Why is the Soap Opera Effect Considered Such A Bad Thing? - Page 11

If you continue to read through the thread, I corrected myself later on. However the fact still stands that the original material was 25p - a fact that everyone here agrees on.


Obviously the credits can be done completely separately from any of the footage shot, and may very well have been created in 50i - this really has no bearing on the rest of the footage on the disc however.

.......and which three are you referring too?

Huh, it seems that your sense of "subtlety" only works part of the time.

But since you're asking for information, maybe you can point to any information you've provided on the subject of SOE in this thread? So far your presence is limited to peanut gallery comments aimed at inciting others. At least the rest of the usual suspects - who all seemed to show up simultaneously once I started participating here - have attempted to inject something that can be discussed.

Inciting others? I'm sure no one needs me to "incite" them to question some of your statements. As far as showing up simultaneously, I've seen you do the same thing in other forums when it suited you. I haven't contributed here because it would just be another voice in what has quickly become a pi$$ing match dominated by a few, something you seem to get involved in a lot of times.

Question my statements? You've done nothing of the sort - as I already said, you have had and continue to have nothing of value to add to the SOE discussion.

A classic line from a fine film seems appropriate here, for a member who is obviously stressed out and not enjoying AVS as he should be.

"Sergeant, do you know that you are in more dire need of a BJ than any white man in History?"

Really, take a step back and consider that we are just talking about TV sets.

Robin Williams would be disappointed with that botched job. Not to mention there's a healthy (or really unhealthy) bit of projection going on over there, lumped in with a clumsy attempt to imbue emotion where none exists. Well, at least not over here.


And here we have it. On the ropes and out of steam, circling back to marginalize the whole thing. Despite all the posts - and there have been oh so many - now this is all "just" talking about TVs.

When do we get back to talking about the shortcomings of SOE (you know, that thing the entire thread is about) instead of inferring who feels what and silly things of that nature?

We both know I could not use the actual word without violating AVS rules.

I have a suggestion for you, since you like the "look of film" so much. Get two of those "35mm Lens adapters" mentioned by coolscan in message #299. Mount them on glasses frames in front of your eyes. Set the ground glass screens to spinning, and walk through the world enjoying the wonderfull "look of film", all day, everywhere you go.

Honestly, you seem like a knowledgeable person, but you can provide NO EXPLANATION for the jaw-dropping, spectacular look of that by-now-vintage HD-DVD that made me appreciate digital imaging so much. You insist in fact that no such difference exists, when it is as plain as day for anyone who has ever viewed that disk on the vintage 2007 HDTV in my family room. Some people have even felt a little queasy on some of the helicopter shots, not a problem that I ever had, in an actual aircraft or in a theater.

I believe my eyes. I agree with coolscan's comments about how we are at the beginning of a long journey and just skimming the surface of what is possible with digital imaging. I can imagine a future where I sit in the "sweet spot" in front of a curved 2.35:1 screen with Quad HD or higher resolution, and view high frame rate, perfectly lit and focussed images. I think it would be incredibly convincing, utterly immersive, and that there would be a clearly visible difference between the new, ultra clear, ultra focused, digital images with silky smooth motion, and that virtually everyone who viewed such an image would prefer it. Then people like you could still view an older film-sourced movie, at 1/4 resolution, with stuttery 24fps motion (frame interpolation would be OFF, of course) and scratches and film debris, and revel in "the look of film".

Once more, YOU are welcome to YOUR preference. But don't attempt to stop the rest of us from indulging in our preferences, too. Perhaps the best of both worlds would come when you could hit a button on your remote, and apply a digital filter that would process a modern, ultra-realistic image into a convincing imitation of a film-based movie. Perhaps you could select from a pulldown menu such nuances as "Technicolor die sublimation print" or "Panavision anamorphic with Deluxe color" or even (if you feel adventurous) "Academy Ratio Sepiatone". Magicly the digital image would then degrade into whatever your preference was.

I said you botched the quote, not the word.


Where did I say this? I did not. Once again you are putting words in my mouth. Preferring fidelity and viewing material as it was mastered and intended and prefering a specific look are two totally different things. I prefer the former - if anyone here prefers a specific look, it's you with your constant protestations about anything that doesn't resemble "reality."


An explanation has been provided - there's MUCH more than frame rate going on with that particular material.


Please point to where I ever said this.


Your biased characterizations of flim as a medium aside, I find myself AGAIN reiterating that I don't prefer one "look" over another. The only preference I have is for fidelity, and for empowering directors with as many tools as possible. I'll watch what they provide without messing with it because of personal preference or a strong "hate" for one "look" over another.


I'm convinced that you have read little to none of what I have posted based on the above. I have no preference for any type of look - I only have a preference for faithfully reproducing whatever material is provided to me.

HogPilot.

I must say that your points seem completely valid and comprehensible to me. Directors, writers, and composers are trying to give to their audiences a personal, artistic vision. In the case of film, a director gives his imprimatur to a final work, which includes how the film looks visually. Given that nowadays directors have the tools to get their films a "film look" or a "digital or video look", it can't be said that a director who chooses a "film" look , should be overruled. Regarding older works, one can't validly make a speculative argument that Orson Welles, for example, would have wanted citizen Kane to have the hyper clear digital look, if it had been available. All we know is that he put his stamp on the final work.

All of this is a completely different argument than personal preference. Nobody, it appears to me, is forcing anyone to watch anything in a particular way. And, of course, such a thing would be unenforceable.

Nor can you make a valid argument that Orson Welles would have rejected the clear digital look in favor of film. We know that he put his stamp on the final work because that's all he had at the time.

With all respect, I think you're missing an important point.

