Tom Cruise says, turn off frame interpolation

Luke M

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2016
Messages
409
There's a belief that 24fps without interpolation is the authentic look, but 24fps looks different depending on the display type. Film, digital projectors, CRTs, plasma, slow response LCDs, fast response LCD, LCD with backlight flashing, OLEDs, all have a different motion look. If you take the view that they are all within acceptable parameters, then what is wrong with interpolation in the same range?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaZa
like this

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
2,811
There's a belief that 24fps without interpolation is the authentic look, but 24fps looks different depending on the display type. Film, digital projectors, CRTs, plasma, slow response LCDs, fast response LCD, LCD with backlight flashing, OLEDs, all have a different motion look. If you take the view that they are all within acceptable parameters, then what is wrong with interpolation in the same range?
Indeed. I personally use very light amounts of interpolation, does not ruin the "film" look, just enough to make panning slightly less stuttery.
 

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
742
Ignoring the interpolation thing, I get really fucking irritated when ignorant people actually suggest that high framerate video (not interpolation but actual higher framerate) looks like a "soap opera."

People are fucking idiots. I swear, there's a reason that tech is in the gutter. The dumb chimps out there don't even appreciate advancements.
 

kalston

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,033
I agree with watching 24fps content at 24fps. But I want HFR to take off. Films with a lot of action/motion could look so much better than they do now.

I wish filmmakers and the industry would start tackling HFR seriously. It opens so many doors to create immersive videos. Even in the best conditions 24fps is a blurry, stuttery mess.

For games however it's another story, see how well interpolation works in VR for example.
 

Luke M

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2016
Messages
409
Indeed. I personally use very light amounts of interpolation, does not ruin the "film" look, just enough to make panning slightly less stuttery.
On displays with fast response and no backlight flicker (such as OLED) you get a nasty strobe-like effect. I would say it's not even a matter of taste, you NEED interpolation to tame that.
 

Opus131

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2016
Messages
194
I'd worry more about fixing the films than the technology than reproduce them at this point. I'm fine with TVs as they are, not so much with the quality of movies being made today, heh.
 

DoubleTap

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
2,337
Ignoring the interpolation thing, I get really fucking irritated when ignorant people actually suggest that high framerate video (not interpolation but actual higher framerate) looks like a "soap opera."

People are fucking idiots. I swear, there's a reason that tech is in the gutter. The dumb chimps out there don't even appreciate advancements.
Whether it looks like a Soap Opera or not, people say that because more people understand that reference than they do interpolation.

And I like my high fps gaming, but I find interpolation to be very disturbing and distracting when watching TV or movies.
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
54
On displays with fast response and no backlight flicker (such as OLED) you get a nasty strobe-like effect. I would say it's not even a matter of taste, you NEED interpolation to tame that.
Have an older C6 and this is the issue with OLED. It's too fast so you need to set it at 1-3 for whatever setting they call it.
 

gan7114

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
266
I agree with watching 24fps content at 24fps. But I want HFR to take off. Films with a lot of action/motion could look so much better than they do now.

I wish filmmakers and the industry would start tackling HFR seriously. It opens so many doors to create immersive videos. Even in the best conditions 24fps is a blurry, stuttery mess.

For games however it's another story, see how well interpolation works in VR for example.
The industry should just transition to 30fps. At least for the US market or markets that utilize 60Hz / 120Hz. Adding 6fps wouldn't really change the over all feel, but it would completely eliminate judder, since 30 divides evenly into 60 and 120.

Note that Europeans aren't affected, since they utilize 25fps at 50Hz / 100Hz.
 

UnknownSouljer

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,171
The industry should just transition to 30fps. At least for the US market or markets that utilize 60Hz / 120Hz. Adding 6fps wouldn't really change the over all feel, but it would completely eliminate judder, since 30 divides evenly into 60 and 120.

Note that Europeans aren't affected, since they utilize 25fps at 50Hz / 100Hz.
They absolutely still do. Hollywood has the biggest presence of any country. They still have to deal with 23.98/24 FPS content from the states and other NTSC countries in addition to 25fps content.
 

kalston

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,033
Some TV content in Europe is shot at 25fps but generally they still shoot films at 24fps like everywhere else. And let's not talk about the 24fps content converted to 25 for legacy reason (happens on TV and with DVDs), it hurts my soul.

Anyway, it's not like modern TVs have any issue with refresh rates, I haven't seen a EU model without a 60hz mode for a very long time. So yeah 30fps would work but I'm personally more interested in going higher.
 

Murzilka

Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
682
Who I am to talk against Tom Cruise. But I tested all the possible combinations on the TV, and the 4K 50Hz with interpolation is the smoothest setting. 24Hz is a stuttering mess.
 

