Samsung and Philips adding Filmmaker Mode to their TVs to stop motion smoothing

[midian182]

What just happened? Following the announcement of the feature last year, Filmmaker Mode, which automatically disables any post-processing a TV may have, is coming to more manufacturers’ sets. Joining LG, Panasonic, and Vizio in supporting the mode will be Samsung, Philips/TP Vision, and Kaleidescape.

Filmmaker Mode was originally announced last August by the UHD Alliance. It’s intended to provide a more cinematic experience on 4K and 8K TVs, which often have motion smoothing, or whatever the manufacturer decides to call it, enabled by default.

Motion smoothing, which has been criticized by many within the film industry, involves the creation of artificial frames that are inserted between real frames to make action scenes look more fluid and counter motion blur. While this can improve certain content such as sports, it looks strange on 24fps movies, leading to what’s called the soap opera effect. Tom Cruise and Mission: Impossible - Fallout director Christopher McQuarrie are just two of the industry names who have spoken out against motion smoothing.

Variety writes that Filmmaker Mode, which also disables post-processing systems such as noise reduction and sharpening, will be part of every new 4K and 8K TV that LG introduces in 2020, while Panasonic said its 2020 OLED HD 2000 series will support the mode. No word yet on which Samsung, TP Vision, and Kaleidescape TVs will have the feature.

While more companies are joining the initiative, Sony and TCL have been conspicuously quiet about embracing Filmmaker Mode.

The UHD Alliance wants Filmmaker Mode enabled by default, and it’s also standardizing the mode across TVs to make it easy to find in the menus.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/83456-samsung-philips-adding-filmmaker-mode-their-tvs-stop.html

 

[Skjorn]

Film in higher than that garbage 24fps. If porn is doing 60fps and VR experiences why can't Hollywood?

 

[VitalyT]

Wow, this sounds like a problem spoken out of someone's arse. The whole world is moving toward higher FPS, for more realistic experience. Some new movies are being made these days, using 8K HDR with 120fps.

A lot of people (including myself) use software like SVP, to auto-inject extra frames. Whoever says we need to go back to 24fps is just dumb. It is the first time I hear such nonsense, which sounds like something published on The Onion.

 

[dangh]

Doesnt gaming mode remove all of the postprocessing? Should be good enough.

 

[bandit8623]

Wow, this sounds like a problem spoken out of someone's arse. The whole world is moving toward higher FPS, for more realistic experience. Some new movies are being made these days, using 8K HDR with 120fps.

A lot of people (including myself) use software like SVP, to auto-inject extra frames. Whoever says we need to go back to 24fps is just dumb. It is the first time I hear such nonsense, which sounds like something published on The Onion.

Its preference. I've used svp and personally don't like the soap effect. There are ways though to so 48p and not look soapy.

 

[SantistaUSA]

Film in higher than that garbage 24fps. If porn is doing 60fps and VR experiences why can't Hollywood?

You clearly have no idea why it is 24fps, you should do some research why movies are recorded in 24fps instead of higher fps!

 

[Skjorn]

You clearly have no idea why it is 24fps, you should do some research why movies are recorded in 24fps instead of higher fps!

Cause it takes twice the amount of film? You ever seen the hobbit in 48fps?

What makes it so clear I don't know what I'm taking about? Movies are making plenty of money right now and the porn industry has always lead Hollywood to the next media medium.

 

[Adhmuz]

Cause it takes twice the amount of film? You ever seen the hobbit in 48fps?

What makes it so clear I don't know what I'm taking about? Movies are making plenty of money right now and the porn industry has always lead Hollywood to the next media medium.

Unfortunately the Bluray releases of the Hobbit are 24fps or 23.997... And I never saw those in theaters, not sure if any of my local theaters would have even showed it in the original frame rate.

One movie I can attest to is Gemini Man, that Bluray is presented in 60fps and was filmed in 120fps, however again the technology in most theaters could at most play it back at 60 and not 120. Watching the Bluray at 60fps however is strange, it really doesn't feel right for a movie, granted the movie itself isn't all that great to begin with. But a lot of the scenes don't feel right, its hard to explain but again this is likely due to how movies themselves have been presented for the last half century and what I'm use to, what most people are use to.

Perhaps with time people will come to accept the change, but one thing people really don't like is change itself, more so when you try to force it on them with no choice or reasonable explanation with any benefits.

The porn industry leading Hollywood's choice to media support is largely a myth, unless you can provide facts to support the statement.

 

[Skjorn]

Unfortunately the Bluray releases of the Hobbit are 24fps or 23.997... And I never saw those in theaters, not sure if any of my local theaters would have even showed it in the original frame rate.

One movie I can attest to is Gemini Man, that Bluray is presented in 60fps and was filmed in 120fps, however again the technology in most theaters could at most play it back at 60 and not 120. Watching the Bluray at 60fps however is strange, it really doesn't feel right for a movie, granted the movie itself isn't all that great to begin with. But a lot of the scenes don't feel right, its hard to explain but again this is likely due to how movies themselves have been presented for the last half century and what I'm use to, what most people are use to.

Perhaps with time people will come to accept the change, but one thing people really don't like is change itself, more so when you try to force it on them with no choice or reasonable explanation with any benefits.

The porn industry leading Hollywood's choice to media support is largely a myth, unless you can provide facts to support the statement.

Are you defending 24fps cause it's what you're used to? What are you 95 years old? You sure it won't look better in black and white and 240p?

 

[Danny101]

24 fps is fine for drama, comedy, and 'just people talking' types of flicks. When it gets into action sequences type movies why would they not use faster frame rates?

