Plasma vs LCD Judder

[paleo]

So I have a 120hz LCD tv that's pretty sweet. The 120hz definitely improves judder but manipulates the picture to make it look 3D, and not like it's supposed to be. Great for some stuff like nature, but terrible for movies. It also causes some artifacting.

I figured I could completely eliminate judder by going Plasma (as well as getting more detail in dark movies), and much to my surprise, plasma's have this judder as well, and if not even worse! This can be easily noticed during credits scrolling at the end of a movie... all the words shake big time.

I guess this is just a flaw with the bluray technology? I'm assuming that even plasma's will start becoming 120hz?

Looks like CRT still remains king.

[Jon Lai]

I think you're mistaken.

1) Refresh rate isn't a concern on plasmas, only on LCDs. Refresh rate on plasmas are many times higher than LCDs.

2) 120Hz is not used to make things look 3D, but to eliminate 3:2 pulldown so the movie looks the way it's supposed to, and not like what you said, make the movie look like it's not the way it's supposed to.

[akademiks]

The artifacting may in fact be a part of the movie itself.
Not as a result of your TV being poor at video processing.
Not all movies are designed to look crisp and clean, and the artifacts may be the intent by the director and/or studio.

[sfu_lifer]

I think you're mistaken.

1) Refresh rate isn't a concern on plasmas, only on LCDs. Refresh rate on plasmas are many times higher than LCDs.

+1
That's why I went plasma. That and better contrast.

[paleo]

I know that the refresh rate is much better on plasmas, but that's not the point. I'm talking about slow camera pans being extremely jerky... i figured this was only a problem with LCD's, but I was mistaken... happens on plasmas too.

120hz is supposed to eliminate or reduce the jerkiness, which is does, but you're incorrect in saying that it makes the movies look like they are "supposed to"... in fact, it completely manipulates and reduces the "film" quality of the movie. Makes things look like a soap opera... movies don't look that way on a plasma, or at the movies!

I think you're mistaken.

1) Refresh rate isn't a concern on plasmas, only on LCDs. Refresh rate on plasmas are many times higher than LCDs.

2) 120Hz is not used to make things look 3D, but to eliminate 3:2 pulldown so the movie looks the way it's supposed to, and not like what you said, make the movie look like it's not the way it's supposed to.

[paleo]

I understand what you're saying, but what i'm referring to is the KNOWN artifacting with the 120hz auto motion plus processing. I tested it on Planet Earth bluray. With it off, you get the judder, but I could see eagles flying crisp and clear.... with it on, it removes the judder, but I could see a slight halo around the eagles making it less crisp. The technology just hasn't been perfected yet.

The artifacting may in fact be a part of the movie itself.
Not as a result of your TV being poor at video processing.
Not all movies are designed to look crisp and clean, and the artifacts may be the intent by the director and/or studio.

[paleo]

Definitely better contrast, with a price to pay for light reflections, but the response time isn't even an issue a 4ms... at least for my eyes anyway.

My big concern is judder, but plasma isn't the answer to that. But I guess it's the best it can get, unless this is simply a bluray issue.

Watch planet earth on bluray on your plasma... and look at the camera pan at the beginning of the one on mountains... VERY choppy.

+1
That's why I went plasma. That and better contrast.

[zzz3]

Definitely better contrast, with a price to pay for light reflections, but the response time isn't even an issue a 4ms... at least for my eyes anyway.

My big concern is judder, but plasma isn't the answer to that. But I guess it's the best it can get, unless this is simply a bluray issue.

Watch planet earth on bluray on your plasma... and look at the camera pan at the beginning of the one on mountains... VERY choppy.

What plasma do you have, pio has 72hz advanced (or smooth i forget since i dont really use it) mode which is probably the best out there...

[paleo]

Panasonic PZ85... I know Pioneer's are much better, but not even remotely in my price range.

What plasma do you have, pio has 72hz advanced (or smooth i forget since i dont really use it) mode which is probably the best out there...

[Aske001]

Film looks a bit choppy because it's shot at 24 frames per second. They fit it to 60 fps TV by showing two out of three frames twice in succession. If the TV is a digital TV that needs to de-interlace the signal (480i or 1080i), it needs to detect the 3:2 pattern to avoid de-interlacing incorrectly and creating artifacts. Most TVs these days do this very well, so it's not an issue. In theory a TV that runs at 72 Hz or 120 Hz instead of 60 Hz can do this 3:2 de-interlacing even more smoothly, but it's not really an issue.

However, 3:2 pulldown and de-interlacing does nothing to make the film look less choppy, like the slight jerkiness when there's a smooth pan. People are just used to this and consider it the "film" look. TVs which have a "120 Hz" mode use artificial interpolation to try to smooth out this jerkiness by interpolating estimated frames in between the actual film frames. At its best it makes the film look smoother. But it also makes the film look less natural to many people, and inevitably it introduces artifacts by the process of frame interpolation.

