Why hasn't Frame Interpolation been integrated to VLC?

[Bugattikid2012]

Title says it all. I've seen requests for frame interpolation as far back as 2010 and I haven't found a reason given as for why it hasn't been implemented. I know that the SVP plugin won't work for VLC, and apparently neither will any other methods, but my question is why. It's a highly requested feature. VLC is the only video player of this quality that works on Linux to my knowledge, yet it doesn't have such a crucial and frequently requested feature. I'd just use another video player, but the ones that support frame interpolation (like the SVP compatible ones) don't seem to be compatible with Linux, and WINE is too much trouble, and might not work.

So my question is why. I've never seen a reason given as for why it isn't here. It DOESN'T make the video worse, it DOESN'T give headaches, or any other BS that idiots make up. There's no downside, unless there's already some HEAVY motion blur added in as an effect (which is stupid, quite frankly).

Thanks.

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

The true reason is that frame interpolation is a bad idea, and destroy the look of a movie.

Then, for the others, who would this, so far, noone cared enough to do it, which is why none has been integrated. VLC is open source, and done by people on their free time. Patches are welcome.

[Bugattikid2012]

How exactly does it destroy the look of a movie? Are you one of those people who think low frame rates are better than high frame rates?

The only negative frame interpolation could ever have is possibly during blurry scenes it may make them a bit more blurry, but this hasn't been proved and it differs from each frame interpolation technique you use. If you have video that DOESN'T have blurry motion, frame interpolation doesn't make anything worse.

The reason it hasn't been integrated is because VLC is forced to use the engine that comes with it, however if it was open to use the same form of frame interpolation that SVP uses, then it would work.

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

How exactly does it destroy the look of a movie? Are you one of those people who think low frame rates are better than high frame rates?

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/com ... tv/c42o823

The image was made to be displayed at 24fps for movies. Higher rates (or lower) are destroying the look intended.

Movies are not video games!

[Bugattikid2012]

What he's talking about is mostly relevant to projectors, NOT CRT and LCD monitors/TVs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjYjFEp9Yx0

That explains frame rates best, and why 24 FPS is used. Higher frame rates will NEVER make a movie look worse, ever. It will only make it look clearer and smoother. If you want motion blur in a movie, it's usually added via CGI techniques anyways. I don't know why you would want motion blur in the first place though. Higher frame rates make the motion blur much smoother.

You said movies are not video games, so I can assume you understand the higher the frame rate the better in video games, as long as your monitor's refresh rate supports that high of a frame rate.

So if you understand that games are better with higher frame rates, what makes you think movies are ANY different?

http://www.tested.com/art/movies/452387 ... erception/

People complained at "The Hobbit" for it's 48 frames a second, as it was "too realistic." Smoother motion is always better, regardless of what it is we're talking about. I want realism in a movie, not motion blur where I can't see the action. That's just stupid.

And who said that I was going to be watching movies and nothing but movies? There's a reason YouTube integrated 60fps into the site, because it's smoother and better. There's other forms of video other than just movies you know.

24 fps was made due to budget costs back when they used real film. It was too expensive to film at higher frame rates, so everyone started fluctuating their recordings up and down, all around 25 fps. The industry finally settled on 24, then moved to 23.98blahblahblah due to audio issues not syncing up with the film itself. THAT is why movies are made in 24 fps, NOT because it "looks better" at a lower frame rate. The higher the frame rate is, the smoother the video is, and the more realistic it looks. All of this is explained in detail on the YouTube link above, and briefly on this wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_frame_rate

There are many working filters out there for Frame Interpolation, but VLC doesn't support them. There's no way to connect the filter (fddshow) to VLC to make it work. I know this isn't the first time you've seen a frame interpolation request for VLC, so you know that there is a high demand for it. I've seen them go back as far as 2010, yet I haven't seen a REAL reason as to why it hasn't been added. You can state your opinion all day long, but the fact is that higher frame rates make video, regardless of what it is, look smoother and less blurry.

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

So if you understand that games are better with higher frame rates, what makes you think movies are ANY different?

