or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Why is the Soap Opera Effect Considered Such A Bad Thing?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why is the Soap Opera Effect Considered Such A Bad Thing? - Page 3

post #61 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

You need to know the difference in plasma and LCD to come to that conclusion. What is the refresh rate of the LCD you mention that can match plasma?

You also need to know why SOE is evident ie 4 fake frames interpolated for 24fps to 120fps. Just like VCD 240 resolution interpolated to 1080 cannot be unperceivable. I agree it is possible to have no SOE... LCDs produced 5 years ago does not have SOE.

Any sony 2010 set or newer. When setup with motionflow on standard AND cinemotion on auto2 when next to a plasma with the same quality source. Not some bestbuy wall crap. Anything else will be indistinguishable with real world content, ie movie sports tv show etc. A test pattern does not count as that would indeed show a resolution difference. To which I respond I could care less about the test pattern knowing that real content looks identical.
post #62 of 357
Quote:
^ serialmike: Ill help you figure out why the point you never make gets "lost": next to no one experienced with an LCD/LED in any capacity agrees with you

.

False. There are many many people who do agree. They are just not in this forum area or the plasma area. they usually dont come here due to individuals not unlike you.


Quote:
Sony, Samsung, whatever...pick your brand, pick your settings and Ill pick it out of a lineup with PDPs from 10' every time. Every single time.

Of course you will. The abl and dithering and grey white is the giveaway every time. I can pick em out too.

Quote:
I'd love to learn the validity of this "shootout" by the way, prolly some great fiction. There isn't an engine around that doesn't add some level of artifacting...regardless of the settings.

Not sure what you want. I owned a panasonic 54g10. I loved that set more than anything I owned up to that time. Mostly due to black level. Color accuracy sucked. As did greysih whites but the black was awesome to that point in history for the price. Then I as ALL panny plasma owners 06 to 2011 modeels was hit with rising black level my model specifically from .008 to .024 yeah awesome. So I looked studied researched. Found this little ccfl set 60 inches big with .010 black level for a meager 2000 dollars. It was better black than any plasma at the time and was more accurate in color to boot. All that was left was to see if the set produced good motion. You see I cant stand SOE in fact it makes me nauseous. I also cant stand a lcd with no interpolation due to extreme judder in the tech from sample and hold. So I set them up side by side. I used dual fios hd boxes and dual bluray players with same titles. I rented 3 discs I already had at the time.The blurays were tough to get to play at same scenes but after some time id get it. After a while of checking content out it was plain to see there was no visual difference in motion or image on the 2 screens. It was hard to believe because of my own biases at the time. My 52v5100 exhibits some SOE and judder and artifacting. My ex5 does not. I was surprised to see judder in programs on tv that I would have thought was the lcd were actually source.

lol. I think your living on info of 2 yrs ago. And also haven't seen a calibrated sony (possible toshiba) lcd with interpol setup properly. demo modes in store wont do it. and default mode on sony is incorrectly setup to remove artifacts and soe.

Quote:
The notion that motion is now equally replicated on either tech is absurd an easily disproven by anyone with resonably acute vision and wary of the hallmarks of "new and improved" LCD motion resolution.

Outdated my arse.

Once again it is. Sorry you havent witnessed it. Perhaps you just dont want to see it.

James

Just love to know why you be so angry bro
post #63 of 357
^ sure it is (motion equally replicated)... just like the blacks on your Sony "out do" PDP's too. Remember that statement you made just a ~week ago when you ended up with egg on your face in a matter of minutes?

There's 350 million people living in this country, I do not doubt for a second that "many" feel LCD is an equal and even SUPERIOR choice to PDP, overall, nevermind, in regards to motion, Britney Spears also sells millions of LP's.

Oh, so there wasn't a "shoot-out"...just like I thought.

Best part of this pish: you have a myriad of those on the Samsung "side" who abhor Sony's motion "solutions" while touting Samsung's ingenious methodology of simply attempting to play catch up to PDP. Of course either is still readily visible, again, regardless of the settings.

See Documaker for ready-reference on that one.

This is nothing, if not comedy.

What's next, equal off axis vewing angles, lmao?! I'm sure those are just a couple months away, along with the elimination of mura, flashlighting, uneven backlighting, and blooming.

by the way, "anger" has nothing to do with my attitude or thoughts...bewilderment is much more appropriate.


James
post #64 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

^ sure it is (motion equally replicated)... just like the blacks on your Sony "out do" PDP's too. Remember that statement you made just a ~week ago when you ended up with egg on your face in a matter of minutes?

There's 350 million people living in this country, I do not doubt for a second that "many" feel LCD is an equal and even SUPERIOR choice to PDP, overall, nevermind, in regards to motion, Britney Spears also sells millions of LP's.

