Slashdot Mirror
Motion Impossible: Tom Cruise Declares War on TV Frame Interpolation (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: At 9:46 last night, Tom tweeted an 87-second video in which he and his go-to director Christopher McQuarrie explained the concept of video interpolation and why it is the death of all good things. Video interpolation, they explained, is a digital video effect used to improve the quality of high-definition sport. "The unfortunate effect is that it makes most movies look like they were shot on high-speed video rather than film," said Cruise. "This is sometimes referred to as the 'soap-opera effect'." They explained that most HD televisions come with video interpolation switched on by default, they explained how to switch it off, and then they both nodded with total sincerity.
Now, it's worth noting that Tom Cruise is by no means the first film-maker to rail against motion smoothing. Back when he was still the Guardians of the Galaxy director, James Gunn tweeted that he, Edgar Wright, Rian Johnson and Matt Reeves were also peeved about the default nature of video interpolation, to which Reed Morano replied that she started a petition to fix the issue a number of years ago, to little avail.
Why did it fail? Possibly because none of these people are Tom Cruise. Because Tom Cruise has made a career of total commitment. Take him to a premiere and he'll spend hours on the red carpet, shaking every single hand until everyone's happy. Put him in a movie with helicopters in it and he'll teach himself to fly a helicopter to the level of a veteran stunt coordinator. Break his ankle on the side of a building, and he'll stagger out of frame on his ruined legs rather than blow a shot.
Now, it's worth noting that Tom Cruise is by no means the first film-maker to rail against motion smoothing. Back when he was still the Guardians of the Galaxy director, James Gunn tweeted that he, Edgar Wright, Rian Johnson and Matt Reeves were also peeved about the default nature of video interpolation, to which Reed Morano replied that she started a petition to fix the issue a number of years ago, to little avail.
Why did it fail? Possibly because none of these people are Tom Cruise. Because Tom Cruise has made a career of total commitment. Take him to a premiere and he'll spend hours on the red carpet, shaking every single hand until everyone's happy. Put him in a movie with helicopters in it and he'll teach himself to fly a helicopter to the level of a veteran stunt coordinator. Break his ankle on the side of a building, and he'll stagger out of frame on his ruined legs rather than blow a shot.
quality? Comcast is compressed to shit!
he's absolutely right. Movies look terrible when this is applied. I saw a bit of Braveheart on this and mistook it for some daytime TV junk. It completely ruins the lighting.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Tom Cruise is legitimately a very accomplished dude.
Who cares what everyone else does?
I turn it off, but most people like it on.
Captcha "Beaners" lol
"Because Tom Cruise has made a career of total commitment." To Scientology.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Put him in a movie with helicopters in it and he'll teach himself to fly a helicopter to the level of a veteran stunt coordinator. Break his ankle on the side of a building, and he'll stagger out of frame on his ruined legs rather than blow a shot.
... take him to a scientology meeting and... Oh nevermind.
Mind the frickin' laser...
The technology has its uses... for example in the documentary "They will not grow old"
This "motion smoothing" shit is the absolute worst. I would tolerate it at least slightly more if it ACTUALLY worked right. But it doesn't It'll work for 5 seconds, then turn off for 5, then on again for another 5. It creates a very jarring effect on the scenes. The software/hardware/whatever that is used to determine that one frame is related to another, so automatically splice in more frames CONSTANTLY fails.
Though, what I don't get, is that any TV I've seen in the past few years either doesn't have this "feature" enabled, or doesn't have it at all. I just purchased a brand new TV, a late 2018 model, and this feature doesn't exist. Other TVs I was looking at before this purchase didn't have it either. I think the feature died along with the 3D TV era. Which leads me to wonder why, now, of all times this complaint is showing up, since the feature is pretty much already dead?
Does anyone actually like blurry-ass action films? Some of them are so blurry they make me dizzy. I love the motion interpolation, I can actually see the movements that way.
Who gives a fuck
it kinda look like one of those direct to video porn movies. It adds to the tension when you think at anytime someone is going start fucking.
Now, Gibson and Sophie Marceau would have been awesome, Gibson and Sean Lawler wouldn't have been.
BUT....it STILL adds to the tension; "Ack, now way! Don't do that dude!!"