Because a game frame is the image of the world at one infinitesimal instant.

A movie frame is the additions of all the images captured during 1/48s.

It's the difference between a point on a circle and an arc of the same circle.

look smoother and less blurry.

But, the blurry look is MADE ON PURPOSE by filmakers. Removing this blur is destroying the intended artistic effect.

[Bugattikid2012]

Because a game frame is the image of the world at one infinitesimal instant.

A movie frame is the additions of all the images captured during 1/48s.

It's the difference between a point on a circle and an arc of the same circle.

Find me one source that says any of this. A movies frame isn't 1/48th of a second. If it was, then the frame rate would be 48 frames a second, NOT 24. You're thinking of the shutter speed of the projectors. As explained in the YouTube video I linked to you, projectors have a very blurred and distorted image if they just spin the film. Because of this, they put a black image in between each frame, so the projector sends 48 frames to the screen, however there's still only 24 frames of footage, the other 24 frames are black images. So it's still 24 frames a second, NOT 48.

How exactly are you saying that movie frames are different than game frames? They're exactly the same, just one is captured and one is rendered.

A movie frame is the additions of all the images captured during 1/48s.

Um, not it's not? A movie is just like games, each frame is different from the last, each frame is a unique image, and the higher the frame rate goes the smoother it looks.

But, the blurry look is MADE ON PURPOSE by filmakers. Removing this blur is destroying the intended artistic effect.

Not in all movies. Some movies add blurriness, but not all. I, along with MANY MANY MANY other people, do NOT want blurry images and footage. The movies that don't have blurriness (or TV shows, or YT videos, etc) look a ton better with frame interpolation as well.

I've sent you sources that are factual, and I really doubt you've looked at any of them. You have sent me one person's opinion and it doesn't include a source. If you have real sources for your information, please send me some. Otherwise, don't go spouting BS about how higher frame rates make things look worse. It's just not true. And even if it was true, it's completely up to each user to see if he wants to use it or not. There are literally hundreds of thousands of us out there who want higher frame rates, and it's a shame that VLC doesn't allow a working filter to be used.

To my knowledge, it's not that the filter isn't compatible with VLC, it's that VLC isn't allowing the filter to be added. If only it could be enabled/allowed, it would make a lot of people happy. I really like VLC as it works with almost everything. I don't really want to switch to MPC-HC just to use interpolation but I will if I have to, it appears to work fine on Linux using WINE.

All I'm asking is for people to stop spewing BS without facts supporting it. I've sent you information but you haven't even looked at it (otherwise you'd know that movies aren't rendered at 48 FPS with the exception of The Hobbit). You have told your opinion about how motion blur is a good thing, and how movies are meant to look choppy at 24 FPS. That's not true at all. I have explained to you that 24 and 23.98blahblahblah frame rates exist due to the cost of film back when real film was used, and the 23.98 frame rate is used because of an audio syncing issue with old film and CRTs. Originally higher frame rates were used, but companies soon discovered it wasn't as cost effective back then to use higher frame rates. The 24 FPS standard has stuck, however MANY companies are talking about moving up to 48 and 60 frames a second. Heck, they've even filming at over 120 FPS for a while, due to 3D movies requiring a higher frame rate!

Just please, provide real reasons with factual information.

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

Find me one source that says any of this. A movies frame isn't 1/48th of a second. If it was, then the frame rate would be 48 frames a second, NOT 24. You're thinking of the shutter speed of the projectors. As explained in the YouTube video I linked to you, projectors have a very blurred and distorted image if they just spin the film. Because of this, they put a black image in between each frame, so the projector sends 48 frames to the screen, however there's still only 24 frames of footage, the other 24 frames are black images. So it's still 24 frames a second, NOT 48.

How exactly are you saying that movie frames are different than game frames? They're exactly the same, just one is captured and one is rendered.

Just Google 180 shutter rule or time. And do a bit of math. (1/24 divided by 2= 1/48)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_disc_shutter

For the later, capture and render are very different, but you need a bit of thinking to understand it. And understand that real life and computers are different.

