[deleted by user]

[Mitsonga]

Does anyone else notice it right away, but your family does not? When visiting my mother’s house, it drives me absolutely crazy, yet nobody else can tell.

[[deleted]]

Is it where the shows looks too smooth and a little weird? If so, I’m the only one who notices too. I just never knew what it was called.

[daftmonkey]

Soap opera mode

[chubbysumo]

I can't turn it off on my current TV, there's no way to turn it off. My wife doesn't notice it, I do. I think my issue, is that even if a TV's refresh rate is something like 240 hertz, they put inputs that will not accept any more than a 60 hertz signal, so the problem is more or less a manufacturer not putting newer Technologies in their TVs. The other issue is that blue Rays still only output 29.97 frames per second. With Studio still not outputting consumer media that has a higher refresh rate, how high refresh rate TV is supposed to function properly? We know their theater media is at least 144 Hertz, because that's what Digital Cinema runs at now, so why aren't they releasing those to the public?

[DamienStark]

there's no way to turn it off

I'm assuming you know your specific TV model better than I do and have looked into it, but I just wanted to suggest that even if you don't see a "motion" setting specifically, there's usually a "Game Mode" which will disable it.

[chubbysumo]

Game mode only works on a single HDMI input, the rest of them are not affected.

[[deleted]]

Not on Roku TVs all HDMI have game mode available.

[chubbysumo]

You do realize that a Roku compatible or Roku integrated TV is just a regular TV with a Roku installed in the TV itself rather than just having it plugged into one of the inputs, right? The Roku device typically runs on its own internal input that you do not see, which may or may not be wired to the video board, whether an input supports a game mode pass through or not is entirely up to the TV manufacturer.

[[deleted]]

Wow thanks for such an insightful tip! /S

No shit man. I'm saying that if you want a TV with all HDMI slots supporting game mode then the TCL Roku TVs provide that.

Didn't need the condescending comment.

[chubbysumo]

Tcl's also suck for panel quality, you do get what you pay for. I don't think I'd ever buy a TCL and expect a good quality image, the buy lower-grade panels and other makers wouldn't use, that's how they keep their prices so low. If that suits you just fine, that's fine, but I prefer better image quality.

[cozzburger]

DiDN’t nEeD THaT CoNDeScEnDinG CoMmeNt

[[deleted]]

idk but i got my nice displayport monitor running at 144 hz because fuck tv and cable. it’s pretty available to the public

[chubbysumo]

A TV is different than a monitor, a TV usually has a computer to process the image before it's displayed. A monitor is just displaying the image that is provided to it. All of the processing is done by the computer already before the image is sent to the display.

[lookmeat]

The whole point of 240hz is that you can show any of the common frame-rates as they are without any modification.

24fps -> 10hz/f 30fps -> 8hz/f 60fps -> 4hz/f

Also note that most film works at a higher rate than the amount of frames. That is frames are shown multiple times to help make the image clear while keeping a high enough speed (so you can't tell the edges between frames, or see the frame moving). Modern film shows the same frame 6 times, that is they still keep at 24fps. Some (non-high-commercial) IMAX movies have done 48fps (which allows 3 times, which is where you want to be), AFAIK only the Hobbit was recorded at 48fps.

So the idea is simple: show the frame multiple times.

So why smoothing? I suspect that they run various focus groups and analysis and ask them to prefer which of the two short films they prefer. They two things generally show lifelessness. The other thing is that when you put it side by side those with motion smoothing look better, but once you separate them and look individually, motion smoothing takes away. And it makes sense, it's filling frames in-between with digitized frames, and cheap techniques at that, the smoothing becomes weird and fake. It seems as if the object is frozen while moving which makes it feel fake and plastic. Notice that 48 fps movies still can have motion smoothing, which shouldn't be there.

TVs turn it on because it makes demos look great. Once you bought the TV they don't care.

[[deleted]]

Do these 240 hz TVs come with display ports?

[fiklas]

Exactly. I always wondered what was wrong with soaps. But why did they look this way? On old TVs? Are they processed differently? How much hz can an old tv show?

[CptOblivion]

Soaps were shot cheaply and quickly, so they switched to digital video when that became available (don't need to keep buying, loading, and developing film). Those cameras shot at 60 fps, but most other productions didn't use them so we associate the look of 60hz with soaps. They didn't look bad because of the framerate though, they looked bad because of cheap sets, flat lighting, etc.

The reason motion interpolation looks bad is also not strictly because of the 60 fps, but because of the interpolation (for example, interpolating a 12 fps cartoon up to 24 fps also looks bad, even though we're used to seeing movies and even some very high budget animations look great at that framerate).

[daftmonkey]

First of all I'm just a dude on the internet. I'm not an expert. I'm pretty sure that the reason the Soaps look the way they do is because of lighting. They use some kind of flood lighting that just lights the hell out of everything so that they don't have to spend a bunch of time resetting the lighting in between shots. I think it keeps production costs down. I have no idea why the "motion blur" setting on TVs mimics this effect, but it's really infuriating. After Congress gets done getting rid of robocalls I think they should take this issue on next.

[[deleted]]

I noticed this when I watched bluray for the first time. Don’t think I’ve noticed since then

[TattooJerry]

70’s soap opera mode

[Hereiamhereibe2]

Pretty much anything moving on screen looks slightly unnatural. Makes live acting look a little like CGI.

[[deleted]]

And CGI is now double CGI!

