Why Movies Look Cheap on New TVs: The Motion Smoothing Problem

I fell into a trap last week. I found a glitch on my TV except that it wasn't a glitch. It actually may be a feature, but once I saw it, I started seeing this thing everywhere and now I can't unsee it and it has driven me crazy. This all started about a month ago. I went to my mom's place to watch a movie and something was off. The movie was like smooth, almost too smooth like in the store. In the store, you see these super HD 8K crisp, buttery smooth, saturated videos, and they look great and they sell TVs. But why do movies look off? Do all TVs

have this thing now? Now, most of the people in our channel are nerds. They know exactly which setting I'm talking about. I'm going to get to that in a moment. The reason why that setting exists in every TV in this store is to compensate for a much older, much deeper problem, a tech mistake that lives with us in our living rooms every day. a mistake that is changing the way movies are meant to be seen, but that most people have no idea about. And to figure out how to show you what's wrong here, well, we had to reinvent the way we make our own videos.

Keep those actions clear. We'll see you on the beach. This is the intro sequence to Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. It's thousands of extras and $11 million budget for this scene alone, but there's a simple change in that sequence of film that's very different. It's it's very different from practically every movie you've watched. There was a very intentional, very deliberate choice in the way this sequence was shot. Did you catch it? Here's another war movie sequence that you can use to compare. Can you see the difference between these two? There is something about the way the director wanted you to watch this film,

but your TV is erasing it. So, let's see this frame by frame. See how shots in this film there's a little bit of blur to them even as you pause it. But in Civ Private Ryan, each of these explosions or sand flying through the air, it's kind of frozen. It's like a photo with no motion blur. Which of these two is the better look? To me, I think 99% of the time, it's going to be the look the director wanted me to see. But what is it? What was the intention? Now, there are two factors at play here. One is how this movie was shot, and the other is how

this movie is getting played on your screen. So, let's start with that second can of worms. Now, in the last minute or so, something has been changing in this video. Did you notice we're going to be experimenting with a few settings on your screen today? And then this is the first one. We have shot this video, or most of it, in 60 frames per second instead of the usual 24 that we've used for past 7 years. My team wasn't very happy about this change, but we'll get there. But kudos if you have noticed. Now, if you didn't, make sure that you

are playing this video at 60fps. We're going to be switching a lot between that footage and 24 fps films and a bunch of other stuff that we've captured. So, I'm going to put the frame rate in the corner. But anyway, what's happening today is that our camera, this camera to make this video, it captured 60 independent photos every second. And now YouTube and your screen is just putting them in sequence to make this look like a video. there's a big chance that the phone or the monitor or the TV where you're watching this is running at 60 hertz. That means that it's redrawing the

screen. It's creating or generating painting a new screen 60 times every second. In a monitor, the refresh rate is actually not too different from the frames per second. One term we use when we shoot and the other term is used in electronics as they play videos. In this case, there's no conversion. It's all pretty simple. All your TV needs to do is display a different frame of me in every one of those 60 cycles. We have 60 frames per second for a screen that refreshes 60 times per second. Now, this is what we wanted you to see, and it would break our hearts, honestly,

if we put all this effort into shooting and editing this video with all these frame rates for your screen to change it because some setting is wrong. It's a 60 frames per second video made for a 60 Hz screen. But movies, movies don't work this way. Movies are shot at 24 frames per second. It's been like that for almost 100 years, right? So that means that a second of a movie is not made up of 60 frames like in this video. It's made up of 24 frames. Now, is that a choice? I mean, if a YouTube channel like ours can afford a camera that shoots in 60 frames, I'm sure Hollywood can, too.

