The dreaded soap opera effect - Page 3

Now, a question: how many "fps" do we see IRL? Is there any scientific study or data behind this assumption that there is no blur to any motion we see irl?

Also, the human eye registers phantom images of things we have just seen when we move our eyes to look at something else, especially against a lighter background. This is 'realistic' but I'm sure we wouldn't want to see it on our tv's!

There's no clear answer, because there are too many "it depends" factors to consider.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

Interesting. The wiki art. implies that anything above 15 fps is sufficient to provide a smooth motion.

Yet, anytime the camera moves in a 24 fps film there is clear, really unacceptable motion judder. In retrospect, I realize this is one of the main reasons I've never really been a fan of going to the movies. Who wants to see that type of distortion blown up on a screen 50' wide??? At the very least it's annoying, and often disorienting, if only momentarily.

I will investigate 60 and 120 hz tv's although these techs seems to create new problems of their own?

"The human eye and its brain interface, the human visual system, can process 10 to 12 separate images per second, perceiving them individually.[1] The visual cortex holds onto one image for about one-fifteenth of a second, so if another image is received during that period an illusion of continuity is created, allowing a sequence of still images to give the impression of smooth motion. Early silent films had a frame rate from 14 to 24 FPS but by using projectors with dual- and triple-blade shutters the rate was multiplied two or three times as seen by the audience. Studies by Thomas Edison determined that any rate below 46 FPS "will strain the eye."[2] In the mid- to late-1920s, the frame rate for silent films increased to about 20 to 26 FPS.[2] When sound film was first introduced in 1926, variations in film speed were no longer tolerated as the human ear was more sensitive to changes in audio frequency. From 1927 to 1930, the rate of 24 FPS became standardized for 35 mm sound film; a speed of 456 millimetres (18.0 in) per second.[1] This allowed for simple two-blade shutters to give a projected series of images at 48 per second. Many modern 35 mm film projectors use three-blade shutters to give 72 images per secondeach frame appearing three times.[2]"

You misinterpret the sentence a bit and that wiki is not exactly wording it properly. 15fps is definetly not smooth! For example when a video game speed drops down to 15fps its almost unplayable. IIRC at rough 15fps you stop seeing the pictures as a high speed dia-show and see it as motion. How smooth and lifelike the motion is is a different story, higher the FPS the better.

No, I get the premise: 15 is sufficient, but more is better. Then there are variables of movement in the frame, movement with panning and of course the speed of movement of both.

The question is, what is the limit of our perception? Is it 60 fps, 120, 240, 480, 960? At what point do increases in fps or refresh rates no longer matter, for human perception?

For instance, fm radio cuts off at 15 khz, but it still sounds pretty good. The cutoff for am is much lower, and we can clearly perceive the difference. However, if an audio system cannot record 60 khz tones, humans would not care, although dogs and cats might.

I do not know for certain. Some people have said that its somewhere between 60 and 120hz by testing it out with 120hz monitors. There may be individual factors too. I think this has never been scientifically tested how high FPS is enough to get a perfect motion smoothness for really fast objects, a point where human eye stops perceiving any difference by going any higher.

Again, it all depends on the source material. Black and white alternating frames, vs. "real world" video material with motion blur will give drastically different results.

If you re-read the wiki more carefully, you'll note that the actual minimum tolerable level was not even 24 fps, but more like 48 (since projectors with two blade shutters display each frame twice). "Studies by Thomas Edison determined that any rate below 46 FPS "will strain the eye."" This is why they went with 24 frames, but doubled. Modern projectors triple it, with 3-blade projectors, to 72 fps.

Much more info here, this might explain better than the wiki:

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frame...humans_see.htm

Great info, thanks.

FPS is an major issue in computer gaming as well--I used to take a minor interest in that topic; some claim they can perceive the difference up to 120 fps or higher and many graphics cards can achieve that.

When I dabbled in computer games, 30 fps was marginally acceptable; I felt like 60 should've been the bare minimum to make lag, skipped frames, etc. a non issue.

My god, some posters here need to get off the soapbox and just go watch some TV. If you like the SOE, good for you; but the world really doesn't need another pedantic, libertarian-esque rant on the subject. If you despise the SOE, again, good for you. There is no right or wrong here, no superior or inferior, no better or worse. There's simply no accounting for taste.

It's a matter of which aesthetic you prefer, and what your mind is geared to accept. Generally, I consider myself a supporter of technological advancement in almost all areas; but I've never been able to stomach the SOE, if advancement it is (although I'm highly suspicious of all consumer-tier digital signal processing techniques). To my eye (but perhaps not to everyone's), it tends to make a theatrical film look like someone's home video, or a made-for-TV movie from the 1990s. My mind immediately associates that with one word: "cheap". It may not be the case, but that's still the first word that always comes to mind when I view the SOE (or, indeed, any member of the genre which is its namesake).

