Why is the Soap Opera Effect Considered Such A Bad Thing? - Page 9

Because the pixels do not flicker or pulse like crt and plasma the frame is lit the whole time. This is perceivable by your eyes and brain

Originally Posted by 8mile13

I do not see the look/appearance of a 48fps film or frame interpolated stuff as being a superficial part, its a essential part of the experience.

Originally Posted by CatBus

Interpolation is, fundamentally, about altering the appearance of existing films. Higher framerates are, fundamentally, about capturing motion more realistically. This makes them distinct and pretty much unrelated at the most basic level.

The fact that they both produce a similar aesthetic is the only tie between them, and while you are correct that it's an essential part of the experience, it is a terrible thing to focus on when discussing why people don't like the technologies. If you pretend that the aesthetic itself is what people object to, then you pretty much ignore the fact that objections to interpolation are based on objective criteria, and you can dismiss all complaints as subjective. It's not helpful for an analysis of "Why is the Soap Opera Effect Considered Such A Bad Thing" if you never actually address why the soap opera effect is considered such a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Do you give any merit to the argument that people don't like change? Isn't it not unlike the complaints heard when a paradigm shift took place from analog to digital audio. Audiophiles loathed digital audio. Isn't true that some don't like it simply because its not what they are used to?

Originally Posted by CatBus;

Interpolation is, fundamentally, about altering the appearance of existing films. Higher framerates are, fundamentally, about capturing motion more realistically. This makes them distinct and pretty much unrelated at the most basic level.

The fact that they both produce a similar aesthetic is the only tie between them, and while you are correct that it's an essential part of the experience, it is a terrible thing to focus on when discussing why people don't like the technologies. If you pretend that the aesthetic itself is what people object to, then you pretty much ignore the fact that objections to interpolation are based on objective criteria, and you can dismiss all complaints as subjective. It's not helpful for an analysis of "Why is the Soap Opera Effect Considered Such A Bad Thing" if you never actually address why the soap opera effect is considered such a bad thing.

Originally Posted by ed3120

2. People who would believe that the blur, judder, and natural artifacts of 24 FPS are more pleasing to the eye than the smoothness and higher detail of 48 or 60 FPS.

Originally Posted by 8mile13

The threadstarter wanted to know a) why people dislike the motion interpolation look ''I was just wondering why people don't like it?'', and b) the science behind it. ''...just trying to understand the science behind it.''

As far as i know most people who do not like motion interpolation don't like its look, a minority does not like motion interpolation because of the use of fake frames. I leave the explaination of the science behind it to others

Originally Posted by CatBus

People don't like the look... because the look is wrong. That's what I'm saying about poorly articulated complaints. "It looks like a soap opera... and this movie isn't supposed to look like that." Everyone who hates frame interpolation may very well like the look if it weren't wrong, but nobody ever gets to that point in the evaluation because once it's determined to be wrong that's enough for most people.

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Its wrong because people don't like the way its look it because its not what they are used to looking at? What they are used to looking at, looked that way to begin with do to the limitations of 1920's technology.

Originally Posted by CatBus

Okay, this is my last attempt to explain this. If you don't understand after this, sorry, someone else will have to explain it.

Movie #1 was filmed in 1948 at ~24fps. Movie #2 was filmed in 2012 at ~24fps. Movie #3 was filmed in 2012 at ~48fps. Movie #4 was filmed in 2129 at ~24fps (for the retro look). Movie #5 was filmed in 2368 at ~120fps.

There is nothing magical about ~24fps. It is not the superior framerate for displaying all movies. It is, as you say, a mere convention based on an old technical limitation. In fact, movies #3 and #5 would simply look wrong at ~24fps and film purists would dislike it. Likewise, movies #1, #2, and #4 would look wrong displayed at a framerate other than ~24fps.

There is only one correct framerate for any given movie--the framerate for which it was created. Anything else is wrong. A 120fps film displayed at 24fps would be just as much of a travesty as a 24fps film displayed at 120fps.

This is why "it looks wrong" is an objective assessment. There is a correct value and any other value is wrong. "Better than accurate" is just another way to say inaccurate.