Given that we cannot know what Orson Welles would have done in a hypothetical situation, we should not impose any speculative argument upon him, either way. All we can say for sure was that he put his stamp of approval on the final product as made. He did not endorse future changes to his work. The fact should trump speculation.

However, if you want to watch Citizen Kane with motion processing I'm the last person to want to stop you. It's your right, and even though I don't know you, I want you to be happy.

One thing we can say for sure is that all dramatic representation requires a certain suspension of disbelief. If we can see the makeup of the actors, the fakeness of the costumes, the evidence of stage sets we will be pulled out of the story. If directors consciously choose to film in a "hyper real" clarity, then all of these elements will need to be upgraded so as not to be revealed by the highly detailed digital look, as someone on this thread has correctly pointed out. Given this, retroactively processing an earlier filmic look would be destructive to the credibility of the story if it starts to reveal these production elements.

I do agree with you that SED (or one of its newer variations) should not be, and should never have been, abandoned.

I have read this thread several times and no where did I see Hog try and say Film is the correct choice over Video.

His point was and still is to maintain fidelity which is important to him (and many others) it should be viewed minimizing alterations - period.

And Movies are NOT reality they are ART. Take an hour and track how you focus, dart, blink etc. Movie Making is an ART and takes many aspects to succeed. Many of those techniques, perspectives are not something I could ever see in real life so by Gary's account they are wrong?

I remember Hog kicking Gary to the curb a few years ago I believe over the same subject. I need to search for it an re-read it.

taichi4 and ebernazz: +1 to each of your posts, well said!

Art is supposed to imitate real life.

That sound you hear is every dead artist simultaneously rolling over in their grave.

If your interpretation of that were true you would have no selective camera shots, no editing, and the movie, or "work of art." would be produced by a camera with an angle of view approximating that of human vision, left running in real-time. A two-hour movie would be a single shot, unless the auteur/director/cinematographer decided to go to sleep, as in real life.

In theater a play is a condensed, heightened representation. The great plays that we see are never about two hours of people just milling about, reading the newspaper, making coffee, and chatting about nothing in particular. Richard the Third is nobody's typical day.

Art is based on an artist's particular vision, and always involves selection and control of all the elements that go into making the work of art.

Art takes elements of real life and presents them to the viewer in a particular way.

But really, you should analyze the statement you more or less quoted... "Art Imitates Life." That is different than "Art Duplicates Life."

And a very good morning to you, HogPilot.

Holy crap that explains it.after my seventh captain and Coke I knew it was Yoda running around my back yard since I saw that movie and that is art and art imitates real life.

After seven of those are you sure it wasn't Soda running around your back yard?

Whats is even more of a coincidence is that I bought 3 large prints in frames for my wife for mothers day for the cape house. As I pack them up for the trip to the cape house I could not help but chuckle as they are sailboats in real pictures but printed in sepia. Not sure 100% but I cant remember if I have ever looked out my eyes and achieved that effect. Thought about burning them right then in there in honor of Gary.....

Obviously you've never been to the coast of Mississepia.

^^ anything can be art, this is art because Duchamp wrote something on it.

I would consider experimental movies to be art, and you can see stuff like that in art museums. You ain't gonna see Hollywood movies/ Arthouse movies in art museums because they are not considered to be art ( by those who determined that Duchamps Fountain 1917 is art ).


^^ art. Jeff Koons - sculpture 1


^^not art. Orson Welles - citizen kane

You can try to spin it anyway you want to, but the goal in art is to imitate life. An artist attempts to do that with existing materials at hand. In prehistoric times it was cave paintings because that's all they had to work with. For the last 100 years it was film. Now the artist have more tools to work with that will better enable him to imitate real life.

Do you make mock. Apparently some of you folks have a hard time understanding that concept.

In all areas of art, the goal is always to imitate life. For movies, its audio, video, scripting writing, storyline, directing, acting, etc. all must be true to life or you won't believe it. Advances in technology helps an artist create a more realistic picture. In the past, artist did not access to what artist have today, they did the best with what they had.

When I look at a movie like Citizen Kane, which I only watched one time because it was brutal to sit through. I can look at that and see how much acting and directing has improved in todays time. Movie directors don't instruct actors to act that way anymore. Those folks in those times overacted and the acting for the most part was melodramatic.

Prehistoric paintings. They did the best with what they had.




Recording and playback devices from the 20's. They did the best with what they had.

How do you "make" a verb? Usually us uneducated folk think that you make a "thing" and we thought a thing is a noun.

Did you even bother to google what are the fine arts?

I would do it for you but I have to go tell my nephew that his degree that says Master of Culinary Arts is wrong. Come to think of it I will also have to write a letter to the critic who reviewed his craft and wrote that he was a "master artist at his best" and tell him to print a retraction.

Here us a little help though. Many arts have their ideal place to showcase the creativity and expressionism of ART.

Architecture - Where is was built.
Culinary Arts - A 5 start restaurant.
Dancing / Performing Arts - a stage.
Film Art - A movie screen.
etc.
etc.
etc.
Painting - A wall (maybe that's the reason museums have those and not some of the others....)

..... and what does all this have to do with SOE? I use SOE for OTA tv (because I actually like it) but turn it off (TruMotion on the LG) for BD/DVDs.

With the comments made I can see why you would not "get" Citizen Kane. Art is an expression, a concept, an feeling, not cold hard lines. Unfortunately there are too many like you out there who think that the fake interpolation is "fantastic" because it makes everything look so real.

Whatever. I'll enjoy the feelings and emotions art imparts, you can look at snapshots. I'm as happy in my world as you seem to be in yours.

Cute.