Motion blur induced by TV, the enemy of UHD

Technically-oriented discussion of classic films on everything from 35mm to Blu-Ray
All Darc
Posts: 1226
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
Location: Brazil

Motion blur induced by TV, the enemy of UHD

Unread post by All Darc » Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:05 am

Interesting article about Motion Blur, often on LCD and even OLED TVs.

https://www.cnet.com/news/ultra-hd-4k-tv-refresh-rates/" target="_blank

Interesting that 4K TVs, a resolution that relatively suffer more from the blur created by the TV screen, since the pixels are smaller compared to the width of the blur effect, but such screens have in general even lower refresh rates than average 1080p TVs.

That's why I say 4K it's a hoax, at least if we considere we have no decent display to watch 4K video. If we consider the compression used for most 4K videos kills more percentage of details..
And we consider that most 4K disks are indeed mastered from films finished in 2K... Sure there are some exceptions, like Murder on Orient Express (2017)

Big in average it's a hoax... until sove these problems and few lies, it's mostly a hoax.

Maybe when people could have huge screens, maybe projectors in 4K, they find out they have being made of fools.

Some foruns probably get money from some manufacturers and do not accept people to balme technology problems for thses matters.

I wonder when will be the day I will be able get into a store and find one TV that do not piss me off. Even OLED have many downsides I can't accept, and also the fact of have a way too abusive price.
Keep thinking...

Image

fwtep
Posts: 521
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:55 pm

Re: Motion blur induced by TV, the enemy of UHD

Unread post by fwtep » Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:07 am

All Darc,
I think you'll REALLY like these two videos. They're a discussion of resolution, and they were made by Steve Yedlin, a Director of Photography (most recently for Star Wars: The Last Jedi). There was a lot that even I found surprising, and I've been working in the field (VFX and animation) for 25 years. All together it's about an hour and fifteen minutes. Hopefully you have a really good monitor to watch it on.

http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/

Note 1: The way he has set it up to view the two videos there are no player controls, so you can't pause, go back or forward, etc. I recommend getting an add-on for your web browser that lets you save videos to your hard drive so you can watch them with your computer's video player. I know for the Firefox browser there are several, and I assume there are some for other browsers.

Note 2: The first file is 1.75gb and the second is 2.26gb, so they're big. But that's to keep the image size and bit rate high.

Note 3: The videos are narrated and won't make any sense silent, so make sure your speakers are on.

All Darc
Posts: 1226
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Motion blur induced by TV, the enemy of UHD

Unread post by All Darc » Sat Mar 03, 2018 5:44 pm

Very nice video, and I had imagined or saw most of the aspects the guy described. I still didn't watch it all.

Indeed if you apply a wise sharpness in a HD or UHD file, before convert to lower resolution, more details will survive after the conversion, cause these details whould be more distint and strong and would be less disolved by the conversion. I did it to a Chaplin 1080 captures (City Lights 1930) and looked much better, after convert to 480p, than the DVD captures. Both, BD and DVD were from the same restoration from same company, MK2

In other forum I did everything, spoke in all ways to try people understand me about high compression in excess make HD like DVD in practical terms, but they didn't and made fun or got angry, making me need to apologize many times. I even tried to make analogy about barbecue. I told them : "Imagine a barbecue with 1kg of meat for a few friends, and next years a 4kg of meat for many friends, but the meat in the second barbecue was mostly bone, fat and cartilage than meat."

Old chip from old scanner or telecines was also a problem, like a HD transfer from The Sting (1973) for HD DVD, with lots of aliasing. Most sensors need a 4K to creat a perfect 2K, and a 8K to create a perfect 4K. If they had removed alisaing the image would look softer.
That's why Gone With The WInd was in a first Ultra Resolution restoration scanned in 4K and restored iprobably 2K), and in a second restoration scanned in 8K.

UHD blu rays, even the ones from movies finished in 2K, looks better than usual HD films, because the original scann for the film was in 4K but finished in 2K. There is also the compression, if rich will loss little details than a rich compression of 1080p, cause it will have double pixes, so the soft look introduced by the compression will have a smaller width.

But even a uncompressed file from a film scanned in 8K to a 4K UHD blu ray, still would look not true, since the actual TVs technology introduce motion blur effect.

In another topic, months agos, when I told you MPEG-4 was garbage, I refered more about real time compression using MPEG-4. Resolution was increased, creating about 5 times or more image are to process (DVD to blu ray), and 20 times more from DVD to UHD blu ray. So the algorithm could not became much more compolez than the ones used for DVD, cause the image are to process also increwased a lot. When processor became 10 faster than today, maybe image compression became able to use algorithm many times more complex and able to better deat with textures and gradients.