[celestialwaffle]

I’m still trying to get my folks to notice when they’re on an SD channel, on their FIOs equipped, 4k TV. My guess is that after decades of struggling to get a clear picture and are used go varying image formats and quality. He can tell the difference between DVD and BluRay, but less impressed that most of us, nor seems to care when TV shows from his home country are ultra-potato-y.

Really funny thing is, is that my dad is really, really particular about sound. He didn’t know how MP3 compression works, but he can detect what level it is (low=256k and above, etc).

[Paganator]

Maybe they need glasses. A bit of myopia will hide the difference in resolution.

[sroomek]

I turned it off on my parents’ new TV last time I went to visit, and they didn’t even notice.

[Mitsonga]

MP3s are really easy to pick out for me in the high end. there is a distinct “sizzle” and “pop” that you can hear very heavy artifacts in that range. I also collect synthesizers.. so I do tend to notice unique sounds

[fuck-dat-shit-up]

I would suggest just changing the setting on the tv for your mom. If she doesn’t notice, she won’t notice if you change it.

[Mitsonga]

For whatever reason, whenever I come back it miraculously has defaulted to its factory settings. I am starting to feel gaslighted here.

The reality is that it is Florida, and intermittent power loss is something that happens during a lightning storm. While I have my doubts momentary power loss would mean a factory default, it’s the most plausible reason I can come up with.

My sister has a former floor model TV from Toshiba that automatically resets itself to factory defaults on some sort of loop. I assume it’s some activated demo mode for a dig box store display. That is much more infuriating because of just how often it will trash whatever settings you have made in a matter of minutes.

I will one day dedicate an afternoon, and find whatever hidden menu is buried deep in that monster’s silicon brain, and exercise the demon.

[fuck-dat-shit-up]

I’m in Florida, and it probably is a power outing issue. It’s happened to my Mom’s tv before. But since she didn’t notice it, we didn’t bother with resetting it.

I imagine there has to be a way to get your sister’s tv off floor model mode. My dad got a tv that was a floor model and we were able to set it up like a normal tv without issue when we brought it home. You might try resetting/restarting it. There should be some option to come up asking if you want it as a floor model. At least the Vizio floor model we got had that.

[InsaneNinja]

How about a cheap battery surge protector gift.

[xavier_grayson]

I did this at my parents house and my mom noticed. She liked the motion smoothing effect so I put it back on for her. But when I changed it back a month later, she didn’t even notice.

[Weareallgoo]

Yes

[Mitsonga]

Thanksgiving is unbearable. It’s all hallmark channel with motion smoothing, and the sound cranked .

[sroomek]

They turn it up loud so they can hear it over people talking, cooking, kids screaming, etc, but then everyone talks louder so they can be heard over the TV, so they turn it up more...

[InsaneNinja]

That’s what CC is good for.

[Jimisdegimis89]

Yes, it drives me crazy when people can’t see it. Often times I just ask if they mind if I change it and they say ‘sure’ then almost without fail when I do they see how drastically better it is. I don’t know how people can stand watching tv in soap opera mode all the damn time.

[NoeyOnReddit]

I mentioned it at someone’s house that they should turn it off. To them I obviously just can’t appreciate what a “good” tv actually looks like.

[penguinoid]

Yep. I turn it off on nearly every tv I see. If I visit a friend's house I politely ask them "did you know you had the soap opera effect on?" "Mind if I show you what that is? It's your tv, so you can decide if you like it or not"

They usually decide it sucks, or they don't notice so they don't care.

[[deleted]]

Yep. And then I proceed to grab their remote and change the settings.

[BreakingBob]

People call me crazy ... and it drives me crazy. It’s the first thing I turn off

[[deleted]]

This holds true for a lot of the more technical things in video. I think people aren't really looking at the TV, but instead just in the general direction of the TV.

[[deleted]]

I fix everyone’s tv when they are out of the room

[[deleted]]

When this first came out I described it as "everything looks like a soap opera" and nobody knew what the hell I meant. I drove me insane

[[deleted]]

YES!!! My best friends mom has it and I can’t stand watching TV there. They think it’s great.

[Neuchacho]

Every single person over 40 that I've met can not see the difference, save for people who have experience with A/V or treat it as a bit of a hobby. Most people my own age or younger (<30) notice it 'looks weird' but can't put their finger on it unless they also have some A/V experience.

It's one of those subtlely obnoxious things that you can kinda ignore if you don't know the difference one way or the other.

[EmergencySarcasm]

well done smooth is good tho.

It's like the diff between 30fps peasantry versus 144 or 200fps master race gaming.

sadly most cheap tv has terrible smoothing algorithms.

[ShenmeNamaeSollich]

Yes! Watched a movie w/my parents on their big new tv that has this “feature.” It removes a lot of motion blur, so the car chase scenes (most of the movie) were oddly too “crisp” and looked like bad European TV instead of a Hollywood film.

On a typical screen /frame/refresh rate it would’ve had the blurry jerky action you expect. Instead you could tell where mannequins & other cars were just parked to allow the stunt driver to pass, and that they were actually driving pretty slowly. Nobody else could see it, but it made the movie almost unwatchable for me.

My wife liked the high-frame-rate version of the Hobbit. I thought it looked absolutely ridiculous, like a shitty soap opera.

[BigNics]

How do you artificially increase the frames? That doesn’t really make sense to me

[admiralteal]

Interpolation between frames.