Originally Posted by CatBus;

People don't like the look... because the look is wrong. That's what I'm saying about poorly articulated complaints. "It looks like a soap opera... and this movie isn't supposed to look like that." Everyone who hates frame interpolation may very well like the look if it weren't wrong, but nobody ever gets to that point in the evaluation because once it's determined to be wrong that's enough for most people.

Originally Posted by NoOTforIT

I was at Best Buy the other day and my girlfriend was having some major issues with the Soap Opera effect. What's bizarre about this is that I'm probably going to be forced to go with a lower end set because it bothers her so much. For some reasons she refers to it as the "filmed in a foreign country" look.

Originally Posted by ditcho

OK, now you are just making stuff up. I understand that as an enthusiastic young videophile you are fond of the prevailing affordable technology (LCD) at the time you developed your passion for video and gaming, but you are going too far with the frivolous statements. CRT, plasma and DLP were never intended to resemble the "flashes" of light in theatres. Just the opposite, 100Hz CRT refresh rates were popular as early as the end of the last century - in an attempt to avoid the flicker associated with the technology where it was more noticeable - the PAL 50Hz countries. Your favourite technology did not have any flicker issues, but it suffered from motion smearing, hence the 120 and 240 Hz technologies of later years. The intent was not to interpolate 24 fps film material to 60 or more frames, as you seem to imply. The technical means for higher than 24 fps framerates are older than some horse carriages (you seem to love those for some reason), they were just not accepted by the filmmakers and the public. The frame rate interpolation was thrown in as one of the many cheap gimmicks in LCD displays meant to wow the non-discerning viewer and apparently seems to enjoy some success, mostly because it's turned on by default, and first time TV buyers take it for granted.
LCD display technology is not the best now, even less the best ever. Don't waste your energy writing poems about it, it will be fully replaced within the next 10 or so years with OLED or better. And kids will be mocking you for sticking to horse carriages.

I hope this was enough to prove that technology has nothing to do with your preference for soap opera look of movies.

BTW, the Planet Earth HD-DVDs that impressed you so much, is 1080p 24fps, converted from the original 1080i50 (standard hi-def video framerate for former PAL countries) video material. Whatever it impressed you with wasn't the framerate.

No, I'm not making things up. The "high refresh rates" for CRTs that you mention were associated with computer displays. NTSC and PAL/SECAM analog TV systems used a scheme which locked the Vertical frequency of the CRT to the power line frequency to avoid flicker. This meant that for 60Hz power, the screen flashed 120 times per second. For 50Hz AC power the screen flashed 100 times per second, in each case twice per each sine wave of the AC power.

Originally Posted by WikiPedia

The NTSC field refresh frequency in the black-and-white system originally exactly matched the nominal 60 Hz frequency of alternating current power used in the United States. Matching the field refresh rate to the power source avoided intermodulation (also called beating), which produces rolling bars on the screen. When color was added to the system, the refresh frequency was shifted slightly downward to 59.94 Hz to eliminate stationary dot patterns in the difference frequency between the sound and color carriers, as explained below in "Color encoding". Synchronization of the refresh rate to the power incidentally helped kinescope cameras record early live television broadcasts, as it was very simple to synchronize a film camera to capture one frame of video on each film frame by using the alternating current frequency to set the speed of the synchronous AC motor-drive camera. By the time the frame rate changed to 29.97 Hz for color, it was nearly as easy to trigger the camera shutter from the video signal itself.

Originally Posted by Gary McCoy

I do not know where you got your information about the Planet Earth HD-DVDs, but my HDTV says that the output video mode is 1080p60 for those disks. It also correctly identifies the film based movies on HD-DVD as 1080p24 source.

Originally Posted by Gary McCoy

Nor am I a novice. My first job was as an electronics tech some 45 years ago, repairing NTSC televisions with vacuum tubes. I have spent the last 34 years working for the largest tech firm in the world as an Electrical Engineer in new product design. I built my first "home theater" in 1984, it used a Kloss Videobeam triple-CRT front projector on a 120", 4:3 screen.

Originally Posted by Gary McCoy

My proposed new standard is reality. That is to say what you see with your eyes. That would be ultra-smooth fluid motion at an infinite frame rate.