Why don't they? Seeing them side by side again, make sure that you're running this video at 60 frames per second. Which one do you like best? As you adequately put, the problem is choice. The 24 frames pers hill. That is a hill that millions of people are willing to die on. And tech has allowed us to shoot at more than 24 frames. And we've had that for decades. And yet Hollywood refuses to change their standard. You know, the problem with Hollywood is they make [__] Unbelievable. Unremarkable [__] So, is 24 really better? Hold that thought. But how about the movie? How about

Saving Private Ryan? How is your TV playing this 24 frames, these 24 frames in a 60 Hz screen? Some screens can change their refresh rate, but that requires some tweaking. Most screens can't, especially if this movie is playing in this little window while you're doing a million other things. Now, TVs usually can't change that refresh rate. So, when converting, the TV might hold each movie frame for two refresh cycles. Except that make the movie run too fast. Here's how that would look. If instead you leave a frame for three cycles, it'll be too slow. It would look something like this.

So, what your TV needs to do here is cheat. Some TVs will cheat and then they'll try to stick as closely as possible to the movies. So they'll take a frame and they'll hold it for two cycles and then the next frame they'll hold for three cycles. That way you add up to 60 cycles every second. Anytime you watch a 24 frames per second movie in a 60 Hz screen, there's a good chance you're going to see a lag like this, especially in panning shots. You'll find hundreds of websites and TV reviews discussing this jutter or stutter or jitter. And it's not bad internet. It's not a bad

HDMI cable. It's your TV trying to do something that it wasn't meant to do. The fact that some frames are being displayed for three cycles and some frames are being displayed for two cycles will always cause this. Camera pants look so bad when converted from 24 frames per second into our everyday 60 Hz screens that filmmakers have to use these calculators to make sure that they don't pan too fast to try to minimize this. Now, to be fair, this jutter problem isn't exclusively a TV and 60 Hz problem. Like, filmmakers have been dealing with the camera pan issue basically

since camera pants existed. But the problem is that this is very much augmented when you're watching 24 frames per second content in 60 Hz screens because of that 23 conversion. I had no idea about this. Now that you've seen it, I'm sorry guys, but you can't unsee it anymore. No, you can't unsee it. It's nightmare fuel. That'll be with me forever. Now, don't go changing any settings just yet. There is a fix for this and I'm going to teach you what it is. My Roman Empire is trying to get the closest possible experience to what the director wanted. Now

that you've seen what a 32 pulld down does, it's going to haunt you like it haunted me. Part of it is the other alternative is I think it's worse. It's the smoothing option. Most TVs these days, they'll generate these middle frames. Look at this compared. Right. So on this left side, we have a 32 pull down. So, we're we're taking a 24 frames per second video and trying to fit it in 60 frames. So, notice that here I've changed a frame, but then for one and two extra frames, this frame didn't change. There's no information there. The film doesn't have any frames between

this frame and the next one, which is what we have here. But what your TV probably does is on this side. Notice that here, what the TV would try to do is sort of invent these frames in the middle to kind of fill in those gaps. That's what creates that smoothness. Now, we made this video in 60 frames per second. And again, make sure that's enabled so that you can see the contrast between a smooth 60 frames per second video and a footage that very deliberately was not smoothened. And it may not bother you as a viewer, but that's not the way this movie was designed to look. I'd

be pretty mad if I put all this effort into editing a project in one format and someone's TV just forced this thing to look a certain way. And we're not producing these mad 30inute videos in our channel. And part of the reason why we're keeping up with this is that we've automated so much of the boring, tedious, non-creative work using Jenspark, who sponsored this section of the video. JSpark is an AI workspace that autopilots your busy work. It can research, it can create, it can execute tasks across a bunch of domains and it uses a mix of GPT and Claude and Gemini

and all the current frontier AI models. You can connect GenSpark to Microsoft Office and then you can embed their AI sheets directly into Excel. We actually use that for our budgeting. But my favorite new feature is Speakley, which is a model that lets me dictate and automatically takes care of cleaning up my messy voice into a clear email or writing text. It's so much faster than typing and it works from any computer or from your phone. And it has this agent mode that activates an AI agent to actually execute multi-step workflows literally just with your voice. Genpark also