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
742
Whether it looks like a Soap Opera or not, people say that because more people understand that reference than they do interpolation.

And I like my high fps gaming, but I find interpolation to be very disturbing and distracting when watching TV or movies.
I'm not talking about interpolation. I'm talking about true high framerate movies.
 

DoubleTap

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
2,337
I'm not talking about interpolation. I'm talking about true high framerate movies.
Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing that, but there is almost no infrastructure in place to re-create this sort of thing in a home environment.

Which would make it a good value add to get people to buy tickets...
 

sharknice

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
1,881
If it's a movie filmed at 24 fps I watch it at 24 fps. My TV can play 24 fps natively though, if your TV can't it will be a stuttery mess and interpolation is better than stutter.

24 fps is extremely limiting though. Any quick panning or fast motion is forced to be a blurry mess or have a headache inducing stutter. That's why quick panning and fast motion is avoided in movies.
It's going to take a well made movie to change people's perspective on HFR. Maybe Avatar 2 will like it did with 3D. But then we'll probably just get a bunch of "fake" HFR movies like we did with 3D after Avatar 1.

The "it looks too real it's distracting from the art" is such a bullshit mentality. Once you're used to it it's not distracting, it just makes everything else look like ass. People said the same thing about higher resolution.
 

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
742
Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing that, but there is almost no infrastructure in place to re-create this sort of thing in a home environment.

Which would make it a good value add to get people to buy tickets...
I'm not sure what you mean. The home is actually more readily equipped to deal with it than theaters. Tons of people have 60hz-120hz+ displays at home that could actually handle high framerate. It's theater projectors that are the limiting factor.
 

Lepardi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
231
Ignoring the interpolation thing, I get really fucking irritated when ignorant people actually suggest that high framerate video (not interpolation but actual higher framerate) looks like a "soap opera."

People are fucking idiots. I swear, there's a reason that tech is in the gutter. The dumb chimps out there don't even appreciate advancements.
There is some truth to that. In Hobbit HFR they made the mistake of not upgrading the quality of props, as HFR revealed the artificialness, which in turn results in a cheap TV show look.
 

DoubleTap

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
2,337
I'm not sure what you mean. The home is actually more readily equipped to deal with it than theaters. Tons of people have 60hz-120hz+ displays at home that could actually handle high framerate. It's theater projectors that are the limiting factor.
Sure the TVs can mostly handle it, but I'm not sure a Blue-ray or streaming service exists that can handle a 4K 120fps 150 minute movie.
 

Lepardi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
231
Sure the TVs can mostly handle it, but I'm not sure a Blue-ray or streaming service exists that can handle a 4K 120fps 150 minute movie.
Netflix 4K requires 25mbit/s. Doubling that to 48FPS is easily doable.
 

Lepardi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
231
On the consumer side, sure, but the infrastructure side? And do the streaming boxes support this? Also, 48fps is far from 120...
48fps is regarded as the HFR standard, Hobbit was in 48. And tbh it's enough to get rid of the terrible stutter in 24FPS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

Aix.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
1,815
There is some truth to that. In Hobbit HFR they made the mistake of not upgrading the quality of props, as HFR revealed the artificialness, which in turn results in a cheap TV show look.
This is the problem IMO.

When the expected output is 24fps directors make decisions on what to emphasize with lighting, makeup, costumes, CGI, etc. They will also make decisions about what is "good enough" based on that same expected output.

Then you change the output and suddenly the lighting just looks wrong because it's no longer necessary, the CGI looks like a bad videogame, the makeup looks garish, and costumes/props look fake.

The camera movement - particularly panning - tends to look too fast as well, to the point that the director would probably choose to use a different approach to the shot altogether if they were shooting it today (a single, stable shot to set the scene rather than a sweeping camera motion).

Nothing wrong with the tech, I just think the source material needs to be right when dealing with older media. I've seen some older Simpsons episodes recently and they look great, for instance.
 

bigbluefe

Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
742
There is some truth to that. In Hobbit HFR they made the mistake of not upgrading the quality of props, as HFR revealed the artificialness, which in turn results in a cheap TV show look.
I disagree. People said that high framerate inherently looks cheap, but it was what you said: it simply revealed the low production values of the movie.
 

zzz

Gawd
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
794
Info online says that 24fps was selected for film about a hundred years ago since that was the minimum speed required for the mechanically-linked phonograph to produce adequate sound, and film was expensive so it wouldn't be as economical to go higher.

I think this pretty much shuts down any argument from Hollywood that 24fps is some magic number and super artistic.
 

