be used well and create a better experience, though it rarely is. Avatar, Tron Legacy and a few IMAX documentaries are the only decent examples I can think of. Interpolation on the other hand adds nothing to the experience 100% of the time.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

My brother actually swears by the motion interpolation stuff, saying it makes things "look 3D". He even gets mad at me for wanting to turn it off, and I've totally just walked out of watching movies with him over stuff like this.

He's entitled to his opinion, but at the end of the day he is wrong. It's a bastardization by the simple nature of it manipulating the original source material. On top of that there's a provable psychological reasons for why lower frame rates are better.

My old folks are just as bad, they prefer to have their TV set up in the wrong resolution mode. I forget which mode it is but its the one that crops the top and bottom of the screen is popular. They even have it on that mode when watching films with subtitles and the 2nd line of writing is chopped off

I can image several of you guys will be popping blood vessels reading this

[brentsg]

Specs sell TVs. They needed 120Hz, 240Hz, etc..

In the end they are band-aids for the generally poor motion performance of LCD technology. The fact that they were able to market and sell this as an advantage is ridiculous.

[njiska]

120 hz is nice because you can do true 24 fps by showing each frame for 5 refresh cycles. You cannot do that at 60 hz. In that regard 120 hz should be a selling point, but then they go and fuck it up by adding this interpolation crap. 240hz is just completely pointless.

Frankly I still don't know why plasma isn't more popular. It offers better black levels, contrast and can run at a wide number of refresh rates, not just multiples of 60. I loved my roommate's old plasma because it offered 48hz, 60hz and 96hz refresh rates. 48 and 96 were for 24fps and just held the same frame for 2/4 screen refreshes and 60 was for NTSC 29.7 and 30fps. Though 48hz was largely useless as the pixels started to dim before the next refresh hit resulting in really bad flicker.

[Stormwatch]

Maybe the problem about 120Hz looking "not movie-like" is that we are used to film's limitations, so we reject something that's objectively (more life-like) better.

[njiska]

Maybe the problem about 120Hz looking "not movie-like" is that we are used to film's limitations, so we reject something that's objectively (more life-like) better.

No, actually being life-like is the problem. High frame rates create a true image of reality. It sounds good, but then you realize that reality is some guys on a stage. The lower frame rate creates just enough of a separation from normal perception that it helps break reality and keeps you from realizing just what you are watching.

I should stress that's frame rate, not refresh rate. Refresh rate has nothing to do with what you are seeing and that's what's being marketed. What image interpolation does is take two frames and then make up data it thinks belong in between, giving you a higher frame rate. The information it shows is not real, but a computer generated extrapolation. Think of it like scaling, only across time rather than length or width. We all know what bad scalers look like and bad interpolation of frames is no different. Watching most modern displays with smoothness on just makes me feel like i'm watching a movie that's running at 1.5x and playing catch up.

[Davey]

My old folks are just as bad, they prefer to have their TV set up in the wrong resolution mode. I forget which mode it is but its the one that crops the top and bottom of the screen is popular. They even have it on that mode when watching films with subtitles and the 2nd line of writing is chopped off

I can image several of you guys will be popping blood vessels reading this

That's bad, but not as bad as the people that set it up so that 4:3 shows get stretched to widescreen. It's mentally exhausting to keep all that nerd rage inside.

[null1024]

My old folks are just as bad, they prefer to have their TV set up in the wrong resolution mode. I forget which mode it is but its the one that crops the top and bottom of the screen is popular. They even have it on that mode when watching films with subtitles and the 2nd line of writing is chopped off

I can image several of you guys will be popping blood vessels reading this

That's bad, but not as bad as the people that set it up so that 4:3 shows get stretched to widescreen. It's mentally exhausting to keep all that nerd rage inside.

After dozens and dozens of years of being bothered by this, I just gave up and let it be. And since I'm usually around other people who care [yay friends], I intentionally stretch my video on my netbook.
Well, at least for things that don't have a 16:9 mode [Wipeout 3 is completely awesome because it was one of the few PS1 games that did widescreen correction for 3D geometry [the hud still remained stretched, but that didn't matter too much]].

Top-chop was always fine to me, because it preserves the aspect ratio of what is in the viewing area. Except in that case about the subtitles -- that's bad, but usually stuff tends to avoid display edges due to overscan and whatnot. Still bad for games and whatnot, was playing Garou MOTW on a TV with that enabled and the super bars were chopped off.
The best thing is when phone numbers on ads get chopped off, fuck that shit. I haven't watched TV in forever, but still.

Also, fuck motion smoothing. I was watching this Western on a TV with it enabled, it made everything look like animated cardboard cutouts pasted over a background. Really ugly.

And in the end, if it isn't being pushed into the HDTV by HDMI/DVI/VGA or some other high-resolution and non-interlaced input, it probably sucks. And this is coming from a person that is rather fine with composite video on a CRT [/heretic] .

Also, I fucking love 3D, but apart from Avatar [seriously, spoiled me forever with how good proper 3D could be], it is pretty gimmicky and poorly done.

[Ed Oscuro]

On top of that there's a provable psychological reasons for why lower frame rates are better.