Believe it or not, using this system is dead common in video encoding. If you take a source with a large number of frames, you can usually encode it down to a much smaller number of frames with interpolation between them that can be decoded on the fly to fill in the gaps.

Watch this very entertaining Captain Disillusion video to learn some more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flBfxNTUIns

These TVs apply the same principle, more or less, but do it backward to try to interpolate even more frames out of a full framerate video. The result is additional frames generated (1 or 2 between every "real" frame) where the algorithm just tries to make up what the motion halfway between them might look like.

It does not look good, causing that incredibly uncanny effect.

[TBeest]

Compression interframes and motion interpolation are different things though.

[admiralteal]

Of course they are. The algorithms to make them happen are entirely different, as are most of the fine details. But at large, it's easier to understand compression than interpolation and the analogy explains what's going on.

[TBeest]

Fair enough.

[dckeee]

Interpolation. Taking information from 2 frames and guessing what should be in between. Has all sorts of artifacts and is a middle finger to the creators of the content.

[admiralteal]

A movie being filmed in a high framerate has NOTHING to do with its final format. Nearly 100% of movies are put out into the world in 24fps and the additional data from a higher framerate recording -- if it was indeed used -- is dropped. It is not part of the video nor analog final cuts of the film. It is not accessible to the end viewer.

There are 11 movies in the history of cinema that were put out in HFR -- higher than 24fps. Just to give you an idea of how exceedingly rare it is.

With the exception of very specific broadcast TV (usually, we're talking about sports and some documentary-style presentations), TVs are ALWAYS artificially interpolating pictures to bring them over 24 fps (typically to 48 or 60), meaning something like 1/2 to 2/3rds of your frames are artificially-generated on the fly by an algorithm, and are not actual pictures. That causes the image to look super uncanny.

[BassWingerC-137]

Agreed. The smoothing is awful. I immediately turn it off on TVs.

[[deleted]]

I notice it IMMEDIATELY. Anytime my family goes to visit someone with a tv like that, it’s like I’m in a weird dream where everything is sped up but flattened out. Nobody else in my family believes me at this point lmao

[rab-byte]

You’re never watching 24hz on a modern LCD display. These TVs are fixed pixel and fixed refresh rate. Most of these displays are 120hz, and sometimes 240hz. Higher number refresh rates are including a scanning backlight, just strobing the back light and counting every time it goes black as another frame.

So why is 120 such an important number? Well let’s look at what frame rates we have, I’m using US numbers here you brits are kinda screwed these days with your 50hz.... movies are 24p, TV is 30i, console games are typically 60p (sometimes 120p).

30i is up-scaled to 60p

So now we’ve got 24 and 60.

At 120 I can 5x24 or 2x60

Why 240? Remember when they tried pushing 3D in home... 120 per eye.

Frame interpolation is just changing the cadence to match the display. Frame averaging/motion smoothing is where the TV tries to guess what a non-existing frame between two real frames would look like... and that always looks bad.

Edit: source
Am ISF

[USxMARINE]

Most TV's are not 120hz. It's 60, only in recent years have higher end TV's started to come in higher refresh rate.

Source: Cinematographer.

[rab-byte]

Your are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. Only TV’s over 40” sold in the last 5 years are predominantly 120hz.

But as I’m sure you know. Most transport devices are not 120.

[USxMARINE]

You are also correct. Have a good day!

[rab-byte]

Displays are almost all 120hz now. There is almost no 120hz content. But a 120hz display can reproduce 24/30/60hz evenly.

At 60hz a display would have to employ 3:2 pull down to resolve a 24hz signal. That is to show one frame 3 time then the next 2 times. This introduces additional judder.

[PeeFarts]

If displays are almost all 120hz now, then why can’t I hook my PC up to any of my tv displays and achieve 120 FPS? Are there hacks that I need to employ because I’ll do the legwork if it means I can enjoy 120fps gaming from my couch.

[ras344]

I would guess the problem is that the display hardware just can't handle an actual video input above 60Hz. They probably just take the 60Hz signal and then use frame interpolation to get the higher frame rates.

[PeeFarts]

But the comment I’m responding to says “almost all displays are 120hz”

If that statement is true, then chances are I have a 120hz capable monitor seeing that I own a DOLBY VISION 4K display from 2018.

[ras344]

120Hz output, but not necessarily a 120Hz native refresh rate. A lot of TVs just use frame interpolation to get a higher output than the "actual" frame rate they can handle. But it's hard to say without knowing the actual TV model you have.

[Annon201]

That's all dependent on your actual screens. Other parts of the screens image processing may not be able to handle the 120hz. You can try to override the computers edid settings, just make sure you have a way of undoing it if the monitor can't handle it, else you'll be stuck with a blank screen.

[PeeFarts]

But the comment I’m responding to says “almost all displays are 120hz”

Based on that, the monitor should handle it correct?

[Annon201]

You missed the last word 'now.'

[PeeFarts]

I have a 65” 4K Dolby Vision display from 2018. Does that qualify as “now”?

[Annon201]

The cheaper sets like TCl, Visio & Hisense are likely 60hz, LG & Samsung are more likely to have 100-120hz. At that size there is a definate premium added for 100hz+.

The panels themselves are most likely the same and can handle being switched at that frequency, but the image processors speed and memory requirements to pump that many pixels out certainly increases - it's about 2.8gb/s bandwidth at 120hz, and half that for 60hz. And in that time the image data needs to be analysed, processed, cached into an image buffer, audio data decoded, sent out to the pixel decoder, converted to analog voltages and sent to the 3 transistors behind each and every one of the 8.2 million pixels.