Um, not it's not? A movie is just like games, each frame is different from the last, each frame is a unique image, and the higher the frame rate goes the smoother it looks.

But, the blurry look is MADE ON PURPOSE by filmakers. Removing this blur is destroying the intended artistic effect.

Not in all movies. Some movies add blurriness, but not all. I, along with MANY MANY MANY other people, do NOT want blurry images and footage. The movies that don't have blurriness (or TV shows, or YT videos, etc) look a ton better with frame interpolation as well.

It does not matter. VLC renders the film at the INTENDED value from the CREATOR. If the creator wanted 24 fps and bluriness, VLC will render that. If the creator wanted 60fps, VLC will render 60fps.
VLC plays at the actual speed of the movie, because this is what the CREATOR WANTED.

I've sent you sources that are factual, and I really doubt you've looked at any of them. You have sent me one person's opinion and it doesn't include a source.

Your sources are not factual, they don't apply to what is relevant: aka, what was wanted by the creator.

To my knowledge, it's not that the filter isn't compatible with VLC, it's that VLC isn't allowing the filter to be added.

Once again, you speaking of things you don't know. The filter cannot work in VLC because the filter maker did not make it compatible with VLC. VLC does not (and cannot) use DirectShow filters.

All I'm asking is for people to stop spewing BS without facts supporting it. I've sent you information but you haven't even looked at it (otherwise you'd know that movies aren't rendered at 48 FPS with the exception of The Hobbit).

Once again, you can't read and don't understand anything. Films are CAPTURED at 24 fps, with a shutter time of 180degrees, aka 1/48 of a second. I never said movies where shot or rendered at 48 fps.

You have told your opinion about how motion blur is a good thing, and how movies are meant to look choppy at 24 FPS. That's not true at all.

It's not my opinion, it's a fact. Movies are shot at 24 fps, with computed blurriness in mind. It's a basic knowledge from anyone who has done a bit of filmaking. It's one of the first things you learn when you take filmaking lessons.

I have explained to you that 24 and 23.98blahblahblah frame rates exist due to the cost of film back when real film was used.

The historical reason of 24 fps does not impact in anything the fact that 24 fps is the standard of every film, so far, except few exceptions.

Just please, provide real reasons with factual information.

This is the end of this discussion, because you seem to refuse to listen. You have no filmaking information and skills, you cannot read and you understand nothing about the difference between a fact an an opinion.

If you want Frame Interpolation, just code it. But do not say it's not an alteration of movies.

[Bugattikid2012]

Just Google 180 shutter rule or time. And do a bit of math. (1/24 divided by 2= 1/48)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_disc_shutter

For the later, capture and render are very different, but you need a bit of thinking to understand it. And understand that real life and computers are different.

What you are talking about applies to old cameras that used real film, and projectors that use real film.

It does not matter. VLC renders the film at the INTENDED value from the CREATOR. If the creator wanted 24 fps and bluriness, VLC will render that. If the creator wanted 60fps, VLC will render 60fps.
VLC plays at the actual speed of the movie, because this is what the CREATOR WANTED.

That's great, every video player ever can render at what the source video is. That's NOTHING special. What IS special is the ability to run video using frame interpolation.

I don't care what the creator intended it to run at, and neither do the other people who want Frame Interpolation. Ubisoft wants games to run at 30 FPS and nothing more, PC gamers don't care and run games at up to 144 FPS. It makes the video look better and smoother. Just because a creator wanted it to look choppy and blurry doesn't mean that everyone wants it to look bad.

Take animated movies and TV shows. They aren't higher than 24/30 FPS due to the fact that it takes a ton of time to animate, and running at 48/60 or higher frame rates requires double the animation time. With frame interpolation, I can watch these movies/TV shows at higher frame rates. The fact is that higher frame rates means less motion blur, and a smoother video. Everyone would animate at these higher frames if it didn't take more time. There's a reason YT includes 60 FPS you know.

Your sources are not factual, they don't apply to what is relevant: aka, what was wanted by the creator.

