Sadly, (mild) motion interpolation is necessary for those of us that get headaches from 24fps video, especially panning shots.
If only filmmakers started with decent frame rates. The few films that came out in 48 fps are so much nicer to look at.
If only filmmakers started with decent frame rates. The few films that came out in 48 fps are so much nicer to look at.
At that point I figured out that it was just because I've been so used to crappy frame rates that the more natural movements feel out of place.
I wonder what the first pass, with less motion blur, would have felt like. Maybe better, maybe worse. I kind of feel it would make it worse, in the same way that the transitional from analog to high definition digital made it look worse to me since I could notice the transitions between frames. That is, at least at first. I'm used to it now.
It’s not worse. In fact it’s so vastly better. Watching a 3 hour movie in 3D without getting a headache from 24 FPS judder (“magic”) was a revelation.
But different bad.
There was just something very wrong with it. It kept feeling like suddenly parts of the movie were sped up and going at 2x speed. To the point where I wonder if the cinematographer was just not experienced with the technology to make it work right (like, maybe there are collaries to the 180 rule that need to be experimented with)
I watched it in 2D, I'm sure for 3D it makes a whole different experience.
What it reminded me of was silent era film that’s been slightly sped up on purpose for comic effect. All the walking looked kinda jerky, like it does when you speed up footage of someone walking, for instance. Or very early manual-timing film that was cranked a bit inconsistently. It was so distracting I could hardly focus in anything else the entire movie. If it’d been a better film, I’d say that gimmick ruined it, but… well.
Like I can watch an animated show, and I have no expectations of it looking real. I can still get lost in the story and enjoy it. I don't need it to look like I'm actually there.
I then rewatched the movie (also in theaters) in 2D 24 fps and it was infinitely better.
I have the same with YouTube videos. I can't stand 60 fps videos (except for gaming content); it causes headaches for me. If it's something I really want to watch, I'll download the 24 fps version and watch it offline (YouTube has it on their servers, but only serves it to certain clients or something).
I know other people who just can't see a difference, or rather, they don't notice it much. I feel like I can spot a 60 fps YouTube video in about 2-3 seconds (usually I pause then to check and reconsider whether I really want to watch it). I also tend to notice 30 fps videos (compared to 24), although they don't really bother me.
Considering that I've always been the only one at movie nights to notice when the TV's frame interpolation setting is on, I guess I'm an outlier.
This is going to be interpolated from 60 FPS. At least get a 30 FPS version that can just drop frames from 60.
It was the writing that was the problem.
The problem that causes stuttering is (simplified) that your eye is moving smoothly to follow something on the screen, whilst the image is moving in discrete steps. So when your eyes expect something fixed in side your view, its actually stuttering.
Black frames make use of a natural image retention in the eye. Where you effectively continue to see the last bright thing. Hence what you expect to be stationary in your field of view does remain stationary.
This was actually key to film based projectors working, because they need a period of black to advance to the next frame. Without image retention it would seem to flicker. Though 24 hz is a bit to slow for that, so they actually added a black period (by just blocking the light) in the middle of each frame to even out the effect. They were already doing BFI, not for motion smoothing, but for flicker smoothing. It seems likely this is accidentally why 24hz film doesn't have stuttering whilst 24hz screens do need it.
Personally I care too much about the brightness loss of BFI, but it might be interesting for you.
It solves a problem, yes, but a different problem than what is solved by interpolation.
Black frames resolve ghosting. That's great! I want to see one frame at a time, no more.
Motion interpolation resolves jagged motion. Instead of making my brain do the extra work of filling in gaps of motion, it lets my brain see an image move smoothly through time.
The higher resolution gets, the larger the group of pixels are that need to be moved each frame. This causes two unique and interdependent problems:
1. Low shutter speed creates blurry images, which makes high resolution worthless.
2. Low framerate creates gaps in motion, which makes high detail painful.
The faster the shutter, the more detail is visible. Filmakers are happy to solve this as extremely as they can. New cameras and lenses capture incredibly sharp and bright images with very short frame times.
The more detail in motion, the more confusing gaps between frames become. Filmakers (and the industry in general) refuse to increase framerate, so they give us ever increasing gaps instead.
https://cinemashock.org/2012/07/30/45-degree-shutter-in-savi...
> All HD channels in the UK broadcast at 1080i, apart from Sky Sports Main Event UHD channel and the BT Sport Ultimate 4K
Interestingly, David Lynch shot Inland Empire at 60fps interlaced, but the film was released at 24fps.
I've heard this called the sample-and-hold effect. It looks a bit like a fast slide show, and really stands out in high-contrast, steady motion scenes.