[Jon Lai]

I know that the refresh rate is much better on plasmas, but that's not the point. I'm talking about slow camera pans being extremely jerky... i figured this was only a problem with LCD's, but I was mistaken... happens on plasmas too.

120hz is supposed to eliminate or reduce the jerkiness, which is does, but you're incorrect in saying that it makes the movies look like they are "supposed to"... in fact, it completely manipulates and reduces the "film" quality of the movie. Makes things look like a soap opera... movies don't look that way on a plasma, or at the movies!

I have no idea what you mean by jerikiness.

120Hz DOES make movies the way they're supposed to look, it's just that your eyes are so used to watching 3:2 pulldown that when you go back to 1:1 (or in reality it's more like 6:6) you get uneasy about it. Guess what - this is the way it's supposed to look.

[B0000rt]

I have no idea what you mean by jerikiness.

120Hz DOES make movies the way they're supposed to look, it's just that your eyes are so used to watching 3:2 pulldown that when you go back to 1:1 (or in reality it's more like 6:6) you get uneasy about it. Guess what - this is the way it's supposed to look.
Nah, you're wrong. 120Hz does make the images look different, when compared to say Theatrical releases (in movie theaters)

[paleo]

Yes and no. Yes it's the way it's supposed to look, but not entirely because of that one frame insertion... it "guesses" and makes mistakes. This results in awkward speed up parts where it looks like it's in fast motion for a couple of seconds. Even so, I highly doubt that the producer intends to make it look like you're right there; it completely defeats the purpose of film.

But yeah 120hz is the best we can get so far, and it can always be turned off. I always thought film was smooth at the theatre, but I guess on the big screen i never noticed?

I have no idea what you mean by jerikiness.

120Hz DOES make movies the way they're supposed to look, it's just that your eyes are so used to watching 3:2 pulldown that when you go back to 1:1 (or in reality it's more like 6:6) you get uneasy about it. Guess what - this is the way it's supposed to look.

[paleo]

Thank you! This sums it all up!

Film looks a bit choppy because it's shot at 24 frames per second. They fit it to 60 fps TV by showing two out of three frames twice in succession. If the TV is a digital TV that needs to de-interlace the signal (480i or 1080i), it needs to detect the 3:2 pattern to avoid de-interlacing incorrectly and creating artifacts. Most TVs these days do this very well, so it's not an issue. In theory a TV that runs at 72 Hz or 120 Hz instead of 60 Hz can do this 3:2 de-interlacing even more smoothly, but it's not really an issue.

However, 3:2 pulldown and de-interlacing does nothing to make the film look less choppy, like the slight jerkiness when there's a smooth pan. People are just used to this and consider it the "film" look. TVs which have a "120 Hz" mode use artificial interpolation to try to smooth out this jerkiness by interpolating estimated frames in between the actual film frames. At its best it makes the film look smoother. But it also makes the film look less natural to many people, and inevitably it introduces artifacts by the process of frame interpolation.

[paleo]

Yes, because of the above posts... theatrical uses 3:2 pulldown for film. You can the option of watching it that way by turning off your 120hz. But you will see judder, which could give you a headache. Turn on 120hz and it's like being there, although there is some artifacting and slight rapid forward frames due to processor errors. Looks awesome for some things like nature and porn, but not so much for movies.

Nah, you're wrong. 120Hz does make the images look different, when compared to say Theatrical releases.

[B0000rt]

Yes, because of the above posts... theatrical uses 3:2 pulldown for film. You can the option of watching it that way by turning off your 120hz. But you will see judder, which could give you a headache. Turn on 120hz and it's like being there, although there is some artifacting and slight rapid forward frames due to processor errors. Looks awesome for some things like nature and porn, but not so much for movies.
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post, by "Theatrical releases" I mean the actual movie theaters which use 2:2 or 3:3 or even 1:1 sometimes.

[paleo]

Oh? I didn't know that... i thought it uses 3:2? That's the point of film. Can anyone confirm and clear this up? If actual movie theatres used 2:2 3:3 1:1 then why wouldn't the blurays be that way?

Ok i thought i had it figured out...now i'm really getting confused! :confused:

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post, by "Theatrical releases" I mean the actual movie theaters which use 2:2 or 3:3 or even 1:1 sometimes.

[B0000rt]

Oh? I didn't know that... i thought it uses 3:2? That's the point of film. Can anyone confirm and clear this up? If actual movie theatres used 2:2 3:3 1:1 then why wouldn't the blurays be that way?

