Export thread

Hi guys, based on the discussion we had in the other thread, does this look like a good one? I have negotiated a discount on the price from what's posted on line.

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/prod...spx?path=0c011fc5b8fde0010731f80c66455107en02

It seems like an excellent choice. Good reviews pretty much all over the net. 120hz and LED are specs I look for in a TV. LG is also a great and solid brand. All in all I don't see a problem with it.

Awesome, thank you for having a look. The guy has been really nice and has even arranged for me to have it in a few days if that's what we go with.

Squidleybits said:

Awesome, thank you for having a look. The guy has been really nice and has even arranged for me to have it in a few days if that's what we go with.

Click to expand...

The price is pretty bang-on as well vs other options.

Walmart has it for $70 cheaper if you can find a store near you with stock (four stores within 50 miles of me had it in stock) and don't mind walmart:

http://www.walmart.com/ip/LG-47LS4500-47-1080p-120Hz-Edge-2D-LED-HDTV-1.4-ultra-slim/21693003

Or they have the 3D version of that TV for the same cost at walmart as your price.

However, that price is still a good price. It's not a good deal, but it's reasonable for that TV. I suspect that if you shop around and wait on it you can probably find a slightly better deal, but the savings if you wait is going to be under 10%, so it may not matter.

The TV is a nice model, and reviews are good: http://www.amazon.com/LG-47LS4500-47-Inch-1080p-120Hz/dp/B0096FB9K0

I'm sure you'll be very happy with it.

I picked it up today and got a great price on it! Best Buy is good that way!

I love HD TVs. Watching sports on them is just amazing.

This should be a great TV for you. Should do everything you want and more while being reliable.

(Just for the love of all that is good please turn off the Trumotion frame interpolation)

Azurephoenix said:

(Just for the love of all that is good please turn off the Trumotion frame interpolation)

Click to expand...

May I ask why? I don't know if my TV has it, but if it's something I need to worry about I'll check.

Dave said:

May I ask why? I don't know if my TV has it, but if it's something I need to worry about I'll check.

Click to expand...

Oh it's a newish feature that originated on LCD televisions to help compensate for the relatively low refresh rates compared to CRT and Plasma televisions. Almost all LCD televisions have it now (and some plasmas for some reason). It takes whatever footage you have coming in (let's just say 30fps to make calculations easy) and makes up frames to make things "smoother" See, at 120hz you are getting 120 images a second. With motion interpolation turned off the TV will just show frame one 4 times, frame two four times, frame three 4 times (4*30=120). However with motion interpolation on, the TV will actually create 3 distinct new frames between each original footage frame. This results in hyper real smooth footage with next to no motion blur and sometimes full of interpolation artifacting. Some people love it. I absolutely f#$%ing hate it so it is a preferential thing. It really pulls me out of the movie/show and drives me bonkers. We see motion blur in real life... and removing it makes look super fake to me.

My honest take... it does look pretty neat for sports coverage where that super fluid motion actually works pretty well. When you're watching a movie where the director has used things like shutter speed and camera exposure to evoke mood... it completely and utterly ruins it and makes it look like garbage.

Dave said:

May I ask why? I don't know if my TV has it, but if it's something I need to worry about I'll check.

Click to expand...

Remember how many people hated the 120 FPS Hobbit version? That was why. It basically makes everything look like it's on a high def camcorder. I turned it off on mine as well.

Dave said:

I love HD TVs. Watching sports on them is just amazing.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that HCGLNS will love that part! I am hoping that it does amazing things for my PS3 and my shows

Bowielee said:

Remember how many people hated the 120 FPS Hobbit version? That was why. It basically makes everything look like it's on a high def camcorder. I turned it off on mine as well.

Click to expand...

You're alright in my books Bowielee.

Bowielee said:

Remember how many people hated the 120 FPS Hobbit version? That was why. It basically makes everything look like it's on a high def camcorder. I turned it off on mine as well.

Click to expand...

