Why is the Soap Opera Effect Considered Such A Bad Thing? - Page 5

I don't think it's necessarily about the actual director's intent, as much as it is about comparing motion pictures that look more 'film like' to ones that look more like videos.


Ian

Now that doesnt make much sense to me. When you adjust the set to approx 17ftl give or take. Everything "looks" different. And much more "film" and "cinema" like. Color, contrasts, the whole director look so to speak.

But everyone wants 24fps?

On another note. I did some experimenting on this whole thing.

First of all cable fios whatever is 60fps. With my set set at Motionflow(interpoling) at standard and Cinemotion(pulldowns) set to Auto 2(3:2) There is no SoE at all nada none zero. everything looks fantastic as I stated.

I also keep my ps3 set to 60 for movies. With the same settings. Everything beautiful.

Now, I screwed around a bit and set the ps3 to 24fps. When I did this Any and all combos of motionflow and or cinemotion resulted in SoE. When Motionflow was off the movement is fine by your eye can plainly see sample and hold going on. Another thing I cant stand.

So I guess for arguments sake if your gonna set your bluray, ps3, whatever at 60 and your tv is going to be 60 there is no issue whatsoever with SoE.
If you must have 24fps then I dont think an LCD is gonna do it without SoE though Im not sure why this is. Kind of mind boggling to me why 60 is fine but slower isnt. Anyway I can still see movie pan judder with 60 and my settings I believe to be at the rate that was original intended due to motionflow and cinemotion.

I cannot stand sample and hold effect without the interpol and I cant stand the SoE as we know by now .

Anyway, just figured to post my findings in case it helps others decide whats good for them.

From my readings on AVS i conclude that a lot of folks over here watch their movies mostly on cableTV, really, best way to watch a movie is the movietheater, second is on bluraydisk - i've seen at least 100 of 'm - , cable/.satellite etc.. is B-quality.

And i wonder; shouldn't dvd's be putted in a dvd-player and watched exclusively on a 480/576 TV?

Just to prevent any more similar speculation, no. There is no inherent value in transfers to any home video formats, except as it pertains to capturing the original film.

In other words, upscaling a DVD to 1080p is not faithful to the "original" look of the DVD, but that's not relevant because the DVD wasn't the "original" look of the film to begin with. Certainly there is a risk any time you derive content that's not present to begin with (which is what both upscaling and interpolation do), but the goal of DVD upscaling is to approximate closer to the original film (and it mostly succeeds) while the goal of interpolation is to make it less like the original (and it also succeeds)--and that's the difference that matters.

Untrue. The goal of interpolation is correct the non flicker of LCD. LCD is fast enough to produce the fames no problem whatsoever. The problem is that your eye can see sample and hold. Sample and hold is a condition of lcd tech whereby the pixel is lit one frame is lit one frame to the next and your eye percieves this. This cause the image to look like judder but really is the meshing of the last frame that didnt fade out.

Its not done to make it look hyper real, or fake 3d or anything. Its done to alleviate an issue with the technology. Mind you they are starting to do this on plasma also. I believe two reasons. One so they can compete with the refresh rate advertising of the LCD sets which sounds great signifying not much. And 2 to counter percievable flicker (I think).

I've heard that, and given the interpolation implementations out there I just don't believe it. Yes the issue with LCD's exists, but I think the technology that will actually fix it without introducing bigger problems is strobing backlights or dim frame insertion. Right now if the goal of interpolation is to solve the flicker problem, then it's still in the phase of making things worse (as is strobing backlights, admittedly, but this technology has the advantage of not being fundamentally flawed).

If this technology manages to make things look more like the original film, I'll take it all back and embrace it. Certainly I was a bit dubious of upscaling at the start too. But we've got one camp saying "it smooths out fast pans so no judder like in the theatre!" and another saying "it makes it look more like in the theatre!" and both can't be right.

They are trying different things. Some of them patented so they cant be used for all sets. Thats why the different implementations. Each one wants to solve the issue and own it at the same time.

Don't believe it? You can see it with your own eyes. Its real. I saw it when testing the set this afternoon. I guess you can mistake it as judder(thinking the display isnt fast enough. But 24 fps is slow and my 4 ms display is well well capable af switching fast enough. The issue is tthe frame is held and your eye catches this(our eyes are pretty amazing). This makes blur.

Your right the strobing backlight is probably the solution but it is patented and useable by only those that own it. If you pay for the use of it your set beecomes more expensive than the other guys so each dam company has to find thier own way around it.