Ok i thought i had it figured out...now i'm really getting confused! :confused:

You're confusing things here.

High-definition video may be stored on Blu-ray ROM discs with up to 1920x1080 pixel resolution at up to 60 frames per second interlaced or 24 frames per second progressive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Technical_specifications

The issue is NOT the content, the issue is how to DISPLAY the content. DVDs were stored at 30fps meaning when the film maker filmed at 24fps, the interpolation to 30fps was done before the DVD was even pressed.

Bluray is 24fps, but the issue now comes with your TV, it doesn't support 24fps, it only supports 30 or 60 so it has to do the processing similar to what they did for the DVDs before it was pressed. Movie theater projectors are hundreds of thousands of dollars, which they design to be able to display movies in the native fps. Your home TV is different, since the reason for it's existing started from broadcast TV, which is 30fps.

[paleo]

You're confusing things here.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Technical_specifications

The issue is NOT the content, the issue is how to DISPLAY the content. DVDs were stored at 30fps meaning when the film maker filmed at 24fps, the interpolation to 30fps was done before the DVD was even pressed.

Bluray is 24fps, but the issue now comes with your TV, it doesn't support 24fps, it only supports 30 or 60 so it has to do the processing similar to what they did for the DVDs before it was pressed. Movie theater projectors are hundreds of thousands of dollars, which they design to be able to display movies in the native fps. Your home TV is different, since the reason for it's existing started from broadcast TV, which is 30fps.

ok so basically nothing can be done about it, except go with a Kuro! So you're saying that my dvd's will not have this judder? Just the price to pay for bluray i suppose? I have some experimenting to do with dvd's now...

[B0000rt]

ok so basically nothing can be done about it, except go with a Kuro! So you're saying that my dvd's will not have this judder? Just the price to pay for bluray i suppose? I have some experimenting to do with dvd's now...

It seems it depends on the DVD also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#DVDs

[Jon Lai]

ok so basically nothing can be done about it, except go with a Kuro! So you're saying that my dvd's will not have this judder? Just the price to pay for bluray i suppose? I have some experimenting to do with dvd's now...

Let's put the facts on the table.

Movies have always been shot at 24fps.

BluRay/HD sources keep the 24fps. Traditional TV broadcast and DVDs use 30fps (or 29.97... close enough).

Traditional TVs are 60Hz refresh - this is perfect for 30fps sources as it divides evenly - it does NOT divide 24fps evenly, however, and must use 3:2 pulldown.

New TVs use 120Hz because it divides evenly into both 24 and 30, make it the best of both worlds.

Your eyes are used to watching something with 3:2 pulldown, which IMO is the "real jitter". Now that you have 1:1, you're saying it's jitter, but it's actually how it's supposed to look.

And YES, films are supposed to make it look like you're actually there! Whoever denied this is WRONG.

[paleo]

I denied it, and no... YOU are wrong. Producers intend to make film look like FILM intentionally. Otherwise, everything looks FAKE! Trust me, I have a 120hz tv and watching bluray with the AMP on is unwatchable. At least if they perfected it a bit, because the fast forward look of it at times is VERY distracting!

Let's put the facts on the table.

Movies have always been shot at 24fps.

BluRay/HD sources keep the 24fps. Traditional TV broadcast and DVDs use 30fps (or 29.97... close enough).

Traditional TVs are 60Hz refresh - this is perfect for 30fps sources as it divides evenly - it does NOT divide 24fps evenly, however, and must use 3:2 pulldown.

New TVs use 120Hz because it divides evenly into both 24 and 30, make it the best of both worlds.

Your eyes are used to watching something with 3:2 pulldown, which IMO is the "real jitter". Now that you have 1:1, you're saying it's jitter, but it's actually how it's supposed to look.

And YES, films are supposed to make it look like you're actually there! Whoever denied this is WRONG.

[B0000rt]

Your eyes are used to watching something with 3:2 pulldown, which IMO is the "real jitter". Now that you have 1:1, you're saying it's jitter, but it's actually how it's supposed to look.

And YES, films are supposed to make it look like you're actually there! Whoever denied this is WRONG.
You ignored my comment, why do films in theaters don't look like what they do on 120Hz LCDs?

[Jon Lai]

You ignored my comment, why do films in theaters don't look like what they do on 120Hz LCDs?

I'm not aware what technology they use at theaters, but the last time I paid to see a movie at the cinema was a few years ago :lol:

[Jon Lai]

I denied it, and no... YOU are wrong. Producers intend to make film look like FILM intentionally. Otherwise, everything looks FAKE! Trust me, I have a 120hz tv and watching bluray with the AMP on is unwatchable. At least if they perfected it a bit, because the fast forward look of it at times is VERY distracting!

