Frame Interpolation and the Soap Opera effect - Page 4 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 40Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 104 Old 11-13-2018, 01:06 PM
Senior Member
 
jurid001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verge2 View Post
Why can't Soap Opera's just shoot in 24p and this nonsense will go away.
Then you’ll have the BS effect in your favorite Soap Opera too

A2, A35, 150, 62fd, s790, s6500, x800, 83, 103D, HTPC w/ HD-DVD/BD
jurid001 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 104 Old 11-13-2018, 02:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
R Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 1,778
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by jurid001 View Post
I am afraid you are misremembering FILMS. Before the digital era, they were quite fuzzy. Good quality theater would deliver around 700 lines of resolution, often less ( http://www.motionfx.gr/files/35mm_re...on_english.pdf ). In fact many people preferred DVDs to theaters.

Years ago, we saw a movie projected with one of the first DLP projectors.
It used a 1280x1024 DMD and an anamorphic lens.
After the movie was over we checked out the same movie on 35mm film in the same complex.
The DLP, even with that modest resolution, was clearly superior.
R Johnson is offline  
post #93 of 104 Old 11-15-2018, 08:15 AM
Senior Member
 
jurid001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Johnson View Post
Years ago, we saw a movie projected with one of the first DLP projectors.
It used a 1280x1024 DMD and an anamorphic lens.
After the movie was over we checked out the same movie on 35mm film in the same complex.
The DLP, even with that modest resolution, was clearly superior.
And that theater was probably a quite good one! Epstein in his book "Big picture" describes a typical situation back then when projectionists moved the film a bit away from the lamp (to prevent accidental heat damage!) which of course would make picture even fuzzier!

A2, A35, 150, 62fd, s790, s6500, x800, 83, 103D, HTPC w/ HD-DVD/BD
jurid001 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #94 of 104 Old 11-15-2018, 10:57 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,979
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1144 Post(s)
Liked: 665
Yeah, they didn't have focusing lenses. Twas the dark ages with 8000x8000 equivalent 35mm film that magically turned into sub-720 crapola the moment it hit an actual screen. Prints weren't original quality, but losing 90% of their resolution in a print??? Yeah, I'm the one misremembering 35mm film. It clearly (or rather fuzzily) looked closer to SD on 200 foot screens........

What I remember is early digital looking like crap on the big screen because 720 type resolution is utterly inadequate for a 200 foot screen (Hell it was barely adequate on my 92" screen at 9 feet; 1080p looks much better. Apparently so called fuzzy film is easier to look at than razor sharp blocky pixels....

Click THEATER (Updated: May-22-2019) for pics: Epson 3100 3D Projector, DaLite 92" screen, 11.1.6 (Marantz SR7012 + Yamaha HTR-5960 + Onkyo ESPro) - Dialog Lift - PSB T45/B15/S50/X1T/CS500 Speakers & Def Tech PF-1500 15" sub; 2nd Room (Updated Apr-22-2019): 48" Plasma TV, Carver AL-III, Carver C-5 Pre-Amp, Technics SH-AC500D, Dual Carver TFM-35x Amps (Active Bi-Amp), Klipsch Surrounds ; Sources: PS4, LG UP875 UHD, Nvidia Shield (KODI), ATV4K, Zidoo X9S, LD, GameCube : Props (Updated 10-13-19)
MagnumX is offline  
post #95 of 104 Old 11-15-2018, 11:22 AM
Senior Member
 
jurid001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
Yeah, they didn't have focusing lenses. Twas the dark ages with 8000x8000 equivalent 35mm film that magically turned into sub-720 crapola the moment it hit an actual screen. Prints weren't original quality, but losing 90% of their resolution in a print??? Yeah, I'm the one misremembering 35mm film. It clearly (or rather fuzzily) looked closer to SD on 200 foot screens........ [IMG class=inlineimg]/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif[/IMG]

What I remember is early digital looking like crap on the big screen because 720 type resolution is utterly inadequate for a 200 foot screen (Hell it was barely adequate on my 92" screen at 9 feet; 1080p looks much better. Apparently so called fuzzy film is easier to look at than razor sharp blocky pixels....
You are disputing the paper http://www.motionfx.gr/files/35mm_re...on_english.pdf ? Any proof to back up your claim?

A2, A35, 150, 62fd, s790, s6500, x800, 83, 103D, HTPC w/ HD-DVD/BD
jurid001 is offline  
post #96 of 104 Old 11-15-2018, 02:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,979
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1144 Post(s)
Liked: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by jurid001 View Post
You are disputing the paper http://www.motionfx.gr/files/35mm_re...on_english.pdf ? Any proof to back up your claim?
I'm sure the study makes its points accurately, but in reading the results as "fuzzy" for film or more specifically as was said, "In fact many people preferred DVDs to theaters" is where I have a real problem. I may misremember what I saw at the theater, but it sure as heck wasn't typically DVD (SD) quality. I'm sure there were some horrible films and some horrible theaters, but I owned laserdisc since the late 1980s and it was near DVD quality and I would never mistake ~425 lines for what I saw at the theater. Even in that test, the better theaters approached a "subjective" 800 lines (actually rated 775) lines of vertical resolution (horizontal wasn't even listed under subjective). 800 lines is above 720P HD's vertical resolution and I had a 720p projector for a decade. With a 92" screen at 9-10 feet it looked pretty good for films. Yes, my 2K/3D projector is noticeably sharper (and closer to what I typically see at a theater now if I sit halfway back), but 720p was far from "fuzzy" especially compared to a DVD at 720x480 max.

