the motion flow test whos the king i think most people r gonna back plasma... but any1 suggest otherwise?
200hz motion (lcd sam & sony) VS 600hz panny(plasma kuro) who wins?!
- Thread starter tvspecv
- Start date
I did a Big Question feature for this on WHF, and I still stand by what i said then. I prefer the pictures without the motion effect...even though my screen has the IFC mode. Especailly with Kuro, the picture is fab with just tweaked settings, as well as the Pana and Sony. I wouldn't back either personally, though the Philips I looked at, I did like the picture with a little bit of Pixel Perfect HD, but only slighty, but then i wasn't blown away by that panel to WHF gasping looks. Fussy git aren't I .....
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
- Jun 27, 2008
- 567
- 1
- 18,890
I found that when IFC is enabled, films look like they were shot in a studio as you say. Turn this feature off, problem solved, albeit with the very, very occasional judder.
matthewpiano
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2007
- 494
- 334
- 19,270
tvspecv:i personally like the motionflow on the pannys but not with blu-ray the image looks awkward
'Motionflow' is a Sony technology/trademark. Its not available on any other brand of TV. Panasonic's motion handling works in a different way.
And 600Hz on a Plasma is sub field driving. Its a completely different thing and unrelated to motion handling, despite Panasonic's very clever advertising.
'Motionflow' is a Sony technology/trademark. Its not available on any other brand of TV. Panasonic's motion handling works in a different way.
And 600Hz on a Plasma is sub field driving. Its a completely different thing and unrelated to motion handling, despite Panasonic's very clever advertising.
matthewpiano:tvspecv:i personally like the motionflow on the pannys but not with blu-ray the image looks awkward
'Motionflow' is a Sony technology/trademark. Its not available on any other brand of TV. Panasonic's motion handling works in a different way.
And 600Hz on a Plasma is sub field driving. Its a completely different thing and unrelated to motion handling, despite Panasonic's very clever advertising.
Acoording to Panasonic its ALL about motion ~
http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/Products/VIERA+Flat+Screen+Televisions/Overview/VIERA+|+600Hz+NeoPDP/2323941/index.html
'Motionflow' is a Sony technology/trademark. Its not available on any other brand of TV. Panasonic's motion handling works in a different way.
And 600Hz on a Plasma is sub field driving. Its a completely different thing and unrelated to motion handling, despite Panasonic's very clever advertising.
Acoording to Panasonic its ALL about motion ~
http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/Products/VIERA+Flat+Screen+Televisions/Overview/VIERA+|+600Hz+NeoPDP/2323941/index.html
They are completely different Panasonic 600Hz is marketing, it has nothing to do with motion and everything to do with reducing false contouring / color banding due to poor plasma display bit depth. Sony 200Hz is about motion but it is needed due to lcd inducing the viewers to see sample and hold effect blurring in the first place, the end results can look better than non lcd displays but not everyone likes the effect particularly with films.
More truthfull advertising might be
You may have noticed are Plasms TVs sometimes exhibit odd false contouring / color banding, we have managed to reduce this a bit on our new TVs
You may have noticed are Lcd TVs sometimes exhibit motion blurring, we have managed to replace this with a odd hyper-real effect we think you might prefer to the blurring and maybe even to accurate image reproduction.
But that would mean admitting their displays were not very good to begin with and still have alot of room for improvement. Still CRT was far from perfect as well.
The 600Hz Plasma is actually 60Hz. The screen is devided into 10 sections (sub-fields) each with its own processing chip. The processing chip sends electical pulses to each pixel within its sub-field. These pulses create the shades of grey/color, the point of having subfields is to break-up the workload of the processing chip so it can produce more shades of grey/color, so there is less false contouring / color banding. 60Hz x 10 subfields = 600Hz.
The 200Hz Lcd is using frame interpolation.
A BIT OF HISTORY, SKIP IF YOU LIKE. Frames are snap shots in time, a film for example is 24 frames per second (only 16fps is needed for the illusion of smooth motion, 24fps is used due to sound recording) each frame with an exposure of about 1/50th second, ideally you want to display the frame only for the point in time it is relevent to, with the viewers eyes/brain filling in the gaps - smoothing the motion. There is some blurring inherent in the frame due to objects moving during the cameras exposure time, this is not a bad thing as the blur induces the perception of fluidity in moving objects, while sharpness induces the perception of stuttering.