includes AI images, a video, a music features with a wide selection of models. So you no longer have to subscribe to each one of those things separately. That is the whole idea with Genspark. It's this single all-in-one workspace. Their growth has been wild. They grew from concept to $250 million in annual run rate in just 12 months. It's a truly all-in-one AI workspace. You can sign up to Jens Park for free with this link in the description. You can get some credits using that link or this QR code here. But back to saving private Ryan. It looks like our TV is giving us

two choices. a 3-2 pulld down with the jitter, the stutter, or this smooth version that has nothing to do with what the director intended. So, why the hell are TV screens 60 Hz and not 24 hertz to match the movies that we watch? How did we end up in this mess? Well, funny enough, as much as Hollywood cinematographers and some YouTubers now die on this 24 frames per second hill, that's not how movies started. 24 is a bit of a random number. All I'm offering is the truth, nothing more. So, why did Hollywood pick a number that wasn't compatible with the screens where we'd

end up watching these movies? Well, films and TVs, they came from two very different places, and they weren't designed to play together. So, hundreds of years ago, humans had noted this weird quirk in our eyes. Trails of light when you play with fire. Blurriness on the cartwheels. We eventually figured out that when our eyes see an image and that image makes it to our brain, it remains there for a fraction of a second even after the original image is gone. Now, we call this persistence of vision, which is really an oversimplification of other phenomena like flicker fusion,

but never mind the name. The point is that thanks to that glitch in our eyes, movies exist. That's the backbone of movie magic. So if light hits your eyes and then disappears, your brain can hold that image in there for maybe 1/10enth of a second. All the way back in the 1800s, we figured out that persistence of vision could be used to trick our brains into seeing sequences of photos that look like they're moving. Now, I'm going to play Save It Private Ryan with some black frames inserted in the middle. This is going to flash a bit, so be careful if you're sensitive to strobing.

There is one full black frame between every frame that I've just played from this clip. You can record your screen in slow motion with your phone and then play it back if you don't believe me. That's kind of the movie projector feel, right? Does it kind of remind you of going to the movies as a kid? Now, film projectors in movie theaters have a bit of a couple tricks to minimize that light strobing. I can't replicate it with this 60 frames per second video, but it's the same idea. But why did Hollywood land at 24 frames per second? Why not 15? And

why is that so different from TVs? Film evolved on its own. It's a completely different timeline than TV. In the early 1900s, these moving pictures, they were like little experimental clips that were projected in Nickelodeons where you would pay a nickel to watch these 10 or 15 minute short films and they would blew people's minds. That's of course where the name Nickelodeon comes from too. But movies on those OG Nickelodeons, they had no 24 frames per second standard. They ran at whatever speed the creator wanted. Some were 18, some were 16, some were even 12. And 12 frames per second sounds like some really bad quality,

right? But it's not as bad as you think. 12 frames per second, as slow and laggy as it may sound, can be great. Even to this day, stop motion films are shot at 12 frames per second, not 24, certainly not 60. And they look amazing, right? It's it's actually part of the look. I don't want to live in a hole anymore, and I'm going to do something about it. Why would you want to blur a stop motion film that was intentionally made this way to look smooth? The slow movement is part of the magic, right? It's what makes it special. Stop motion

requires you to move these little characters by hand. Just movement, take a photo, movement, take a photo. These are tiny movements that when put in a sequence create the illusion of movement. Doing 12 photos to make a second an animation is a huge timesaver compared to doing 24 frames per second. So there is a timesaving reason behind this idea. But more crucially, it has become part of the look. As stop motion films got converted into a format to be projected in theaters which were 24 frames per second, all they did is they just held each frame for two movie frames. But

now we've landed in the same predicament. So, how the hell do we convert those 24 frames to our TVs? Don't worry, don't worry. I'm going to get there. I just have to tell you about my absolute favorite stopmotion curiosity. It's going to be quick, I promise. Now, one of my favorite modern examples is Into the Spider-Verse, cuz in the first half of the movie, the animators, they made Miles Morales intentionally move slower, kind of like at 12 frames per second. Notice that here he's frozen for two frames of the film, while Peter B. Parker moves every one frame. Miles is inexperienced,