Just because someone created something doesn't mean there always right. It's the consumers who are the market, NOT the creator. My sources are factual, you just refuse to look at them otherwise you would understand they ARE factual.

Once again, you speaking of things you don't know. The filter cannot work in VLC because the filter maker did not make it compatible with VLC. VLC does use DirectShow filters.

Once again, you're being stubborn. DirectShow is a completely irrelevant filter and I have no clue why you've mentioned it. It's just a standard filter made by MS to show off 95. The ffdshow filter is just a mere filter, however VLC doesn't allow filters that mess with the rendering of images. It's NOT that ffdshow isn't compatible with VLC, VLC just isn't allowing ffdshow to work. Even if ffdshow wasn't compatible, it would have been made compatible due to the high volume of requests for this feature. You're supposed to be THE head developer, YOU should know this.

Once again, you can't read and don't understand anything. Films are CAPTURED at 24 fps, with a shutter time of 180degrees, aka 1/48 of a second. I never said movies where shot or rendered at 48 fps.

Gee, I don't understand anything. That's a brilliant thing to say coming from someone who is an admin. Admins aren't supposed to be condescending jerks. You're supposed to supply facts, not BS about how videos are supposed to be slow, choppy, and blurry, regardless of if it's a filmed movie, an animated movie, or a TV show. You're not supporting your site's name very well.

The historical reason of 24 fps does not impact in anything the fact that 24 fps is the standard of every film, so far, except few exceptions.

The historical reason of 24 FPS has EVERYTHING to do with why it's still used today, and if you had looked at the link I sent you, you would have seen that. You claim I don't have factual information yet you've obviously ignored the information I have sent you.

This is the end of this discussion, because you seem to refuse to listen. You have no filmaking information and skills, you cannot read and you understand nothing about the difference between a fact an an opinion.

If you want Frame Interpolation, just code it. But do not say it's not an alteration of movies.

There's no need for me to code it, as it already exists and ffdshow IS compatible with VLC, however VLC just isn't allowing it to be used. That's quite stupid in my opinion, considering this is an Open Source program. VLC is a completely self contained program, not using external filters. THAT is the REAL reason why it won't work, and you're quite aware of this. I've seen you on other forums talking about how it only supports what it comes with, and nothing else. Heck, you're the lead developer, if anyone knows this it's you. You're just being a jerk and you're trying to lie to me by saying that ffdshow doesn't support VLC, when the opposite is true. I'm simply asking for support for external filters, however it'd be nice if you could tell the truth while you're at it. And when did I say it's not an alteration of movies? OF COURSE ITS AN ALTERATION! THATS THE ENTIRE POINT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_int ... k_software

Obviously I'm not the only one who wants this, as there's at least 7 versions of frame interpolation out there, JUST in the real time rendering software form. That's not even including the monitors and TVs that have it built in, or things like Adobe After Effects, which is intended for slow motion but can be used just to edit the source file's frame size.

You think that all forms of video and movies have to have motion blur in them. You're not even thinking about animated movies, animated TV shows, and TV shows/movies that don't have motion blur in them by default. The simple fact is that many of us don't want choppy, blurry video. It doesn't matter if the creator wanted it to be that way, we the consumers don't want it that way. That's why frame interpolation exists.

If you don't like it, great. You don't have to use it. Many of us want to use it, and we'd like to use it with VLC. Obviously I'm going to boycott VLC now thanks to how horribly you've treated me, and I'm going to try my best to spread the word about it. I didn't do anything to cause you to act rudely, and I certainly didn't expect it from the person leading the project. I won't be using VLC anymore thanks to how horrible you made yourself look, despite this being the best native video player on Linux. WINE works great with MPC-HC, and SVP works fine on it. Frame interpolation is one of the more popular reasons MPC-HC is used over VLC anyways.

You could have easily talked to me without being so rude. You could have actually posted a single fact, instead of disregarding all of mine. Maybe YOU want to watch blurry movies, and watch animated films/TV shows at their frame rate, but everyone doesn't want this. You can't just act like my facts don't matter, simply because you refuse to believe them. You can watch movies "how the creator intended", while in the meantime I'll be enjoying a smoother, and more enjoyable experience using a different video player such as MPC-HC.