I don't particularly care whether major studio films are "art" or not (and I care even less for the discussion point). The 24fps aesthetic is one I've become accustomed to in the cinema, and it's something I prefer to retain at home. Perhaps others want a movie to look more like a view out of their living room window; so be it, and that's perfectly acceptable. One preference or the other; that's all it boils down to. Neither look is objectively superior to the other, regardless of what some may wish to pontificate on the subject, but both can be said to have advantages and disadvantages. But it's not about director's intent (though all filmmakers, whether you want to call their work "art" or not, have as much right to have an intent as anyone else has to their preference), "OMG, it's 2012 already, down with film" (aka technological advancement), or any other silly notions someone may want to bring up in a discussion on this subject.

It certainly is the right of us all to watch movies however we please, but that doesn't require a soapbox defense of something that never needed to be defended in the first place; nor criticism of something else that never warranted any criticism. Hell, if someone is in love with MPEG-2 artifact and feels said artifact enhances his viewing experience, then by all means let him transcode a movie to hell and back before he watches it; and more power to him. Nothing is stopping any of us from watching movies however we please, nor will anything stop us in the future. Manufacturers of HDTVs know that there are many people in both camps on the SOE issue, and none are foolish enough to alienate either camp.

My justification for my own preference (though a justification is hardly required) is fairly easy to explain. My preferred aesthetic may not look as "real-world" as something processed with motion interpolation, but personally I find that desirable as far as films go (or any fictional material, really). For me, making films look as if they're being viewed through a window is incredibly jarring and completely destroys any suspension of disbelief, along with any immersion I had in the story. I literally can't make it through a movie such as Iron Man with motion interpolation processing in effect, as it ends up looking more like cut-scenes from a video game or footage from the evening news. Call me nostalgic or (more likely, as I'm not nearly old enough to have experienced this first-hand) a throwback if you wish, but there was a time when the cinema was likened to immersing oneself in a completely different world. I'm not usually much for romanticism, but that notion is appealing to me, and I find (in my own experience) that it holds true even with modern films; particularly those with plots that veer into the fantastical.

Oh, immersion is what I look from the movies aswell, much like with videogames (particularly RPGs). But I never thought that motion interpolation fighting against it. To me its just a quickfix (with problems, yes) until we (hopefully) move on to movies shot with high FPS cameras and movie formats using them. Lifelike motion without artificiality that is usually assosiated with SOE.

Our vision has is limitations, but the only way to be sure to recreate an experience is to recreate the physics.

If the scene is rendered as 1000fps smooth motion, chances are our senses will be fooled

Not directly comparable.

Of course it is, many people are playing games on lcd tv's as well as lcd computer monitors.

You need to distinguish between the measured number of fps in a pc game and the fps used to recreate filmed video. One cannot be used to understand the other
-variable vs constant fps
-motion blur
-latency

True. For example with games we dont have motion blur to cover up when FPS drops, everything is crystal clear. Well, not always anyway, constant and unnecessary motionblur whenever something movies is a fad in games that needs to die and fast...

http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/04/the-hobbit-the-soap-opera-effect-and-the-48fps-and-faster-future-of-movies/
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/337506/20120504/hdtv-hd-frame-rate-soap-opera-effect.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation
http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/04/the-hobbit-debuted-some-footage-in-48-fps-and-everyone-hated-it


I beg to differ with those that believe that the picture you see when Motion Interpolation raises the frame rate of the HD content displayed.

After doing some reading, I have come to the conclusion that Motion Interpolation isn't the problem. It is how 48 fps (or more) looks to you. The fact is that the TV and the film industry have the ability to create content a much higher frame rates than before and the new HDTVs have the ability to deliver a near real picture. Film is produced at amuch lower frame rate. New digital technology will replace film as we know it and deliver the incredible clarity & brilliance of HD it all its glory.

The soap opera effect is not a degradation of the picture. It is part of a movement to improve display technology. People used "line-doublers" in the old days to improve 480i displays.

HDTVs are simply fixing a problem with the display when motion interpolation is employed. That fix actually improves the picture. It mimics the coming look of newer HD presentations.

This is an important subject that must be explored, rather than dismissed. I believe that when some folks learn about the real future of higher frames per-second TV and cinema, they will accept that the picture is actually an improvement. The picture isn't being cheapened as some seem to think. As frame rates go up, the more "real" the picture will look.

Thanks for listening with an open mind,
-Will

I'm pretty shure that fake frames degredate the picture There are just a few people who love SOE you seem to be one of 'em.


Actually the guy who directed ''the Hobbit'' is walking ahead of the troops. 48fps, not any time soon maybe never btw the soap opera effect has to do with FAKE frames, the 48fps stuff has to do with REAL frames, it is definitely not one and same thing.

^^^^^^ nice and simple explanation I'm not a big fan of any kind of artificial video enhancements of which motion interpolation is one. Too many issues with frame insertion that makes me want to use it. And I'd never use it for blu-ray movies because I want to watch the movie as it was intended to be seen (24p, 5:5).