The only theaters I consider to be a superior experience to my home theater would be an IMAX, or something like the Ziegfeld in NYC or Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. Otherwise, I have found the standard theater experience quite disappointing.

If you're into the social experience of seeing a movie with a large room full of people, then I guess you have to find a great theater in your area.

No, I mean take a film that has horrible fast pan judder IN THE FILM (Casino Royale comes to mind). A good display (from a fidelity point of view) will also show this judder. All of the motion interpolation sets I've seen reduce or eliminate judder in this case. Bear in mind that getting rid of judder in this particular case may in fact make the movie look better in my opinion, but in the fidelity game there is only same and different, and better still means different (less fidelity to the original).


Or they can stop jerking around and just license it. Better tech is often more expensive.

I hear ya. I understand what your saying. Im just saying if you can replicate the appropriate amount of judder which interpolation at 60 with a 3:2 pulldown does indeed do. Then I dont think harm is done except in the mind if you cant simply get past it. See the interpolation done at the rate for 60 with 3:2 or 120 at 3:2 (interpoled) only does enough to counteract sample and hold. It doesnt do enough to give that slow motion hyper real effect. As I stated earlier I cant stand it.

to the point of Licensing it, they wont. They all know its the type of thing that can completely kill the competitor. Even though mot avg people dont know or care wth it is. BB and othe salepeople will parade the feature because it is great and sets will sell.

Its the kind of thing that can take a toshiba and turn it top tier if they get it right. and Sony or Sammy or LG or Sharp or any of them guys wont pay extra fro it to make thier sets cost more than they already do. Which will make them more than the inventor of the new techs sets. Hope that makes sense.

Have you polled movie makers? Or is this your opinion?

He said he believes like two times, and he thinks once. What do you "think"

[quote]
I doubt that movies like Tron (and rightly so) will ever look more film like, regardless of how you adjust it on my plasma.





Now that's funny!




Ian

This argument rages every few months and continues until the thread is closed due to name calling or such. There are 2 camps, you can choose which to join, but they are pretty much non-inclusive. the chances of changing anyone's mind who has seen both types of displays in close to nil. Either you like the interpolated image or you don't.

Me, I HATE it, and I'm very happy with my 2 plasmas that don't need or exhibit it. My LCD is set to the minimum needed to create and acceptable image, not one bit more, and give a choice the LCD would be gone. Personally I like the look of film, and the qualities of film, for me, help with the storytelling. Again, my feeling is the subtle images help to keep you focused on the story, not the background. My perception is if the image is too detailed you focus on that rather than the action and interaction of the characters.

Please note, I said Me, My and so one, this is MY opinion and is just as valid or invalid as anyone else's. No need to attack me as I'm not attacking anyone here. If you like the result go use it, just don't claim its a new standard or superior in any way. That is only true for those that like it.

You make a very good point. However, I believe this discussion has been very civil and as I posted before, it's quite refreshing. I happen to like both formats which can often be dependent on what the film maker was trying to achieve. Tron for instance is based on a video game and as much as I prefer the look of film, for many of the same reasons that you conveyed, (after all I was an actor ) I enjoyed it's video like image quality.

Ian

That's because I have no idea what I'm doing (hope it is okay to insult myself). Consumer Reports is terrible rating the TV's. I don't see what I like at the store, or when people first bring them home. Everyone I know has older plasma, or SOE LCD in their home. I can't afford to take the financial risk buying something expensive that might turn out to be something I don't like....therefore I'm still waiting to see something I like.

Nothing wrong with that. Research is your friend. You'll know when to pull the trigger.

Mike

I realize you are a calibrator and probably know much more than I, but one comment on the 17ftl brightness.

In a darkened theater with a screen roughly 50-60ft across, this brightness is much different than any home theater I have experienced until the brightness is nearly doubled (25ftl) or greater. Does the extra brightness for a home display (especially self illuminating like plasma or LCD instead of projection) throw off the color spectrum, gray scale, etc?

By the way, that last question is just that. I know sometime when you question something it is easy to lead someone to believe you are challenging them, which I am not, as I plead ignorance.

Also, I typically see forty to fifty movies in theaters each year. Seldom Imax as the extended screen dimensions tend to make it harder for me to either concentrate or enjoy the film. Most of the theaters I frequent seem to have excellent screens and projectors and take care to adjust both picture and sound to make the viewing experience enjoyable. Most have also switched to digital projection over the past eight to ten years and I can say that this has made the whole viewing experience more enjoyable. No more dirty film or broken film with a few seconds here or there removed.

