Movement Judder - I feel ripped off

[admin_exported]

I have a problem with the way TVs are reviewed in What HiFi (and elsewhere). It seems like there is a prescribed list of features to oo and ah over in any review, ie:

• 
  Black levels
• 
  Motion blur from screen refresh rate
• 
  Colour rendition
• 
  Resolution

But, one thing I noticed on a very expensive B&O plasma that I saw was just how 3D the picture looked and how there was absolutely no judder as the picture pans horizontally, I was speechless. This TV is older than my Sony 40W2000 but this exhibits noticeable judder.

I was in Richer Sounds, buying a Pioneer BDP-LX71 blu-ray player and I happened to notice 3 TVs on the wall - nothing special - 2 LGs and a Samsung. They were all playing the same image and yet the middle one (I think it was the Samsung) displayed the 3D, no-judder I am talking about. The assistant told me that this is due to a more powerful processing engine in the TV.

Now, if this is true, WHY does no-one mention these things in reviews? Perhaps the 40X2000 would have provided what I am looking for, but I had assumed it was just the way LCD TVs were. Perhaps plasmas were better. Perhaps it was all down to this 24fps lark (again - what does that give empirically - I can't actually find a comprehensive answer when all the ooing and ahing is over). Perhaps it is down to a better source. I didn't know since no-one bothers to mention it in reviews.

Since this is such a MASSIVE difference to me in image quality, I cannot believe that WhatHiFi reviewers have not noticed it with all of the TVs they have seen. Why would someone not mention this - better not, stop rabbitting on about motion blur from 8ms when these days it makes no difference, but look at what actually does make a difference. How about "This TV provides noticeably little judder due to its high-end processor. As a result, you get a much more realistic and 3D-looking image which is highly fluid. It's like peering through a window rather than watching a TV". It's like the elephant in the room at the moment.

Distinctly dissatisfied.

 

[Anonymous]

What you are seeing is a 100Hz processor (primarily found on LCD's) which is known by many different names and is quite often switched off on sets, because of the unnatural look it can give to images.

 

[Anonymous]

Simple buy plasma!

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks guys.

But, I'm sure this isn't simpy a 60MHz (or whatever) vs 100MHz issue - the juddering is too pronounced when it is apparent and too absent when not to accout for a doubling of clock cycle.

Also - plasma - perhaps, but, as I said, I have also seen the good picture on LCD too.

Believe me, I won't buy another TV without an actual viewing test now that I know how different things can be. My beef with the reviews is that this is never even mentioned so that I would know I could get something stunningly better.

 

[Anonymous]

I have a Samsung LE46M86, bought 7/07 no judder at all and a great picture. The sound is not too hot through its speakers but I have a AV system anyway so don't use them.

I think you have to do the leg work and look at a few before deciding on which one to buy.

Bit of a mine field I know!

 

[D.J.KRIME]

From my experience motion judder on older sets was far more apparant on LCD over Plasma, I have a 5th generation Panasonic Plasma which has none of the new features found on current models and yet the motion handleing is superb as is my much more recent Samsung Plasma.

IMHO motion judder is far more apparent on cheaper models due to the chipsets employed in these models and INHO is more down to not being able to de-interlace the recieved image as well as some better spec models, as I believe this problem with motion to be far more apparent on a interlaced braodcast image over a Progressive image from say your DVD player or BD player. There is also the process of image scaling which can have a knock on effect upon motion.

But in WHSAV defence I recall them often mentioning about a sets abilty concerning motion from differant sources.

 

[Anonymous]

amarden:

Thanks guys.

But, I'm sure this isn't simpy a 60MHz (or whatever) vs 100MHz issue - the juddering is too pronounced when it is apparent and too absent when not to accout for a doubling of clock cycle.

Also - plasma - perhaps, but, as I said, I have also seen the good picture on LCD too.

Believe me, I won't buy another TV without an actual viewing test now that I know how different things can be. My beef with the reviews is that this is never even mentioned so that I would know I could get something stunningly better.

Well the 100Hz processing is generally not merely a doubling of clock cycle, Google 'Sony Motionflow' for an example of what this technology is. You will see that it gives you the effects you described in your original post.

 

[John Duncan]

Sure you're not playing NTSC Region 1 discs in PAL mode? Or is it not multi-region?

 

[Anonymous]

No it's all sources. Maybe it does get mentioned as an aside in reviews, but it's so noticeable that, if other sets are different, it should be highlighted in large, red, flashing letters. Of course, there's no substitute for roeadtesting it yourself, but you'd expect magazine reviews to pick out the big ticket items.