 

[Jules Mark II]

So ditch your old TV's and buy new expensive TVs

 

[Michiel]

24 fps is fine for drama, comedy, and 'just people talking' types of flicks. When it gets into action sequences type movies why would they not use faster frame rates?

Because you can't just say that more fps is always better for action. It's a stylistic choice. If a filmmaker shot his movie in 24, then that was a conscious decision because 24 fps has a certain look.

 

[Michiel]

Wow, this sounds like a problem spoken out of someone's arse. The whole world is moving toward higher FPS, for more realistic experience. Some new movies are being made these days, using 8K HDR with 120fps.

A lot of people (including myself) use software like SVP, to auto-inject extra frames. Whoever says we need to go back to 24fps is just dumb. It is the first time I hear such nonsense, which sounds like something published on The Onion.

That's your opinion, it is not fact. I don't think anyone is saying that if a movie was made to play at 60 or 120, that shouldn't be done. But it's a stylistic choice in the end. If a director shot his movie in 24fps, then it was a conscious choice because of a stylistic effect and it makes sense that he would prefer that people saw the movie as he intended it, not with artificial extra frames cut in (producing artifacts).
But you're still free to set up your tv as you like if you think it's dumb.

 

[Skjorn]

Because you can't just say that more fps is always better for action. It's a BUDGET choice. If a filmmaker shot his movie in 24, then that was a conscious decision because 24 fps has a certain PRICE.

ftfy.
24fps panning shot viewed on a 60Hz television looks awful. Doesn't have to be action at all.

 

[Danny101]

Because you can't just say that more fps is always better for action. It's a stylistic choice. If a filmmaker shot his movie in 24, then that was a conscious decision because 24 fps has a certain look.

Yeah, the film grain look. I actually like the look of film grain. I don't think it's limited to 24fps though.

 

[Adhmuz]

Are you defending 24fps cause it's what you're used to? What are you 95 years old? You sure it won't look better in black and white and 240p?

I'm not defending anything, just stating the available examples of HFR movies are not enjoyable to watch yet and have no quarrel with how movies are filmed or presented, if you don't care to respect my opinion that's your choice.

Now what high horse are you riding that has you believe movies will in fact be any better just because they are filmed in higher frame rate? Bad movies will be bad movies no matter the quality or frame rate use to capture or present them. The few examples we have are not good, until a good example of such a film is presented you can't just flame Hollywood for not making movies in higher frame rate than the industry standard because you want them to.

At least the UHD TVs you can buy going forward will be able to present movies the way they were intended to be, as antiquated as you believe it to be, that's the point to the article since you missed it entirely.

 

[Skjorn]

I'm not defending anything, just stating the available examples of HFR movies are not enjoyable to watch yet and have no quarrel with how movies are filmed or presented, if you don't care to respect my opinion that's your choice.

Now what high horse are you riding that has you believe movies will in fact be any better just because they are filmed in higher frame rate? Bad movies will be bad movies no matter the quality or frame rate use to capture or present them. The few examples we have are not good, until a good example of such a film is presented you can't just flame Hollywood for not making movies in higher frame rate than the industry standard because you want them to.

At least the UHD TVs you can buy going forward will be able to present movies the way they were intended to be, as antiquated as you believe it to be, that's the point to the article since you missed it entirely.

I missed it huh...
They talked about motion yes but not HFR. The article is about wanting artificial processing off by default. That's it.

Movies are filmed at 24fps because it is cheaper and looks "good enough". Not because of a certain look to motion. If they filmed in HFR then TV makers wouldn't have to make up for their cheap asses with post processing.

 

[VinnyC]

I watched the Hobbit in HFR and it gave me a headache. Yes panning shots were clearer but the rest of the film appeared almost to have a sped up "fast forward" motion to it. Basically like how motion smoothing makes a picture look on a TV.

It's not just about "48fps", "60fps" or "120fps". These higher numbers visually make a film different. It's not just clearer, it's different. A film's cadence affects the overall look and feel of a movie, though it's more of a subconscious thing that's hard to put into words. You know it's different, but are not quite sure how. It no longer "looks like a movie".

I'm not denying the clarity of higher framerate, but is the benefit worth the cost of the entire film looking different? Occasionally a character on a TV show will have a camcorder, and generally when they show what that camcorder is seeing the framerate will be different. It's often jarring and hard to know exactly why the look is different. You didn't realize your show had a certain feel to it before, but now that you've seen it at a different framerate you realize "hey that's now how my show is supposed to look!"

 

[Skjorn]

I watched the Hobbit in HFR and it gave me a headache. Yes panning shots were clearer but the rest of the film appeared almost to have a sped up "fast forward" motion to it. Basically like how motion smoothing makes a picture look on a TV.

It's not just about "48fps", "60fps" or "120fps". These higher numbers visually make a film different. It's not just clearer, it's different. A film's cadence affects the overall look and feel of a movie, though it's more of a subconscious thing that's hard to put into words. You know it's different, but are not quite sure how. It no longer "looks like a movie".

I'm not denying the clarity of higher framerate, but is the benefit worth the cost of the entire film looking different? Occasionally a character on a TV show will have a camcorder, and generally when they show what that camcorder is seeing the framerate will be different. It's often jarring and hard to know exactly why the look is different. You didn't realize your show had a certain feel to it before, but now that you've seen it at a different framerate you realize "hey that's now how my show is supposed to look!"

If the benefit is a smoother and more stable picture that is easier to follow. Yes it is worth it.
If you like your media at 24fps for a certain look then you should be able to toggle the option to cut out half the frames that were filmed if you would rather.

 

[Michiel]

Yeah, the film grain look. I actually like the look of film grain. I don't think it's limited to 24fps though.

Film grain has nothing to do with the 24 fps. But yes film grain is a component of the film look, 24p is another.