This whole conversation is getting posted to reddit, they'll get a kick out of how stupid, ignorant, and condescending VLC's LEAD DEVELOPER is. You seem to pipe up every time frame interpolation is mentioned on this site, dating back to 2008.
You have never once given a real reason as to why VLC doesn't allow external filters to be used. I'm sure there is a technical limitation, but you've still never said that to me, or in any other threads regarding interpolation that I can find. I'm sure to never recommend it again due to how stubbornly rude you're being. If you honestly think that you can insult and lie to your users who are only trying to help the program grow, then frankly you're a flat out idiot.

The SINGLE AND ONLY REASON where frame interpolation would be a bad thing is if a movie has HORRID motion blur, as frame interpolation can make extreme motion blur worse, however you've failed to mention that point. In videos such as animated shows, TV shows, or movies that don't contain added or much motion blur, frame interpolation only makes them look smoother and better.

I'm going to stop replying now, so don't think I'm going to be *that guy* who's always annoying and doesn't know when to quit. I just wanted to try to improve my favorite video player. WINE here I come...

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me at least. I guess that's more than some developers do. I gotta give credit where credit is due. Thanks for trying.

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

What you are talking about applies to old cameras that used real film, and projectors that use real film.

OK, so you're a troll.

I don't care what the creator intended it to run at,

Confirmed.

Just because someone created something doesn't mean there always right.

Wow. just wow..

Once again, you're being stubborn. DirectShow is a completely irrelevant filter and I have no clue why you've mentioned it. It's just a standard filter made by MS to show off 95. The ffdshow filter is just a mere filter, however VLC doesn't allow filters that mess with the rendering of images. It's NOT that ffdshow isn't compatible with VLC, VLC just isn't allowing ffdshow to work. Even if ffdshow wasn't compatible, it would have been made compatible due to the high volume of requests for this feature.

Ok, you really are stupid and ignorant. DirectShow is the windows system of filter, which SVP is using.
ffdshow AND SVP are DirectShow filters.

There's no need for me to code it, as it already exists and ffdshow IS compatible with VLC, however VLC just isn't allowing it to be used.

No. VLC cannot run DirectShow filters, because we are cross-platforms.

That's quite stupid in my opinion

My my my, your ignorance has no limits.

you're trying to lie to me by saying that ffdshow doesn't support VLC, when the opposite is true.

Wow. No. just stop it, you're ridiculing yourself. DirectShow filters are not working in VLC because we are cross-platform.

If you don't like it, great. You don't have to use it.

I never said I didn't like it. I told you the reason why noone implemented it in VLC.

Obviously I'm going to boycott VLC now thanks to how horribly you've treated me, and I'm going to try my best to spread the word about it.

Great. I do not care.

I didn't do anything to cause you to act rudely,

Actually, you did. Insults since the very first post.

Frame interpolation is one of the more popular reasons MPC-HC is used over VLC anyways.

You are deluding yourself.

You could have actually posted a single fact, instead of disregarding all of mine.

I gave you numerous facts.

Maybe YOU want to watch blurry movies,

I never said that, I explained to you, why noone implemented this feature in VLC.

This whole conversation is getting posted to reddit, they'll get a kick out of how stupid, ignorant, and condescending VLC's LEAD DEVELOPER is.

Great. I'm scared. I'm afraid people will read this conversation, and you know, will see how you are stupid and ignorant, not me.

The SINGLE AND ONLY REASON where frame interpolation would be a bad thing is if a movie has HORRID motion blur

Unfortunately, no. The single best reason, is that it's altering the movie look.

I understand why you want it, but you should at least understand why noone wants to implement it for you, if they don't care about it.

[mauromol]

It does not matter. VLC renders the film at the INTENDED value from the CREATOR. If the creator wanted 24 fps and bluriness, VLC will render that. If the creator wanted 60fps, VLC will render 60fps.
VLC plays at the actual speed of the movie, because this is what the CREATOR WANTED.