 

[Anonymous]

I can't speak for anyone else, but my Samasung LCD (LE37A656) which I bought about 3 months ago, is absolutely outstanding at handling motion and moving 'objects' around the screen. I posted a few notes on it when I first used it, saying it was like the objects moved like they had been covered in oil, they were that smooth. People go on about Plasma beating any LCD, but lets face it - you pay more for Plasma, you don't have much choice for smaller screens and unless you happen to be watching two side by side in your front room (unlikely), the 'black level' thing simply won't matter. I saw my model of TV in a shop and was so impressed, that was the model I went for. Only about £630 as well - bargain!

 

[Anonymous]

Sounds fantastic - and that effect you describe - "covered in oil" - is exactly what I am talking about. But I bet there was no mention of how outstanding this effect was compared to other "standard" sets in any of the reviews - they just go on about black levels etc.

Now all I have to do is convince the missus that we really do need a new TV and go and look at it myself - I can only rely on the reviews, it seems, as a second filter if I watch two that look pretty much the same rather than, as I would hope, the primary filter to then select what I should demo.

It would be very good to hear from a WhatHiFi reviewer on this subject.

 

[Anonymous]

i also own a samsung lcd le40m86 and have to say the motion is so smooth and i would recommend looking at these.I have it hooked up to bdp-s350 bluray and yamaha dsp-763 amp with kef 2005.3 system and have to say this tv is an absolute gem picture quality wise,just coming up to a year old now and am very pleased with it.

 

[Anonymous]

amarden:They were all playing the same image and yet the middle one (I think it was the Samsung) displayed the 3D, no-judder I am talking about. The assistant told me that this is due to a more powerful processing engine in the TV.

As previously pointed out by others in this thread - this is the 'frame-to-frame" interpolation technology. It called different things by different brands but they all do the same thing - create new intermediate frames that increases 'fluidity' of the image.

Now this is involves a fair amount of processing and guesswork so it can (and does) introduce some artifacts but some like while others don't. Home cinema purists tends to poh-poh this but it if you like it, why not?

Mr K.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, I think that's it. Just seen this video on Sony's web site for their new z4500 which is 200Hz. The explanation and demo that they show on this video matches what I'm talking about. Thanks guys - now I know.

 

[Anonymous]

Is it called intelligent frame creation on the Panny PZ81, I saw a 50"set in HOF and it was AWFUL, the picture seemed to make peoples heads glide in some weird way across the screen, why would this be seen as good. Is that the was your eyes see people around you, or cars passing by?

Why do people seem to think the tele-visual word should be different from that of you own vision. Why do people like over saturated over sharp images?

 

[Anonymous]

My Dad has a Toshiba 37Z3030 100Hz LCD TV. It can do 24fps at 120Hz (5:5) and there are two options - 'Standard' and 'Smooth'. 'Standard' produces an image with what some may see as "movement judder" but, unlike 3:2 pulldown judder, it is at least even and I don't find it distracting. In fact, the motion is pretty much as it would be in a cinema. 'Smooth', on the other hand, produces a very fluid movement but, to me, it makes films look as though they were shot on a home camcorder. Ultimately, I think judder is something that we have to live with given that Blu-rays (and, of course, films) are mastered at 24fps.

Now, if you actually watched a film at 24fps, you'd see what judder really looks like. Even cinemas don't project films at that speed due to the amount of judder it produces. Unless Hollywood decide to start shooting films at higher frame-rates, judder is always going to be a niggle.

 

[Anonymous]

AgentCool:

My Dad has a Toshiba 37Z3030 100Hz LCD TV. It can do 24fps at 120Hz (5:5) and there are two options - 'Standard' and 'Smooth'. 'Standard' produces an image with what some may see as "movement judder" but, unlike 3:2 pulldown judder, it is at least even and I don't find it distracting. In fact, the motion is pretty much as it would be in a cinema. 'Smooth', on the other hand, produces a very fluid movement but, to me, it makes films look as though they were shot on a home camcorder. Ultimately, I think judder is something that we have to live with given that Blu-rays (and, of course, films) are mastered at 24fps.

Now, if you actually watched a film at 24fps, you'd see what judder really looks like. Even cinemas don't project films at that speed due to the amount of judder it produces. Unless Hollywood decide to start shooting films at higher frame-rates, judder is always going to be a niggle.

Are you confusing judder with flicker?

Judder being created by the addition of a frame and making the motion 'stick' or flicker by the frame rate being to low.

Judder-This happens when the tv cannot reproduce the native frame rate.

Films are shown at 50fps at the cinema I believe.

Have you ever seen judder at the cinema?

M

 

[Anonymous]

I'm confused as to why this judder shoule be regarded as lifelike. When I watch a bus go by in real life, it doesn't judder - it goes by very smoothly (a very high frame rate, if you will).

Yes I have seen judder at the cinema - take any vertical edge and the camera panning horizontally and there it is.