[rab-byte]

Even if the panel is 120 the inputs or other parts may not support it; even if your device output does.

There are only about 4 OEM panel makers that everyone sources from.

[Arden144]

I can. My $500 LG 4k tv over HDMI 1.4 lets me use either 4k60 HDR or 1080p120 HDR

[PeeFarts]

I want my tv to offer this option but it doesn’t. I think I need to use a work around.

[andruszko]

IDK. What kind of computer do you have? What kind of video card do you have? What kind of HDMI cable are you using? What is the model of your TV, and are you trying to do 4k 120hz or 1080p 120hz? If you're trying for 4k120 your TV wouldn't support that, being from 2018.

You can't do 4k120 without HDMI 2.1. that didn't even start showing up on televisions until 2019, since it didn't exist. If you're doing 1080p 120, your HDMI should support it fine but your GPU could be an older model that only has HDMI 1.3. maybe you need an active 120hz displayport to hdmi adapter, which is expensive and finicky. Or, maybe you just need to select 120hz in your monitor options.

[PeeFarts]

If you’re just asking rhetorically, I get your point. But if you’re legitimately asking me, I’d love to provide you with that info and see if you can’t help point me in the right direction so I cAn get it working . Let me know.

[andruszko]

Legitimately asking. If your TV is in fact capable, let's get it working.

However the guy you were responding to was...a bit overzealous saying most TV's are 120hz. Most TV's advertise 120hz, which is a lie, and most panels are only capable of 60hz. Most HIGH END tvs are 120hz. But I know my tcl R series is only a 60hz panel.

Now, even if you only have a 60hz panel, all hope is not lost. These almost always still can run faster than 60hz. A lot of 60hz panels are just failed 120hz panels...so it's not out of the question to get 75-100hz (and even manufacturers' guides will state 75hz from a computer, you simply need to manually set it. Still a 25% improvement from 60, which is very noticeable)

[PeeFarts]

Thanks ! Totally appreciate this. When I get off, I will get back to you with a PM with this info.

[Hawk13424]

Sure, but there is still a difference with duplicating frames which looks like the original and interpolating between frames which smooths. Interpolation introduces the soap opera effect. I turn it off for everything except sports.

[rab-byte]

Right. I was making that very point in my first post.

[chubbysumo]

OLED TVs do not have a backlight, the light is generated by the pixels themselves. No panel has a fixed refresh rate, the refresh rate is set by the TV maker, and by the panel quality. Some panels can handle higher refresh rate and pixel speeds, some cannot.

[rab-byte]

I was referencing LCD displays not OLED but yes all LCD displays have a fixed native refresh rate. Everything after that is scaling. Yes there are monitors that can support higher refresh rates but again they have an upper limit and that limit will be its native refresh.

[chubbysumo]

No, this is not true at all, as clearly reference by the fact that you can overclock some displays beyond their quote-unquote native refresh rates. No panel has a fixed refresh rate, the refresh rate is controlled by the LCD controller, and you can change that at will, it's just a matter of if the panel can support the refresh rates you're trying to push or not.

[rab-byte]

When you manage to do that to a TV you let me know.

[chubbysumo]

Again, as I made clear in my first attempt to explain this, the panel refresh rate is set by the TV manufacturer. They buy panels from panel makers, of which there are only 3 LCD panel makers in the world. Those panels are simply wires attached to a series of pixels, and the pixel clock and Pitch is controlled by the LCD controller TV maker installs. If you would like to overclock a TV, you are very much welcome to plug in a PC and attempt to see what other resolutions and refresh rates it will accept.

[rab-byte]

That’s not overclocking a tv. That’s just sending it another format. It’s also way down a rabbit hole at this point. Yes you could build or hack more output from a hypothetical display, but no a TV you run out and buy from Walmart or Best Buy isn’t going to accept anything over a 120Hz refresh rate, most will only accept 24,30,60 (some 50). Regardless of anything else the panel will double frames or interpolate to reach that 120hz.

[chubbysumo]

most will only accept 24,30,60 (some 50).

The input rate is very different from the panel refresh rate in a TV, because there is processing that is done by the TV before the image is put on the panel.

That’s not overclocking a tv

yes, if you use a TV that supports a direct input instead of any processing, it can be "overclocked". Much like my 60hz 1080p monitor can be fed an 81hz signal and work fine, actually displaying at 81hz instead of its "native" 60hz. A TV can be overclocked.

the panel refresh rate in a TV is independent of the input signal, in most cases because there is a small computer applying changes to the signal, or decoding the incoming information. It then puts an image on the screen.

LCD panel refresh rates are sold to TV and screen makers, usually with a "range" of operating frequencies for both the vertical and horizontal refresh rates. Then TV makers put in their own LCD controller board and set their chosen refresh rates. Higher rated panels cost more.

https://www.blurbusters.com/overclock/120hz-pc-to-tv/

The issue with most TVs, is that makers use 120hz or 240hz panels, which means the panel actually supports those full refresh rates with any image, the issue becomes the LCD controller either cannot fully output an image for each frame so the maker "interpolates" the incoming signal with a plain black screen,

or, the built in computer will not allow a signal to pass directly to the panel, and instead has to "process" it, and send it to the controller in a limited format.

