Why is the Soap Opera Effect Considered Such A Bad Thing? - Page 13 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews

Forum Jump: 
 4Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 366 Old 10-03-2015, 02:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 1,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 759 Post(s)
Liked: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agisthos View Post
OLED seems to have different way of presenting motion, I just wish LG would give us a BFI mode. BFI is a software thing, surely they could do it?
OLED can do it as seen with the Oculus Rift, it's just that it cuts brightness and LG likely feels that said reduction in brightness is too much for their current panels (and obviously this isn't an issue for the likes of the Rift because its form-factor blocks out ambient light).
NintendoManiac64 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 366 Old 10-05-2015, 01:05 PM
Member
 
Johnny B. Goode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 19
I find the argument "I want to watch the movie as the director intended" quite nonsensical as the directors obviously had to adapt to technical constraints while making their movies, one of the foremost being that cinema projectors were limited to 24 fps. Thus said, I'm certain most directors would have preferred a more life-like, smooth picture instead of stroboscopic stills..
Johnny B. Goode is offline  
post #363 of 366 Old 10-05-2015, 07:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 14,111
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1831 Post(s)
Liked: 1539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny B. Goode View Post
I find the argument "I want to watch the movie as the director intended" quite nonsensical as the directors obviously had to adapt to technical constraints while making their movies, one of the foremost being that cinema projectors were limited to 24 fps. Thus said, I'm certain most directors would have preferred a more life-like, smooth picture instead of stroboscopic stills..
Not true at all.

HFR produces a look that most people (especially used to film) think looks like video and "too real" (as in, actually ruins the fantasy aspect "too mundanely real looking"). Whether you like a higher frame rate or not, that is a widely held impression both from audiences and certainly from a lot if not most film-makers, who revere the look of film. There's a reason why the Hobbit didn't ignite any sort of stampede to HFR and why articles like this have had to be written:

http://www.wired.com/2014/08/wtf-jus...-opera-effect/

Lots of film-makers know audiences will find a higher frame rate off-putting and they themselves find the same, so no...many film makers would NOT have preferred a non-film-frame-rate for their product.
R Harkness is offline  
post #364 of 366 Old 10-06-2015, 12:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 411 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
Not true at all.

HFR produces a look that most people (especially used to film) think looks like video and "too real" (as in, actually ruins the fantasy aspect "too mundanely real looking"). Whether you like a higher frame rate or not, that is a widely held impression both from audiences and certainly from a lot if not most film-makers, who revere the look of film. There's a reason why the Hobbit didn't ignite any sort of stampede to HFR and why articles like this have had to be written:

http://www.wired.com/2014/08/wtf-jus...-opera-effect/

Lots of film-makers know audiences will find a higher frame rate off-putting and they themselves find the same, so no...many film makers would NOT have preferred a non-film-frame-rate for their product.
Then why was the HFR version of the Hobbit more successful than the low frame rate version? Without an accurate poll saying otherwise you can't say most people felt a certain way about it. But the people who went to the IMAX HFR version made it more successful than the IMAX low fps one. Most people in the AVS poll liked HFR. You can't say for sure what film makers would have chosen had high frame rates been available to them easily and cheaply enough at the time and that they would have been certain it would work properly in all cinemas. The reason the Hobbit hasn't so far made lots of other films use 48 is that 48 fps is still a standard incompatible with consumer displays/video formats and harder to make for the cinema than 24 and still a new 'standard' (but only a stepping stone to a better standard). But people like James Cameron, Ang Lee etc. are continuing with HFR - with Ang Lee using 120 for better than 48 fps. It may be that 120 fps or higher becomes the standard. But it's success (initially) may also depend on whether the film is taking place in the current real world so it wouldn't matter if things looked very real (and things like Avatar) - though like said, the Hobbits were also successful, and all 3 are in the top 30 highest grossing films of all time. But in the future hfr will likely be the normal frame rate for everything.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 10-06-2015 at 01:02 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #365 of 366 Old 10-06-2015, 07:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,890
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2359 Post(s)
Liked: 2164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Then why was the HFR version of the Hobbit more successful than the low frame rate version? Without an accurate poll saying otherwise you can't say most people felt a certain way about it. But the people who went to the IMAX HFR version made it more successful than the IMAX low fps one. Most people in the AVS poll liked HFR. You can't say for sure what film makers would have chosen had high frame rates been available to them easily and cheaply enough at the time and that they would have been certain it would work properly in all cinemas. The reason the Hobbit hasn't so far made lots of other films use 48 is that 48 fps is still a standard incompatible with consumer displays/video formats and harder to make for the cinema than 24 and still a new 'standard' (but only a stepping stone to a better standard). But people like James Cameron, Ang Lee etc. are continuing with HFR - with Ang Lee using 120 for better than 48 fps. It may be that 120 fps or higher becomes the standard. But it's success (initially) may also depend on whether the film is taking place in the current real world so it wouldn't matter if things looked very real (and things like Avatar) - though like said, the Hobbits were also successful, and all 3 are in the top 30 highest grossing films of all time. But in the future hfr will likely be the normal frame rate for everything.
Article on Ang Lee's 120fps+3D filming. And as you're implying (well), this "looks like video (wah wah wah)" is the largest pile of hooey imaginable. It's all a matter of 1. getting used to something different (not inferior) and 2. having filmmakers be aware that their sets/costumes/effects/etc. need to be that one or two notches better than ever before or else "the strings will show".

There is no advantage to 24fps. None. Zip. Zero. Consider: had we all started with 120fps (or 48), does anyone really think that there would be a clamor among aficionados to reduce it to 24????
NintendoManiac64 likes this.

Thought #AYA: Porn gives young people an unhealthy and unrealistic idea of how quickly a plumber will come to your house.
tgm1024 is online now  
post #366 of 366 Old 10-06-2015, 07:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,890
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2359 Post(s)
Liked: 2164
Ugh. Why was this thread necro-bumped anyway?
NintendoManiac64 likes this.

Thought #AYA: Porn gives young people an unhealthy and unrealistic idea of how quickly a plumber will come to your house.
tgm1024 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off