For once, I agree with Tom Cruise. May be the first thing he's said in 20 years that I agree with.
The Soap Opera setting is terrible. I turn it off immediately, even in hotel rooms. Cannot abide the weirdness of it.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
I have always been looking for a good explanation of what makes a soap opera video look the way it does, versus say a evening news broadcast, versus a movie theater film.
Is it the frame rate? Is it the white balance? Is it the sensor / shutter angle?
Since sensors are so versatile and you can correct for colors, etc in postprocessing (I guess), why don't they make soap operas look more "professional" by adjusting certain settings (what are those?) afterwards?
I always was hoping for someone to explain this to me well.
Motion interpolation isn't great. But when they say "soap opera effect" that tells me that they aren't against motion interpolation, they are against high frame rates in general. This is analogous analogous to saying that 640x480 is the *best* resolution, and going higher makes things worse. I notice the article doesn't even mention the term frame rate. So this isn't a technical discussion, this is an aesthetic one.
Decades of watching movies has trained us to accept 24fps as "cinematic" motion, but in reality it just looks bad. 24fps is just barely on the cusp of fluid motion, and it gives some of us headaches. That's part of why video games consider 24fps unacceptable, as well as VR, and IMAX. Some people will say that it "takes getting used to" but it really takes getting "un-used" to the bad quality they shoot in today.
Motion interpolation should die. But the fact that people love it is signaling these directors that shooting in 24fps sucks and they need to move on.
It's true. After decades, he's still committed to not coming out of the closet.
https://youtu.be/IKbLquqxBAQ
You are welcome on my lawn.
The effect is retarded, and if you like it, so are you.
Well you only have to look at it for two seconds to see that it's new, it's novel, it clearly must be superior and Tom Cruise&c are just anal nerds who bitch about nerd shit.
I'm not defending 24fps cameras, but interpolation is not a higher framerate, any more than zooming in on a jpg gives it a higher resolution.
If we want to discuss changes to filming, that's more complicated. My understanding is that shutter speed is tied to the amount of light you capture (something critical in movies) so there's more involved than "dragging a slider".
Regardless, inserted blur-polation is just a Consumer Shiny and can eat a dick.
Perhaps broadcasts and streaming should contain in-band data to suggest to display devices optimal settings for the content. I don't want my day-time soaps to look like a Tom Cruise movie.
tone
Looks like the Scientologists sent one of their goons around and threatened Stuart, a well known author of Tom Cruise mockery. Still, it doesn't take much to read between the lines for the satire. For context, here's snippet from Stuart's other commentary on Tom:
"Some Tom Cruise films are so bad that normal people have to exclaim 'Jesus Christ' when they watch them - which is funny, because Tom Cruise actually is Jesus Christ, and any more talk like that and he'll zap your bum with his holy eye lasers. We're not kidding, Tom Cruise really is Jesus Christ. The similarities are there for all to see - Jesus had a beard and so did Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai. Tom Cruise once had a high-speed motorbike shootout with a Scotsman in Mission Impossible II, and Jesus once did a similar thing on a donkey. Jesus hated the Jews and so does To ah, no - that's Mel Gibson we're thinking of. Anyway, Tom Cruise is Jesus Christ and you've got no choice but to accept it. It must be true because a Scientologist said so."
"Because Tom Cruise has made a career of total commitment."
To Scientology.
Ad Hominem much?
If you want a good Sci-Fi movie that was made in the last 20 years, Tom Cruise was probably in it. (Star Trek and Star Wars are not Sci-fi and even if you include them, Cruise movies are still better.)
If you want to attack everyone with kooky religions, well I have bad news, that eliminates about 80% of everyone on this planet.
Tom Cruise is a Scientologist which negates anything else "good" about him IMO
What if you don't own a "[your brand of TV here]"?!
Mine is an Emerson!!
Johnny Depp does a better job using an earpiece to say his lines.
....because there are still new games being released that only support 30 fps, which boggles my mind. So I use smoothing to simulate 60 fps.
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
You know who cares? About 100 video freaks in the world. The viewers, don't give a shit. Nothing needs to be changed.
I finally agree with Tom Cruise on something! Truly this has been a week of firsts.
But I am with him 100% on this.