Oh for goodness sake, while those two issues are related, they're not the same thing at all. The Hobbit was shot in 48fps, while frame-interpolation is created on the fly, and usually with cheap hardware. This is the difference between optical zoom and digital zoom in cameras. (Optical zoom is fantastic, assuming you're using a tripod or image stabalization, while digital zoom sucks.) Frame interpolation is a gimmick like bass boost on stereos, some people think it looks/sounds better, but mostly it's just using cheap tricks that will introduce odd artifacts as often as it does anything helpful, probably more often. Actually shooting in 48fps is not just a gimmick, even though some people don't like the choice artistically. There are real benefits to higher frame rate, and it's ignorant statements like yours that are keeping cinema from moving forward.

figmentPez said:

Oh for goodness sake, while those two issues are related, they're not the same thing at all. The Hobbit was shot in 48fps, while frame-interpolation is created on the fly, and usually with cheap hardware. This is the difference between optical zoom and digital zoom in cameras. (Optical zoom is fantastic, assuming you're using a tripod or image stabalization, while digital zoom sucks.) Frame interpolation is a gimmick like bass boost on stereos, some people think it looks/sounds better, but mostly it's just using cheap tricks that will introduce odd artifacts as often as it does anything helpful, probably more often. Actually shooting in 48fps is not just a gimmick, even though some people don't like the choice artistically. There are real benefits to higher frame rate, and it's ignorant statements like yours that are keeping cinema from moving forward.

Click to expand...

People hate the way it looks. You can dislike that as much as you want, but they hate it.

Bowielee said:

People hate the way it looks. You can dislike that as much as you want, but they hate it.

Click to expand...

Some people hate the way it looks. Some people hate the way HDTV looks. Some people hate the way digital music sounds. Some people probably hated color when it was first added to movies.

That doesn't mean that HDTV looks worse than an SDTV. That doesn't mean that Vinyl sounds better than a CD, or even a more advanced form of digital audio. That doesn't mean that color in movies is something that will never catch on.

Personally I like the potential that higher frame rate has. I think it's still got some issues to work out in terms of how it's used; but when it works, it looks amazing and is a definite improvement. Just because you don't like it is no reason to be blatantly wrong in your stating of the facts. The Hobbit was not 120fps, and it was not frame interpolated either.

Oh no, I got numbers wrong. It's still the same issue that bothers people.

So, did you just ignore the backlash that the Hobbit had over this issue?

Bowielee said:

Oh no, I got numbers wrong. It's still the same issue that bothers people.

Click to expand...

No, it's not the same issue. As I explained it is a similar issue. It is no more the same issue than "bass boost" and "T-bass" are the same as the point-one in 5.1 surround sound. Both may end up with people complaining about the low-end rumble, but one is a cheap trick to try to disguise poor equipment, or a poor source, while the latter actually has higher fidelity.

So, did you just ignore the backlash that the Hobbit had over this issue?

Click to expand...

No, I didn't ignore that. I noticed a lot of cinema snobs were all butthurt because their preconceptions were being challenged and someone was asking them to get used to something new and different. Yeah, the way fabric moves in 48 fps can bring up memories of "shot-on-shitteo" or stage productions, but that's like condemning animated films as "kid's stuff" because of their visual similarity to Saturday morning in the 80's. While there may be similarities, and film snobs may have difficulty in challenging their prejudices surrounding the smoother motion of 48 fps film, that does not mean that everyone, or even a majority, actually hate the new technology. And it certainly doesn't mean that it's the same thing as frame interpolation.

As I said when this was discussed back when the Hobbit came out, I think having a framerate that high hits the uncanny valley. People perceptually don't like things that aren't real to look too real. You may personally like it, but so far the reaction to it has been poor.

At least with someone filming in a higher framerate they can compensate for motion blur and colour saturation and the like on the set and in post production with professional level tools and personnel.

Interpolating frames on your $700 television is always going to look goofy unless they modify the hardware significantly to not eliminate motion blur. Human perception is capabale of detecting far more than the cinema standard of 24 frames per second... but we DO see motion blur (look at fast spinning wheels, helicopter blades... hell just swing your arms around in front of your face... you'll see it). Eliminate motion blur and things look creepy (and very UNREAL).

Squidleybits said:

Hi guys, based on the discussion we had in the other thread, does this look like a good one? I have negotiated a discount on the price from what's posted on line.

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/prod...spx?path=0c011fc5b8fde0010731f80c66455107en02

Click to expand...

I have the LCD version of that TV in my bedroom. It has more HDMI jacks and is considerably cheaper. Honestly, the difference between the LCD and LED version of that set is nearly unnoticeable, having seen both in action at the local Futureshop.