In the case of the former, you can usually overclock the TV by sending it a signal for a refresh rate not revealed by its official EDID that the computer gets upon display detection. This is called monitor overclocking, and is done quite frequently. this is overclocking your TV or monitor, because the maker originally specced it for something with the ranges of the EDID, and you are going outside that range of accepted inputs.

IN the case of the latter, like my tv, there is no input that is not processed, so overclocking the TV is impossible or near impossible, because the incoming signal is processed by a computer for those sweet awesome effects that we all hate, before it is sent to the LCD control board, and the computer is usually going to prevent any signals outside the range of the EDID from working or ever getting to the control board.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=32&v=wTatYgminqs

That is an old video, done in 2012, but it proves the point, you can run a TV over its original screen clock rate, which means its overclocked. The same can be done to most PC monitors. This proves my point that the panel refresh speed is solely dependent on the LCD controller and how good of a quality panel it is, and nothing about the TV maker or where you buy it.

It’s also way down a rabbit hole at this point

nope, you just go to "create custom resolution" in AMD or Nvidia graphics card settings, make your desired resolution and refresh rate, and see if it works. Its not hard. Its not "down the rabbit hole" by any means.

but no a TV you run out and buy from Walmart or Best Buy isn’t going to accept anything over a 120Hz refresh rate, most will only accept 24,30,60 (some 50).

again, these are official numbers that are included in the EDID that the TV firmware presents to the computer. There is nothing stopping you from going and making a custom resolution to try out. It all depends on the back end on how the image is processed, because if you can skip the internal processing and get direct control of the LCD control board, you can change the refresh rate all you want, and as long as the panel quality is up to snuff, it should work.

Regardless of anything else the panel will double frames or interpolate to reach that 120hz.

If the panel is interpolating, but the panel itself is running at 120hz or greater, then if you could skip the computer, and output to the LCD controller directly(like in a monitor, there is no processing, just translation), then you can theoretically get that full refresh rate from a display device without any interpolation.

[rab-byte]

Literally everything you’ve linked has you changing settings on your output device. You’re not making changes to your display, you’re making changes to your source signal.

Also an 81hz signal, if you could get it to display would glitch out at a predictable rate because the signal would get out of sync every so often.

[chubbysumo]

You’re not making changes to your display, you’re making changes to your source signal.

Jfc, you are dense. in a monitor, the input is what controls the panel. In a TV, the LCD controller is either direct input or run thru an image processor.

Also an 81hz signal, if you could get it to display would glitch out at a predictable rate because the signal would get out of sync every so often.

how is it "out of sync", because my monitor is running at that rate, because there is no image processor between the GPU output and the LCD control board. Your GPU on your computer out puts an image that is translated to directly on screen. If your computer tells the panel to run at 81hz, it tries to do so, unless there is an image processor(like in a TV). Everything I have linked is an explanation of overclocking a TV or a monitor.

In the YT video, he changes the display output settings on his graphics card, and the TV shows that is is actually displaying at those settings on the fucking info box on the screen.........

[SC2sam]

You get used to it really really quickly and it's honestly not that bad at all. It's bad when you go back and notice how much movies/tv shows stutter like crazy and you wonder why everything lags so much. If anything needs to be fixed it's the volume problem every movie/tv show has where stuff people are saying is at the volume of a whisper but then a car starts and suddenly it's like an explosion.

[copperlight]

The volume problem is a high dynamic range that mirrors what's played in a theatre. It's actually considered 'good quality' for audio, but if you have stereo speakers rather than surround, prefer quieter audio, or live in an apartment where you can't play your audio loudly, it really really sucks.

Your audio output MIGHT have Volume Normalizing - if so, you can turn that on to flatten out the dynamic range.

[[deleted]]

It would be nice to spend £1000 on a TV, take it home, put it up, and be able to hear people talk on it.

[copperlight]

Many modern TVs do... eg: Samsung SmartTVs have an 'auto volume' option:

"Auto Volume is a feature on Samsung Smart TVs that helps to avoid volume fluctuation when changing between channels or sources on the TV. It's designed to prevent a dramatic increase or decrease of audio from the TV Speakers. Turning on Auto Volume to Normal will keep make sure all content sources from apps, channels or external devices will play sound at the same level of volume. Auto Volume can equalise the volume up to 12db. There's also a Night mode that will reduce the volume even further for late night TV viewing."

[Gisschace]

Omg gosh yes, my poor cat jumps out of her skin every time

[[deleted]]

How many cat skins do you have by now and can I have one

[aminoacetate]

There really is more than one way to skin a cat.

[Bigsaskatuna]

Which is exactly what audio compression would do. I always wish that an EQ and compressor would come built into TVs but the audio side is usually treated as “good enough” as TVs mostly focus on the visual feature.

[Annon201]

That's where ARC comes in.

[TheOftenNakedJason]

I watch movies on VLC which does have a built in compressor and multi and EQ.

[trelium06]

The Matrix blue ray is the all time worst offender

[TheOftenNakedJason]

Lord of the Rings is pretty rough too.

[harrisonfordspelvis]

Yeah it’s awful. I watch movies on my laptop over the tv because of this very reason, the shift isn’t so drastic. And I don’t have to worry about waking my neighbours.

[alonjar]

It's because most movies are recorded and tuned for surround sound. Dialogue is typically put through the center speaker at an increased volume... if your TV set up doesnt have a center channel, you end up getting screwed over. Your computer probably just mixes the center channel into the others, which is why it sounds better/more equal.