A BIT OF HISTORY, SKIP IF YOU LIKE Commercial film print cinemas display at 48fps (2x24fps, this is used because viewer flicker threshold frequency is around 40-60Hz depending on brightness and cinemas are dark) I believe the sequence is 10.42ms frame, 10.42ms blanking. The blanking time is long due to the mechanical limitations of advancing the frame in the projector, the number of blanking periods is doubled to reduce flickering, and the new blanking period needs to be the same length as the first also to reduce flicker. The eyes/brain tracking motion expect the moving object to not repeat its position so take a double take and you get a bit of blurring induced by your eyes/brain. This blurring to the image will be less on a large projected screen than on a relative small flat pannel due to the amount of your field of view the display occupies and the way the eyes work tracking motion. Ideally you want the source to have been filmed at the same fps as it is displayed, so for commercial cinema filming at 48fps would be better but cinema is a legacy technology to what was at the time technically possible and cost effective not best. Increasing the frame rate would increases the production costs and require cinemas to update their projectors.
Lcd displays unlike at the cinema display the frame untill the next one comes along there is no blanking or gap in time and no flickering. But any moving objects on the screen jump to their new positions immediately, so when the eyes/brain fill in the gap it causes alot of "sample and hold" motion blur.
If the blu-ray player is outputing 60Hz instead of 24fps it makes matters worse. 60Hz is Ameriacan NTSC ,60Hz was chosen to enable crt to sync to American domestic electricity frequency. With interlaced crt, with 24fps film it displayed oddA, evenA, oddA, evenB, oddB (5x24=60), evenC, oddC, evenC, oddD, evenD (5x24=60). So the frames are not all displayed for the same amount of time, the speed of motion judders. This looks worse with progressive displays like Lcd as they are displaying whole frames A, A, A, B, B, C, C, C, D, D. By comparison pal dvd 50Hz is 24fpsx2 = 48 then silightly speeded up, so it does not introduce motion judder.
To reduce sample and hold motion blur (and with 24fps film at 60Hz motion judder) lcd displays need to generate additional frames to smooth the motion. Blur inherent on the original frames also needs to be reduced because it was created/determined by the original exposure time. To reduce the blur it looks at lots of frames and interpolates the data to create all new frames with less blur. The problem with frame interpolation looking odd comes from removing too much blur from the frames, you naturally see blur in fast moving objects. The frames are being displayed fast enough to make motion look smooth, but slower than the object would be moving in real life, so the eyes/brain have longer to resolve detail than they would in the real world. It is like stop animation, objects are stationary (no motion blur) when the frames are taken and only move between frames. This makes it look as if your eyes have been upgraded but no one has informed your brain, hyper-real but unreal, weird. Since removing the blur also has the effect of making more of the image look in focus it may create the effect of increasing depth of field or 3D effect as well. Some people claim it smooths motion too much, as in the real world people do not move in a completely smooth manner, so in their opinion it makes things look computer animated. Most people seem to really like the effect on cgi animation films. They seem to like it or prefer it to the blurring on tv news, talk shows and on sports, these were all originally shot as video which with Pal is 50 frames per second so the frame interpolation is not doing as much as with film 24 frames per second. Some do not like it on films because it can make them look a bit odd.
Blurring stimulates the perception of fluidity, sharpness stimulates the perception of stuttering. The original frames have blur, the viewer naturally focuses on what the director intended. With blur removal you focus more on moving background details, but your inner ear is say hey your not moving and particularly if the motion is in effect stuttering will make your brain think you are hallucinating so assume you have been poisoned and induce vomiting, in other words motion sickness. So some people may find frame interpolation unpleasant to watch
Instead of frame interpolation Lcd displays can use black frame insertion. This gives fluid movement and does not require such high frame rates - Hz or powerful processing. But it reduces the maximum brightness and contrast of the display and does not create the hyper real detailed look.
More truthfull advertising might be
You may have noticed are Plasms TVs sometimes exhibit odd false contouring / color banding, we have managed to reduce this a bit on our new TVs
You may have noticed are Lcd TVs sometimes exhibit motion blurring, we have managed to replace this with a odd hyper-real effect we think you might prefer to the blurring and maybe even to accurate image reproduction.
But that would mean admitting their displays were not very good to begin with and still have alot of room for improvement. Still CRT was far from perfect as well.
The 600Hz Plasma is actually 60Hz. The screen is devided into 10 sections (sub-fields) each with its own processing chip. The processing chip sends electical pulses to each pixel within its sub-field. These pulses create the shades of grey/color, the point of having subfields is to break-up the workload of the processing chip so it can produce more shades of grey/color, so there is less false contouring / color banding. 60Hz x 10 subfields = 600Hz.
The 200Hz Lcd is using frame interpolation.