The only reason that TVs have motion interpolation is because of the current film sources. I'm sure that once the movie business advances and adopts a higher fps like 48p, motion interpolation will not be needed to get the fluid motion that motion interpolation brings.

I find it hard to watch movies on without motion interpolation. it has become the standard for me. i'm no movie purist and i'm definitely one for technology advancement. and this motion interpolation is definitely a leap in terms of advancement. we all grew up to 24fps, but that doesn't mean you have to stick with old technology just because you grew up with it.

also, i don't care what the director intended for us to see. Just because that was how he intended his film to be seen doesn't mean i have to like it. It's like saying that you just accept what the director imposes on you and you don't have any choice but to accept it. It's like being a sheep. just following the rest of the flock.

but how do you really feel?

Bet you've got a colorized copy of It's a Wonderful Life in your collection:rolleyes:

I understand that you may prefer the look SOE offers when watching a movie at home, and that's fine. What annoys me with many of these frame interpolation fans is that they insist that it somehow improves the picture or fixes a fatal flaw with film content. Sure, it removes judder, but it introduces a whole host of other problems that are (subjectively) worse. I don't know about anyone else's eyes, but people don't glide or float in front of me smooth as butter in real life. There is certain amount of blur that is inherent to movement. Estimated frames do not accurately emulate real motion and ruin the look and feel of films. But again, that's just my opinion. You're certainly welcome to your own, but don't sell your opinion that frame interpolation improves the look of films as fact.

But, it will look the same. Look at the reaction at Comic-Con; the comments made by people about the "horror" of the 48fps presentation are the same comments people make about their problems with SOE.

James Cameron is another proponent of the move to digital higher fps production and display of cinema.

-Will

I cannot agree more. I'm going to love watching The Avengers when it comes to Blu-Ray. I imagine I'll be able to reach out and shake Thor's hand. I recently watched the Blu-Ray of Alien. It was marvelous. It actually looked better than the Blu-Ray of Aliens.

I watch the TV show Grimm on NBC. The HD presentation of that show is the best I have ever seen. Actually, I find the HD presentation of all the NBC networks along with the motion interpolation to be stellar. I cannot understand why, but ABC HD is the worst!! Nothing can help their shows!

-Will

Stuff that they show are not samples of a finished product, what you will see in the cinema will look different, so people's reactions means very little.


90+% of directors do not care about higher framerates. We might gonna see higher framerates -48fps - in the cinema in the future, very little chance we'll gonna see it in our homes imo

I posted thus in the "Official ES7500" thread but I'm hoping someone else can help.

I've got a 52" XBR4 and the SOE was really noticeable for several weeks. After a few months, the effect became less and less noticeable even though my friends/neighbors would be mesmerized by the awesomeness of the picture. I'd guess that you're getting used to it and it's not a problem with the TV, but I may be wrong.

Back OT, I Love the SOE and love to watch BD and HD content with it. I love watching movies as if I'm looking outside of my window. I also like to watch them the way I saw them at the theater so sometimes I just turn off the effect. But 99% of the time I leave the effect on.

It's funny, my wife and I were at my cousin's house the other day and we were watching a movie and said to me- what is wrong with the picture? It looks like if it was filmed with a cheap HD handheld camera. It was a Samsung LCD with that soap opera effect. I have to admit when that feature came available a couple of years ago, I liked it until I saw more than 30 min. of it. It was too fake looking and gave me kind of a headache. The only time I see it useful is with sports if your tv can't handle fast motion. Good thing I don't have that problem.

+1, brother.

20 years ago when my buddies and I were aspiring cinematographers armed with video cameras we though "gold" of any feature that could record at 30 fps instead of video's 60 because the reduced temporal resolution made our videos look more like movies. We argued constantly with other aspiring filmakers who said the difference between film aesthetic and video aesthetic had to do with contrast, grain, gamma, and resolution only. Still, we maintained frame rate had the biggest effect. Slowing down the frame rate made things look dramatic, and less like the news and home movies.

Now the soe is available on all the latest tvs proving it was in fact frame rate that was the big separator. The evidence is that you can take a real movie and interpolate it to 60 fps and it will look like video. I fact, it looks like the making of the movie rather than the movie. Costumes become cheesy and Halloween-like. Makeup becomes evident, and the acting looks like a cheap soap opera.

I like movies at 24fps. They look like movies that way.

However, the soe is Awesome for 3d presentations. It really makes the 3d effect come to life. I feel like I am watching holograms. It's also great for Pixar type movies. Makes the 3d renderings seem like real actors. Very cool.

The soe definitely has its place. It's a fantastic effect when you want it. For movies, however, it just takes the drama away. To you haters, try it on Pixar tended films and especially on 3d content though. It really makes you feel like the actors are there!