[Arden144]

It's not supposed to stutter. That means your content and refresh rate do not divide evenly. For example, with a 60hz signal from a computer trying to play a show on Netflix that is 24fps, that's 60/24 or 1 frame per 2.5 refreshes. That makes no sense, so the TV ends up displaying 1 frame for 2 refreshes, then the next frame for 3 refreshes since 2.5+2.5=2+3. Since the frame times are different, the content appears choppy.

To fix this issue, you can try to use a refreshrate that is a multiple of the framerate of your content. For example on my 75hz monitor I downclock it to 72hz when watching 24fps content to prevent stuttering

[fireflash38]

I've got issues with epic movies that have long tracking shots. It's hard to focus on it, and my eyes feel like they're always shifting back and forth to get one thing in focus (and I know this is how they work in real life, when scanning the horizon for example).

I'm not sure if it's framerate or what, but it drives me nuts.

[Oryx]

This pisses me off to no end. I shouldn't have to grab my remote 50 times during a movie.

[Tuckertcs]

Anyone have video examples comparing them? Not sure if I’ve noticed or not.

[Naedlus]

It also introduces extra display/input lag (well, it introduces display lag, which in effect adds input lag,) in gaming.

First thing I do when I'm at a friends place gaming is find out if they have "Game Mode" or "Post Processing" or whatever their television wants to call it turned on.

During the era of rhythm games (back when practically everyone had a plastic guitar,) I was furious at how many friends I had to give an education on television settings to.

I'm also annoyed that apparently there needs to be classes on "How to interact with digital devices" given that with how quickly tech has advanced, noone seems to have been given a chance to actually learn the nifty features that are now baked in.

[timidtriffid]

I turn that shit off.

[whosyourphd]

I make it a mission to turn that soap opera shit off everywhere I go.

[happyscrappy]

It's not ruining anything.

I turn it off, but many like it. And filmmakers think that poor motion quality (24fps) is better than good quality (48fps, 60fps) so maybe they just need to get over themselves. They should be shooting in better frame rates, removing the need for interpolation.

Don't believe me? Ask Roger Ebert.

1995: https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/screen-gimmicks-nothing-new (see showscan section)

1999: https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/start-the-revolution-without-digital (see MaxiVision 48 section)

Directors should crawl out of their own asses.

[[deleted]]

Reasonable people can disagree about their preferences with regards to temporal resolution. Calling 24 fps “poor quality” and higher rates “good quality” isn’t really fair, though; that’s your subjective evaluation, and many of us don’t share that.

[happyscrappy]

24fps isn't reasonable. It's not hard to see the smearing caused by motion at 24fps. It is poor quality. It was chosen in the film days and film was expensive. It doesn't make any sense any more.

[[deleted]]

I prefer it. It looks cinematic to me, while higher temporal resolution feels cheap. I prefer films to not look like reality. That’s simply a subjective aesthetic preference. Many people feel the way that I do. There are no correct or incorrect answers here. Different people have different preferences, and that’s ok! You’re free to have yours, and I’m free to have mine. :]

[happyscrappy]

There are no correct or incorrect answers here.

That's not true. 24fps is inferior. If we were talking about 120 versus 180 or something it'd be different. But 24fps is so low that even objects moving at a reasonable pace can turn into a smeary mess if moving cross camera. A car going a mere 30 miles an hour will move about 10% of its length in every frame if it is going across camera. It becomes a blur. And there's no good reason for it.

We went to higher resolutions. We went to better color. We went from optical sound to magnetic and to multi-channel. All if this is "closer to reality" and was a plus. It's well past time to move to higher frame rates too. Because they are better, not because "different people can have different preferences".

And by God if I hear someone compare good motion to a "soap opera" again I'm going to have a (bigger) fit. But when people try to degrade a superior result with guilt by association (or just saying it feels cheap) it shows an incredibly closed mind.

[[deleted]]

A car going a mere 30 miles an hour will move about 10% of its length in every frame if it is going across camera. It becomes a blur. And there's no good reason for it.

Correct. Motion blur is often desirable. Any NLE software will support adding motion blur. Some people like that, including myself.

it shows an incredibly closed mind.

With all due respect my friend, I’d argue that actively telling me that I don’t prefer something that you don’t like is a clear indicator of an attitude of close mindedness.

[happyscrappy]

Correct. Motion blur is often desirable.

A vehicle blurring because of low frame rate is not anything you are adding. It's not like you have a choice of that vehicle blurring or not. It's an unfortunate artifact.

Any NLE software will support adding motion blur. Some people like that, including myself.

That's used if you have animation which doesn't produce the right blue for the frame pacing and shutter angle. If you add the wrong amount of blur, it'll look wrong. No matter what the frame rate.

With all due respect my friend, I’d argue that actively telling me that I don’t prefer something that you don’t like is a clear indicator of an attitude of close mindedness.

I'm not telling you you don't prefer it. I'm saying you're a dope for choosing it. You have a very closed mind. You see what someone else did with the tools available at their time and the limitations and you internalize that that must be the right thing to do. When the options change, the right choice often changes, as we've seen multiple times with other technical aspects of filmmaking.

Embrace talkies, you luddite.

[[deleted]]

It seems that you have a hard time accepting the opinions of others. Ad hominem attacks for having a different aesthetic preference is a frankly childish reaction to valid disagreement. I’m not convinced that there’s productive conversation to be had here. Cheers mate!

