are finally room buddies!

How can I turn it off?

OMG, remember when some cable broadcasters had some stations with PROGRESSIVELY SCALED stretching or SECTIONAL stretching? I kid you not. Some stations would keep the center 1/3 of the screen in correct aspect and then progressively stretch the 1/3 on either side to fill the 16:9 screen. I thought I was going to lose my mind. I could deal with just flat out [even] stretching 4:3 content to 16:9 because my equipment could force-horizontally scale it back most of the time. But that stupid trick, there was no undoing that.

Oh, and this still happens- take old 4:3 programs and ZOOM IN to fill the 16:9 width, cropping off the top and bottom! So things shot in 4:3 for 27" TV's now shown on a 60+" TV, ZOOMED so you see ONE FACE filling the ENTIRE screen back and forth.

Is futile and counterproductive
Chinese engineers and scientists are smart and numerous and skilled at working around restrictions
Look at the author list of any scientific paper, you will see Chinese names
I suspect that they will lead the world in tech in the future

>"Something that looks like real life is unnatural? "

I never said that. In fact, I said the EXACT OPPOSITE.

>"Stop being a Luddite."

Stop being someone that doesn't read and/or comprehend what is written, and then comments about it stupidly.

>"I agree that full control is the ideal, but I also don't really get the appeal of 24 fps film effect."

Honestly, I don't quite "get" it either. It should and objectively does look better at higher rates, but somehow it just ruins the mood. It is psychological, and probably just due to a lifetime of what is expected and many of us are contaminated with it.

They can improve the color, contrast, resolution, size, even add 3D and I love all of it. But as the frame rate is increased, either for real or simulated, it trashes it for me.

I wonder if, in the future, when movies finally do go to 48 or 60 or whatever framerate, if there will be device viewing options to actually CUT the framerate back down to 24 or 30? Seems crazy, but might be popular.

I agree that full control is the ideal, but I also don't really get the appeal of 24 fps film effect. It seems more like a legacy limitation of the medium, than something that enhances the look. I like to see detail and enough clarity to understand what I'm looking at, and 24 fps on film seems to be the opposite of that.

Agree. We are running at hundreds of FPS in games. Should I suddenly have my GPU limit to 24 fps to create "cinematic" feeling for some weird reason?

When the Hobbit movies were shown with 48 fps in theaters I was thrilled, and was hoping that to be adopted further - but looks like it has fizzled. I sometimes understand that director might want to show things in technically inferior way - say black&white for flashbacks scenes - but that should be a specific effect for specific purpose. Keeping the 24 fps rate is just ridiculous. Granted, motion blur makes it better than it sounds, but just give me the choice.

Maybe this is just because I've been gaming with at least 60 fps for 30+ years, getting Quake I to run with 120 fps on a CRT was darn impressive at the time, and I had early interpolation on my TV with Philips NaturalMotion(tm) so I have never considered smooth motion as "soap opera" - it's just how things are supposed to be.

That's going far past anything I would know; I'm software, not hardware and it was a long time ago. All I remember is that there were a pair of uprights that helped hold the chip up and it went from the motherboard almost to the top of the case.

This reminds me of something that was done back in the (I think) 90s for one of the Pentium chips. Instead of it lying flat on the motherboard it had all of its connectors along one edge and stood upright on that edge in a special mount that kept it upright so that all of it was exposed to the air and didn't need a heat sink or special fan. Yes, it had its drawbacks, mostly that it couldn't be used in a laptop and needed a tall case, but it worked and worked well. I know, because I used one for several years back then and only replaced it to upgrade.

The requirement is that the money has to be spent on content production, not just buying existing content.

Australia USED to make some REALLY good scripted dramas and other shows. These days the good shows are few and far between with our screens being infested with increasing amounts of reality garbage.

>"To bring back an old meme, "Ok boomer".

I am not old enough to be a "boomer". So you might have to change that to "OK X".

>"For the record the same was said about colour TV."

I was young during the transition to color. But I watched both B&W and color at the time and remember both well. Color did not have any such effect. HOWEVER, it is true, at least back then, that B&W was considerably sharper. But color was worth the decrease in sharpness. And HDTV was waaaay overdue by the time in came on the scene and I loved it. So, no, it is not the same thing.

>"So I don't think the high framerate "soap opera effect" is the issue, I think it's the crappy realtime conversion."

I think it is both. Remember The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was filmed at 48 frames per second (instead of 24). It looked artificial/fake/bad to me, even at the cinema, as well. And it was wildly and widely criticized as a major detraction. So it isn't just the fake smoothing processing that causes issues, there really is an important component to lower frame rates in the traditional feel and suspension of disbelief.

Now, young viewers who are much newer to video can probably get used to anything and not have as much problem with it. But we older people often find higher frame rates to be really horrible.

>"Critics, including some big names in Hollywood, argue that motion smoothing looks unnatural and deviates from the creator's intended vision."

No, it makes things look TOO NATURAL/REAL, like they were shot with a webcam or cell phone. It breaks the cinematic experience and expectation that a lot of us have had our entire lives and we detest that. Others hate that it messes with their "suspension of disbelief mode". And, still, others hate the artifacts it creates.

>"Intelligent FRC takes a more nuanced approach to motion smoothing by letting content creators dictate the level of motion smoothing used in each scene"

I generally don't give a F about what the "content creator" wants. *I* want control over my own equipment and its settings and what I watch, thank you very much. I want to turn off *ALL* motion smoothing. And I want everyone to have that ability AND the ability to turn on FULL motion smoothing, or whatever they want in-between. If you want to add another option for "content creator mode", fine, as long as it is optional and my preferred setting is available and never has to be reselected again.

Sorry, some of us are really passionate about this issue. And I am tired of devices/sites/software/whatever increasingly betraying the user's wants and needs.

Or did the person use it to commit fraud?
Or did perplexity simply find good products at good prices while ignoring ads or suggested products?
I don't trust current AI agents to make purchase decisions for me, but I suspect that future AI agents, acting in the customers' interests, will result in better deals for customers