Certainly also, the actual film resolution on a 3rd gen print is closer to 1100 lines of resolution (above 2K vertical resolution). The loss is due to the projection equipment (which in terms of lenses, etc. also applies to digital projection so you need to compare apples to apples when you can). The other thing is those tests were done at 1.85:1 (about 16:9 equivalent). Panavision extends the useful resolution to 2.40:1 ratios. 800 lines of vertical resolution in 2.35:1 is going to be closer to 2K BDs on a standard 1080p projector (hence I don't think it was my imagination that Terminator 2 looked pretty damn good at the theater, even more so when the prints were on 70mm which I saw (less loss from the master negative on the final print). Analog film also tends to not go "pixelated" when you sit too close (i.e. your eye can resolve individual pixels whereas analog just goes softer looking) (i.e. fuzzy is better than blocky).

Yes, digital theaters look quite good now (2018). I wasn't as impressed in 1999 with The Phantom Menace. And the fact remains that 2K digital camera movies are locked at 2K. You can scan film at 4K or even 8K. Whether you get useful detail at or beyond 2K may vary. Certainly true 70mm films will produce far more than 2K detail when scanned (e.g. I'm looking forward to TRON in 4K at some point as it was shot 100% in 70mm at the time. Some of the composite effects would reduce the "inside the computer" scenes resolution, but even so it should get a nice boost over the 2K disc overall. It is one of my favorite movies along with The Matrix (which already got a 4K HDR release with an optional Atmos soundtrack; it's not what I'd call "full 4K" by any means, but it is sharper/better looking than the previous BD by far (cyan push notwithstanding).

Click THEATER (Updated: May-22-2019) for pics: Epson 3100 3D Projector, DaLite 92" screen, 11.1.6 (Marantz SR7012 + Yamaha HTR-5960 + Onkyo ESPro) - Dialog Lift - PSB T45/B15/S50/X1T/CS500 Speakers & Def Tech PF-1500 15" sub; 2nd Room (Updated Apr-22-2019): 48" Plasma TV, Carver AL-III, Carver C-5 Pre-Amp, Technics SH-AC500D, Dual Carver TFM-35x Amps (Active Bi-Amp), Klipsch Surrounds ; Sources: PS4, LG UP875 UHD, Nvidia Shield (KODI), ATV4K, Zidoo X9S, LD, GameCube : Props (Updated 10-13-19)
MagnumX is offline  
post #97 of 104 Old 11-16-2018, 04:40 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,824
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
Yeah, they didn't have focusing lenses. Twas the dark ages with 8000x8000 equivalent 35mm film that magically turned into sub-720 crapola the moment it hit an actual screen. Prints weren't original quality, but losing 90% of their resolution in a print??? Yeah, I'm the one misremembering 35mm film. It clearly (or rather fuzzily) looked closer to SD on 200 foot screens........

What I remember is early digital looking like crap on the big screen because 720 type resolution is utterly inadequate for a 200 foot screen (Hell it was barely adequate on my 92" screen at 9 feet; 1080p looks much better. Apparently so called fuzzy film is easier to look at than razor sharp blocky pixels....
Come on you are forgetting about dust on the film dancing around on the screen and projectionists turning the lamp down in the projector to extend its life. Oh and the clicking noise from the back of the theater made by the projector. By the time the reels made it to the small towns they had splices and scratches as well.

It was the dark ages alright and people didn’t know any better at the time. But they were used to harder times in general. I watched a show yesterday one of the very first movies shown was a short movie of a train coming in the distance steam locomotive and the camera was pointed down the track. As the train started getting closer the people in the theater got scared and started running from the theater as they didn’t understand and thought the locomotive was going to come right in on them.

I wonder if there was one smarty pants sitting in the front row saying it’s not even 4k it’s not real.
gomo657 and steve1106 like this.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #98 of 104 Old 11-16-2018, 06:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,979
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1144 Post(s)
Liked: 665
Normal people don't notice or obsess over little things like an occasional scratch when they're used to it. See the film the first weekend and it wasn't an issue. Don't sit in the back and you won't hear the projector noise. God it wasn't rocket science. Kids today are spoiled. Wait until they have an actual problem or have to move out of the basement.....Dark Ages....hrummph. Imagine living in the Middle Ages.
steve1106 likes this.