Oh, so there wasn't a "shoot-out"...just like I thought.

Best part of this pish: you have a myriad of those on the Samsung "side" who abhor Sony's motion "solutions" while touting Samsung's ingenious methodology of simply attempting to play catch up to PDP. Of course either is still readily visible, again, regardless of the settings.

See Documaker for ready-reference on that one.

This is nothing, if not comedy.

What's next, equal off axis vewing angles, lmao?! I'm sure those are just a couple months away, along with the elimination of mura, flashlighting, uneven backlighting, and blooming.

by the way, "anger" has nothing to do with my attitude or thoguhts...bewilderment is much more appropriate.


James


Ok so 2010 model year show me a plassma with better than .011 black level. Where I was enlightened was in 2011 model year. Not the year I replaced the panny plasma with black rise. Panny plasma 2010 does not count as once it black level rises it is indeed above .011.

Dont know about sammy or whatever your trying to say there. But there are several reviews around the net touting sonys interpol for no arftifacting and or soe. At the same time they like to critique it for not being as adjustable as other sets even though thiers is the best as it already is.


Quote:
What's next, equal off axis vewing angles, lmao?! I'm sure those are just a couple months away, along with the elimination of mura, flashlighting, uneven backlighting, and blooming.

Im not sure but is that what your saying. Cause it seems like your saying this because I certainly didnt.That would be awesome.

Anyway all just my little ol opinion. Full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
post #65 of 357
Thread Starter 
So motion interpolation was created for LCDs to compete with the speed of the pixel changes on plasmas? When I look at a plasma without motion interpolation, it doesn't look as real and lifelike as and LCD that has it on.

My personal preference is that I'm more impressed with the PQ of the 1080i content that comes out of a good Discovery Channel nature show than I am the PQ of most blurays that I've seen. I've never really be floored by a bluray movie that was shot on film. I understand that is my opinion, but does that mean I would tend more towards liking SOE in the long run? I've only seen it for a few minutes here and there.

In the store, everything looks similar to me, and the only ones that jump out to me are the ones where some sort of motion interpolation is enabled. Does anyone else feel that way?
post #66 of 357
Many feel that way. Check out the LCD forum. If that's what u like then go for it.

Some don't even like calibrated colors, let alone talk about director's intent. Ultimately u have to decide what is important for u as u watch it everyday.
post #67 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

If you want to see a movie the way the director intended it you really should go to a movietheater and not watch a movie on a LCd or Plasma, really.

Why can't I do both? Why should technology limit my enjoyment of film-originated content on a flat-panel TV?
post #68 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bytehoven View Post

Yes, but when I see the film camera pan a scene, and the elements in the image shudder as they move by, was that the intent of the director or DP?

Ask Steven Spielberg or Quentin Tarantino. My understanding is that they prefer the overall look and feel of film. The good and the bad.
post #69 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed3120 View Post

So motion interpolation was created for LCDs to compete with the speed of the pixel changes on plasmas? When I look at a plasma without motion interpolation, it doesn't look as real and lifelike as and LCD that has it on.

My personal preference is that I'm more impressed with the PQ of the 1080i content that comes out of a good Discovery Channel nature show than I am the PQ of most blurays that I've seen. I've never really be floored by a bluray movie that was shot on film. I understand that is my opinion, but does that mean I would tend more towards liking SOE in the long run? I've only seen it for a few minutes here and there.

In the store, everything looks similar to me, and the only ones that jump out to me are the ones where some sort of motion interpolation is enabled. Does anyone else feel that way?

AS I already said, I personally don't feel the same. The motion doesn't look more realistic...it looks jarring, and I can't wait to look away from the set. (That's not me being a Luddite or technophobe...that's me preferring the way my 9G KURO handles motion over the SOE).

But, as I said before, if you are drawn to it, you should buy it.

Why? Because it's ultimately your money, and you don't owe any of us anything to take our advice. You have to pick a TV that you want to still be watching 5 years from now.
post #70 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Irishman] View Post

Ask Steven Spielberg or Quentin Tarantino. My understanding is that they prefer the overall look and feel of film. The good and the bad.

But James Cameron is all praise for digital.

Todays Digital movie cameras now surpass film cameras on all parameters,they look more real to the eye,they have better low light capability,show more colors and capture more detail.
post #71 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed3120 View Post

So motion interpolation was created for LCDs to compete with the speed of the pixel changes on plasmas? When I look at a plasma without motion interpolation, it doesn't look as real and lifelike as and LCD that has it on.

My personal preference is that I'm more impressed with the PQ of the 1080i content that comes out of a good Discovery Channel nature show than I am the PQ of most blurays that I've seen. I've never really be floored by a bluray movie that was shot on film. I understand that is my opinion, but does that mean I would tend more towards liking SOE in the long run? I've only seen it for a few minutes here and there.