And I see that you had already purchased it so I will slink away quietly.

He gave me a really good buy on it so the price difference between the two isn't an issue. I had gone in looking for the LCD version of it (based on reviews and seeing it in action) but they didn't have any that they could get me before Tuesday so that's why we went with this one.

I do have a few questions if you don't mind though.

What is the difference in the number of HDMI jacks?
Do you find the size of the TV large for your room? In the store it looked pretty normal. In our room, its looking a bit massive.
Do you use a playstation or other consoles with yours?
Did you have to turn off the setting they mentioned above?

My room is pretty big and it's opposite of my bed. It's perfectly suitable for me. More jacks means I can plug more shit into it. Right now I have a digital box and my PS3 hooked up to it but having 3 jacks instead of 2 means I can toss something else on without having to juggle what's hooked up. Just a mild convenience.

I have the trumotion crap turned off because like most of the people in this thread, I also can't stand it. It makes everything look bad.

What the hell Gilgamesh?

Bowielee said:

As I said when this was discussed back when the Hobbit came out, I think having a framerate that high hits the uncanny valley. People perceptually don't like things that aren't real to look too real. You may personally like it, but so far the reaction to it has been poor.

Click to expand...

The local Best Buy had motion control on on their display models, and they had the first Rocky movie on. A 1976 movie just SHOULD NOT LOOK LIKE THAT.

Bowielee said:

What the hell Gilgamesh?

Click to expand...

That's what he does... disagrees without clarification. I don't even pay it any attention anymore.

Azurephoenix said:

That's what he does... disagrees without clarification. I don't even pay it any attention anymore.

Click to expand...

Name a time outside of this thread I've done that. Please, I'll wait. I can assure you I've actually been the one to get after people for disagreeing without backing up their position, the only reason I did that here, was because I logged out for the night after being distracted from the computer when I hit the disagrees but before I could get to the text.

I disagreed with all complaints about frame interloption on new TVs being shit and making the movies/TV look terrible. I think it makes them look more realistic, like I'm looking at a live feed of something happening to real people instead of a fake cinematic experience. Also, the Hobbit 45fps was amazing and I loved every minute of it, the complaints were not shared by the larger population of the movie goers and only people who dislike frame interloption would have a problem with it.

Everytime I've done a disagree without reason was either because it was a joke or self-explanatory. Thanks though, I think.

Click to expand...

I for here on out will never use a disagree button without backing it up with further reasoning in a following post.

Click to expand...

Gilgamesh said:

Name a time outside of this thread I've done that. Please, I'll wait. I can assure you I've actually been the one to get after people for disagreeing without backing up their position, the only reason I did that here, was because I logged out for the night after being distracted from the computer when I hit the disagrees but before I could get to the text.

I disagreed with all complaints about frame interloption on new TVs being shit and making the movies/TV look terrible. I think it makes them look more realistic, like I'm looking at a live feed of something happening to real people instead of a fake cinematic experience. Also, the Hobbit 45fps was amazing and I loved every minute of it, the complaints were not shared by the larger population of the movie goers and only people who dislike frame interloption would have a problem with it.

Click to expand...

Oh I suppose I'm being a bit obnoxious about the disagree thing... but you do have a habit of disagreeing and then responding after the fact/later .

You're mixing your stuff up too because I didn't say anything negative about the Hobbit in 48fps. In fact I believe I mentioned something about film makers being able to compensate for reduced motion blur when shooting natively in a higher frame rate. When they are shooting at a particular frame rate and you view it at the intended frame rate things look great!

When you make up frames, everything goes to hell. I'm sorry but frame interpolation will always look like fake crap to me. Until they can make up frame interpolation that retains motion blur and doesn't create all kinds of garbage artifacting I will not change my position. Simple as that.

drifter said:

Click to expand...

Yeah well, my wife proved more distracting than my ability to post a reply quickly.

Azurephoenix said:

Oh I suppose I'm being a bit obnoxious about the disagree thing... but you do have a habit of disagreeing and then responding after the fact/later .

Click to expand...

Correct, but I do respond to why I disagree. Sometimes my wife/three kids/work interrupt me before I can.