UnknownSouljer

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,171
The "it looks too real it's distracting from the art" is such a bullshit mentality. Once you're used to it it's not distracting, it just makes everything else look like ass.
Art and choice is subjective. As is what looks good or not. But you'll find that most DP's disagree with you (and you can see it as they choose what they do over and over again). You're more than welcome to startup your own production company and mandate 4k 120fps on everything though.

People said the same thing about higher resolution.
To slightly counter you there, digital has only VERY recently been able to fill enough resolution to meet 4k. 4k camera's do not have 4k worth of resolution in them due to "de-bayering (demosaicing)". The simplest way of understanding this is by saying that it takes 4 pixels to make one full RGB set and they don't account for "pixels lost" when debayering/demosaicing when talking about capture ability in cinema cameras (or consumer cameras for that matter).
So, really the amount of resolution that you're often seeing is 1080p even when you're watching a "4k movie", if the cinema camera originally captured it in "4k". There are some exceptions to this, if the film was captured on an 8k RED cinema camera or a 6K Arri or 6k Sony camera as their capturing camera then you'll have actual 4k worth of demosaiced pixel data. But tons of films are still shot on "4k cameras" meaning you're getting 1/4 that resolution and I'm 100% sure you've never even noticed. And of course this was even more so when the highest resolution camera's were 1080p/2k. Meaning that if the capture resolution was 1080p they were in reality only 640p worth of demosaiced data. Bet you didn't even notice that either.
Netflix as an example (you can look at their list of Netflix approved camera systems) has plenty of cameras that "only" shoot 4k. Meaning that although Netflix claims for marketing purposes that they want viewers to get what they pay for (a "true" 4k image) they actually often times aren't due to demosaicing. A 6k camera roughly demosaics to 4.2k resolution. So any camera lower than 6k "cheating you". All DP's know this, but that isn't even a consideration when considering a camera system. A side point of what I'm trying to tell you is that things like contrast, how highlights are rendered, highlight rolloff, dynamic range, color, etc matter far more to how films look than resolution.

Second, analog film has had reasonably high resolution for a very long time, especially when considering things like 70mm Imax (which has 12k worth of horizontal pixel data, aka 12k). So arguing that Hollywood or even "people saying the same thing about higher resolution" also isn't true. Imax has existed since the early 70's. Even 35mm analog film is argued to have roughly 6k worth of pixel data. Seems that we've been watching "high resolution" for quite some time then (at least when in theaters).

Third a further counter discussing resolution is actually the choice to use softening filters or vintage lenses to achieve a softer look. I don't have an exact figure, but I would say that 90%+ DP's are either using vintage lenses, using de-sharpening filters of some variety (whether Tiffen HDTV FX, Black Promist, Black Diffusion, SoftFX, etc), or digitally de-sharpening in post (or possibly some combination of two or even all three of these). Which you could also argue (and actually does) limit resolution as well as detail intentionally. Most of these techniques are to have whatever they're shooting appear more analog and organic as opposed to hyper digital. Whether or not general audiences know this or notice this, it's pretty unlikely. But certainly next to no one watched "Skyfall" or any film shot by DP Roger Deakins and thought that it was "lower resolution" or "soft" despite plenty of techniques used to subtlety make it so. And also no one watches a Tarantino flick (shot on film) and claims it's low resolution either.


Info online says that 24fps was selected for film about a hundred years ago since that was the minimum speed required for the mechanically-linked phonograph to produce adequate sound, and film was expensive so it wouldn't be as economical to go higher.

I think this pretty much shuts down any argument from Hollywood that 24fps is some magic number and super artistic.
24fps isn't a technical limitation anymore. It's more than possible to shoot 4k at over 120fps now on some (no where close to all) modern cinema cameras.
Some food for thought however is the choice of many DP's given the choice to move to 24fps intentionally. Example? The Office. It was originally shot at 60fps for the first season, and as the show grew in budget they intentionally moved to 24fps as their capture format. And it's more than apparent that high frame rate "looks different" than 24fps. That is impossible to deny. It's also impossible to deny that the character of analog film is very different than digital (although it is often emulated).
So that said, it's hard to argue that 24fps isn't an artistic choice when a DP chooses it, much like lens choice is a VERY specific choice, as well as camera system and analog or digital or not. For the layperson, most think a camera is a camera and a lens a lens. But DP's prep for months in advance to very selectively choose their capture camera and lens systems as well as often storyboard every scene and then choose incredibly intentional focal lengths to capture that scene.

I don't say this to be denigrating, but most people who are having conversations about what DP's should be doing or what "Hollywood" should be doing from a format perspective have no understanding of what DP's are even trying to achieve. Much less understand camera systems, or even far far less than that have even shot anything and cut it together (even at a completely amateur level). It's at least slightly arrogant to say that DP's that live and breath this stuff and have dedicated their lives to it are ignorant of their "artistic" choices.
 