so his movement is choppy. It's slower. There's a stutter to the way he moves. Versus Peter, who was a pro veteran Spider-Man double tap to release and flip it out again. Okay. Twist and release. And release. Twist and release. You're an actual. Little details like this, that's a director intention. That's what makes movies great. That's what sets one movie apart from the other. But if your TV is blending the frames together, then what's the point? Now, in this little video, we can show you all these changes. We've been switching. We've been switching from 24 to 60 a

bunch of times, but those old movies, they didn't have screens or software or Final Cut. They had to standardize this stuff. So, why did they pick 24? A few reasons. When you see a film camera doing its filming thing, you can see this tape rolling. It's almost like a cassette tape just moving from one side to the other. But that's not what's happening at all. When the film camera does its thing, it moves the negative into frame. It stops this, it freezes it for a sec, completely still, and then it opens the gate to let light in to take one still photo. And then it closes it

again, moves to the next piece of film, and does the same thing again. Now, if the film were just rolling constantly, like in the tape recorder, you just get a bunch of blurry photos. Now, when that film gets projected in a theater, the same process happens except in reverse. The light doesn't come from the outside world. It comes from the projector out. The projector light shines through the film onto the screen, then closes, moves to the next frame, opens, and so on. And part of the movie magic is that, well, you don't see the black screen. Your head sort of plays it all out,

right? 24 frames was a speed at which you could do this and natural movements would feel natural and there wouldn't be so much flicker. But also, Hollywood picked 24 frames per second for some reasons that are a bit more random. Like there's there's some good coincidences at 24 frames. 24 frames was useful to sync audio when we moved from silent to movies with a soundtrack. Also, at 24 frames per second, a minute of runtime is almost exactly 90 ft of film. So, if you operate in imperial, that actually makes it one of the few useful conversion rates. And if they had gone

for say 30 frames per second, well that's just a lot more film that'd be needed to shoot a movie and film is expensive. Now picking 24 frames may have been somewhat random. But in the end, all of these quirks, the almost laggy 24 frames per second, the scratches on the film, the noise that's caused by the negative, even the tiny little flicker that you get from the projector, those settings, like those little details, they sort of became this language of film. not English or Spanish or Elvish, but the mix of these tiny almost subconscious little details

that make a movie somewhat immersive, but also not real, like not the frame rate that we see in the real world, right? Whatever combination of decisions that is, that's what makes us laugh or cry with our favorite flick. Next year in 2027, it's going to be a 100red years since we set this 24 frame per second standard. And we've all kind of grown used to it. It's it's what it's what my team and I were taught in film school. And when people try to mess around with it, it can really backfire. Peter Jackson tried to reinvent this wheel. And he failed miserably

in his attempt probably to maximize how much money they were going to make from the Hobbit series. They shot The Hobbit at 48 frames per second, not 24. In part, this was to reduce the flicker that you would get when you were wearing 3D glasses. But what we got left with is this. People at the time, especially Lord of the Rings nerds, found the Hobbit films at 48 fps unbearable. And after The Hobbit, this radical idea to shoot films in HFR, high frame rate, it practically disappeared. It's like this shameful moment in movie history. But that high

frame rate, well, that's what the director wanted. Should we respect the intention of the director? Anyway, part of the reason why this got criticized so much is that it had this soap opera look. Film people use the term soap opera look because soap operas are made for television and film snobs, they sometimes look down on TV people. But anyway, television evolved from a very different place than those film projectors. But they made a mistake that we've been forced to live with to this very day. By the way, have you noticed the difference in this video between our 60 frames per

second and our 24 frames per second with the little thing we put on the corner? It's very intentional. Raul RDP, who's still not convinced where we are going to go with this story, will appreciate that you noticed. So, you should tell them in the comments. But now, I'm going to remove this frame rate counter from this corner. So, now you'll need to figure out if you still can see it. Anyway, the first commercially available television was released in the 30s. Very crucially, it was not designed to watch movies. All that mechanical magic from

the film cameras, it doesn't apply to TV sets. TVs were made for broadcast, which is kind of an evolution of radio. There are antennas and radio waves to convert these waves into pictures. It's not films and frames. TV was kind of like radio but with distorted black and white insanely lowres pictures at the beginning. But the frame rate of these TVs, it wasn't 24 like in the movies. It couldn't be. TV sets were actually tied to the frequency of the power grid. So in North America, our power grid, which is alternating current, runs at 60 Hz. So that means that the voltage

on your wall outlet is completing 60 cycles every second. It swings between positive and negative in this like smooth wave. And because of the way TV sets were designed, it was crucial that the TV set operated either at that frequency or a multiple of that frequency. Otherwise, you would get like humming or you'd get these annoying bars in the TV. Some of you might remember them. So, the content that was meant to be screened on a TV needed to be shot to match the TV set. In Europe, because the power grid runs at 50 Hz, TVs were also 50 Hz and broadcast content was produced

at 25 frames per second. Now, in North America, broadcast TV was shot at 30 frames per second cuz that played with the 60 Hz grid. And that is the standard to this very day. TV broadcasts run at a completely different rate than movies. And 100 years later, they still haven't agreed on this standard. By the way, I can see it. I can picture the comment already. Well, actually, it's not 30. It's 29.97 with the introduction of color and the NTSC standard. I want you to know that we know like we know we get comments all the time when we don't dig deeper into this stuff,

but we're trying to make it simple. I would love to talk about it, but we still can't afford a to make 45minute videos and b we still can't afford that Kodak Super 8 film camera that we would love to shoot some experimental stuff with. We might someday. Hit and subscribe helped. But again, I'm skipping the NTSC PAL mess and I'm getting back to our point. TVs and film did not mix together. They came from different worlds and they're still different worlds. Here's the BBC broadcast spec sheet. Still on 50 or 24 fps standards and inheritance from that 50 Hz standard on TVs.

And in the US, TV still comes to you at 30 frames per second. So any content that was made for TV, like your TV shows, like the news, like your soap opera, they all had to be shot at 30 frames per second in North America. Now, that's in part why film people, they always look down on TV people cuz that 24 frames per second makes them special. It sort of sets them apart. Everyone talks about how great television is now, and it's it's pretty good, I got to say. But it's still television to me. So, how do you go about playing a 24 frames per second movie in these TVs? That's

a crazy answer. In Europe, they used to speed up the movie. I'm not even kidding there. Like, if you were broadcasting a film on TV, the Telescini conversion would speed up the movie from 24 to 25 frames per second to match the 50 Hz standard on the TV. That made the movie 4% faster, which also increased the audio pitch, and it had to be compensated separately. Some field nerds really suffered this thing, but that was just the default for decades. Now, in the rest of the world that ran on 60 Hz TVs, they used this pull down method that's similar to what I showed you

earlier where one frame runs for three cycles and one frame runs for two cycles. They even had to punch the film to indicate what the A-frame or the first frame was in that 23 pull down. So, if they needed to retransfer something, they could always match it to the original transfer. Also, this is actually much more complex than this because those frames are interlaced. But again, I'm not going to open that can of worms today. And for 100 years, film people, they won't budge on their precious 24 frames per second and that film aesthetic. Now, TV people on the other hand,

they're bound by their power grids and by the existing infrastructure, of course. So, they have to stick with 30 or with 25 frames, though they have come up with some other better alternatives to convert the content. But there are some insane contradictions on this. For example, Friends and Seinfeld staple ' 90s series. they were shot on film. I don't know, maybe they wanted the film grain or maybe they wanted the dynamic range of video because, you know, video cameras did used to suck at the time. Maybe they were being snobby. Maybe they wanted to preserve the

footage in film to be able to release 4K Blu-rays eventually, which makes sense if you watched our last video. But despite these being TV shows that were made for TV, both Seinfeld and Friends were shot at 24 frames per second. They were shot in a format that doesn't fit on TVs. Which brings me back to my crisis cuz I love movies. It's what I mostly enjoy on my TV. I spent more money than I should have on new speakers and a new TV cuz I want that best possible experience on film. And I know the TV is still too high before you guys complain in the comments. I know I just need

to fix other things first. But anyway, I want what the director made. I don't want the smooth version. But now that I know about this jutdder shutter issue, like I can't unsee it anymore. and my OCD isn't dealing with it very well. I want the original director's version. So, do I need a new TV? I think I need a new TV. But then I had another realization, something even worse. I think we might be part of the problem. Cuz every single one of our videos, hundreds of videos over almost 10 years making videos for YouTube, every single one of them, we shot at 24 frames per

second. Cuz that's that's what I always thought in film school. Like many YouTubers I know, they shoot in 24 because that's the film look, right? We wanted our videos to be more cinematic, but our videos are not going to a theater. They aren't getting projected on film. They're going mostly to 60 Hz screens. And are we making content that just needs to be pulled down on this 32 system? What have we done? It's time to get back to Saving Private Riot. We've been digging very deep into frame rates, but that's only half of the explanation to why that

intro sequence is special. There's something else about the way that movie was shot. So, let's answer that question. Now, we've established that in film there are 24 frames to a second, right? 24 photos. But how long was each one of those photos exposed? How long was the capture? Now, you would think that each photo was shot for 124th of a second, but that's not exactly right. OG film cameras worked with a shutter. Shutter is like this spinning dish that exposes the film, then covers the light, so the camera makes the change over to the next frame. Now, the one in

this video is a bit different from the usual, but let me simulate one here. Now, a usual shutter is this semicircle thing 180°. That means that it opens light to the negative and then spins around, closes, it covers light so the camera can move on to the next frame and you don't get a blurry photo. Now, some motion blur in this photo is good, but we want that blur to come from the image that's being captured, not from the film moving up and down. Now, because the shutter is 180°, half of a circle, so half of the time, half of this cycle, light gets covered. So these photos,

they were not exposed for 124th of a second. They were exposed for 148th of a second because half the time the film was getting covered. Now these 180° shutters, they were standard. That that rotating circle was a design component in these early cameras, it wasn't some intentional decision to fit some film aesthetic. But because it was used in early films, it became part of this language of film. Because a photo shot at 148th of a second has a certain look, right? Even if films are a sequence of independent photos, when you put them all together, that movement has some motion

blur. It makes it feel natural. And we've kind of grown used to it. It's called this pleasing aesthetic. Every shot in every video that we've ever made follows that standard. We don't have rolling shutters in our digital cameras, but we use settings to match that look. It's it's sort of like the rules of filming. But Saving Private Ryan broke the rules. Janus Kaminsky, the cinematographer, shot this sequence to look intentionally shaky. And again, this is an intentional artistic decision by the filmmakers. So, he used a 45° shutter, which would

look kind of like this. That means that each frame of film didn't capture light for 148th of a second. It only got a quarter of that amount of light because the shutter angle was narrower, so less time in the light. Each of the frames in Savian Private Ryan is a photo that got exposed not for 148th of a second like it's usual, but for about 1/200th of a second. At 1/200th of a second, you don't get motion blur. Instead, you get crisp, almost like this laggy feeling. There's almost no movement. There's no motion blur. The subject is sort of like frozen. And when you play all those

in a sequence, it looks very different. But that decision defined a look. It's a look that made Saving Private Ryan different and special. And it's a trick that has also made it to other films like Gladiator or Chicago or Children of Men. They all have sequences that were shot this way to match this aesthetic. It's an intention by the director. Now, you might have noticed this happening in your phone videos, by the way. For example, if you shoot a video indoors, your phone will aim for the standard film look, usually automatically 1/50th of a second per

frame. But if you go outdoors and it's really sunny outside, your phone can't do that. If it tried to expose each frame for that 1/50th of a second, it might look too bright. There's too much light getting into the sensor, so the video would be blown out. So what your phone automatically does is it compensates this and instead of taking 1/50th of a second photos, it takes say 1/200th of a second photos or even faster. You can't really control this, at least not with your usual camera app, but you for some random reason you suddenly get these like really

