MovieChat Forums > Home Theater Equipment > Thoughts on Motion Smoothing?

Thoughts on Motion Smoothing?

posted 8 years ago by MaximusGrandimus
4 replies | jump to latest

Hi all, I was hoping to get some peoples' ideas on the motion smoothing, particularly the kind on UHD also known as the soap opera effect. A lot of people say it looks cheap or amateurish. And I know what's going on there, that extra frames are being added to up the frame rate and attempt to cut down motion blur while depth appears flattened because much of the background is about as clear as the foreground.

I do somewhat like how it looks - I feel that by seeing the background more clearly you actually get a better sense of depth and separation within the frame - and I know that's all that really matters with these types of things. Even still, I would like to hear thoughts on it and see what other people think? Have at it, guys :)

I don't know if you're aware of this but I've already changed things. I killed Ben Linus.
--Sayid

[–] Speed_Daemon 8 years ago

I prefer greater fidelity reproduction for most of my senses. When it comes to moving pictures, that includes seeing motion the same way that the naked eye sees motion. Higher frame rates reduce the distortion, and to me that's a Good Thing. I don't have any problem with special effects that induce distortion for artistic reasons...well, except for some that are so cheesy. Adding gigantic lines in a simulated TV picture to shout THIS IS A TV SET!!! is cheesy. And so is a jerky picture that screams THIS IS FILM!!!! in my opinion.

I shoot at 60fps, and like the results. TV sets that can do 120fps natively allow 24fps source footage to be displayed without the need for sophisticated image processing, and still be compatible with regular television signals. Sets that can do 240fps can display a nominal 48fps "double flash" cadence that's seen in actual movie theaters. There's really no need to do motion smoothing if the source material is up to snuff. However for fast action material like sports that involve following a ball or puck, interpolating up to a higher frame rate tends to look better and is easier on the eyes for prolonged viewing.

I see a lot of stuff that was made for TV, but has noticeable jerkiness that (at least for me) wrecks the suspension of disbelief and distracts from the storytelling. There's no technological reason for it. I can only surmise that they induce motion judder to satisfy the hipsters that "know" that "soap opera effect bad", but can't explain why. Hopefully this fad will be over by the time that ATSC 3.0 is rolled out. I don't think I could bear to watch anything aliased down to 24fps in HDR.

[–] owlfy 8 years ago

The HDTV I own has this feature. I honestly cannot keep it on without getting nauseated. The movement is too swift for my taste.

[–] mikekuhlman-415-393642 8 years ago

My thoughts: Great for sports, lousy for movies.

Keep program material in its original fps rate. Movies are 24 fps. Keep them 24 fps. The strobiness of 24 fps is part of movies' "timeless storytelling" charm.

[–] Speed_Daemon 8 years ago

Movies are 24 fps. Keep them 24 fps. The strobiness of 24 fps is part of movies' "timeless storytelling" charm.
Movies are shot at 24fps, but in cinemas they're displayed at 48 or 72fps. The 24fps frame rate was developed with one thing in mind: to save money on film stock. So to try to display a movie at 24fps is not just ignorant, it's an unnecessary form of self-torture.