TrueMotion Must Be Destroyed!!!

[Stefan Scherperel]

Criticizing the feature not meant for watching movies for making movies look bad ?

Even if it's not "meant" for watching movies, that is what all the stores display it as. I guarantee most consumers do not switch their TV settings back to cinema mode every time they watch a movie. So by having the True motion mode on by default, yes the TV's are destroying films, Dramatic television shows, etc for the average viewer.

I recently went over to a friends house who had "Over the top" playing in the living room, on his brand new LCD tv. I walked into the room, and immediatly though I was watching Hi 8 footage shot in the 80's. Then suddenly Sylvester Stallone appeared on the screen and I just about shit myself. Never had I seen a movie shot on film, from the 80's displayed in HD look SO bad!
These TV'S are ruining films, and it makes me shudder to think anyone would watch something I shot in such a disgusting manner.

 

[Dabling Harward]

E
These TV'S are ruining films, and it makes me shudder to think anyone would watch something I shot in such a disgusting manner.

Agreed.

The TV industry "unfixed" something that wasn't broken. What's sad is most people don't know they can turn it off or even relate the picture they're seeing as a consequence of True Motion.

We might as well dust off all our interlaced video cameras and shoot our productions on those since it's going to look that way anyway.

 

[C. Jagan Mohan]

I hate true motion

 

[Dabling Harward]

The article criticizes the negative effect of misused technology and the title is misleading.

Please explain how the average consumer misuses something that is turned on for them by default from the factory.

Remember, consumers are led. We as filmmakers lead the consumers to how we want them to see our cinematic vision on the big screen. Otherwise, what's the point of all the hard work.

It's no different for TV makers. They lead the consumer in how they want content to be shown on their Brand of TV.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

What? TruMotion and MotionFlow and all them are great! These jerky movies need improving - just like fuzzy artwork. I won't look at a Monet unless it's got some heavy edge detection and sharpening. Also, I cut the sides off my paintings so they fit on my walls. It doesn't matter if the artist meant it to be a certain shape - the shape of my wall is more important.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Even if it's not "meant" for watching movies, that is what all the stores display it as. I guarantee most consumers do not switch their TV settings back to cinema mode every time they watch a movie. So by having the True motion mode on by default, yes the TV's are destroying films, Dramatic television shows, etc for the average viewer.

Stores display TV sets as they choose, promoting features which they choose.
Average consumer spends more time watching non-cinema related material.

Stores also have films on display and some put adequate settings, some don't.

Please explain how the average consumer misuses something that is turned on for them by default from the factory.

By not customizing the device for the purpose, with being clueless about the features of the device they purchase,
or being too lazy or indifferent to go through picture settings, which takes few clicks on the remote.

Every TV set has clearly stated "Cinema" mode and "24p" on its feature list, some even on the sticker in the store.

Breaking this excruciating contraption TV manufacturer pulled to limit the TV buying customer from filmmaker envisioned aesthetic
(the customer expected to return), consists of:

Panasonic plasma (EU version):
MENU > SETUP > Intelligent Frame Creation > OFF
MENU > PICTURE > Viewing Mode > Cinema

Remember, consumers are led.

Everyone is led by anything if indifferent about own direction. Car will hit the wall if the driver doesn't turn the wheel.
It will also slip on snow with summer tires.

Lack of interest to see and try the existing options does not make TV manufacturer "destroyer of movies",
if it's activating the feature not designed for the rarer type of TV usage.

One who cares about the picture aesthetic for specific purpose goes through the menu and optimizes it, which is few clicks away.

We as filmmakers lead the consumers to how we want them to see our cinematic vision on the big screen. Otherwise, what's the point of all the hard work.

Filmmakers tend to forget that majority of TV content is not film.
They also tend to forget that many viewers don't care about the specific picture aesthetic aimed by the filmmaker.

Some say they prefer the fake interpolated motion while watching movies. Some also don't care enough to switch the settings with every TV-to-movie switch. Very often even contrast, colour and sharpness are boosted on folks home sets, just because they prefer it that way in general, not to mention putting picture on "warm" or "cold" to their personal taste and preference.

It's no different for TV makers. They lead the consumer in how they want content to be shown on their Brand of TV.

If all this was true and viewer's quality cinematic experience was overlooked, you wouldn't see more and more customizing and calibration options,
as well as continuous picture quality improvements.

 

[Matthias Hutter]

With real 48+ fps movies coming out, can we finally ditch TruMotion, yes?

 

[Dabling Harward]

Hrvoje,

I think you're missing the point. We all know you can change the settings. The problem is, the average consumer doesn't have the time or patience to keep changing the settings all the time.

When I watch a movie on my older TV, it looks just like a movie. If a soap opera comes on, it looks just like video soap opera. No setting changes required.

Now when I watch a movie in True Motion it looks like the 5 Hour Energy commercials. Changing the settings all the time to get it to look right is just a pain the ass.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Dabling,

You don't have to change the settings all the time. Just turn off the motion interpolation once with few clicks on the remote and the problem is solved.

I think you're missing the point. We all know you can change the settings. The problem is, the average consumer doesn't have the time or patience to keep changing the settings all the time.

TV sets show strobing frames. Strobing frames hit the retina. Retina has not evolved with strobing imagery hitting it.
Apart from specific artistic aesthetic, you don't want to look at lower frequency strobing frames all the time. The higher you go up in Hz the more your eye sight will be thankful.