Not sure if the videolink you sent me have it (need to watch until the end) but people are blind about some things, like they only notice image degradation when there is things easy to not just spot but easy to name, like ghosting image, eletronic noise (rain ofsome noise overlay), but when video compression make image lose textures, creating soft blur textures, people do not notice or care.
Many highly comopressed HD files tends to preserve just some main countorns, to avoid squared large pixels, but vanish most textures. It's like a interpolation with countorns defined, but with not true details or textures. But silly people see it, see no "squared effect" on edges, and think it's a ok HD.

Most people still don't know what is quality. Maybe people with projectors and huge screens, who watched the trully best UHD editions, have some better idea. Most people don't even watch close enough TV screen to see the details of the image in few rare quality UHD editions. If people have no reference, they are still being fooled. But as I say, close watch for LCD creates distotion, like light not even along screen area.

You would understand my revolt if you saw what is broadcast here, and specially in a paid mini sat TV system, when I point the screen in the face of a technician, a huge artefact larger than his nose, a image with textures no much better than DVD, and in some cases no better than even a primeVHS , and he said me : "It's because it's not 4K, just 1080p."

But like I said the screens also tend to creat clipped whites and crushed shadows, unles adjusted to look gray and fadded. Ligh it's noit even on screen, unless sit far. So it's impossible for me to tolerate a LCD TV, as it's a torture to try to watch a film, as entertainment, looking to it. And even OLED have motion blur.
I promise myself I would not use any LCD (orLED backlight LCD) to watch films for entertainment. If more people could boycott this curse, they would create something better faster.
Keep thinking...

Image

All Darc
Posts: 1226
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Motion blur induced by TV, the enemy of UHD

Unread post by All Darc » Sat Mar 03, 2018 5:49 pm

I can see Mike closing this topic soon... :(
Keep thinking...

Image

Daniel Eagan
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:14 am
Contact:

Re: Motion blur induced by TV, the enemy of UHD

Unread post by Daniel Eagan » Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:28 am

fwtep wrote:All Darc,
I think you'll REALLY like these two videos. They're a discussion of resolution, and they were made by Steve Yedlin, a Director of Photography (most recently for Star Wars: The Last Jedi)...
To grossly simplify, is he saying that it's not the number of pixels capturing data, it's how that data is manipulated in post? That basically all professional cameras operate at high enough quality for theatrical projection?

Haven't read this yet but he seems to amplify his argument:
https://ascmag.com/articles/a-clear-loo ... resolution" target="_blank

All Darc
Posts: 1226
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Motion blur induced by TV, the enemy of UHD

Unread post by All Darc » Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:06 am

He is saying there are a lot of factors. If the capturing data it's already low in details, the final will look low. It can even look sharp by sharpnning filters, but sharp it's not exactly high details.

But it's a fact that a movie shot in 4K, or shot in super 35mm and finihsed in 2K in pos production, will never look really good as a true 4K film, even if converted to 4K or have sharpnning filters applied.
It can look better than most 1080p, since a hi bitrate 4K of a good UHD blu ray will have a softness added to a image interpolated to double resolution, so the width of the softness effectin a 4K will be 50% of the width of a 1080p.

Compression always add some softness. It's like if we add softnedd filter to a 1080p image. And compared to a softness to the same image, but before we interpolate the image to 4K making image larger and the softness effect width will be narron, in comparisson.

I repeat... People do not know what is true resolution. One good point in the video is he talked about screen size and screen distance. Even if the compression hadn't killed details, people would not see the details very well cause they sit too far. And the cursed LCD technology do not allow people sit near screen, cause near we see more of the disturbing side effects of it, like view angle distortion (color/contrast get crap) and uneven light distriburtion along screen.
I get mad when I see TV technicians telling me to sit 4,5 meters away, to a 50 inch screen. It's too much even for 1080p, and for 4k it's a absurd. Sit close enough to see 4k details, for a optimun photograph shot in 4K, and the sides of screen start to look way darker than the center.
And Japan came with a bulls.. talk about 8K for huge LCD screens. Ohhn, come on... It's pure nonsense...

I repeat, people do not know what is true image definition, and don't even have how to see it with quality, cause no TV screen are good for it. Even OLED have motion blur too. With people not knowing such things, it's easy to push lies over them, like the 4K discs made from 2K files.