Azurephoenix said:

You're mixing your stuff up too because I didn't say anything negative about the Hobbit in 48fps. In fact I believe I mentioned something about film makers being able to compensate for reduced motion blur when shooting natively in a higher frame rate. When they are shooting at a particular frame rate and you view it at the intended frame rate things look great!

Click to expand...

You're not the one I was referring to about the negative Hobbit comments

Azurephoenix said:

When you make up frames, everything goes to hell. I'm sorry but frame interpolation will always look like fake crap to me. Until they can make up frame interpolation that retains motion blur and doesn't create all kinds of garbage artifacting I will not change my position. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

Don't know what to tell you other than, Sorry your TV sucks? I get zero artifacting and my TV/Movies look like live feeds of actual people instead of fake cinema.

Gilgamesh said:

Also, the Hobbit 45fps was amazing and I loved every minute of it, the complaints were not shared by the larger population of the movie goers and only people who dislike frame interloption would have a problem with it.

Click to expand...

This is actually untrue. It's hugely divisive.

Maybe, but I hear as much good as negative so the idea that it's mostly negative is what I was disagreeing with.

Gilgamesh said:

Don't know what to tell you other than, Sorry your TV sucks? I get zero artifacting and my TV/Movies look like live feeds of actual people instead of fake cinema.

Click to expand...

My TV doesn't have any motion interpolation options (and it's most certainly not crappy). I see the motion artifacts in friends televisions and especially TV's at retail stores when I'm browsing. I can pretty much see artifacting in almost any television that uses frame interpolation. The vast majority of people can not... I can and do and it drives me crazy.

Honestly it's going to be personal opinion anyway. Neither way looks real. 24fps with lots of motion blur... not how we perceive the world. 120fps with no motion blur... also not how we perceive the world. I'll keep my fake cinema and you can have your hyper-real live feeds. (hint: there's no right answer here as far as preference goes).

Most cinephiles can't stand motion interpolation. That's just how it is.

Azurephoenix said:

My TV doesn't have any motion interpolation options (and it's most certainly not crappy). I see the motion artifacts in friends televisions and especially TV's at retail stores when I'm browsing. I can pretty much see artifacting in almost any television that uses frame interpolation. The vast majority of people can not... I can and do and it drives me crazy.

Click to expand...

Most TV stores at retail are splitting their display connection, resulting in much poorer quality signals.

Azurephoenix said:

Honestly it's going to be personal opinion anyway. Neither way looks real. 24fps with lots of motion blur... not how we perceive the world. 120fps with no motion blur... also not how we perceive the world. I'll keep my fake cinema and you can have your hyper-real live feeds. (hint: there's no right answer here as far as preference goes).

Click to expand...

You're right, I disagreed with your opinion and stated my own.

Frank said:

Most cinephiles can't stand motion interpolation. That's just how it is.

Click to expand...

They tend to quote that it makes the shows/tv look too -real and prefer a more -cinematic- experience. I prefer a realistic viewing.

Gilgamesh said:

They tend to quote that it makes the shows/tv look too -real and prefer a more -cinematic- experience. I prefer a realistic viewing.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's the strawman pro-interpolation people like to trot.

Frank said:

Yes, that's the strawman pro-interpolation people like to trot.

Click to expand...

No, that's actual quotes from people who dislike it. Look up -film grain on Blu-Ray- and you'll see an example what I mean. They prefer the grain because it gives a cinematic look vs clean film looking too real. Exact same arguments are made in the interpolation circles.

personally, I'm leaving mine on, not because I necessarily like it one way or another, but because it works better for sports, which is my preferred program to watch and it's easier to leave it on than to keep switching.

If frame interpolation wasn't attractive to the majority of the public, tvs would come with it default to off, and showroom personnel would be instructed to turn it off.

However, manufacturers have learned that it's not just a gimmick. People will prefer and buy the frame interpolated tvs over their non interpolated counterparts, and they make more money with a showroom filled with them than one filled with regular frame duplicating tvs.

Some frame interpolation is terrible. When it's good, though, it's more popular than a regular tv. Of course cinephiles are going to reject it, and make broad claims that its terrible and humans are terrible for desiring it. They are wrong about what other people should enjoy, but they are entitled to their opinions.

But those that are claiming that the general public is in an uproar, and that there's any significant faction of non-interpolators among the general public, are simply wrong.

I tech communities, and video communities, and critical communities, there is some amount of consternation.

But not among the general public.