The thing is - old CRT TVs - whilst they don't get as fluid as the "oil-covered" good LCD/Plasma I've seen, they certainly don't exhibit the judder that I see on my and many other LCDs.

Actually - home camcorders produce a much nicer judder-free picture in my opinion.

 

[Anonymous]

amarden:

I'm confused as to why this judder shoule be regarded as lifelike. When I watch a bus go by in real life, it doesn't judder - it goes by very smoothly (a very high frame rate, if you will).

Yes I have seen judder at the cinema - take any vertical edge and the camera panning horizontally and there it is.

The thing is - old CRT TVs - whilst they don't get as fluid as the "oil-covered" good LCD/Plasma I've seen, they certainly don't exhibit the judder that I see on my and many other LCDs.

Actually - home camcorders produce a much nicer judder-free picture in my opinion.

I beg to differ that 'oil covered' is good, Is this how you see your busses go by?

The issue I had and still have with the post, is I feel you are mixing terminology.

Judder is a term used to describe the pictured stopping and pulling against the movement of the pan.

Cause by the interpolation of the image. The addition of an identical frame, but not in even multiples , say 3:2. Such that the same frame is seen more than once compared with reference to the preceding frame. This is due to the fact that older sets could not reproduce the native frame rate.

Even sets which can now handle the native frame rate, are ruined by yet more unnecessary image processing that creates a picture that glides.

Why would anyone think this is good?

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think I;m confusing terminology as such - I describe an effect and admit that I do not know why it occurs. I call it judder because that's what it looks ike to me.

Oil covered and buses - I see buses go by smoothly. I don't see the vertical edges of the bus jump from one place in the air to the next place (what I call judder).

[Ok there are debates in theoretical physics whether time is continuous or there is a quantum of time which cannot be sub-divided. Sure as hell seems continuous to me though!]]

Perhaps the 'oil-covered' motion that is produced by interpolation (if that is it) is unnatural, but I might consider it no less natural than something which judders. To translate 'how it appears in the cinema' as 'natural' seems entirely confusing. Natural is now the eye sees it if it happens in real life in front of you - how it appears in the cinema is an imperfect translation of that. As is interpolation of frames etc.

Anyway - I'm gonna see some demos and see if there is a common theme which exhibits the effect I;m talking about. At least I'll know for sure then and can assess which I like best.

 

[kc4751]

As a cinema technician [for the past 41 years] ,let me assure you, that 35mm film as run in cinemas all over the world,Is projected at 24 fps.[That is 90ft of film a minute]

 

[Anonymous]

kc4751:As a cinema technician [for the past 41 years] ,let me assure you, that 35mm film as run in cinemas all over the world,Is projected at 24 fps.[That is 90ft of film a minute]

Thanks for that.

 

[Anonymous]

amarden:

I don't think I;m confusing terminology as such - I describe an effect and admit that I do not know why it occurs. I call it judder because that's what it looks ike to me.

Oil covered and buses - I see buses go by smoothly. I don't see the vertical edges of the bus jump from one place in the air to the next place (what I call judder).

OK. Can we just try to get this correct.

Its flicker ( or some other description) it is not 'judder'

I have tried to explain judder.

Even if you dont understand my explaination, and it may be because I've done a bad job of expalining it, please ask someone else to explain it.

The continuation of incorrect terminolgy, will just confuse things.

Andrew will be able to describe the effect of 'judder' even if he has had difficulty, in the past, seeing it. Darn those Panasonics!

 

[ElectroMan]

kc4751:As a cinema technician [for the past 41 years] ,let me assure you, that 35mm film as run in cinemas all over the world,Is projected at 24 fps.[That is 90ft of film a minute]

I did find it strange that some people thought it was projected at a faster rate (which would make films look like when they used to show silent movies at the wrong frame-rate - when I was a kid I thought everyone in the past lived in black & white and walked really quickly all the time!).

If you search for 'judder' and 'film' on Google you get quick a lot of references, such as this one.

- speaking of Google, everything I search for at the moment has a 'This site may harm your computer' warning in the search results. If you click on this warning, it eventually comes up with a server error (though the normal result links still work). It seems to have replaced the 'cached version' link with the warning. Heck, it even displays the warning if you search for 'google' itself!

Looks like it's blown a (virtual) gasket...

 

[Anonymous]

"Judder is a term used to describe the pictured stopping and pulling against the movement of the pan."

Perhaps I don't understand the terminology but the effect is like seeing far too few frames but only when panning horizontally (vertically to a certain extent much much more minor and less frequent). The definition of judder used above would describe what I see. If it looks like the frame rate is too slow, then a vertical edge will linger longer in one place and then jump to the next place. If there were more frames then it would jump only half as far twice as often.

In any case, the real world does not do this and I don't like it. Granted, I will have to really take a good solid long look at a more "oil-covered" tv to seeif I like that better,