I've started noticing lately that many things with any amount of motion tend to stutter randomly. This is especially bad in high motion shots or in long panning shots. For the panning shots, you might think it's actually judder from telecining, but this happens on everthing no matter the frame rate or broadcast source. I'm sure some of it is due to overcompression, but when compression fails due to lack of bits, you get pixelation effects and other fun artifacts. The picture doesn't just stall or look like it dropped back to half or less of the usual frame rate.
Anyway, this being enabled by default reminds me of the whole reason televisions are usually configured by default to *distort* 4:3 content on 16:9 displays. You see, these frame interpolation and motion smoothing things work great on scrolling news marquees, talking heads, and the like. So just like removing the "black bars" that "waste" part of the TV screen (distorting 4:3 pictures), the whole reason interpolation is enabled is to make things look "better" on the show room floor.
If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
The reason TV makers are doing interpolation is that 23 fps or 30fps (29.97 or what the fuck ever) just seems fucking choppy when people nowadays are used to 60fps minimum for most video games.
Then, we have most people taking video at 1080p (or releasing it at 1080p or less despite it being filmed in 4k). Also, we have horrible cable companies (even shitty Verizon with their shitty application of fiber and their shitty people) compressing the already shitty signal to even shittier levels or services like Netflix compressing in new weird ways. Add in shitty upscaling by TV manufacturers and you go from 'decent but not that awesome original video at low fps' > 'shitty cable company compression' > 'shitty streaming compression' > 'shitty upscaling to 4k at high fps'.
It's not just interpolation as the problem.. Corners are being cut in every step of the process; government is too slow to regulate; government is too inept to enforce; cable companies are shitty; filmmakers/producers aren't releasing source in high enough quality; broadcast is behind the times.. Basically, there's huge room for every step in the process EXCEPT TV manufacturers. We have 1080p and 4k TV's in damn near every household capable of displaying video much better than most of the 'original source' that gets released at step 1 of the whole process.
Another thing I wanna bitch about is how everything needs to be 'streamed' rather than downloaded. Fucking let the end user download the whole show or movie and it can be displayed with total perfection no matter what the bandwidth. Instead, we have interruptions in TV or movie night because the internet connection had a hiccup.
In other words.. I want 4k video - and we hardly have 720p being broadcast. Then, that 720p is compressed with noticeable artifacts into CRAPP-P. So Tom Cruise is totally nuts complaining about interpolation when he should be complaining about every step in the process except what TV manufacturers are trying to do to fix the problem. Interpolation might be 0.01% of the issue.
I'll admit I'm not Tom Cruise's biggest fan.. but it's hard not to like the guy for trying so damn hard at everything.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
I made it through a couple of paragraph and found I don't care about what this is about.
Reconfigure their preprocessor options on their televisions.
If they really enjoy frame doubling and other nonsense in their sports they can check the sport preset.
On older sets, the processing options bog down the video so much and caused disturbing audio desync. I really do not understand how they live!
He is a Scientologist, I'm not interested in anything he has to say. Ever. On any topic.
I'm not surprised to hear this and used to agree, but there was an apparently-obscure movie a few years ago that I had to have called to my attention, and now I'll pass that favor onto you: watch Edge of Tomorrow. For two hours, anyone can stop hating Tom Cruise. And you can always go back after the movie is over.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The interpolation used to cause lots of artifacts with things moving in the scene. Now the algorithms handle that just fine. We wouldn't need video interpolation to smooth out jerky camera pans if the movie people provided better temporal resolution. Frame interpolation is also a godsend if the display frame rate and the source frame rate don't match. You know that they play every frame twice and speed up the movie by 4% on 50Hz displays, don't you. And it's even worse on 60Hz displays. Look up 2:3 pulldown: Frames are shown twice and three times alternatingly, causing significant judder. Last but not least, note that reality is quite smooth. If your movie is ruined by smooth motion, perhaps that's on you. 24fps is an aesthetic born from technical and economic limitations, much like historic film color processes that some movies emulate for a certain look (for example Aviator in the early scenes). Juddery motion will just look old-fashioned, not movie-like, to younger generations.
Surely someone who isn't the head of an evil-cult has written about the soap-opera effect. Why give this monster any exposure?