I wasn't arguing that there is any sort of uproar over interpolation. I personally can't stand it. It reminds me of bad pan and scan on 4:3 cropped movies.

I was arguing that the Hobbit was very divisive. Many people did not like the 48 frames, many did, many didn't notice.

Frank said:

This is actually untrue. It's hugely divisive.

Click to expand...

Has anyone actually published surveys of public opinion? I'd really be curious to know. There certainly are vocal opponents, but most of those are critics who are steeped in film culture and have strong preconceptions and prejudices about what film is supposed to be. I'm curious as to what the average consumer thinks.

After all, if frame interpolation were something that looked horrible to most people, then it wouldn't be the default mode most televisions are set to. (Granted, the super bright mode that most TVs default to looks bad to most people once it's in their homes, but I don't see any reason to think that people would love frame interpolation on a store shelf and then hate it in different lighting conditions.)

EDIT: I see you're talking specifically about the 48fps of the Hobbit being divisive. That's a little more difficult to gauge public reaction to, especially since the HFR showing was always paired with 3D, so you can't look at the effect of HFR alone. Also, no other 48fps movies have come out, so no trend can be established. I'd still like to know if anyone surveyed audiences, especially those who don't watch a lot of movies in the theater, as to broader public opinion.

I suspect it would be a bad survey anyway. You had to seek out and find a theater that was showing it in HFR, and typically such a theater would only have one screen showing it, so it wasn't a matter of vast swaths of the public being shown it without knowing that it was HFR.

I bet, however, that the studios and directors do have access to post screening information that suggests how well it was received, and I doubt they are treating that information as anything less than proprietary information.

If it was badly received, they'll probably release the next one without an HFR option, simply because it costs the studio more to release multiple versions, and if it wasn't well received they might as well process it end to end in low frame rate simply to reduce the cgi frame count, among other things.

They have to continue to release in the low frame rate either way, because most theaters aren't equipped to handle HFR.

But this was just a simple test and I could see them pulling back for a few years until more theaters have the new projectors installed, then starting to release movies that don't have a low frame rate option.

Keep in mind that there is no bluray 48 frame rate version, so this is yet another way for the studios and theaters to keep ahead of home theater technology, and keep getting people to spend $$$ per person per viewing for something they can't get at home.

So even if its as unpopular as some suggest, it might still be pushed by the industry simply to prop up their revenue.

stienman said:

Some frame interpolation is terrible. When it's good, though, it's more popular than a regular tv.

Click to expand...

Yes. I could rip a DVD, use software to undo the 2:3 pulldown, recover the 24fps original, and use optical flow interpolation to retime the resulting footage to match the refresh rate of my panel, but that's a lot of work.

--Patrick

stienman said:

If it was badly received, they'll probably release the next one without an HFR option, simply because it costs the studio more to release multiple versions, and if it wasn't well received they might as well process it end to end in low frame rate simply to reduce the cgi frame count, among other things.

Click to expand...

If we don't get the rest of the Hobbit in HFR I'm holding everyone who complained about it on these boards personally responsible

We can make them pay. We'll get uwe boll to direct all future Star Wars and Star Trek movies.

We will crush them, drive them before us, and hear the lamentation of their women.

As if it won't be. Peter Jackson seems to be hardbonered for it, no matter how shitty it looks (tongue smiley here).

James Cameron too, but at the rate he's working at, Avatar 2 won't be out until the 2020s.

Frank said:

As if it won't be. Peter Jackson seems to be hardbonered for it, no matter how shitty it looks (tongue smiley here).

Click to expand...

Oh, he'll shoot the movies in HFR, just for consistency if nothing else, but will theaters continue to show it that way? I guess it depends on what type of investment they've put into the projectors, and if they can back out of the tech and make more money that way.

Frank said:

As if it won't be. Peter Jackson seems to be hardbonered for it, no matter how shitty it looks (tongue smiley here).

Click to expand...

You shall be first on my list.

That said motion interpolation on televisions generally just looks strange and off for me. I prefer it off.

Yeah, I'd like to clarify. I don't think motion interpolation and HFR are the same thing. Though I dislike both, they're for different reasons.

Frank said:

for different reasons.

Click to expand...

There's a pretty big difference between "it's being displayed wrong" and "the director shot it wrong" so I agree with you there.