TV without motion smoothing is absurdly terrible. Might as well watch the movie in Google Slides. Once they get with the times and record the movies in 120 fps, we can get rid of it.
It’s also worth mentioning that Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit was shot at double FPS (48 if I recall correctly), and was regarded by many as looking “off”. Based on the fact Hollywood has not made any high FPS movies since, it seems that it was generally regarded as a failed experiment.
I wonder if new display tech is contributing to this becoming ever worse of an experience? With the tv snapping to the new frames practically instantly and then waiting for 50ms with no visible changes, motion blur baked into the movie can no longer hide the judder effectively.
I haven't seen The Hobbit in cinema, so I can't comment on that experience. Maybe they just did it wrong somehow, which would be a shame.
LCD/OLED follows a "Sample and Hold" paradigm, whereas CRT/Plasma don't have the same limitations.
Film projectors would close the shutter while the film moved, and might open the shutter two or three times per frame; I wonder if you'd do well with black frame insertion than some of the modern displays do? Personally, it seemed pretty awful for me on a samsung qled, maybe it's more useful on OLED; but I also dislike motion smoothing, so clearly we have different taste.
I will agree with you that panning shots in 24 fps aren't great. I think there's some rules of thumb for cinematography to reduce audience discomfort, but not everyone follows those.
And while 48 fps is a major improvement from the prehistoric 24 (apparently it was chosen because of the power grid a hundred years ago??), it's still a far cry from actually smooth motion at 144 and above fps.
If rendering the whole movie at this frame rate is too difficult, it would be quite interesting to explore exporting the additional buffers (velocity, depth, etc) that allow DLSS 3 frame generation to work near perfectly in games. Can cameras even capture these?
Creating depth maps of existing images/videos is one of the interests of the field of Computer Vision, it is not a solved problem.
When I watched Avatar 2 in IMAX 3D I didn't notice the drop to 24, was that during talking/low motion scenes only? I'm sure if I looked for it I could see it, but I went into the movie not knowing that refresh rate switch occured.
We have 8k/120Hz cameras now, although I'm not too well versed in how increasing the refresh rate affects how the camera captures light, and what effects that has artistically.
Lidar is noisy, and doesn't have a 1:1 pixel mapping between image pixel and depth pixel.
Even when we had stereosopic recordings for 3D the depth map we could generate was always a bit shit. Granted things have moved on in the last few years.
> We have 8k/120Hz cameras now, although I'm not too well versed in how increasing the refresh rate affects how the camera captures light, and what effects that has artistically.
If its a RED it has shit colour sensitivity. however, generally running cameras at higher framerates require more light. but the shutter angle is generally faster than the frame rate (when you record video on your phone outside in the sun, the shutter speed is 1/1000th of a second, even though its doing 60fps)
The same way I disliked the remakes of Dune and Bladerunner. I don't know exactly how to put it, but despite the gorgeous graphics they felt rather empty to me, like a facade in theme park, with not much behind it.
OR like Nina Hagen once screamed: 'TV, Teeh-Vau, Ich glotz Teeeh-Vaauuuuu... (<-imagine german pronounciation there) ...Alles so schön bunt hier...'
SuperHighDef (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-definition_televisi...) is absolutely brilliant. I saw it live at a broadcast show in 2012.
However motion smoothing is an aberration, as is the stupid saturation and "artifact removal AI" that basically applies a box blur to everything, then applies sharpening to make up for the slow LCD response.
The thing that fucks me off about motion smoothing is that its so unreliable, its smooth for 8 frames, then breaks and comes back.
However, I think the reason why most people hate high framerate video is that is associated with cheap TV. If you're young and have never seen crappy low budget TV, I could see that you don't have that association.
The reason why 24FPS feel "expensive" is because its associated with high budget movies(so does high colour kodak feel).
That's unfortunately true, even on the best TVs. But for me that is merely slightly jarring, while panning cameras at 24 fps are completely unwatchable. So I begrudgingly use it and hope that some day they will realize movies in 2023 should not be using the same frame rate they had due to technical limitations 100 years ago.
A true 120 fps movie would be so, so much better. Just like how I am playing all games at 4k / 120 fps on the TV.
Something I've been meaning to explore is pre-processing a movie with RIFE, which produces a much better result than the builtin motion smoothing since it doesn't have to run in real time on a subpar processor. Though it takes quite a while even with an RTX 4090 and you need the actual frames so can only do it with pirated movies from blu-ray rips, which is annoying.
You would think that a device whose sole purpose is to divine a picture from wagging pixies in the air and make the little lamps twinkle in a convincing way would be able to do it by now.
But I have yet to find a "smart" TV that can handle it decently, even well into the mid range it's still a bit hit and miss. Get a cheap decoder and plug it into any mid range laptop and the pacing is leagues better.
Do they just use the absolutely worst SoC that still turns enough product to pay the bills, or what?