I think we should stop with that 24 FPS nonsense. It is not good, it is an artefact caused by technical limitations. Some people say it make films more film-like, that there is some artistic value in it, etc... I call bullshit, it is not a conscious artistic choice, it is a technical limitation.
If some directors chose to make some part 24 FPS like others chose to do black and white, then sure, that's art, but choosing that frame rate just because that's how cameras and projectors are setup isn't.
The only argument that makes sense IMHO is one of cost. More FPS is expensive: larger file sizes, more rendering time, a need for more sensitive camera sensors, etc.. Budget that can be better spent elsewhere. There is also value in having a standard, and 24 FPS isn't that bad a choice.
Frame interpolation is a work around that technical limitation, it is far from perfect but some people enjoy it. That's why TV manufacturers put it in here, film snobs be damned. Directors should learn from it instead of calling it "the end of all good things": many people want smooth motion.
That being said, I am totally fine with 24 FPS, and I don't use interpolation, but just be honest and say it is preliminary a cost saving measure, with maybe a hint of nostalgia.
in about a year or so. I read the title and I feel excitement:
* Tom Cruise
* Declaration of War
* Frame Interpolation
Take a good look folks, because the next year will be HUWEI CHiNG XING BAO CERRPHONE and "Microsoft moves more shit to India"
People are confusing high frame rates with the issue which is simply motion blur.
Decades ago, motion blur was added to video games to make them more realistic. Now we have studios filming motion in a way that reduces it to unnatural levels.
High frame rates are fine as long as motion blur is preserved. When every frame of motion is a crisp image it looks completely unnatural.
Work Safe Porn
Yeah, he just wants the camera angle to be right, so he doesn't look like a midget.
Old CRT's have built in analog frame interpolation.
You only needed 24FPS for smooth motion because the phosphors in the tube didn't respond instantly and blurred the frames together.
Now with faster update rates for screens, it makes 24FPS seem choppy, so TV manufacturers do the blurring digitally or no one is going to "upgrade" to a TV that gives them a headache when they watch a movie.
The better the screens get, the most processing they do to the image.
It makes great movies look horrible
https://www.blurbusters.com/fa...
There is more to the motion blur problem than the slow transition times of LCD pixels. Newer monitors have much faster transition times and the problem is still there.
What I think is happening is that the CRT is producing a kind of impulse sampling of the moving image whereas the LCD is producing zero-order hold (square-step, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...) output. The human visual centers appear to perceive the "strobed" image of the CRT as smooth motion, the "change-and-hold" image of the LCD as blurred, even at high frame rates and with rapid pixel response.
The reason I say "kind of impulse sampling" is that the CRT does not flash a sequence of static images the way a film movie projector does. Rather, the CRT conducts a continuous raster scan, with a short blanking during the retrace. Each line of the image gets strobed at the time the scan reaches it, but each line is strobed at a different time instead of the whole image all at once as with a film projector.
I believe it is that scanning that accounts for the "soap opera effect" of video content recorded on video tape instead of on film. This is already a long while ago that a local TV station had a show-and-tell of this new thing called HDTV at our Engineering campus. The Engineering profs were oohing and ahh-ing about what they thought were amazing images, but I was pointing out the image artifacts (easier to spot in HD!) to the broadcast engineer from the TV station, and finding a receptive audience, he went on at length to explain the difference between Homicide, Life on the Streets, shot on video tape and having the soap opera look, compared with Law and Order, which he explained was shot on 35 mm film and then scan-converted for TV broadcast.
So, even if the CRT scanned mode of projection differs from the flashed-image mode of film projection, apparently recording the image on film, which records a sequence of still pictures, has a better look than video tape, even when film is played back on a CRT.
The other problem is that most people viewing video think that HD on a widescreen LCD looks fantastic and don't know what us motion-blur worriers are complaining about. This population includes engineers developing TVs and computer monitors. The only people complaining, it seems are hard-core gamers along with people who have seen the Kay 5500 Sonograph http://jproc.ca/rrp/sonagraph_..., a scientific instrument used in speech science that used a DSP to drive a CRT (at VGA resolution!) that produced a truly remarkable visual effect of a "voice print" rolling past the screen with zero motion blur -- the later software spectrum analyzers producing un-synched scrolls to LCD monitors of much higher frame rate look terrible by comparison.
