Yes, that's the strawman pro-interpolation people like to trot.
[Question] Possible new TV
- Thread starter Squidleybits
- Start date
- Status
No, that's actual quotes from people who dislike it. Look up -film grain on Blu-Ray- and you'll see an example what I mean. They prefer the grain because it gives a cinematic look vs clean film looking too real. Exact same arguments are made in the interpolation circles.
If frame interpolation wasn't attractive to the majority of the public, tvs would come with it default to off, and showroom personnel would be instructed to turn it off.
However, manufacturers have learned that it's not just a gimmick. People will prefer and buy the frame interpolated tvs over their non interpolated counterparts, and they make more money with a showroom filled with them than one filled with regular frame duplicating tvs.
Some frame interpolation is terrible. When it's good, though, it's more popular than a regular tv. Of course cinephiles are going to reject it, and make broad claims that its terrible and humans are terrible for desiring it. They are wrong about what other people should enjoy, but they are entitled to their opinions.
But those that are claiming that the general public is in an uproar, and that there's any significant faction of non-interpolators among the general public, are simply wrong.
I tech communities, and video communities, and critical communities, there is some amount of consternation.
But not among the general public.
However, manufacturers have learned that it's not just a gimmick. People will prefer and buy the frame interpolated tvs over their non interpolated counterparts, and they make more money with a showroom filled with them than one filled with regular frame duplicating tvs.
Some frame interpolation is terrible. When it's good, though, it's more popular than a regular tv. Of course cinephiles are going to reject it, and make broad claims that its terrible and humans are terrible for desiring it. They are wrong about what other people should enjoy, but they are entitled to their opinions.
But those that are claiming that the general public is in an uproar, and that there's any significant faction of non-interpolators among the general public, are simply wrong.
I tech communities, and video communities, and critical communities, there is some amount of consternation.
But not among the general public.
figmentPez
Staff member
Has anyone actually published surveys of public opinion? I'd really be curious to know. There certainly are vocal opponents, but most of those are critics who are steeped in film culture and have strong preconceptions and prejudices about what film is supposed to be. I'm curious as to what the average consumer thinks.
After all, if frame interpolation were something that looked horrible to most people, then it wouldn't be the default mode most televisions are set to. (Granted, the super bright mode that most TVs default to looks bad to most people once it's in their homes, but I don't see any reason to think that people would love frame interpolation on a store shelf and then hate it in different lighting conditions.)
EDIT: I see you're talking specifically about the 48fps of the Hobbit being divisive. That's a little more difficult to gauge public reaction to, especially since the HFR showing was always paired with 3D, so you can't look at the effect of HFR alone. Also, no other 48fps movies have come out, so no trend can be established. I'd still like to know if anyone surveyed audiences, especially those who don't watch a lot of movies in the theater, as to broader public opinion.
I suspect it would be a bad survey anyway. You had to seek out and find a theater that was showing it in HFR, and typically such a theater would only have one screen showing it, so it wasn't a matter of vast swaths of the public being shown it without knowing that it was HFR.
I bet, however, that the studios and directors do have access to post screening information that suggests how well it was received, and I doubt they are treating that information as anything less than proprietary information.
If it was badly received, they'll probably release the next one without an HFR option, simply because it costs the studio more to release multiple versions, and if it wasn't well received they might as well process it end to end in low frame rate simply to reduce the cgi frame count, among other things.
They have to continue to release in the low frame rate either way, because most theaters aren't equipped to handle HFR.
But this was just a simple test and I could see them pulling back for a few years until more theaters have the new projectors installed, then starting to release movies that don't have a low frame rate option.
Keep in mind that there is no bluray 48 frame rate version, so this is yet another way for the studios and theaters to keep ahead of home theater technology, and keep getting people to spend $$$ per person per viewing for something they can't get at home.
So even if its as unpopular as some suggest, it might still be pushed by the industry simply to prop up their revenue.
I bet, however, that the studios and directors do have access to post screening information that suggests how well it was received, and I doubt they are treating that information as anything less than proprietary information.
If it was badly received, they'll probably release the next one without an HFR option, simply because it costs the studio more to release multiple versions, and if it wasn't well received they might as well process it end to end in low frame rate simply to reduce the cgi frame count, among other things.
They have to continue to release in the low frame rate either way, because most theaters aren't equipped to handle HFR.
But this was just a simple test and I could see them pulling back for a few years until more theaters have the new projectors installed, then starting to release movies that don't have a low frame rate option.
Keep in mind that there is no bluray 48 frame rate version, so this is yet another way for the studios and theaters to keep ahead of home theater technology, and keep getting people to spend $$$ per person per viewing for something they can't get at home.
So even if its as unpopular as some suggest, it might still be pushed by the industry simply to prop up their revenue.
Yes. I could rip a DVD, use software to undo the 2:3 pulldown, recover the 24fps original, and use optical flow interpolation to retime the resulting footage to match the refresh rate of my panel, but that's a lot of work.
--Patrick
If we don't get the rest of the Hobbit in HFR I'm holding everyone who complained about it on these boards personally responsible
figmentPez
Staff member
Oh, he'll shoot the movies in HFR, just for consistency if nothing else, but will theaters continue to show it that way? I guess it depends on what type of investment they've put into the projectors, and if they can back out of the tech and make more money that way.
You shall be first on my list.
That said motion interpolation on televisions generally just looks strange and off for me. I prefer it off.
There's a pretty big difference between "it's being displayed wrong" and "the director shot it wrong" so I agree with you there.
- Status