Jump to content

Talk:Motion interpolation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inaccurate Article

[edit]

I think that this article is inaccurate to a degree that is misleading, and it should be removed completely until revised. First of all it links the motion interpolation to LCDs only, which is wrong. Then, it is wrong regarding judder: it states that judder is a product of applying a pull-down, which is also wrong. The judder is something inherent in the material, as 24/25/30 frames per second are not enough to capture motion. Even the criticism about "artificial" look (compared to what "natural", the judderish initial material; ) and the term "soap opera effect" are vastly inaccurate (soap operas actually use the same frame rates). What is should be noted instead is that it removes the "cinematic illusion": at cinemas you see the unmodified 24p material, which has inherent judder. Applying a motion interpolation algorithm removes this judder, moving the perceived image to a material filmed at a higher frame rate (i.e. with a video camera), where the motion is more fluid. Thus, the more appropriate terms are "cinematic look" vs. "video look". But "natural" & "artificial" cannot be defined at all, actually. What is "natural", so as to define "artificial"? If somebody tried to define natural, I am afraid it will be close to "video look", as motion in real world is not choppy, as motion in 24/25/30 frame rates. Petasis (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the jargon of video, "Judder" doesn't refer to a low sample rate, but to an uneven sample rate, as Ted 3000 noted below. The concept might be more familiar to a gamer as microstutter, or to a scientist as jitter. 104.192.89.129 (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Cite

[edit]

I removed the criticism that motion interpolation makes films appear artificial, because it's only citation was http://shepherdsons.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/hd-ruins-movies-120hz-1080p-fake/ (aside from the fact that it's a blog post)

If you read the linked article, that's completely unrelated to what it's actually discussing. Basically, the article is arguing to the opposite effect: HD is so clear that you can tell that props are actually just props, and the attempts to make people seem realistically dirty chow themselves as simple make-up. 02:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.83.105 (talk)

Merge

[edit]

Perhaps this should be merged with HDTV_blur? --124.171.101.28 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

Not sure if frame interpolation is the most common term for this technology. I would appreciate any suggestions people have on what the most common term is. It's kind of new so I'm not sure that a name has been totally settled on. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Frame Interpolation is a pretty accurate term - since new frames are being generated between existing source frames. All the various branded names (Sony's MotionFlow, Samsung AMP) are simply various flavors of FI, bundled along with blur reduction processing and perhaps other technologies. Of course, people will use the branded names to describe the technology in general, or confuse the 120hz display framerate with the processed data from the source. But now matter what popular misconceptions arise, I think Frame Interpolation is a general and accurate name. Ted 3000 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non world view

[edit]

This article quotes 30, 60 and 120 Hz figures as if these are universal - this is not so in PAL regions of the world. Halsteadk (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are they in PAL regions? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25, 50 and 100 Hz respectively. Halsteadk (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judder Confusion

[edit]

This article states that "A number of HDTVs use frame interpolation to reduce judder..." which is not accurate. Judder is an artifact of the 24fps-to-60hz telecine pulldown process. A 120hz TV can do even 24fps to 120hz via REPEATING frames from the source 5 times, with absolutely no frame-interpolation.

Motion Interpolation can reduce the relatively low-framerate look of film on a TV by inserting new frames, but this motion smoothing is not addressing judder. Judder is not the normal look of a 24fps film source on a TV running at 24hz or a multiple of 24 (like 120). Judder shows up on slowly panning scenes where the uneven 60hz pulldown shows up as a "framerate stutter."

I think people are confusing the normal look of film with pulldown judder.

I suggest changing the line to "A number of 120hz HDTVs use frame interpolation to increase the framerate..." Ted 3000 (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adjust it as you see fit. 120hz TVs generally do not repeat each frame five times, though. They do 4 of one, and 6 of another. I think JVC made one that did 5-5, but you can't buy it outside of Japan, and I'm not sure you can buy it there. My info is probably 6 months old, so this may have changed. It's also something the manufacturers don't like to come out and say. Blu-Rays may support it, but the TVs don't. The 120hz interpolation is marketed as reducing judder, and it can make panning crazy smooth, but I hear what you're saying. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could be right. cNet didn't have anything definitive on the review of the Samsung LN52A650, stating "We also turned AMP off, along with the Sony's de-judder processing, and switched our PS3 to 1080p/24 mode. We really couldn't tell the difference between 1080p/24 and 1080p/60 on either of the sets, so we suspect they don't perform the perfect 5x conversion from 24 frames to 120. Samsung's engineers (along with Sony's) claim the 52LN650 can perform this conversion, but if so, it doesn't make much difference." So I'm not sure how I'd edit the article to be more accurate if 120hz is not being used to take 24fps and multiple by 5. There's just not a lot of technical info out there right now and every manufacturer seems to be doing things differntly and semi-secretively. Ted 3000 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they don't like to talk about it. I used to sell these big LCD HDTVs. A number of times I'd read something on the web from the manufacturer and I'd get excited. They'd say stuff like "hook up this TV to this 1080p/24 Blue-Ray and get the true cinematic experience". I'd then check the TVs manual and it wouldn't support it. I think true 5-5 will take a few more years. I actually created this page to try and clear up some of the confusion, although it continues. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tribes section

[edit]

This doesn't really belong in the article. This article is related to motion compensation in video playback technologies, not 3D game engines. Uker (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article wrongfully HDTV-oriented

[edit]

Motion interpolation has much broader reaches than just HDTV. The article should be rewritten to reflect that. --uKER (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I created this article when I used to sell TVs. I don't know much about the science aspects of it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interpolation Mock-up

[edit]

The interpolation mock-up is completely useless. The only point of the picture is to show what interpolation would do, but since the mock-up interpolated frames are actual frames the entire point is lost. I understand what the original uploader was trying to show but this is pointless. The picture should be removed. If no actual demonstration of interpolation can be shown, then a graphical chart would work much better, as it would not confuse readers into thinking that the demonstration was an accurate depiction of interpolation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.143.51 (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

How about a history section for this? I'd like to see how long this has been around, when it was adopted etc etc... Antony.stubbs (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong math

[edit]
which flickers on and off at 240 Hz, once after every 120 Hz frame.

If it flickers _once_ each 120 Hz, the it flickers at 120 Hz, not 240 Hz. "Hz" means "per second". Unless you count "on" and "off" as two events. Nobody does that (OK, maybe marketing....).

--Xerces8 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Motion interpolation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Motion interpolation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inbetweening

[edit]

Should this and Inbetweening be one article? As a layman, it's unclear to me what is the exact difference between the two subjects. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When done on purpose

[edit]

Would it be correct to link this article to discussion of the reverse? I don't know what it is called or if we have an article. Basically it's where a film or TV series is shot on high-definition video and then processed to remove the interpolation and give it a film appearance. Ironically (see the VidFIRE reference in the article), Doctor Who was produced this way in the late 2000s as revealed in DVD featurettes on the making of the show. I think some of the high frame rate movies made in recent years (i.e. The Hobbit) were shot this way as well. 2604:3D09:1F74:1C00:5CA8:5B55:7A4B:A4BC (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motion_interpolation&oldid=1253760431"