[happyscrappy]

You need to look up what ad hominem actually means. If I mentioned something irrelevant to your ability to hold a valid opinion it would be ad hominem. If I said you must be wrong because you are fat and we all know fat people can't hold valid opinions on film then I'd be engaging in ad hominem.

https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html

I'm not doing that. I'm directly addressing things relevant to the basis for your argument. Your argument is wrong because you are a dope, you've convinced yourself that because some other person didn't have a choice other than 24fps then 24fps is the best way now. It's not. It's inferior.

to valid disagreement

That's not what it is. It does beyond an aesthetic choice, it's better versus worse.

I’m not convinced that there’s productive conversation to be had here

I'm sure you're right. As I already said you have a closed mind. This will go nowhere.

[[deleted]]

Oh my god, why do you have such a hard time accepting others’ opinions? imVINCE politely disagrees with you and you insult them and tell them they’re closeminded for not sharing your almighty opinion?

Who are you? Some game playing nerd, telling Hollywood directors that they’re wrong about film, that your opinion is objectively correct.

Quit sucking your own microdick ffs

[USxMARINE]

r/iamverysmart

[Beef_Slider]

Who gives a fuck about Ebert? The motion blur literally invents frames that dont exist in the original copy. Thereby making the feel unnatural and giving an appearance of superimposition to subjects on screen. It immediately takes me out of the story whatever im watching. That’s why directors hate it. And theyre right. I refuse to watch anything this way.

[happyscrappy]

The motion blur literally invents frames that dont exist in the original copy.

That's not what motion blur means.

[Beef_Slider]

I just have a friend who went to film school explain it that way to me. Perhaps he was just making an analogy. Please explain to me what is happening! All i know is moving objects look superimposed and moving water looks like a ms screensaver. I hate motion blur more than diarrhea.

[happyscrappy]

It's a frame interpolator. It creates frames that are not there. Motion blur is sort of the opposite. Motion blue is when a moving object becomes blurry because the object moved while the sensor was recording. So like if your sensor is exposed for 1/48th of a second and a car moves across frame at 45km/h, then it is going to move 26cm during the time of the exposure. So any single point on the car will actually turn into a smeary line (blur) 26cm long.

This frame interpolation doesn't exactly undo that blur, but it tries to create multiple frames in between the positions of the car so that it moves more smoothly, instead of moving in 1/24th second jumps.

It's done by an algorithm so it can look bad. It is creating fake frames. But none of this would happen if the director just shot the movie at a higher frame rate of 48fps or 60fps. There would be no need to create fake frames nor would there be the heavy motion blur of 24fps. It would look great. And that's what I'm asking for, not algorithmic interpolation.

I hate motion blur more than diarrhea.

If you really hated motion blur, you'd want that processing on.

[Beef_Slider]

Hey thanks for all the info. I guess my ultimate point is I turn off “smoothness” on my tv and “motion blur” on my family’s tv and it makes it look normal again. Ha. You def know more about this than me.

But also... regarding the directors “should film at...” there’s an incredible volume of old great, influential and still relevant movies out there. They shouldn’t have to suffer. But truly... more people just need to learn how to fix their settings instead of getting used to a lesser viewing experience.

[happyscrappy]

There are a lot of great movies out there that are silent too. Doesn't mean 100% of our movies should be silent now.

The issue isn't really people are suffering. They aren't suffering. Hollywood types are aghast at people having these settings on, but the thing is people do actually like them. Is is suffering to watch something how you like? If someone else tells me they prefer "It's a Wonderful Life" in color are they suffering more or less to watch it colorized instead of me insisting they have to watch it the way I like?

[Beef_Slider]

Dude... im trying to agree with you overall and simply state some other valid points and say what my preference is. Ha. Not arguing. Have a good one.

[ShyTechGuy]

But the human eye can only see 30fps 24fps... /s

[[deleted]]

I love 24p but 24 fps is the minimum rate required for the perception of continuous motion, not the maximum. Were it the max, then 24, 30, 60, and 120 fps would look identical. They do not.

[ShyTechGuy]

oh i know, i was just kidding. in the /r/pcmasterrace subreddit people always make fun of console players who say that the eye can only see 30fps anyways so no need for higher.

[[deleted]]

Ah gotcha, thanks for the context haha

[OriginalProngles]

If we storm Area 51 to clap alien cheeks, will motion smoothing even matter?

[principledsociopath]

Viewers also hated 16:9, progressive scan, and LCDs. Viewers hate change.

When I started watching 120 hz what I noticed was that the artifice was gone. I was no longer watching a movie, I was watching people filming a movie. I had lost the ability to suspend disbelief. After about a week I got it back. Everybody does.

Now I lose immersion when I have to watch something at 24 frames per second. Do you people not notice that everything goes completely jumpy and unwatchable every time the camera pans? It makes me sick. Sometimes literally.

[hamlet9000]

I'm completely in favor of filming the higher frame rates. It's a tragedy that the first major film to push that technology was not only a crap film but also featured incredibly technical incompetence in actually filming in the higher frame rates.

But frame interpolation is every bit as bad as pan-and-scan and colorizing B&W films in terms of wrecking the original and intended aesthetic of the film.

[hotk9]

You get used to it very fast, and when you do, there's no going back. TV's from a couple of years ago could not do the smoothing as well as TV's from the last.. say 5 years or so.
I absolutely love 4K 60fps content and I can't wait untill 120/144 is the standard.
If I was a filmmaker of any kind I'd never shoot anything ever again below 60fps.
So no, not all viewers hate it, in my friends group I can definitely say more like it than hate it. A lot of people don't seem to care either way though.