Far be it from me to suggest that anything psychological could not be reducible to a simple preference like this, especially if it ignores human adaptability to circumstance, but I will say that you ought to say "some material, sometimes, is better at lower frame rates."

Personally I can't think of any movie I wouldn't rather have seen standing at the edge of the set. 24FPS (or 23.97Hz) is okay, but it's just a bastardization of real life. Too bad nobody's invented a planck time camera, huh?

[brentsg]

120 hz is nice because you can do true 24 fps by showing each frame for 5 refresh cycles.

This is absolutely true, but it's too subtle of an improvement for joe public (imo). Plus it's too cumbersome to use as effective marketing speak.

To me the motion interpolation simply looks like the movie was filmed on a cheap camcorder. To each his own I guess, but it completely destroys the cinematic experience.

[njiska]

On top of that there's a provable psychological reasons for why lower frame rates are better.

Far be it from me to suggest that anything psychological could not be reducible to a simple preference like this, especially if it ignores human adaptability to circumstance, but I will say that you ought to say "some material, sometimes, is better at lower frame rates."

Personally I can't think of any movie I wouldn't rather have seen standing at the edge of the set. 24FPS (or 23.97Hz) is okay, but it's just a bastardization of real life. Too bad nobody's invented a planck time camera, huh?

I'll agree to that concession. Documentaries, live news/sports and anything meant to be real is always better at higher frame rates, but proper fictional drama is usually not. Cinema in the beginning was merely the adaptation of stage to screen and sitting at the edge of the stage would be a great feeling, but today's movies have moved away from that mentality. Modern cinema doesn't want you to know it was shot on a stage, but rather to create the feeling of observing a different world. The lower frame rate helps produce this detachment from reality. Yes, 24 fps is a bastardization of real life and for fiction that's exactly the point. What you're seeing isn't real and it shouldn't appear to be. Think of it like the uncanny valley. It's easier to believe and become involved in something so fantastic when it looks slightly less than real. When it starts to look too real everything fake starts to stand out like a sort thumb. At the end of the day you can say it comes down to style like anything else, but if the film was meant to be viewed that way, than that's how it should be viewed. Let the director make the call on the appropriate frame rate.

And is your brain even fast enough to process a change at planck time?

120 hz is nice because you can do true 24 fps by showing each frame for 5 refresh cycles.

This is absolutely true, but it's too subtle of an improvement for joe public (imo). Plus it's too cumbersome to use as effective marketing speak.

To me the motion interpolation simply looks like the movie was filmed on a cheap camcorder. To each his own I guess, but it completely destroys the cinematic experience.

Yeah, well that's the proletariat for you. They're a bitch to market to. As for the cheap camcorder feel, that's most likely because camcorders shoot at higher frame rates than film so you have the association.

[Udderdude]

If you're actually crazy enough to want this frame blending thing on your PC, for free, you can try it out with Smoothvideo Project

http://www.svp-team.com/wiki/Main_Page

[PC Engine Fan X!]

What's new for HDTVs is Vizio's newfangled HDTVs with the new 21:9 aspect ratio for an even wider screen format than the traditional 16:9 setups now in use. This 55" 21:9 HDTV is slated for a March 2012 release in the USA...makes me wonder how will it fare though? It will still support the current HDMI cables being used right now according to the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA).

Also, there are plans for HDTV manufacturers to release the newer 4K & 8K ultra-definition TVs down the road -- means having to upgrade all your current HD A/V gear to the latest specs. This is slated for the 2020 timeline for the ultra-definition TVs (could be earlier than that, of course).

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[njiska]

What's new for HDTVs is Vizio's newfangled HDTVs with the new 21:9 aspect ratio for an even wider screen format than the traditional 16:9 setups now in use. This 55" 21:9 HDTV is slated for a March 2012 release in the USA...makes me wonder how will it fare though? It will still support the current HDMI cables being used right now according to the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA).

Also, there are plans for HDTV manufacturers to release the newer 4K & 8K ultra-definition TVs down the road -- means having to upgrade all your current HD A/V gear to the latest specs. This is slated for the 2020 timeline for the ultra-definition TVs (could be earlier than that, of course).

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

I don't get the point of 21:9 as it's a rarer aspect ratio, but 4K and 8K will eventually make sense if TV's get large enough. 4K is the approx. resolution of 35mm and 8K is 70mm for epics like Lawrence of Arabia and IMAX.

[emphatic]

Is there software out there that can convert 30 or 25 fps material to 24 fps? I have a HD camera that captures @ 30, it would be cool to see how self-shot stuff looks @ 24 frames.

Also, thanks for the "set sharpness to 0" tip, it made quite a difference on my HTPC setup.

[ryu]

get fraps, record the video with fraps locked at 24 fps.

no idea if there's an easier way.

[emphatic]

get fraps, record the video with fraps locked at 24 fps.

no idea if there's an easier way.

Ah. Maybe I'll try to do a framerate conversion in VirtualDubMod (if it can handle the h264 format mp4 files).

[linko9]

Another Tip: Most TVs do NOT display the full image by default, they actually cut off the borders of the image. For broadcast or cable TV this is sometimes necessary, but for videogames or blurays, you want the full image. Look around in the settings of your TV and make sure you get the full image. (sorry if someone already said this, I just skimmed the thread).