August 9, 2010 - Flatland

[StruckingFuggle]

I don't know if it's me, but HD looks worse to me than Standard Def (SD?) ... I can't seem to articulate what it is, but HD looks almost like a diorama, usually. Like there's a greater disjunction between objects at motion within a scene, and the background. That's distracting and headache-inducing on its own, but then it also makes it look like people are unnatural whenever they move.

[BtEO]

Greg: Get AnyDVD HD. You will not regret it.

[Mae Dean]

I don't know if it's me, but HD looks worse to me than Standard Def (SD?) ... I can't seem to articulate what it is, but HD looks almost like a diorama, usually. Like there's a greater disjunction between objects at motion within a scene, and the background. That's distracting and headache-inducing on its own, but then it also makes it look like people are unnatural whenever they move.

Sounds like you're seeing it on a TV where frame interpolation is turned on. My mom has that turned on, and it's INFURIATING - she, of course, notices nothing.

On a regular HDTV, it just looks like it usually does, only clearer. That's it.

[Dreamer]

SF, I noticed that for the first time with my new tv... It was har dfor me to describe too, but it's kind of liek you said it. It almos tlooks like objects in the foreground are somehow moving at a different speed as the background. Like it's 3D or something. A diarama is a really good description. Like you feel liek you can tilt your head and look behind one of the images.
Ia ssumed it was because my new set had a higher refresh than my previous set...
I'll have to look into this interpolation of which you speak, Greg...

EDIT: Yeah, looks like that might be it,a ccording to the wiki article I read.
It reminds me of something I remember elarning abotu claymation, too. No mention of it int he wiki articule, but it's GOT to be motion interpolation I rememebr hearing about. Apparently in order to alleviate the weird jumpiness and chopiness of standard claymations, just as the shutter snapepd a picture the object would be moved just a tiny bit. Effectively making the image slightly blurry, surprisingly a more realistic image to the human eye.

[snafu]

Even if you could form a depth-transitional understanding of a 4d object, try mentally rotating it.

[collegestudent22]

To answer earlier questions - no, we don't yet own a PS3. I'd love one, especially as Gran Turismo 5 looms, but it's a fair chunk of change to plunk down at the moment.

GT5 has been looming for a very long time. 6 years of development as of last E3.... Frankly, I won't believe it actually exists as a full, playable version until it is in my hand.

And the PS3 is far too much for me to justify with only a handful of games I would be interested in buying for it. At least at the moment.

Even if you could form a depth-transitional understanding of a 4d object, try mentally rotating it.

That is technically only the outline of a 3D shadow of a 4D hypercube. Try forming a mental image of a 4D object that can create that shadow and then rotate THAT.

[snafu]

That is technically only the outline of a 3D shadow of a 4D hypercube. Try forming a mental image of a 4D object that can create that shadow and then rotate THAT.

I just give visual aid for the morning headache

[Karilyn]

Sounds like you're seeing it on a TV where frame interpolation is turned on. My mom has that turned on, and it's INFURIATING - she, of course, notices nothing.

I usually like frame interpolation

[Mae Dean]

It raises the percieved framerate to be too high. We've become used to 24FPS for movies, so when it's higher, it starts to look cheap/fake - like Soap Operas.

[ampersand]

And the real sad thing is there's a good possibility that HDTV becomes obsolete just as it was getting good with the development of 3D TV.

[collegestudent22]

It raises the percieved framerate to be too high. We've become used to 24FPS for movies, so when it's higher, it starts to look cheap/fake - like Soap Operas.

I dunno about this. Video games typically look better (i.e. more realistic) as the framerate increases. I think the problem is with the association between 60FPS and cheap, home movies and Soap Operas. Which all look crappy regardless of framerate.

From that XKCD HDTV comic:

We're also stuck with blurry, juddery, slow-panning 24 fps movies forever because (thanks to 60fps home video) people associate high framerates with camcorders and cheap sitcoms, and thus think good framerates look "fake".

[bagheadinc]

It raises the percieved framerate to be too high. We've become used to 24FPS for movies, so when it's higher, it starts to look cheap/fake - like Soap Operas.

I dunno about this. Video games typically look better (i.e. more realistic) as the framerate increases. I think the problem is with the association between 60FPS and cheap, home movies and Soap Operas. Which all look crappy regardless of framerate.

First off, video games are not movies.

Also, if something is shot in 24p, raising that to 30p or 60i is going to look terrible. You're adding frames that aren't there which requires duplicating and blending existing frames and the end result is ridiculous looking. And on the flipside, when stuff is shot in 30p or 60i and you try to emulate 24p it usually doesn't turn out good. This requires cutting frame and unless you take the time to blend the gap between the missing frame, it will look jumpy.

Shooting in 24 frames per second tends to add a slight blur on motion. I think this adds a nice surreal quality to movies. It just looks nice. Without that surreal movement, it lacks a degree of separation from real world motion and film motion. For stuff like home videos, documentary, news, etc, 30p/60i is great, because you want to capture real world motion. The frames per second can actually be a stylistic choice. I'm working on a documentary in which we decided to go with 24p rather than 30p because of the subject matter.

[Mae Dean]

As usual, Baghead says what I was about to.

[Deacon]

When he beats you to, "LIZ! Get over here! And lose the clothes!" it gets a little awkward.

[collegestudent22]

Also, if something is shot in 24p, raising that to 30p or 60i is going to look terrible. You're adding frames that aren't there which requires duplicating and blending existing frames and the end result is ridiculous looking. And on the flipside, when stuff is shot in 30p or 60i and you try to emulate 24p it usually doesn't turn out good. This requires cutting frame and unless you take the time to blend the gap between the missing frame, it will look jumpy.

Yes, any change would require a shift in the cameras used to actually film the action, but associating higher FPS with bad video is preventing any switch. And I agree with the stylistic choice involved, but there are very rarely any movies shot in anything other than 24p, even "shaky-cam" movies like Cloverfield (in which the motion blur from 24p + shaky-cam = sick audience).

And the video game reference was more to the CGI involved - mostly just to point out that those kinds of effects can be made for high FPS (and IMO, look better when displayed that way).