I have never asked, but am also curious, if anyone has an educated answer, does digital projection still adhere to 24fps or has this been altered for the 60fps of other digital media.

I dont think screen size matters. When you have a 20 inch or a 60 its still technically 30ftl at home. I dont think the spec changes for screen size theater either.

My questions was somewhat fishing for an answer also as to the 17ftl. I know that rasing contrast(the ftl) changes color shade and gamma and the look of the image. If the plasma folks who claim purism of image so worried about motion I was wondering if they watch in the dark (the biggest advantage of plasma in the first place. And if they do are they at 17 ftl which is theater level ftl. My guess is no to the ftl for just about every one of em. And evne to the fully darkened room is no to more than you might think.

So then the question becomes is the motion of the image actually more important the color brightness contrast. hmmmm. Sounds rather odd to me. Thats sort of what I was getting at.

I would love to hear preferable athx certified or possible an isf certified tech on ftl vs ambient. Such as theater ambient is almost dark vs 17ftl vs avg nigght room lighting vs 30-35 ftl. I dotn think they compare equally. I think the 30-35 is much brighter image with colors that become much more vibrant than the theater (directors intent).

For the record Freeman, Im just a guy with a lowly eyeone-lt. That read and read and read and played with the meter and played and played and played. Im not certified or anything. Im only knowledgeable thru reading countless hours and playing with my sets.

can i sum this up for everyone so its put to rest?

I dont like the SOE and many dont because it a) makes me wanna puke, b) makes me dizzy as well, 3)looks very weird, 4) I dont like soap operas.

The rest of the people that DO like it.. good for you! enjoy it. I wont, you will. Lucky for me I have a plasma that doesnt exhibit it, so its not an issue for me... and if it IS an issue for you then turn the feature off. end of story. seriously, is this argument going anywhere?

I don't think the subject is just about the SOE anymore. The substance of this thread has evolved into a broader discussion about what impact digital video technology has on film as a media.


Ian

Agreed... probably because Motion Enhancement and Panel Strobing, when done well, can offer relief from many offensive source motion artifacts while preserving a good portion of the source motion needed for the aesthetic of 24fps frame rate. So, the argument then switched to "any alterations" do not do justice to the intent of the film maker.

Please don't put it to rest, I'm finding this thread very interesting! Of course what ultimately matters is your own preferences, but I think that can go without saying on these boards. If you've made up your mind and you're not interested in hearing more about interpolation then you simply don't need to read the thread.

For my part I've always been bothered by judder. Originally I thought it was just an artifact of CRT interlaced format and that any LCD/plasma/DLP would basically solve it. I was mistaken. I didn't like the SOE I saw in a display LCD, but reading this thread I now realize that it might have just been due to settings. I think motion judder is a big sore spot that needs to be solved, but I now realize that it's tied to 24fps as well as display capabilities. So I don't have much knowledge to contribute, but it's an informative read and interesting to see what other people's opinions are.

This thread is a great read. It really all comes down to preference. Personally, I can't stand SOE, my 2009 120Hz LCD has separate options for anti-blur (which I leave ON) and anti-judder/smoothing ("Film Mode," which I always leave OFF). It results in judder when watching a BD, which I much prefer over the hyper-real look of interpolation. It introduces artifacts and it just doesn't look natural. It cheapens movies, and for me I feel less enveloped in the film I'm watching because the motion is so smooth and unnatural.

I prefer watching movies on my plasma using 2:2 pulldown (48Hz). I actually find it very watchable and am rarely bothered by it.

I think that with Anti-Blur ON that you get frame interpolation and that with Anti-Judder ON you got 5:5 pulldown to eliminate frame rate conversion judder that you with the default 3:2 pulldown just as you eliminate frame rate conversion Judder by using 2:2 pulldown on your Plasma.

I was under the impression that, on my set at least, leaving antiblur on and film mode off when watching in 24p activated the 5:5 pulldown and the film mode was there for interpolation to alleviate judder. The film mode on my set has three settings: weak, standard, and strong; each setting exhibits soap opera effect to some degree which indicated to me that this mode engaged frame creation/interpolation. I could very well be wrong since there was never a clear explanation in my manual I have to go by what I see.

In any case, I much prefer movies in 48hz on my plasma, even though I can detect flicker...my next plasma will definitely have 96hz.

I think we shouldn't speak for him.

M'kay?