A BIT OF HISTORY, SKIP IF YOU LIKE. Frames are snap shots in time, a film for example is 24 frames per second (only 16fps is needed for the illusion of smooth motion, 24fps is used due to sound recording) each frame with an exposure of about 1/50th second, ideally you want to display the frame only for the point in time it is relevent to, with the viewers eyes/brain filling in the gaps - smoothing the motion. There is some blurring inherent in the frame due to objects moving during the cameras exposure time, this is not a bad thing as the blur induces the perception of fluidity in moving objects, while sharpness induces the perception of stuttering.
A BIT OF HISTORY, SKIP IF YOU LIKE Commercial film print cinemas display at 48fps (2x24fps, this is used because viewer flicker threshold frequency is around 40-60Hz depending on brightness and cinemas are dark) I believe the sequence is 10.42ms frame, 10.42ms blanking. The blanking time is long due to the mechanical limitations of advancing the frame in the projector, the number of blanking periods is doubled to reduce flickering, and the new blanking period needs to be the same length as the first also to reduce flicker. The eyes/brain tracking motion expect the moving object to not repeat its position so take a double take and you get a bit of blurring induced by your eyes/brain. This blurring to the image will be less on a large projected screen than on a relative small flat pannel due to the amount of your field of view the display occupies and the way the eyes work tracking motion. Ideally you want the source to have been filmed at the same fps as it is displayed, so for commercial cinema filming at 48fps would be better but cinema is a legacy technology to what was at the time technically possible and cost effective not best. Increasing the frame rate would increases the production costs and require cinemas to update their projectors.
Lcd displays unlike at the cinema display the frame untill the next one comes along there is no blanking or gap in time and no flickering. But any moving objects on the screen jump to their new positions immediately, so when the eyes/brain fill in the gap it causes alot of "sample and hold" motion blur.
If the blu-ray player is outputing 60Hz instead of 24fps it makes matters worse. 60Hz is Ameriacan NTSC ,60Hz was chosen to enable crt to sync to American domestic electricity frequency. With interlaced crt, with 24fps film it displayed oddA, evenA, oddA, evenB, oddB (5x24=60), evenC, oddC, evenC, oddD, evenD (5x24=60). So the frames are not all displayed for the same amount of time, the speed of motion judders. This looks worse with progressive displays like Lcd as they are displaying whole frames A, A, A, B, B, C, C, C, D, D. By comparison pal dvd 50Hz is 24fpsx2 = 48 then silightly speeded up, so it does not introduce motion judder.
To reduce sample and hold motion blur (and with 24fps film at 60Hz motion judder) lcd displays need to generate additional frames to smooth the motion. Blur inherent on the original frames also needs to be reduced because it was created/determined by the original exposure time. To reduce the blur it looks at lots of frames and interpolates the data to create all new frames with less blur. The problem with frame interpolation looking odd comes from removing too much blur from the frames, you naturally see blur in fast moving objects. The frames are being displayed fast enough to make motion look smooth, but slower than the object would be moving in real life, so the eyes/brain have longer to resolve detail than they would in the real world. It is like stop animation, objects are stationary (no motion blur) when the frames are taken and only move between frames. This makes it look as if your eyes have been upgraded but no one has informed your brain, hyper-real but unreal, weird. Since removing the blur also has the effect of making more of the image look in focus it may create the effect of increasing depth of field or 3D effect as well. Some people claim it smooths motion too much, as in the real world people do not move in a completely smooth manner, so in their opinion it makes things look computer animated. Most people seem to really like the effect on cgi animation films. They seem to like it or prefer it to the blurring on tv news, talk shows and on sports, these were all originally shot as video which with Pal is 50 frames per second so the frame interpolation is not doing as much as with film 24 frames per second. Some do not like it on films because it can make them look a bit odd.
Blurring stimulates the perception of fluidity, sharpness stimulates the perception of stuttering. The original frames have blur, the viewer naturally focuses on what the director intended. With blur removal you focus more on moving background details, but your inner ear is say hey your not moving and particularly if the motion is in effect stuttering will make your brain think you are hallucinating so assume you have been poisoned and induce vomiting, in other words motion sickness. So some people may find frame interpolation unpleasant to watch
Instead of frame interpolation Lcd displays can use black frame insertion. This gives fluid movement and does not require such high frame rates - Hz or powerful processing. But it reduces the maximum brightness and contrast of the display and does not create the hyper real detailed look.
Thats alot of know how you have.....so 600hz Pana s really 60z x 10!!
Looks like LCD and Plasma have not conquered the motion blur!
Why did the world go to digital? The Japanese had MUSE HD broadcast, I am sure motion blur is not a problem!
Looks like LCD and Plasma have not conquered the motion blur!
Why did the world go to digital? The Japanese had MUSE HD broadcast, I am sure motion blur is not a problem!
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Would a HiFi setup sound better than a home cinema setup for music?
- Started by R2D2
- Replies: 54
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram