Why does TV video appear so different than that which is produced with normal video camcorder?

These answers are really spot-on. To give you a real-life example, a big part of my job is compressing a documentary series for the web. The series often is composed of tightly-produced studio shots with big, expensive video cameras and meticulous lighting interspersed with field footage from hand-held video cameras ranging from the high-end to typical consumer stuff. My compression drops the frame rate below both NTSC and film, and that is a big equalizer-- the quality differences of the footage are much less apparent, suggesting that the frame rate is a very large factor. However, there are still differences in quality between the two footage types, which seem reasonable to attribute to the depth of field and deep contrast of the better, bulkier cameras along with the professional lighting.

I thought they looked ridiculous, FWIW.

http://hometheater.about.com/od/televisionbasics/qt/framevsrefresh.htm: What Refresh Rate Means With the introduction of television display technologies, such LCD, Plasma, and DLP, and also Blu-ray Disc and HD-DVD, another factor has entered into play that affects how frames of video content are displayed on a screen: Refresh Rate. Refresh rate represents how many times the actual Television screen image is completely reconstructed every second. The idea is that the more times the screen is "refreshed" every second, the smoother the image is in terms of motion rendering and flicker reduction. In terms of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation, I guess it comes down to if you consider them "real" frames or a display technique. Coming from a film background, I do not. Since the director didn't put them down on film that way and the effect would vary from TV to TV (Sony's version would vary from Samsung's version, etc) they don't feel real to me. Maybe I'm taking too strict a view on that, though. And I haven't seen it in person so they might make the video look good.

Oh hmm. The wikipedia article does talk about 120 Hz "refresh rates" on LCDs in order to do the correct timing of frames. But that's not what I was talking about when I said the framerate was interpolation. Showing a 24FPS film on a 120Hz screen would mean just showing the same frame 5 times. But what these screens were doing was showing one frame once, then showing a combination of that frame and the next one on through to create smooth motion.

I believe you're confusing frame rate with refresh rate. 120Hz LCD panels are the hot feature in TVs right now. They refresh the screen faster to reduce motion blur introduced by the slower refresh rates and refresh times of the technology. Actually I'm pretty sure you're confused. The frame rate is the number of distinct images shown on the screen each second. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate is the number of times the screen is redrawn by the cathode in a CRT, in other words how often they "flicker". But since LCDs don't flicker, the term "refresh rate" would just be how often new data is uploaded to the screen, which would cap the actual frame rate anyway. Here is what wikipedia says on the page I linked too: Much of the discussion of refresh rate does not apply to the liquid crystal portion of an LCD monitor. This is because while a CRT monitor uses the same mechanism for both illumination and imaging, LCDs employ a separate backlight to illuminate the image being portrayed by the LCD's liquid crystal shutters. The shutters themselves do not have a "refresh rate" as such due to the fact that they always stay at whatever opacity they were last instructed to continuously, and do not become more or less transparent until instructed to produce a different opacity. The closest thing liquid crystal shutters have to a refresh rate is their response time, while nearly all LCD backlights (most notably fluorescent cathodes, which commonly operate at ~200Hz) have a separate figure known as flicker, which describes how many times a second the backlight pulses on and off.But anyway, refresh rate has nothing to do with the 'smoothness' of a video. It's the frame rate that counts, and frame rates can be artificially increased using interpolation software, which is exactly what I said in my earlier comment.

http://ask.metafilter.com/97671/Why-does-TV-video-appear-so-different-than-that-which-is-produced-with-normal-video-camcorder#1423451: "Fuzzy Skinner: The framerate is actually a big part of it... posted by sharkfu Just because my nickname in high school was Mr. Super Picky Pants, I'll point out that the framerate quote should have been attributed to delmoi." oops-- i hit the wrong quote link. i apologize.

Fuzzy Skinner: The framerate is actually a big part of it... posted by sharkfu Just because my nickname in high school was Mr. Super Picky Pants, I'll point out that the framerate quote should have been attributed to delmoi.

I'm going to buck the trend here and say it's mostly the lighting. Here's an http://academictech.doit.wisc.edu/orfi/avs/images/Content/video_lighting_examples.jpgI dug up. When you say something is produced with a 'normal video camera', you're probably seeing something from the upper row in that example. The pros bring lights, and so they get something more like the middle rows. Using a tripod and composing a shot carefully are the next biggest things. Actually, using a tripod is probably the first. Up to this point, we're talking about things which are well within the budget of an enthusiast. All it takes is the time and care to set things up right. Depth of field is the next big marker, and you can't fake that. It takes a camera with a big sensor or a funky adaptor.

Typical TVs refresh at 60hz; 24 (fps) does not divide evenly into 60, so some frames are held on screen for 3/60ths of a second while others are held for 2/60ths. 120hz refresh rates absolutely help with this, because 24 divides evenly into 120, so each frame is shown for 5/120ths of a second. The TV itself must be smart enough to "pull down" the signal and re-assemble it properly (with 0 artifacts, mind you) as most devices (DVD players, VCRs, cable boxes) natively send 24fps video using the 3:2 ratio. Many 120hz TVs are not smart enough, so there is some definite deception going on out there where your 120hz TV uses interpolation and just gives an eerie look to everything, giving people a thrill because they can simulate the so-called soap opera effect. Most TV and almost all film are shot at 24fps, which in conjunction with "incompatible" 60hz TVs has accustomed us to judder and unrealistic motion...soap operas are often shot at 30fps, which looks more lifelike on a 60hz TV, hence the term "soap opera effect." So frame rate does play a role here in terms of reproducing realistic motion (it would seem there's a lingering preference that film actually look pretty fake!), but I'm sure composition, focus, lighting, and camera quality play an enormous role too.