Hacker News Reader

Comment by comboy | Hacker News Reader

To me it's like music creators telling people not to listen to their music on v-shaped headphones. Yeah, it's not what you intended. But that's what they've chosen to use.

Also, if they want the picture to be displayed in a certain way, couldn't they push they movie as 60/frames per second where in fact it's 24/frames per second with static frames? Wouldn't that effectively disable motion smoothing?

View on HN

Nobody’s telling anyone to do anything. The problem people are talking about is that this setting looks like absolute garbage and it’s inexplicably turned on by default on almost all TVs these days. The only people who think otherwise are people who just literally do not care at all about picture quality and probably also do stuff like stretching the picture to get rid of letterboxing. These are not the people that default settings should be based on.

If it says 200Hz on the box, it must be better than the one that's only 120Hz, right?

This is the amount of research people do before buying something they'll stare at for 4h per day for the next 5 years... Never mind that the native framerate of the panel is only 60Hz.

This is why we get Vivid HDR mode ("Torch mode") and motion smoothing enabled by default.

Quite an opinion you've got there. I too think the smoothing is odd, but I'm over 35.

I'm certain age has nothing to do with it. The only thing that determines someone's opinion here is how much they care about accurate AV reproduction, and that's not driven by age, only passion for the content.

It's possible those who will grow up with higher frame rates will consider the smoothing normal. And they may consider 24fps choppy. Time will tell.

I wonder if we're focusing on two different things here. I'm not thinking so much about the merits of the 24fps video experience vs. the 60fps video experience. I'm just focused on clean playback of the source content. If something was recorded in 24fps, I want to see it in 24fps. If something was recorded in 60fps, want to see it in 60fps.

I'm more complaining about the automatic 24->60 (or 120 or 240) conversion that's enabled by default on a lot of new TVs. I'm not at all opposed to higher frame rate video, I like it. I've just never watched something on a TV where the 24->60 conversion didn't look significantly worse to me than playback at the native frame rate.

Maybe my unconscious assumption is that people's preferences about the ideal frame rate can change over the years, but that reinterpolating the video to a different frame rate will always look worse than native, regardless of the source and destination frame rates. Maybe this isn't true, but that is my assumption.

And to me it is like a painter complaining about a museum which shines a RGB-Disco-Light onto a piece of work whose colors have been purposefully considered.

Music as well as Films are pieces of work who are only really existing in their projection, a playthrough or a concert. Everything that mangles with that projection without beeing a willful choice of those projecting it makes it harder for artists to speak to an audience in the way they intended.

There are perfectly fine reasons to change a projection, e.g. for the or visually impaired or because you just prefer it that way, but ultimately it should be a willful decision to deviate from the expected default..

It's not a cinema. So it's not a painter complaining about a museum. It's a painter complaining about the light in your living room.

I understand the artist, but most people won't get best of anything. You don't see coffee companies complaining about your grinder settings even though you definitely could get a better taste if you only paid attention.

I take it that you aren't a fan of pan and scan.

Indeed : )

That has its own issues - you can’t completely “smoothly” convert 24FPS source material to 60FPS, and many viewers can detect the uneven frame cadence when this is done due to the inconsistent introduction of extra frames to get it to fit the 60FPS cadence. You can often see it in slow panning shots, were it introduces a perceptible judder to the video.

While the Wikipedia article on 3:2 pulldowns mainly discusses converting 24FPS film to 30/60 FPS broadcast, the same conversion is virtually always done on digital material as well, in software at playback time or by the video codec changing the frame rate.

As mrob also writes, you only get smooth frame rate changes usually if the new frame rate is an integer multiple of the original one, as then the extra frames introduced is consistent. This is why 30FPS video doesn’t have this problem at 60hz, but 24FPS does.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down

60 isn't an integer multiple of 24, so it would result in uneven frame timing. It would look worse than playing 24fps with every frame shown for the same time, which modern TVs can do.

That solution sound incredibly convoluted. Besides, the next (or current?) generation TVs would probably analyse the frames anyway.

It's just a few additional bits since everything is compressed anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com