I think he spoke himself. I simply restated for those with comprehension issue

My comments about the look of film being irrelevent arise from some brief, easy to do research in the IMDB database. You can easily repeat it if you have any doubts.

Down at the bottom of the IMDB home screen is a link to the "Top 250" films of all time. Go there and then notice that you can get the information broken down by individual decades in the lefthand column. Choose a decade, then an individual movie, and go to the "Technical Specifications" screen for that movie. Under "Cinematographic process", note what it says. "Spherical", "Anamorphic", and "CinemaScope" are examples of entrees indicating that the movie was edited and post-produced optically. That means the Director and splicing tape using the original camera film negatives, i.e. optical post production. But if the entry is "Digital Intermediate (2K)" or "Digital Intermediate (4K)", then whatever the source, the movie was digitized for the editing and post-production. Following post, it can be distributed on film or digitally for the theaters, and on disk for Home Theaters.

In the past, say the decade of the 1960's, 100% of the movies are shot on film, post-produced optically, and distributed on film to theaters. The disk versions of these movies have but a single digital generation of speration from the film, disks are usually taken from the optical interpositive print.

In this particular decade (2010-2019) I checked the technical specs on the Top 50 films, and these are the results:

90% (45 of the 50 movies) were digitally edited and post-produced.
10% (5 of the 50 movies) had no information about Cinematographic process.
0% (0 of 50 movies) were optically edited and post-produced.

As for the source media of the movie:

1 of 50 movies was shot entirely on film.
7 of 50 movies were entirely animated.
10 of 50 movies were shot entirely on HD video.
28 of 50 movies were shot on a combination of film and HD video (and most had digital video effects inserted then).
4 of 50 movies had no information about source media.

===> 47 out of 50 movies were available exclusively as 35mm or Digital Cinema distribution prints. There were 3 movies available in IMAX 15/70 prints, 35mm prints, and Digital Cinema.

The words "Movie" and "Film" used to be synonymous. They are not anymore. NOBODY makes a movie entirely on film anymore, then distributes the original film images. EVERYBODY goes through a digital intermediate step, it saves lots of time and money in the edit and post-production phases.

The usual disclaimer: The IMBD data is niether static nor 100% accurate. Nor is a sample size of 50 movies per decade statistically significant - but I trust that my points are made.

IMHO, "the look of film" is entirely missing from contemporary movies. The only exceptions being those movie makers who elect to expend part of their budget for digital simulations of the look of film, such as the artificial lens flares inserted into Star Trek (2009).

Those of you enamored of the look of film may chase after it if you wish. I'm not going to bother. The film era has ended already, which I suspected but did not know with certainty before I did an hour's research in IMDB.

This has nothing to do with whether the film was edited via a digital intermediate.
It indicates how the movie was shot;
"Spherical" = Shot with "round" lenses.
"Anamorphic" = shot with Anamorphic lenses or cropped from a 1:33:1 or 1:85:1 frame and cropped to 2:35:1 and printed Anamorphic for cinema release on film or digital.
"CinemaScope"= is the old name for a 2:35:1 "Anamorphic" release.
This are technical names much older than anything digital.


That is the only fact that inform about the digital process.


True that they where Scanned, mostly from the Interpositive in the time before digital, or TV stations filmed a screen presentation (often a used release print) of the film in their studios.
This was not a quality recommendation. Later they got CRT scanners and then Digital scanners. All of them was futher removed from the original Film Negative than today's Digital Intermediate which are scans of the original Film Negative, and then graded and color corrected digitally.


If you watch the extras on the Star Trek DVD/BD you will see that they do not use Digital Simulations to make those Lens flares.
The lens flares are a natural phenomena that happens when light hits the front element of an Anamorphic Lens.
In Star Trek they amplified the effect by shining a strong Flashlight at the lens the old fashioned way when they where shooting the lens flare scenes.


They era of film is certainly on its way out, but that doesn't mean the manufacturers of Digital Cinema Cameras is not striving to make the cameras imagery as close to how Film reacts to light as they can.
And so does the Directors of Photography.
They are not entirely there yet but coming very very close with the latest cameras.

By the way, as a response to something said earlier in this thread;
Steven Spielberg is still cutting his movies on film and does not use digital intermediate (at least he did on the last "Film" movies he directed.)

Quentin Tarantino swear that he will stop making movies when he can not shot on Film any more. Even though he has grown up in the "TV and digital age", his influences is much more old fashioned than one would think.
I believe he still cut his movies on film .

Found a lens flare demonstration video from Star Trek;