With respect to the awful motion blur of LCDs, which other posters here is telling me in not cured by video interpolation, there is an element of what Robert X Cringely described in Accidental Empires, when (back in the day), a techie gushed about the desktop publishing revolutions, showing off the font quality of LaTeX printed at 300 DPI on a LaserJet II, which Cringely looked at in dismay in comparison to what the publishing industry got from photo typesetting.
DPI and frame rate are important, but if the community is at all serious about further advances in video, especially VR, engineers are going to have to take the physiology of human vision and the motion blur problem into account.
To make a Micheal bay transformers movie watchable!
This is how video compression works. Store key frames and interpolate between them. The issue is just basically whether you interpolate 24 times a second, or 200, or whatever. You can't turn all motion interpolation off as they suggest, as there aren't enough key frames left.
"The unfortunate effect is that it makes most movies look like they were shot on high-speed video rather than film,"
That is easy to explain it's because they were shot on high-speed video rather than film.
The video of the two people talking wasn't actually convincing, because it sounds as if the film maker is trying to say that the retro-effect of 24FPS is good, and that all movies should be like that.
Instead, there should have been a slight demonstration of what goes wrong with interpolation, such as a quick show about how things get distorted, and how it can make things look a little off.
when will somebody champion the cause of killing overscanning on HD screens? It's not just that it's on by default. I usually have to go 3 or 4 menu levels to turn it off.
because it makes the lighting look too realistic. I want my lighting to be dramatic. I'm not sure the exact issue (I think you're right and it's framerate) but I've definately seen it in action and it ruins the lighting. Directors spend decades learning how to get lighting just right only to have it wrecked by a post process filter on an expensive TV...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I did as Tom cruise commands and all I got out of it was a volcanic eruption of what looks like vsync tearing. No thanks turned it back on.
If you crank it all the way up (Sony Motionflow) it does create some visible artifacts but the standard setting is just fine.
Only place I've ever noticed a soap effect is with some FOX network broadcasts. That was fixed by tweaking some frame rate matching crap in Kodi.
Maybe in the future, video will be encoded as moving & morphing polygons instead of frames. Most video compression kind of already does that, but in a brutish way. If a video/movie is encoded as moving/morphing polygons, then the movie director can control how and if interpolation is done, per their original raw content. "Frames" then die as default concept.
If a director wants emulate a frame-ish look, they can using "choppy" polygon changes; but otherwise the final frame rate could be entirely up to the viewer and/or the device (per technical limits).
Input cameras don't need frames either, in theory. Photons hit individual pixel-esque sensors and the time-stamp for a hit can be at a finer level (more precision) than the usual "frames". Perhaps the photon hits can be recreated as-recorded on the viewing device also. However, I suspect moving/morphing polygons provides better data compression for most content.
The point is our technology may be outgrowing frames.
Table-ized A.I.
Now get busy and declare war on bad acting.
Or would that be hitting too close to home?
Xemu hates me this I know
For L Ron Hubbard told me so
Be we will stop his evil plans
With jumper cables and tin cans
Yes Xemu hates, yes Xemu hates me
I paid ten grand to know.
I laughed out loud when reading this: Break his ankle on the side of a building, and he'll stagger out of frame on his ruined legs rather than blow a shot.
The phosphor in a CRT is not a glowing filament with a longish thermal time constant. A closer analogy would be a fluorescent bulb on a magnetic ballast, and those things flicker like crazy. A dude I know, who worked for a state agency promoting energy saving, would visit schools and give out these cardboard wheels you could spin to show how a compact fluorescent on an electronic ballast operating at a much higher frequency didn't do that.
The support for my hypothesis is comparing a retrace-synched scrolled image on what back in the day was a decent Sony Trinitron CRT 1) at 60 Hz refresh, 2) 120 Hz refresh and 3) 120 Hz but doubling each image to simulate the persistence of an LCD screen at 60 Hz. 120 Hz scrolls blur free, as does 60 Hz but with noticeable flicker on the Sony monitor, but the "double strobe" at 120 Hz simulating a 60 Hz image refresh is unmistakably blurred.
