They were showing this at JB Hifi and i just figure it's it's better motion adaptive interlacing and cadence detection rather than "real" motion enhancement. It would be cheaper to turn off the processing and get it done on a HTPC with a graphics card.

I never got what these "HZ" boosters ever did except increase the screen refresh rate and reduce eye stress due to perceived flicker. Technically you have a source with a 24 to 60 Frames per second of image data. The only way you can actually fill up a refresh rate of 200HZ is to interpolate data, but raw image and motion data can't be interpolated with current hardware on the fly, so it's generally down to the CODEC to do so.

The youtube demonstration in my opinion is misleading, because the source does not change, it's still 24 to 60 FPS.

So conclusion is that these TV sets generally just, repeat frames at set intervals, which is actually...well pretty lame. And heck interpolation actually ruins some most movies because FPS is chosen specifically by the director and enhanced during post production to further the effect, watch the Dark Knight for a good example of this.

I swear TV company are going to have to deal with consumer lashback one of these day for lying through their teeth about such simple things. Granted, "new algos" isn't impressive as a marketing tagline

There's 2 ways you can do interpolation IIRC, looks like that old man babling about it all day was useful after all (thanks Bruce)

one is time based interpolation, where you insert the same frames, but at varying time lenghts to give a better perception.

one is composite, which means you calculate 2 similarly likely frames and composite em together.

Both aren't good for movies in my opinion, both are in fact not "real" interpolation, and both are really "Cheap" methods to increasing perceived motion PQ and bring nothing new to the table. It's not like they didn't do the same for 120HZ and hell that wasn't even impressive.

And before i forget, they ruin the crank and slow effect directors often employ in movies, much to my chagrin.

This post has been edited by empire23: Jan 30 2009, 10:36 PM

Haha, the dreaded sitcom effect.

Directors play around with their film cameras to give better effects of motion and movement, and also to portray the gravity of a situation, like maxing the frames, forward cranks, variable speed cranking and so on. Frame interpolation is generally not intelligent enough to see where the director is using an effect to better portray a scene, blame unintelligent math lol. I used the Dark Knight as an example because it's quite evident in the Imax scenes.

Which reminds me.....i always wanted a specialized video processor that could read off a movie profile to tailor the processing for max enjoyment. Sad it applies only to games for now.

There's always turning off the Motionflow lol

Solution Attained.

My advice would be to put a priority on the IQ of the LCD panel first (including the back lighting), the IQ of processing second and all other gimmicks 3rd. I has Avivo which has perfect HQV HD scores, so i'm only worried about no1.

Still far away from that shinny PhD and ivory tower professorship. Gimme another 3 or 4 years. I cans do it! Maybe!

I think the fact here is simple, motion flow is generally a cheap gimmick to sucker people, it's the same as when the 100HZ TV screens came out, same with the 120 HZ LCDs and so on. It is teh sux, but dolts like big numbers and catchy tag lines. It's like saying my Ipod has "Negative Feedback", "Loop technology" and "Low Z input", when they're all just fancy words to describe a wire and 2 resistors connected from in to out. Lesson is, don't fall for the marketing hype. And before someone tells me "you have to see it for yourself, thus you have to buy the damned thing first!", shut ye pie hole, i already have too many monitors here and hell i don't even watch TV except for maybe 9 News and lousy documentaries on SBS and heck, what they've done, the glorious powers of the FPU processing have done years ago.

It doesn't do much for shitty TV and screws some good movies. I think the point stands for itself and it's what i've been trying to state here. You want a discussion on Motionflow, well there it wasss.

Name calling? That's all you got?

In the areas of audio, people always argue with reason of acquired taste, it's an argument used >9000 times over, and the usual answer is that if you're fed shit everyday, eventually it becomes tolerable and in some cases acceptable. Doesn't mean it's good. But like i indicated in the first post, like the same techs before it, it's a gimmick. Soon enough there'll be a 400 HZ screen with the same features. Any different? Probably not. If you bought the TV for the panel quality and other features, cool, but thread's theme was on motion flow and put my 2 cents in.

This is a forum, not your playbox where everyone's your yes man.

I understand that people have the need to "defend" their purchases, we all don't like buying lemons, or finding out we bought lemons, sure even i got defensive when i bought the craptastic X1800XT lol, but you seem to take this insult to a new level, pray tell....

Well then, counter, provide proof, do tests, pixel peep and so on. If you're just saying it's better, it's hard to swallow, pop in a HQV HD BD and test, then turn motion flow on and off, that's a start, record your observations, list them. Geez and we're supposed to be in the age of discussion and science. Although the idea of 200000000 HZ is total bull, improved video processing from the processor might not be and is worth looking at and either way might be a saving grace, who knows until you sit down and tell yourself "maybe the enhancement lies elsewhere"

An idea is never useful unless attacked from all sides and you don't seem to like your ideas being attacked. BooHoo. It's a public forum. Sadinnit?

Who says i don't?

Haih, neither did i say anywhere i was right, i just stated my points. Why you bring in name calling, i surely don't know. I didn't even call you names lol.

Haih, oversensitive much?

I want a Voyager version. Never liked TNG.