I challenge anyone on this planet to show a decent TV screen for true high definition image.
I also challenge anyone to show me a trully compression system free of artefacts for 4K broadcast.

This without talk about the genocide of dynamic range introduced with LCD domain over market. White clipping it's everywhere, and I trully deeply hate it. Also the crushed blacks are another disgrace. For me it's a torture, really, just repulsive to watch images with clipping and crushed at same time.

I will never tolerate so much lies and huge deffect in a technology that are reported as better than the earliy one. For me CRT it's always way better than these "pieces of garbage with thin screen".
Daniel Eagan wrote:
fwtep wrote:All Darc,
I think you'll REALLY like these two videos. They're a discussion of resolution, and they were made by Steve Yedlin, a Director of Photography (most recently for Star Wars: The Last Jedi)...
To grossly simplify, is he saying that it's not the number of pixels capturing data, it's how that data is manipulated in post? That basically all professional cameras operate at high enough quality for theatrical projection?

Haven't read this yet but he seems to amplify his argument:
https://ascmag.com/articles/a-clear-loo ... resolution" target="_blank" target="_blank"
Keep thinking...

Image

User avatar
Mike Gebert
Site Admin
Posts: 6081
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Motion blur induced by TV, the enemy of UHD

Unread post by Mike Gebert » Sun Mar 04, 2018 8:42 am

The idea that all compression introduces softness is nonsense. Many of us work one way or another with modern video systems. Essentially compression works by deciding that if there's an area of the screen that's the same tone, it can be described as "from here to here, it's the same tone," as opposed to Pixel #10,333 is blue, and Pixel #10,334 is blue too, and Pixel #10,335 is blue..." The idea that Pixel #10,334 is somehow soft because you do that is obviously untrue. We make judgements in our work all the time about what people will see and not see when you compress something to bring the file size down.

Everything has degrees, and sure, you can compress everything to where you see all kinds of artifacts, but the technology has long since passed that point. The simplest test is to look at the broadcast of a live sporting event-- you will see compression artifacts in fast-moving scenes. Now put on a blu-ray of a movie. You won't see them. The difference is a matter of the choices made on how much bandwidth is used to deliver the image, broadcast having bandwidth limitations a blu-ray disc does not.

These posts have been going on long enough that their author is making jokes about me pulling them. We've mostly ignored them because they seem harmless, ranting that all HD is terrible doesn't seem to have impeded anybody's enjoyment of their home entertainment system, but what's the point? It seems clear that you're not going to convince anyone their expensive home video system sucks, but more to the point, I don't think anyone has the technical knowledge to carry on this discussion with you. It's been suggested before that you take it somewhere that people are actually into the techie stuff. Most discussion here, obviously, is more on the level of "Manhandled is coming out from Kino!" or "Has anyone seen Saloon Bar?" Talking about UHD just doesn't fit here or inspire the sort of learned back and forth it would get elsewhere.

So let's be done with this here. It's not going anywhere. I'm not against arguing for better quality-- way back when I used to be a pill on laserdisc and DVD forums because people were saying DVD was going to kill laserdiscs, and obviously it would and did. But the initial DVD standard was very poor, and I think the laserdisc crowd fighting it helped push them to make it better. But I feel HD at home has passed that point. The quality is extremely high. It certainly needs adjustments if what you want is a movie look, but that's for you to fiddle with the dials, not the industry to solve. If you don't like it at all, well, I know people who only want to see film on film, and if you arrange your life a certain way, it can happen. But at some point the marketplace has decided for the majority of folks.

So, enough arguing about the technical aspects of HD. There's a better place for it, somewhere on the internet.
“I'm in favor of plagiarism. If we are to create a new Renaissance, the government should encourage plagiarism. When convinced that someone is a true plagiarist, we should immediately award them the Legion of Honor.” —Jean Renoir

All Darc
Posts: 1226
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:13 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: Motion blur induced by TV, the enemy of UHD

Unread post by All Darc » Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:12 am

Mike, I wasn't making jokes of you. I was just afraid you would close it, since you already told me that for you such theme was over discussed.

I didn't said all HD it's terrible, but just said it's not true detail in general, despite have some good quality encoding from good transfers, like most Criterion releases.
I said all LCDs &LED backlight LCDs have terrible side effects, making me sick to look at it. With bad displays even a good HD signal can't be really watched in the full details it have.

The word softness it's a not exactly the perfect right term for this, but I had not other. It softs fine detail and textures, specially in lower to medium motion, while the main edges keeps sharp. Its a softness in terms.
Keep thinking...

Image

Post Reply