Do you prefer your TV over a cinema screen?

[SvennoJ]

LegitHyperbole said:

Pajderman said:

Yep, I know I'm not in a majority when it comes to this preference. Hench why cinemas and movie makers generally do not increase the framerates presented. As well as they shouldn't since most prefer it that way. And because of this I like watching movies at home more than at the cinema. 

One of the most important aspects for my when buying a new TV is the frame insertion and motion handling tech the TV provides. I want a smooth, clear, stutter free picture without washed out details around the moving objects or ugly artifacts. The best option would be if the source already had higher fps but since so few releases go for it I have to put my trust in the TV-manufacturers ability. 

Yep they'd really need to film at 60fps. I'd hold out hope though, I'd reckon it will change as the younger generation grow up with smooth frame rates and never experience the soap opera effect. 

The issue is with the lighting and lack of motion blur. Shorter exposure ruins the classic 'film look'. Movies have been playing at higher fps on TV all through the boomer and gen x generations. 3:2 pulldown to put 24fps into 60hz with interlacing. So it's not a dislike of higher frame rates, it's filming in higher frame rates that is the problem / has to mature.

Studio lights having to be brighter to compensate for shorter exposure makes it look different. And less motion blur makes it look more like TV. So in your case better frame insertion is the way to go to reduce stutter.

It would be best of both worlds if the blu-ray master (or streaming) offered 2 tracks. One at 24fps and one with AI enhanced frame insertion at 60 fps. Let a super computer analyze the whole movie (from the source bit rate without compression artifacts) and create intermediate frames, then re-render it all at 60hz.