This is pointless. First of all, no one is saying that VLC should NOT play without any filtering (including frame interpolation) applied.
Secondly, if you follow this thought, than you should remove all the other filters and video effects from VLC: de-interlacing, scaling, post-processing, video effects, speed increase/decrease, etc..
After all, a DVD should be seen at 720x576 resolution just because it was authored at that resolution, shouldn't it? So you should remove the ability to see it at full screen on your high-resolution monitor, because you are artificially interpolating pixels.
As well, you should remove any sharpness or contrast enhancement filters, because they alter video frames too.

Technology limits should not be confused with artistic choices. Sometimes it's a matter of the latter, sometimes (probably most of the times) it's just the former.

Just like filters like those that add a "film-like" grain to any kind of videos (even those that are 100% digital), exist, why frame interpolation should be banned instead?

Simply leave to the spectator the freedom to decide to enable or disable a filter, any filter.

I personally watch all my videos on my TV with frame interpolation on, because for my eyes videos look like much more natural in this way. After all, if I move my head around, the world is not stuttering in front of me. So, why should movie scenes do? This is MY opinion. And I don't think I'm ruining my movie-watch experience because of this. On the contrary.

[TheBigTime001]

Okay, your comment extrapolates waaay too far. Never was it even implied that JB is against filters; if he was, would there be such a dearth of filters included in VLC? The biggest no factor in this conversation was that way more insults than facts were given by this thread's starter (Bugattikid2012). Also, while his usecases are valid to some users in some cases, the fact is that for about 95% of all movies, 24/30FPS is the intended framerate and the artistic results that follow are also intended. Maybe for some artificially increasing the framerate makes for a nicer movie experience, but there are actual technical reasons why this filter isn't a top candidate for recent development. Pretty much all the other video filters either add or remove data to or from a single frame at a time. You want to upscale? That works nicely, as evidenced by how good DVDs can look on your screen (at the right viewing distance). Cropping? Works perfectly (as data is subtracted, not added). Colour changes (B&W, sepia, shifting, etc)? Also good, you only have to alter data, not add or subtract it. Sharpen an image or denoise it? Good as well, as, you guessed it, no data addition or subtraction of a significant amount takes place. Thus, all of these examples usually work quite nicely, as they complement the look of a film, not alter it to such an extreme degree as extrapolation. Want a valid reason? Look at the word that is being used: "extrapolation". It by definition means the creation of extra data based on a set of facts, usually to a significant degree. So in this case, whole frames are being invented, based on the difference between two or more frames. As these frames are combinants of multiple data sets (necessary to artificially ease the transition between the frames), they will never be as good as real frames that could exist if the film was shot at a 60 FPS rate. Also, it significantly alters the film from its intended rate. If this interpolation is needed, the file can be processed in Avidemux, which offers an extrapolator which works quite nicely. I hope this explanation successfully expands the technical reasons behind how filters work without coming across as too sarcastic.

[mauromol]

If we're saying that there are technical differences between applying framing interpolation rather than, say, colour changes, then it's understandable why this may not be in VLC yet... it's just a different whole implementation story.

However, if the reasoning behind it is just because of the will to preserve the "artistic choices" of the author, this is ridiculous, IMHO, because, just to follow the example, even if colour changes ALTER data rather than ADD information, looking at a colour movie in B&W or viceversa is certainly (IMHO) much more disruptive against the artistic choices of the movie author.

Not to be said that, as already written by the original poster, there are not just movies in the world of videos that one may want to watch.

So, just my 2 cents to say that I'm another one who really hopes that VLC one day will add this feature, also because AFAIK there's currently no video player for Linux that does it.

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

It does not matter. VLC renders the film at the INTENDED value from the CREATOR. If the creator wanted 24 fps and bluriness, VLC will render that. If the creator wanted 60fps, VLC will render 60fps.
VLC plays at the actual speed of the movie, because this is what the CREATOR WANTED.