Err... no? Don't you see there's something very wrong about that statement? A film is supposed to be a depiction of real life, of how things would've appeared if it was real life.

According to your theory, 3D movies, IMAX movies, and holographic movies (in the future) would totally be against your definition of "films", because it's "too real".

What do you mean unwatchable? "Too fast" is only distracting if it jitters. Faster response filming will take care of that. Perhaps films should be recorded at higher than 24fps then ;)

[paleo]

I didn't want to start a war in this thread, but the bottom line is that 120hz manipulates the video in such a way that it lifts off the background and makes characters seem life like. You do this on the opening scenes of Planet Earth Mountains, and you will see that although judder is eliminated, it makes the background look completely FAKE... almost like a picture, and the two don't mesh. Without it on it looks fine (as intended) but then you have to deal with the judder.

Regardless, I still use my 120hz for certain things, on low it can even be used on SOME movies, but med. and high make things look very fake.

Instead of FILM, it looks like a crappy $100 handycam shot it.

Err... no? Don't you see there's something very wrong about that statement? A film is supposed to be a depiction of real life, of how things would've appeared if it was real life.

According to your theory, 3D movies, IMAX movies, and holographic movies (in the future) would totally be against your definition of "films", because it's "too real".

What do you mean unwatchable? "Too fast" is only distracting if it jitters. Faster response filming will take care of that. Perhaps films should be recorded at higher than 24fps then ;)

[Jon Lai]

I didn't want to start a war in this thread, but the bottom line is that 120hz manipulates the video in such a way that it lifts off the background and makes characters seem life like. You do this on the opening scenes of Planet Earth Mountains, and you will see that although judder is eliminated, it makes the background look completely FAKE... almost like a picture, and the two don't mesh. Without it on it looks fine (as intended) but then you have to deal with the judder.

Regardless, I still use my 120hz for certain things, on low it can even be used on SOME movies, but med. and high make things look very fake.

Instead of FILM, it looks like a crappy $100 handycam shot it.

To be honest I still can't say I know 100% what you're saying. But you're saying that to you, 120Hz makes things lifelike and makes it look 3D. Isn't that what movies/films are supposed to be like? What a bonus that movies can also deliver depth, that the foreground actually appears closer to you than the background?

And I don't understand how you can turn 120Hz on low, medium, or high :confused:

Planet Earth Mountains looks fine to me. Looks very lifelike. I think you're saying it looks so lifelike that it looks fake - I had that feeling when I first saw Planet Earth in HD about a year ago :P

[N_Raged]

These motion terminologies and technologies are real confusing and a hassle. On my LG70 LCDTV there are two settings to deal with, RealCinema and 120Hz TruMotion.

RealCinema handles the pulldown correctly so that 24fps movies look proper and horizontal pans don’t jerk.

TruMotion makes movements fluid and reduces ghosting. Good for “live” programs like talk shows, game shows, and sports.

What irritates me is that these features cannot be used with content that they’re not meant for without introducing artifacts. And I’m the type of person who really notices these things.
Like many of you have experienced with your TV’s, Trumotion makes 24fps movies look like a crappy handycam soap opera. While RealCinema causes “live” programs stutter once in a while.

So I find myself constantly toggling RC and TM on and off depending on what I’m watching (thank you OCD).
Movies and shows like 24 & LOST:
RealCinema = On
TruMotion = Off

“Live” TV programs:
RealCinema = Off
TruMotion = On

[paleo]

I brought this thread up because I think I may have confused you with 120hz and AMP. AMP can be set to off, low, med, high on my samsung. With it off, even though my tv is 120hz... there is horrible judder on slow pans watching Planet Earth.

Try it... I guarentee no matter what tv you have that unless there is AMP, you will see judder, unless your eyes are bad :)

To be honest I still can't say I know 100% what you're saying. But you're saying that to you, 120Hz makes things lifelike and makes it look 3D. Isn't that what movies/films are supposed to be like? What a bonus that movies can also deliver depth, that the foreground actually appears closer to you than the background?

And I don't understand how you can turn 120Hz on low, medium, or high :confused:

Planet Earth Mountains looks fine to me. Looks very lifelike. I think you're saying it looks so lifelike that it looks fake - I had that feeling when I first saw Planet Earth in HD about a year ago :P

[CameraBill]

You ignored my comment, why do films in theaters don't look like what they do on 120Hz LCDs?

film is presented at 72hz or each frame is "flashed" 3 times. However it is a mechanical device where a shutter goes off and the film has to chug from a reel. It's the whole mechanical process which then has to be projected from a 35mm source to an image that's 100'. The system is prone to shake and misfocus and the image literally flashes as oppose to a digital display with continuous light output. IMHO digital theatre presentations are superior to film ones except for Imax projectors.