The Blurbusters agree with me in that they strobe an LED backlight of an LCD to suppress motion blur by simulating a CRT. Much of the discussion is how some really expensive displays intended for vision research do just that, and how this strobing the backlight can be done more cheaply by some hardware hacks. They are not talking about higher screen refresh rates, not about image interpolation, this is just plain getting rid of the sample-and-hold square-step effect.
And 80% of us care about movies and other television.
The issue is who should get control over what you decide to watch. Like the old flash websites which locked you into 800x600 resolution and annoying low-contrast fonts, the movie industry wants complete control over the appearance of movies in your home on your TV. I hate motion interpolation, but it really should be up to the viewer to decide whether they want it on or off.
The movie studio's control over their product should end the moment you fork over your payment. Just like it's not the printer manufacturer's business whether you decide to use their OEM ink or third party ink. And cellular carriers should not be installing apps you can't uninstall from phones they're selling you. Or Apple bricking phones which were repaired with non-Apple screens. Once they sell it, it's yours not theirs, and they have no business sticking their nose in how you use it (aside from restricting distribution for copyrighted works).
Any product giving the manufacturer post-sale control of this sort should come with a money-back guarantee for as long as that control exists. The user is entitled to a full, unrestricted refund if they decide at any time that they don't like the control the manufacturer is exerting post-sale. That should keep such modifications limited to ones which indisputably benefit the buyer (security updates and bug fixes).
I hate when I see juddering every time there is a pan, or now that our TVs are bigger, many types of motion. Yes motion blur exists, but that doesn't stop the abrupt shifts between frames instead of smooth actions. After watching with it turned on for a week, it was impossible to go back.
It's fine if Tom Cruise doesn't like it but it's an option, you can turn it on or off. Being able to adjust things to your preferences is good.
Twinstiq, game news
It's laughable that they would suggest interpolation was originally added to TVs for sports! Complete bullshit. Sports always used, and still does, the higher framerate of interlacing to get the needed smoothness.
I long, long ago transitioned to the smoothness for movies. I'll keep my interpolation for as long the source framerate stays low, thank you very much!
The interpolation may not be perfect, but it's far better than none at all. I get annoyed at You Tube rubbish these days because my desktop player/browser doesn't have interpolation.
Seriously, maybe get the fuck out of the stone ages and start recording movies at 60 to 120 frames per second.
I absolutely *hate* motion interpolation. HATE HATE HATE it. I can't even watch TV at someone else's house if they have that crap on. Perhaps it my brain has spent too many years looking at 24FPS, but when that "feature" is on, everything looks like hand-held, cheap, plastic video to me. What is funny is how many people can't even tell the difference!! The few times I pointed it out to people and had them turn it off, they couldn't have cared less (but at least it made it tolerable for the people who hate it). Ironically, I know of almost nobody that likes it- most people are either completely indifferent, or hate it.
I *hated* watching the Hobbit in the theater for the same reason- the high frame rate. And it was touted as a feature! The 3D was excellent, and the HFR ruined it.
I just hope I never EVER get stuck with a TV or content in which I can't turn it off. And yes, I know it is adjustable... and yes, I have tried it "on" but at a really weak setting. Still hate it. Perhaps it is good for sports or something, but I don't watch sports.
When I had this turned on it wasn't simply that it didn't look cinematic, but that it felt like the actors where terrible.
Maybe at 24 fps the brain turns off microexpression detection because the frame rate is too slow to detect.
But at 60fps the brain knows that it should see them, but they are not there because of interpolation, or just because they are actors and terrible liars.
Props to Tom Cruise for his public service and to Xenu for inspiring such a man to fight for us all.
..yes, I've seen this effect, and it really takes a lot off the feeling away from the film*, and it's distracting as hell.
*There is something about 24fps that gives a film a very powerful effect. Maybe it's because I grew up in the 1980s, and videotape and the look of it seems 'cheap' in comparison, I don't know, but this is my personal view.
There are different options for smoothing on TVs, mine has "smooth", " standard", and "clear". Some of these are more consistent (smooth) and others are more dynamic (clear). For my Samsung TV, the "smooth" setting is a consistent always-on mode.
Rape cover-ups by Jehovah's Witnesses as exposed on NBC Dateline:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbKXj8R4_X8