In the store, everything looks similar to me, and the only ones that jump out to me are the ones where some sort of motion interpolation is enabled. Does anyone else feel that way?

If I am correct, Sony 1st introduced 120hz Motion Flow in their 2007 LCD flat panel product line. Motion Flow was always targeted at the issue of 24fps judder on digital displays. I have never seen evidence that Motion Flow was developed to make LCD response more like Plasma displays.

I 1st experienced motion enhancement in 2008 on the Sony vw80 and Panasonic ae3000 projectors. I was not paying attention to flat panels at that time so I never checked out motion enhancement on flat panels. However, with both projectors, there were significant artifacts generated by the motion enhancement process. IMHO, it was the Sony vw85 projector which 1st offered a form of motion flow which was worth using, and I assume similar coding was available on Sony flat panels at that time. With the introduction of the vw90 projector this year, motion flow was further refined such that the LOW setting could be used on a great deal of material without inducing the SOE effect. Such is the case the motion flow running on the ex723 and hx929 I have observed. I assume many other Sony LCDs offer similar motion flow performance now.

Motion Flow was not developed to improve panel performance compared to plasma based technology. Motion Flow and CineMotion were developed to address the issues with the reproduction of 24fps content on digital displays with higher refresh rates.

Despite what some opponents say about motion enhancement, if 24fps content had always been properly reproduced on digital displays, there might never have been an issue or need for a solution. But that was/is not the case. There continues to be a challenge with how to take a 24fps source and present the content on a higher refresh display without inducing motion artifacts. Honestly, while Motion Flow frame interpolation has been refined to offer a range of interpolation, the fast response time of LED maybe be offering one of the best solutions via being able to strobe the backlight.

While there are detractors who strongly assert their objection to motion enhancement in any form, I would argue the process has been improving with each generation, and the latest generation from Sony may well be the 1st to be taken seriously.

I am pretty sure if Sony made a plasma based display, it would still offer Motion Flow and CineMotion to help the display properly reproduce 24fps content, despite any panel response advantages plasma has over LCD. This is why some plasma displays are offering motion enhancement technology.

I agree with you that motion enhancement & frame interpolation will jump out at you. I also agree with others who say this is not always a good thing. I am glad to now own a projector and a flat panel display which offer motion enhancement capable of a wide range of processing.
post #72 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

I will quickly add that I have not yet seen the sony 929, but I will give it an honest due diligence this weekend.

Jamed

You should be aware there is a difference in performance between RETAIL and HOME mode on the hx929.

I do not understand why there is a difference. It does not make sense to me and I almost did not buy the hx929 based on my demo of the display. I asked and was told by a Sony contact to try the display in HOME mode, that I would see a difference, and I did observe a difference.

I guess RETAIL mode focuses on presenting the brightest image, but I'm not sure why it would also cause some processing to induce artifacts.
post #73 of 357
post #74 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by aim120 View Post

But James Cameron is all praise for digital.

Todays Digital movie cameras now surpass film cameras on all parameters,they look more real to the eye,they have better low light capability,show more colors and capture more detail.

Not true. Film has infinite resolution. Digital does not.
post #75 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

We had this same discussion last year

jeff

Lots of great stuff in there, from both sides.
post #76 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenjp View Post

We had this same discussion last year

jeff

Then get yourself up to date and discuss.



And byte is correct there is a sizable difference to retail mode interpolation and home mode. Even when you have adjusted the settings in retail mode. Also of note is that the sony when in retail mode goes back to default settings what seeems almost faster than you can clear the menu on last years units. Not sure about this years.
post #77 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Thus the preferences of some old school directors hardly matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mailang View Post

You mean like Quentin Tarantino?

Tarantino is not a typical director, he watched a lot of movies on cableTV and Videotheque stuff.
post #78 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Tarantino is not a typical director, he watched a lot of movies on cableTV and Videotheque stuff.

You left out my mention of Spielberg. Hardly an inconsequential director.
post #79 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Tarantino is not a typical director...

I agree.. I would place "Q" in the camp of those who likes to push the envelope of analog film as a visual art form.

However, I really suspect they would say they have more creative control over the image in the digital domain. They might use film as the foundation of their project to capture the action, but it all goes digital from there.

It all comes down to budgets. Every day it becomes cheaper to work a project entirely in the digital domain. IMHO, digital production has reached a point where the look of any desired film technique/aesthetic can be emulated. Analog purists will not like this reality. Unfortunately, awareness and appreciation for some of the techniques and aesthetics inherent in the analog film process will be lost, just like various types of analog distortion in audio have been lost with the move to digital production.