This is pointless. First of all, no one is saying that VLC should NOT play without any filtering (including frame interpolation) applied.
Secondly, if you follow this thought, than you should remove all the other filters and video effects from VLC: de-interlacing, scaling, post-processing, video effects, speed increase/decrease, etc..

WTF is wrong with you?

The question is "why noone has done the work of adding this filter to VLC"?

And my answer is quite clear:
Well, because, it's a very destructive feature, and quite complex to do correctly. And as the core team is really small (like we've said 100000 times), noone has seen value in implementing it.

This is open source. If you want it, code it.

And of course, the more you attack us, the less we will work on it. I had a preliminary patch for this, and you can imagine that now, it's at the very bottom of my priority list.

Especially since I spend more time answering people on this thread that it should have been.

[TheBigTime001]

JB, I can test this patch and would be interested in testing it, if I would be allowed to, of course. Working with the patched VLC would give me a better understanding of the video part than I do already. Plus, it would allow me to have slightly better responses to this, having seen the effects for myself. Would you be interested a little more on working on this, if you had a willing tester who could answer back without constant insults, and also deliver complete logs and possibly backtraces? I am willing to test any feature patches that can be sent my way, because I am in favour of making VLC customisable. I just don't want to ask for things and give nothing back in return.

[minyor]

:mauromol
Actually mpv have this feature in trunk, version 0.8.. or so.
You can try it using commandline:
mpv --vo=opengl-hq:interpolation [file]

As about me, I don't mind using mpv with smplayer as gui frontend but vlc I personally like more!
So +1 from me to see this feature someday..
Dunno how hard it could be to implement this though, I thought it's just plain interpolation, no?

[mauromol]

@minyor: thanks for the information about mpv, I will investigate further!

@Jean-Baptiste Kempf: I think you should take a breath, calm yourself and read again my message. I never attacked you, I just said that the "artistic" argument for not implementing this is nonsense to me. And this is my opinion against yours. If we talk about technical difficulties or resource constraints, that's a whole another story that I can certainly understand. I'm myself a developer and I've helped on many open-source projects every time I could, so your resentment is vain for me. If I knew C/C++, digital video processing techniques and had a lot of spare time, I would certainly help to implement this.

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

@Jean-Baptiste Kempf: I think you should take a breath, calm yourself and read again my message

I re-read your message, and it's aggressive, especially seeing the rest of the discussion. And you are putting words in my mouth that never existed.

[mauromol]

As you like, if you prefer to interpret this way... it was not my intention.

Anyway, I don't think I've put anything in your mouth, I just said I do not agree at all with what YOU have written (see your FIRST reply in your FIRST post) as a reply to the original question: "Why hasn't Frame Interpolation been integrated to VLC?":

The true reason is that frame interpolation is a bad idea, and destroy the look of a movie.

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

I just said I do not agree at all with what YOU have written (see your FIRST reply in your FIRST post) as a reply to the original question: "Why hasn't Frame Interpolation been integrated to VLC?":

The true reason is that frame interpolation is a bad idea, and destroy the look of a movie.

Unfortunately, this is the truth. It destroys the intended look of the movie. You can say you like it better, which is an interesting opinion, it does not change the fact.

[minyor]

@Jean-Baptiste Kempf
I'm sorry to intervene but I also very curious as how do exactly this feature "destroys" the intended look of movie.
Can you please elaborate more about that?
You said that this is a fact, then can you please point me to some articles or literature or something from which you made this assumption.

It's just that I use to watch movies with this feature enabled and so far I found out only one thing this feature changes in movie and it does removes frame-jiggling in high-motion scenes with smoothing those transitions.
I mean even without this feature enabled, our brain actually does the same thing, it's smoothes those transitions for us but there's also visual irritaion from quick changing frames.

With this feature I caught myself watching movies with more attention in high-motion scenes than before, and now actually can focus on more details.
I think it's because that jiggling does not brake my attention anymore..

So please, I'm very interested to know what excactly do you think make this feature "destroy" the intended look of movie.
Thanks. And sorry if maybe my english rough, it's not my native language.