Similar example is with picture resolution. It's going up. For a reason.
We don't perceive sampling in reality, no pixels or grids, we perceive shapes and textures.

This is temporal resolution. It's also going up. For a reason.
To reduce unnatural temporal sampling which our brain and eyesight perceive, to get closer to natural fluid visual experience.

Earlier versions of the technology were poor. That was teething of the new technology. Includes processing power, algorithms, experience, parts cost...the usual stuff.
New versions are getting much better. With more natural looking results.

Manufacturers use customer surveys.
They don't design features and leave them "on" by default upon receiving mostly bad feedback.

Properly implemented motion interpolation makes the viewing experience more fluid and less sampled.
Closer to how human eye sees the world. That will put less strain on your eye and brain and reduce chances of vision defects of your kids.

Watching a movie is rarer type of usage of a TV set. One of it's aesthetics depends on lower refresh rate.
Many other usages are not dependent on lower frequency temporal strobing. You don't need "mind filling the gaps" for sports, news, gaming or other types of entertainment.

Manufacturers' goal is to make their products evolve or they don't make money.
They chose to implement features which have a purpose. They based it on priorities and gave options for individual preference.

If the average user doesn't have the time or the patience to change the settings, it would be more productive and meaningful to write blogs named "the average user destroys movies".
Year or two from now this technology will be perfected. This will stop being an issue and folks will leave 200/240Hz "on" all the time, apart from movies and drama series.

Especially on computer desktops while in edit room for 14 hrs.

 

[Stefan Scherperel]

There is a big difference between having a high refresh rate television and motion smoothing. i don't think anyone is concerned with TV's that refresh at 240Hz and still display images properly. People on this forum have an issue with the TV Makers meddling with the imagery that we are creating.
And I'm sorry the excuse that this great new technology will save kids eyes is BS, whenever we need to prove to ourselves that something is good, we just say the magic words "it will save the kids" and suddenly everyone is on board. People have been watching television and theater screens for quite a few years without eye defects. I know when I was a kid I used to sit so close to the screen I could see the individual red green and blue pixels, and I still have 20/20 vision.

Ultimately the point is, technology improvements are a necessity, but when these improvements start messing with the individual artist's vision, to them/ us, it is devastating. It's like taking a Monet and saying, "brush strokes make this painting too hard to read, and it hurts my eyes. I have created a new technology that smooths brush strokes and focuses the image on all classic paintings." I'm sure many people in the general public would love the new way to view these classic paintings, smoothed out and refined so that now everyone can understand them. But it doesn't make it right now does it.
Lets just say for sake of argument that as time passes people forget that you can turn off this technology and grow use to seeing the classic paintings in this style. Is it now their fault that the original work from the master artist can't ever been seen how it was? No! It's the fault of the person/company who decided that this is a better way to view it.

 

[Dabling Harward]

Closer to how human eye sees the world.

We don't want to watch movies the way we see reality. We get enough of reality in our everyday lives.

I'm going to coin a phrase.

I don't want my movies to look like "5 Hour Energy"

Motion Smoothing + Movies = Let's artificially add something that wasn't there to begin with.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If a user has to go into a menu to change a setting then the engineers have already failed.

If this was a desirable feature then it should be in the video meta-data. If it's sports it can turn itself on with the "MaxFramerate=TRUE" flag. If it's an HBO miniseries then it can stream the "MaxFramerate=FALSE" flag.

 

[Matthias Martin]

Jurassic Chickens

Jurassic Chickens

TV sets as such have become awkward anyway, because of their now higher resolution. And this is why:
They are up to two times as large as a Computer Monitor - Computer Monitors have their ideal viewing distance at about an arms length, so the correct distance becomes about two arms lengths. Um great - in a living room situation that would place them right on your coffee table. Now there might be a way to swivel-up-integrate them in such a piece of furniture, but where do you place the center and main speakers? And even if you could pull this off - you would still be left with what we at barco called the "Jurassic Chicken Problem": Now the sound is thunderous enough to pass as home cinema, but the T-Rex on your screen still has the size of a chicken. TVs are a joke.

In the old days of 576i-ish CRTs this wasn't an issue - this image was so unbearaby blurry that you were glad it was so far away as to not hurt your eyes too much.

I feel better now.

Actually TVs have found a new role as public info displays, where people stand before them, which restores the correct viewing distance again...

 

[Bryce O]

We don't want to watch movies the way we see reality. We get enough of reality in our everyday lives.

I'm going to coin a phrase.

I don't want my movies to look like "5 Hour Energy"

Motion Smoothing + Movies = Let's artificially add something that wasn't there to begin with.

Exactly, movies are not supposed to look or be exactly like reality. Do you hear background music or a score in reality? Do you stand around eavesdropping on people from 2 feet away in reality? No. Movies are shot and told from a "ghost-perspective". Meaning that you view the story as if you are watching a memory or a dream... or like you are a ghost walking around watching people.

Here's a list of a few things in cinema that DO NOT happen to a person in reality:

-background music or score
-slow-motion
-montages
-non-linear time-lines
-voice overs
-artistic color timing
-changes of perspective
-exaggerated sound design

...and the list goes on. If we use the "movies are supposed to mimic reality" argument, then we're only limited to movies with a first-person perspective, that can only happen in real-time, with no unnatural colors, no music, and no extra sound effects. Movies are not reality, I don't know why anyone would make that argument, it's just stupid.

 

[Peter Lundström]

Well in all fairness, depending on what youre looking at the smoother motion might be more pleasing to the eye. Its just not very often...