Originally Posted by HogPilot

You are incorrect. Planet Earth was originally filmed by the BBC at 25fps; it was released on disc in the US after conversion to 24fps; it was later released in interlaced form at 1080i50. It has never been made available in 1080p60.

Furthermore, neither the Blu-ray or HD DVD specs support 1080p60 material encoded on the disc; you can get 1080p24/25, 1080p30, or 1080i50/60. Strike two against the notion of you owning some 1080p60 version of Planet Earth.

If your display is reporting 1080p60, it's because your player or display is performing a 3:2 pulldown on the 24p material - which is quite ironic given your claims of how smooth and "life-like" the motion is from that source



Not a single portion of this is relevant to the discussion at hand, as it clearly hasn't prevented you from being wrong about Planet Earth and its motion characteristics. No need for appeals to authority here, just stick to facts.



Movies are art - to claim that they are somehow pinned to reality (or should always be) is contrary to the their basic premise. Film and video are only canvases on which directors can paint; whether they decide to use a high or low frame rates is up to them, depending on what they're trying to achieve. As CatBus said, 24fps is no more intrinsically right than is 48fps; the only thing that is right is to re-create what the director has given to us.

Movies are art - to claim that they are somehow pinned to reality (or should always be) is contrary to the their basic premise. Film and video are only canvases on which directors can paint; whether they decide to use a high or low frame rates is up to them, depending on what they're trying to achieve. As CatBus said, 24fps is no more intrinsically right than is 48fps; the only thing that is right is to re-create what the director has given to us.

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Don't you agree that 24fps was right because that's what artist were restricted to?

Isn't your argument the same as saying Dolby Labs shouldn't have invented Dolby NR or that sound engineers should not remaster sounds old recordings and soundtracks. Have ever purchased a movie with a remastered sound track?

Have you seen George Lucas take his content and update it as the technology progressed?

Originally Posted by CatBus

This was also the case for black and white film. So, by that logic, colorization's okay for films created before color film was widely available? It really is the same dang thing, and I disagree.

Again, all media are limited. Oil, acrylic, watercolor, film, doesn't matter. You often get forced to use the medium that's available. However, once you have this medium, the artistry is in working with those limits (or "character" to put it positively) to create art. Art is definitely part of the equation--had different frame rates been possible, different films would have been created, not just the same film with a higher frame rate.

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Don't you agree that 24fps was right because that's what artist were restricted to?

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Isn't your argument the same as saying Dolby Labs shouldn't have invented Dolby NR or that sound engineers should not remaster sounds old recordings and soundtracks. Have ever purchased a movie with a remastered sound track?

Originally Posted by Auditor55

Have you seen George Lucas take his content and update it as the technology progressed?

Originally Posted by 8mile13

It's often the case that the studio, producer etc.. is in charge of many decisions made in the filmmaking proces not the director. Very few directors have total control over their movie's.

Originally Posted by HogPilot

In fact, it is clear that you are still missing the distinction between using end-user processing to alter material to meet personal tastes vice a director making changes to their own material.

Originally Posted by HogPilot

Absolutely not - no more than I'd argue that black and white in 1.37:1 is "only" right because that's what directors of the time were "restricted" to. As technology evolves, any director can go back and alter their material, however that is THEIR choice. From a fidelity standpoint, the end user should simply be watching what the director made and intended to be seen.



No, my argument does not resemble what you say above at all. In fact, it is clear that you are still missing the distinction between using end-user processing to alter material to meet personal tastes vice a director making changes to their own material. Fidelity aside, the complexity of end-user (i.e. real-time) has never been remotely close to what's available during the editing/mastering process in studios. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison on multiple levels.



I have, however it has no relevance to an end-user engaging extra processing because of personal tastes.

Originally Posted by CatBus

Interestingly enough, I don't really make this distinction either. Once a film is released to the public, I don't care if God Himself comes down and suggests a few edits, he's gonna have to release it as a separate "Divine Cut" and leave the original alone. People may very well like alternate cuts better (I certainly do with Blade Runner, LOTR, etc), but the original should still be preserved and available no matter what ideas the director gets about alterations.

Originally Posted by CatBus

I don't object to frame interpolation in general, I simply object to it being the default behavior. If people CHOOSE to alter films, I've got no beef with that at all (other than, you know, it still looks wrong).