[aitte]

I'm sorry to intervene but I also very curious as how do exactly this feature "destroys" the intended look of movie.

Let me explain: some people have a honest feel that they are speaking for the whole Humankind, their Opinion is the One and Only Truth, accept it or die.

But don't be upset, I will play trumps:

Animation. Animation is 12 fps or worse. Now try to beat it. Oh, you can't. *nelson_ha-ha.jpg*

For people, that senselessly addicted to obsolete low framerate, taste this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqcRnE1wYAE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc25SG294EE

or other 60 fps converted animation...

or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVmvJlEZFOo

(you may need browser plugin to download 60 fps version, like "youtube video and audio downloader 0.4.3" for Firefox)

p.s. and do not forget that there are home videos, they must be realistic. Why only movies, why so limited. Meh.

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

I'm sorry to intervene but I also very curious as how do exactly this feature "destroys" the intended look of movie.
Can you please elaborate more about that?
You said that this is a fact, then can you please point me to some articles or literature or something from which you made this assumption.

I'm a bit fed up with answering this over and over.

The problem is still that people refuse to understand that movies and videogames are not the same.

The "Motion Pictures look" use 24fps and a 180 degree shutter, to get a kind of blurry effect. Even when filming the hobbits at 48fps, he had to use a 270 degrees shutter to compensate the luminosity-loss, but never did a 360 shutter.

The Motion Pictures look is the addition of all the images during 1/48s.

VideoGames use a 60fps instant-grab collection, to get the same movement impression than movies. It renders every 60 fps (or more) the image of the current instant. Therefore it's never blurry, even when spinning fast.


Did you read the https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/com ... tv/c42o823 link ? If not, go, read it and come back.
The blurriness of movies is made on purpose, and used to make effects, like on SPR, and many other movies (documentation is abundant on how to use that). The hobbit MUST be seen in 48fps, because that's the correct look wanted by the author. This is an effect that is used by filmmakers, and taught by every filmmaker university, to give the movement impression.

TV shows have often used a different look (http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-the-soap-opera-effect/) , because of using higher framerates (and interlacing).

Interpolation of 24 fps, creates a fake image, where you try to negate all the shutter time.

Some people do not like it, especially the younger generation, and I understand that, but this is still changing the intended look of the movie. (See the previous CNet article).

Changing the look of the movie is fine, but don't pretend it's a must, nor that it's not changing anything.

[minyor]

@Jean-Baptiste Kempf
Thanks for links!
Don't get me wrong I ask because I really just want to make this issue clear for myself
And I think I start to understand what you mean, the problem seem that for movie with 30fps one frame last about ~32ms when in interpolated 60fps it will shrink to 16ms.
In other words visual information (some smooth movement) captured by camera each frame will be shown to us as 2 times more quicker movement but for a half a time in length.
So maybe this is a source of discomfort people experiences..
But then part of previous and part of next frames will be also included in additional interpolated frame resulting in exactly same scene movement time smoothed between 2 frames.

Hm.. Still I personally did not experienced such discomfort so far..
I've read many thoughts about this, and it seems to me more subjective matter, for someone there's problem for some not.
Unfortunately it's hard for me to understand a problem I did not experienced myself.

[thed0ct0r]

It's really quite simple.

Using frame interpolation does make movies look like they're shot on video as far as camera movement is concerned and the look of motion at 24fps. It ruins the cinematic look of film - period. HOWEVER, video sources with jittery motion can use this feature to restore the smooth look they're supposed to have. I own Mirilis' Splash PRO EX and it does a great job. A free alternative is Potplayer. The feature is called "motion blur" and does a good job as well.

Here are some perfect examples of using frame interpolation to correct jittery video - not film. Give Potplayer a try and see the difference.

Peter Capaldi Revealed as the Twelfth Doctor - Doctor Who Live: The Next Doctor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFVTTq0k8ys&hd=1

Peter Capaldi on Auditioning for the Doctor - Doctor Who Live: The Next Doctor - BBC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZoBNUny7-0

Obviously I'm a huge Doctor Who fan.