crisp water droplets in your kid videos or footage that kind of accidentally ended up looking like that Spielberg film. There's also the opposite of this. For example, in the Wolf of Wall Street, the quaude look is a mix of a few tricks that include frames shot at 112th of a second, and that's what makes it a little bit more blurry. Collateral is also a typical example that gets attention. It was probably shot at what 124th or 132nd of a second frames. It wasn't just to get a more blurry look, but to be able to get more light into the sensor cuz they were shooting in the dark city. And I

could talk about this stuff all day, but don't think that I've forgotten that we don't just use TVs for movies. How about the other stuff? How about the soap opera? And how about sports? Also, how about our videos? I don't think we can continue to be part of this problem, just forcing your screen to do a 3-2 pull down because we're being snobs and shooting at 24. Like, sports are a perfect example of cases where the rules of film just don't apply. Now, I can't show you any pro tennis footage cuz we would get demonetized if we don't have all the different versions. So, you're

going to have to put up with my lack of tennis skills for this experiment. Starting at 24 frames, here are two different shutter speeds so you can compare. They're both 24 frames per second. What we've changed is the shutter speed. This is the film standard, so 150th based on the 180 shutter. And this is the speed that Spielberg used. Now, I'm not Sena, but this should look like cinematic sports. It's really sunny out today. So, if we tried to shoot any of this on a 150th of a second shutter speed, say with the iPhone, the camera would just be overwhelmed with light. It would

just be too bright and you wouldn't be able to see anything. So, what the iPhone does, it compensates by making each image in this sequence very short, like 1/4,000th of a second. The problem with that is that footage looks kind of like this. The way we escape that with the pro cameras is you have to put a filter on them so that there's less light coming in. Now, here's the 30 frames per second version. Again, mimicking the film look, 1/60th of a second versus experimenting with a few other shutter speeds. And finally, here's the 60 fps version. Which do you guys think looks better?

I prefer this one. I like this one better. This one. I think I prefer this one. And that's a bit of the point to all of this. More frames for sports content is good. It also if your TV smooths that even more, it maybe makes it look better. So part of the content that we watch on TV benefits from more frames and benefits from that smoothing setting while the other half of the content, they're all shot in a format that is incompatible with the TV. Well, lo and behold, a useful solution,

a math solution, cuz 120 Hz TVs, they solve this thing for sports. With the frame blending features enabled, you can get even more buttery smooth footage to make it action immersive. For gaming, which I haven't even talked about, better frame rates are really incredible. But more crucially, for my obsession with film, 120 Hz is divisible by 24, and it's also divisible by 30. That means that when you watch your broadcast TV and then your soap opera that's shot at 30 frames per second, each frame just needs to fill four cycles. If you're watching a film, there's no need for 32

pulld downs. There's no need to enable smoothing to clean the footage and the panning shots. Clear footage for every format. Newer TVs also support something called variable refresh rates, which means that if the content that they're playing is 24 frames per second, they can change the refresh rate on the screen to be, for example, 24 hertz and to match that. So, if you're outputting, say from an Apple TV, you would need to enable this feature. And then you would need an HDMI cable that supports VRR, variable refresh rates. And of course, you need a TV that supports this,

too. You should check the features in your TV, cuz mine did not. But there is an even bigger question that my team and I have been cracking our heads at since we started making this video, which is, do we need to stop being film snobs? Accept that our videos are not going to go to a film projector for now. how they're going to 60 Hz screens and then just start shooting at 30 fps. How did you guys feel on the 24 versus the 30 versus the 60 frame bits in this video? Please tell us in the comments. Now, another curiosity is that all of the 60 frames per second footage

in this video was shot in HD, not in ultra HD/4K. That's all our camera supports. Yes, go ahead and make fun of us. Did you notice the difference? Did you actually notice a difference between HD and ultra HD? that is very connected to another very controversial feature of current TVs and streaming services. You should check out our video about it. Catch you on the next one.