Back to displays... it would be interesting to read opinions from various directors, DPs, animators, editors, etc... regarding their preferred HT setup.
post #80 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bytehoven View Post

I am pretty sure if Sony made a plasma based display, it would still offer Motion Flow and CineMotion to help the display properly reproduce 24fps content, despite any panel response advantages plasma has over LCD. This is why some plasma displays are offering motion enhancement technology.

As far as I know no plasma does motion interpolation. They handle 24 fps judder by using a refresh rate that's a multiple of 24 Hz so there's no need to, at least not to solve that problem.
post #81 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Irishman] View Post

Why can't I do both? Why should technology limit my enjoyment of film-originated content on a flat-panel TV?

What i'm saying is that if you want to see a movie the way a director intended it you should go to a movie theater, you can watch a movie on a flatscreen and enjoy it, but that is not what the director primarily intended - in most cases a movie is specially made for the movietheater, just a few movies are made for TV.
post #82 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Irishman] View Post

Not true. Film has infinite resolution. Digital does not.

Well, perhaps not quite "infinite". Or else theaters would be using 16mm film, or even "Super 8"....

My high school was somewhat unusual (at that time) in having a class in film-making. But this was in 1972-73. So each team of 2 or 3 students was issued a cheap Super 8 camera, with no sound capability. We could use a cassette recorder to have background music or narration, but obviously nothing requiring syncing to the film. Editing was literally done by cutting and splicing film, so we tried to do as much "editing in the camera" as possible. Even so, some of the 3-5 minute films we made were not bad....
post #83 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

What i'm saying is that if you want to see a movie the way a director intended it you should go to a movie theater, you can watch a movie on a flatscreen and enjoy it, but that is not what the director primarily intended - in most cases a movie is specially made for the movietheater, just a few movies are made for TV.

And what I did was skip ahead my snarky reply to your snarky comment because I wanted to avoid the multiple posts back and forth about how you don't get to choose for me how I watch a movie.

So, it's a given that I watch movies at the theater AND at home, hence my question, why can't I watch both?
post #84 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bytehoven View Post

Yes, but when I see the film camera pan a scene, and the elements in the image shudder as they move by, was that the intent of the director or DP?

Unless you have evidence otherwise, I'd say it's safe to assume it was. I mean, these guys are professionals right? Sure they may screw up occasionally in a pan, but the rest of the movie is as they intended. Are you saying you should alter over 99% of a film to correct a flaw that may arguably exist in less than 1% of the film? Maybe if there was a setting to only apply smoothing to fast pans, you'd have a point I could consider.

And honestly as Lucas (or maybe more to the point, Storaro) has shown, even if the director or cinematographer comes along after the fact and says they "always intended" something other than what they actually did make, that doesn't necessarily make it true.
post #85 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Irishman] View Post

You left out my mention of Spielberg. Hardly an inconsequential director.

That post was a response to a Mailang post , i pointed out that Tarentino is an outsider in the directors world, he's heavily influended by cableTV and VHS.
post #86 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by rschleicher View Post

Well, perhaps not quite "infinite". Or else theaters would be using 16mm film, or even "Super 8"....

My high school was somewhat unusual (at that time) in having a class in film-making. But this was in 1972-73. So each team of 2 or 3 students was issued a cheap Super 8 camera, with no sound capability. We could use a cassette recorder to have background music or narration, but obviously nothing requiring syncing to the film. Editing was literally done by cutting and splicing film, so we tried to do as much "editing in the camera" as possible. Even so, some of the 3-5 minute films we made were not bad....

True. You'll eventually run up against limitations of a given print, but digital video shot at 4K will only EVER BE 4K. You can't go back and re-import it and get 8K, or future 16K...etc.

Film, by nature of being emulsion-dependent, will get you through more re-importations at higher-resolutions than digital.
post #87 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

That post was a response to a Mailang post , i pointed out that Tarentino is an outsider in the directors world, he's heavily influended by cableTV and VHS.

And yet again, what about Spielberg?
post #88 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Irishman] View Post

And what I did was skip ahead my snarky reply to your snarky comment because I wanted to avoid the multiple posts back and forth about how you don't get to choose for me how I watch a movie.

So, it's a given that I watch movies at the theater AND at home, hence my question, why can't I watch both?

Shure, totally ok.
post #89 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Irishman] View Post

And yet again, what about Spielberg?

seems to be a old fashion movietheater guy, not in the 3d/48fps camp.
post #90 of 357
I hope this question is not out of place in this conversation, but what do you all think of Panasonic's Motion Pro 5 (?) vs. Sony's current method of FI?

It appears far more natural to me then my V4100 that I just replaced.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Why is the Soap Opera Effect Considered Such A Bad Thing?