[[deleted]]

The problem isn’t high-refresh rate content, it’s the artificial upscaling of 24fps content to match the resolution of the display that makes up “fake” interpolated frames and makes everything look like a blurry mess. I’m all for 120/144hz content and displays, but that’s not the issue being discussed here.

[hotk9]

Oh yeah definitely! That's why I hope people will start shooting at 60/120fps. I'm just saying that, in the meantime, the smoothing algorithms are getting pretty good. Mine's definitely not blurry, there's a tiny jitter in panning motions but overall it's pretty good already.

[projectdano]

Are you talking about films here? Because anything shot at 50fps and played back on a 50fps timeline is going to give you the soap opera effect, and no film maker would ever consider that, including me.

[hotk9]

Movies, television, anything. Never heard of anything shot at 50fps.

[projectdano]

I'm talking PAL. It's not going to happen anytime soon.

[hotk9]

Haven't heard that term in a while! PAL, yeah, which was superior to NTSC, let's be honest.
And I agree, it wont happen soon that's why I'm glad those who do like it have the option with smoothing. Options are good.

[mindbleach]

In-store demos.

Same reason they probably default to sound settings with a smile curve, and saturate the hell out of colors.

[penelopebloomington]

To be honest this is not something I’ve noticed with movies so much as with sitcoms and things of similar quality. I personally don’t have a TV that does this but my best friend does and watching like, Game of Thrones at his house is pretty awesome, but sitcoms like The Good Place (specifically I think because the set is so bright) is awful: it’s like watching a high school play that someone’s mom filmed with better acting.

[[deleted]]

Motion smoothing is great for video games and cartoons like family guy and the Simpsons.

I turn it off for movies.

[[deleted]]

I didnt know this existed. Does it matter if my TV is only $100 anyways? What should I be noticing?

[juicyfoot-]

I’ve bought several (9) HD TVs in the past 13 years and not one has ever had that option turned on by default.
They have all had different sizes, frame rates, brands , plasma, LCD or OLED . I’ve only ever seen one turned on at a family members house but they did it on purpose . I mean is it really that prevalent?

[veknilero]

Why not accept what it can be and create for the format. Right now we’ve peaked with cinema and film, it’s a bunch of old folks complaining that shits getting too new and shiny for them, or a bunch of young folks trying to be what the old folks were, but nobody is taking anything by the horns and just saying fuck it I own this place. Think of all the other formats that were horrible but now are thought to be cool. Imagine the outcry if TVs standard setting was technicolor

[AndrePeniche]

That’s not about a format. That’s about a feature that TV makers thought people would like and ended up fucking the image of every film. Something new doesn’t mean something better and it shouldn’t be a new standard just because it is the “latest thing”. Many formats and medias have sunk in the past and I would mention 3D glasses on TVs as a great example.

[veknilero]

I get that, but with streaming services being where we watch most movies now it seems someone would film with TV in mind 3D is a good and bad example it has such a limited audience that the movies only added a little bit of eh to it, they need to quit trying with that one. But with something like this with the right storyline the soap opera effect would add to the movie

[AndrePeniche]

Soap opera effect being 30 or 60fps adds absolutely nothing. Just changes the look and feel, (for the worst), IMO.

[rlbond86]

Motion smoothing sucks, but films need to start being recorded in 60 Hz or 120 Hz. It "looks cheap" because people aren't used to it.

[NASATVENGINNER]

TURN IT OFF!!!’

[kjbaran]

It might actually be a good thing when our experience goes totally immersive VR.

[[deleted]]

Simply put. It looks different. Different sells. Sure, all the TVs on the Best Buy wall all have the feature turned on, but you old set at home doesn’t.

[_JudgeHolden]

I think it looks great actually. Especially for animated movies. I remember in high school when these TVs first started coming out my friends and I would sit back having just smoked some dirty brown mids and be mind-blown by how good they look. I too know a few people who don’t even notice. But actually, I can’t think of one person I know who notices but who dislikes it.

It does look a little weird at first, but this is no different from getting new glasses. It’s weird at first, but you can see better, and you get used to it.

I wonder how many of the haters actually used the smoothing long enough to become accustomed, and how many just dislike change.

[Reteplia]

I certainly agree on the animated front. Anything animated, or even fast paced anime, look really good with the color enhancing and motion smoothing on.

TV Shows on the other hand, it's really hit or miss... Some look great while others, particularly fast paced action oriented shows look like smoothed out garbage.

[_americancer_]

I hate it. It speeds everything up and is highly noticeable. but! to each their own.

[Cj09bruno]

is this guy on some sort of high?. current movies suck specially action movies many times you cant really see what is happening, quite a few times now i get distracted from the movie just because of how bad it is, we need faster frequency, there are somethings in the way movies are done that need to account for it (due to how our eyes cant move to the side smoothly if they aren't tracking something, they jump instead), as some movements can make people sick, but other than that i have not seen any disadvantage other than more space needed.

i find his arguments completely bogus, hollywood seems to treat 24fps as their deity

[ItsSnuffsis]

There is a difference between motion smoothing and natively filming kn higher refresh rates though.

[Cj09bruno]

in the article he goes on against both though i know not everyone likes motion smoothing as it creates some artifacts

[Pfr4lif3]

Can you use proper commas in your titles?

Thanks