Click THEATER (Updated: May-22-2019) for pics: Epson 3100 3D Projector, DaLite 92" screen, 11.1.6 (Marantz SR7012 + Yamaha HTR-5960 + Onkyo ESPro) - Dialog Lift - PSB T45/B15/S50/X1T/CS500 Speakers & Def Tech PF-1500 15" sub; 2nd Room (Updated Apr-22-2019): 48" Plasma TV, Carver AL-III, Carver C-5 Pre-Amp, Technics SH-AC500D, Dual Carver TFM-35x Amps (Active Bi-Amp), Klipsch Surrounds ; Sources: PS4, LG UP875 UHD, Nvidia Shield (KODI), ATV4K, Zidoo X9S, LD, GameCube : Props (Updated 10-13-19)
MagnumX is offline  
post #99 of 104 Old 11-16-2018, 10:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
steve1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Northern, Va
Posts: 2,129
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 828 Post(s)
Liked: 549


Nothing wrong with having sweet gaming and HT in your parent's basement.

Admittedly my computer was a Tandy 8088 and my HT was a 27" color TV with Radio Shack simulated surround sound.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-ge...eap-build.html
Epson HC3700/HC2000; Screen - 151.5" 16:9/TV or 143.5" 2.35:1/HT at a seating distance of 12-15 feet; Yamaha RXV675 for 7.4; Speakers - Infinity Primus; Subs - 3 Polk PSW10s, 1 BIC F12; Headphones - 5 JVC wireless; Sony 3D Blu-ray player/six pairs 3D glasses.

Last edited by steve1106; 11-16-2018 at 10:18 AM.
steve1106 is offline  
post #100 of 104 Old 11-16-2018, 10:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3787 Post(s)
Liked: 3001
Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnumX View Post
Normal people don't notice or obsess over little things like an occasional scratch when they're used to it. ...
Normal people don't get caught up in forum debates over the merits of film vs. digital. No sir, we are not normal here. We are the exceptional ones.
primetimeguy and Gamecock24 like this.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #101 of 104 Old 11-16-2018, 11:16 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,824
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
Normal people don't get caught up in forum debates over the merits of film vs. digital. No sir, we are not normal here. We are the exceptional ones.
LOL exceptionally what is the question.

I haven’t brought this subject up in a while and this is wrong place I’m sure.

In the old day we used to talk about sometimes reaching a euphoric visual state in a projected image. A state some of us remembered as children going to go see a movie but seldom as adults noticed in commercial theaters.

The state is best described as the open window effect as opposed to viewing a two dimensional image on a flat surface depicting a 3D reality. Not to long ago I heard Christopher Nolan talking about something quite similar about watching Dunkirk in a proper IMAX venue. He is opposed to fake 3D as he called it with glasses and such. He was talking about a 3D reality brought about thru his cinematography and maintained by a flawless delivery system.

That goal has always been in the back of my mind with home theaters I have built.

Things like dust on the film didn’t matter to kids because we looked past everything and were into the illusion. That’s a really nice place to be.
Gamecock24 likes this.

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
post #102 of 104 Old 11-16-2018, 11:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MagnumX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,979
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1144 Post(s)
Liked: 665
The anti-3D Nolan.... Just goes to show being a good director doesn't mean you have good taste.

Click THEATER (Updated: May-22-2019) for pics: Epson 3100 3D Projector, DaLite 92" screen, 11.1.6 (Marantz SR7012 + Yamaha HTR-5960 + Onkyo ESPro) - Dialog Lift - PSB T45/B15/S50/X1T/CS500 Speakers & Def Tech PF-1500 15" sub; 2nd Room (Updated Apr-22-2019): 48" Plasma TV, Carver AL-III, Carver C-5 Pre-Amp, Technics SH-AC500D, Dual Carver TFM-35x Amps (Active Bi-Amp), Klipsch Surrounds ; Sources: PS4, LG UP875 UHD, Nvidia Shield (KODI), ATV4K, Zidoo X9S, LD, GameCube : Props (Updated 10-13-19)

Last edited by MagnumX; 11-16-2018 at 02:33 PM.
MagnumX is offline  
post #103 of 104 Old 11-16-2018, 01:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,354
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3787 Post(s)
Liked: 3001
No question that early digital was obviously inferior to the best film in many ways. Even today digital is still in its relative infancy, about where film was a couple of decades after it was first commercialized for Hollywood movies. As digital continues to improve we grow closer to the end of film altogether. Digital technology will continue to evolve and improve, reaching levels beyond the physical limits of film. For nostalgia fans it should be possible one day to use advanced digital equipment to perfectly replicate all the strengths and flaws of the best film to the point that when viewed at 24 fps they would be indistinguishable to the human eye. But most will prefer viewing digital without the flaws.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #104 of 104 Old 12-15-2018, 09:08 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bud16415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Erie Pa
Posts: 7,824
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2128 Post(s)
Liked: 1074
Another reason some of you can hate Tom Cruise.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/tom...g-sucks.85083/

Bud
bud16415 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Digital Projectors - Under $3,000 USD MSRP

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off