Why does hdtv look like a soap opera

But if 24fps content were played at 30fps, the on-screen motion would appear 25 percent fasterand if the audio kept pace, everyone would sound like a helium addict.

If frames were dropped to 20fps, which fits more nicely into 60, the video would look too choppy. So instead, every four frames of 24p source content is turned into five frames using a process called pulldown. When this modified video is viewed on a TV, the content has been adjusted by creating two interlaced fields that combine adjacent frames in every five-field batch.

It essentially turns 24p video into 30fps video, which is more compatible with the way TVs and broadcast systems work. None of that is what causes the distracting too-smooth effect.

However, it does mean that 24p content broadcast on TV already looks a bit different from what the director intended. If your set is a Hz or Hz one, it adds faux frames to source content if motion-smoothing settings are turned on. But just as a Hz or Hz TV can make movies look less like movies, it can also be the ultimate screen for watching 24p content as intended. This should make your TV show each frame of your 24p content 5 times per second on a Hz set or 10 times per second on a Hz TV.

David Niles, an engineer and producer who helped pioneer the early application of HDTV, has tested varying frame rates on viewers to see how they respond.

With 24 frames, people liked the actors better — they felt the performances were better. In reality, it was exactly the same thing. And that may require new forms of creativity. There has been some movement of late, however. Last year, Christopher Nolan and Paul Thomas Anderson, together with the Directors Guild of America, reached out to the UHD Alliance, a group that brings together entertainment and electronics and tech companies, in an effort to find a solution that satisfies both filmmakers and TV-makers.

Meanwhile, Sony and Netflix introduced a setting called Netflix Calibrated Mode on newer Sony TVs that could turn off smoothing and change settings to better replicate a theatrical experience. It seems to be a good business move for Netflix, which relies on relationships with filmmakers to keep producing content. Netflix had originally hoped to get all manufacturers interested in such a setting, according to Richard Smith, senior product manager with the company.

Some manufacturers, such as Vizio, have stopped setting motion smoothing as the default. And there are technologies being developed today that will allow image settings to be carried over in the metadata transmitted from a piece of content into a TV — so that, effectively, a film or show would automatically adjust your picture settings for you according to what its creators intended.

When you watch an NBA game, motion smoothing might turn on by itself; when you watch The Last Jedi, it would turn off. But it may be years before such technology becomes widespread. In fact, it may become something of a necessity in the not-too-distant future.

As TV screens increase in size, brightness, and processing power, judder will become even more noticeable. And besides, defenders of motion smoothing say, the aesthetic problems many of us have with an out-of-date frame rate are themselves out-of-date. Is motion smoothing all that different, Stessen argues, from other technological developments that were met with resistance from older generations, be it compact discs supplanting vinyl or the introduction of sound and color to motion pictures?

So far, the efforts of filmmakers shooting at high frame rates have not made any of us clamor for more. But that could still change: Ang Lee will give it another shot with his upcoming Gemini Man , and James Cameron — a man who has proven repeatedly that he can make audiences embrace new technologies — is reportedly shooting his Avatar sequels at high frame rates.

And supporters and critics of motion smoothing do agree on one thing: If people watch motion smoothing long enough, they may not want to go back. One could look at this debate as just another case in which filmmakers are resistant to technological disruption — like the move toward digital production and distribution and the growth of mobile viewing. Everyone, it seems, has made their begrudging peace with the fact that there will be people out there watching their movies on tiny cell phones, in brief increments between dishwasher loads or reps at the gym.

It's not entirely a marketing gimmick. The process does give a subtle boost to hi-def sports content like football or basketball, where cameras have to pan quickly in order to follow a punt or a LeBron James steal-into-thunderous-dunk-into-mouthguard-gnawing move. Unfortunately, the smoothing effect sucks for, oh, everything else. Our brains have been trained by decades of watching film shot at twenty-four frames per second.

Most movies are shot at that frame rate. Also shot at that frame rate. We don't consciously register the tiny amount of shimmy and gauziness inherent in twenty-four frames per second, but our brains see it and think, This is quality fare.

Your TV is inventing new frames and inserting them between the real ones. It's impressive when you consider the computing required to make that happen.

But it's a hell of a lot less impressive when Bullitt stops looking like a visually gritty tale of a cop bent on vengeance and starts looking like a telenovela starring smoldering newcomer Esteban McQueen.

Luckily, salvation is just a few button presses away. That's the first half of the fix.