Last edited:

zzz

Gawd
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
794
But DP's prep for months in advance to very selectively choose their capture camera and lens systems as well as often storyboard every scene and then choose incredibly intentional focal lengths to capture that scene ... have no understanding of what DP's are even trying to achieve.
Regardless of their intentions or decisions, the fact remains that 24fps comes from an archaic technical limitation a hundred years ago and I think it looks like garbage.

Live performances aren't framerate limited, and the next-best thing in your home shouldn't be either. You spend all this money on quality speakers, surround sound, and a large screen to re-create the experience and yet some people think the framerate should be gimped.
 

UnknownSouljer

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
6,171
Regardless of their intentions or decisions, the fact remains that 24fps comes from an archaic technical limitation a hundred years ago and I think it looks like garbage.
We’ve been over this. You think it does. It’s not a technical limitation. They could shoot at 4K 120. They choose not to.
You’re welcome to keep getting mad over something you have zero control over.
However an argument to your side however is that it is likely that some DPs will experiment with higher FPS film. It’s unlikely to become mainstream anytime soon though.

Live performances aren't framerate limited, and the next-best thing in your home shouldn't be either. You spend all this money on quality speakers, surround sound, and a large screen to re-create the experience and yet some people think the framerate should be gimped.
Yes live performances are often shot at 60fps. As is the news. But those aren’t the same thing as film and you’ll find that, once again the choice, to shoot at 24fps is one of the things that defines film for a lot of DPs or people who work in the industry in general.
60fps makes things look like “real life”. Which is great. This live stuff is supposed to make you feel like being there. But shooting at 24fps makes film feel very different. Not quite real. Other worldly perhaps.
There are plenty of “critics” about this. It happened with acrylic and oil paints. It happened when photography became a thing.
But arguing that painting should stop existing because photographs exist (your basic push for realism versus any choice to intentionally not be “realistic” in terms of rendering) is not the way that people who actually work with and use this medium feel.
So your frame rate isn’t “gimped”. If you feel bad then every movie theater that spends millions outfitting their 12 screens or whatever should be way more upset than you. Heck their projectors alone cost more than the average car. You’re getting an incredible image that was well thought out and some of the best sound design and engineering ever. Far better than anything on TV. If you don’t like it, I suppose stop watching movies.
 

Astral Abyss

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
2,682
This doesn't seem like something worth getting upset about. A more interesting question to me is, "What is the catalyst for change?" And if we do end up moving to a higher frame rate, what's the cost going to be? No point shooting a movie at 120fps if no theaters can show it.
 

Armenius

I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
20,533
If it's a movie filmed at 24 fps I watch it at 24 fps. My TV can play 24 fps natively though, if your TV can't it will be a stuttery mess and interpolation is better than stutter.

24 fps is extremely limiting though. Any quick panning or fast motion is forced to be a blurry mess or have a headache inducing stutter. That's why quick panning and fast motion is avoided in movies.
It's going to take a well made movie to change people's perspective on HFR. Maybe Avatar 2 will like it did with 3D. But then we'll probably just get a bunch of "fake" HFR movies like we did with 3D after Avatar 1.

The "it looks too real it's distracting from the art" is such a bullshit mentality. Once you're used to it it's not distracting, it just makes everything else look like ass. People said the same thing about higher resolution.
Gemini Man, I'm telling you. The movie opens with Will Smith's character sniping someone on a high speed train going 200 MPH and demonstrates the kind of quick panning and fast motion you're talking about lacking in current movies. That movie was so amazing. I'm glad there was a theater near me where I could experience it in its intended glory. Too bad we probably won't be able to get it at home.
 

primetime

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
6,190
Gemini Man, I'm telling you. The movie opens with Will Smith's character sniping someone on a high speed train going 200 MPH and demonstrates the kind of quick panning and fast motion you're talking about lacking in current movies. That movie was so amazing. I'm glad there was a theater near me where I could experience it in its intended glory. Too bad we probably won't be able to get it at home.
i hope there is a way to buy this movie at that fps one day.....that sounds awesome to watch. Ill keep using SVP until that day:)
 

primetime

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
6,190
Gemini Man, I'm telling you. The movie opens with Will Smith's character sniping someone on a high speed train going 200 MPH and demonstrates the kind of quick panning and fast motion you're talking about lacking in current movies. That movie was so amazing. I'm glad there was a theater near me where I could experience it in its intended glory. Too bad we probably won't be able to get it at home.
actually the UHD one that is available is already at 60fps...interesting.....first i have seen this before:)
 
Top