The Soap Opera Effect - Yay or Nay?

[Drewbee87]

Hell nay! That's the first thing I turn off when I mess with the settings of a new TV.

[Spike M.]

Can we like... get rid of this thread? It's not dissimilar to being on a painting forum and opening up conversation to whether or not members prefer painter approved replica prints or coloring book versions of their favorite paintings.

This forum subsection is better than opening up such a gross conversation.

[atlantajoseph]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

Can we like... get rid of this thread? It's not dissimilar to being on a painting forum and opening up conversation to whether or not members prefer painter approved replica prints or coloring book versions of their favorite paintings.

This forum subsection is better than opening up such a gross conversation.

I think this is a valid discussion topic given that most TVs on the market have this effect turned on by default. Always good to raise awareness, and there have been some nuanced discussions about specific TV brands as well.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by atlantajoseph

I think this is a valid discussion topic given that most TVs on the market have this effect turned on by default. Always good to raise awareness, and there have been some nuanced discussions about specific TV brands as well.

The thread isn't posited as "you should be aware that TV manufactures are screwing up the picture quality of your default settings", it poses it as a "which do you prefer?", as if that's a valid question to viewers in an artistic medium.

I agree that awareness of the issue needs to be spread, but not in the form of "all things being equal". If anything I think it'd be nice if BD.com had some kind of a system set up so each joining member gets a PM or email informing them of the -basic- and common issues with a TV's default settings. Just a heads up so the less interested or involved parties think twice. The more random television sets that get sharpness turned to zero and motion smoothing shut off, the better.

[Derb]

Nay.

Causes jitter on 2 different 4K Sony sets I've tried it on. But.. Standard seems to be fine.

[Fritz]

I don't use it but from what I've read on line some people activate it for viewing sporting events....football, basketball, etc..do you guys do this?

[GeneD5]

Nay all day long. I always end up having to watch it at friends houses and it's just totally distracting.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Fritz

I don't use it but from what I've read on line some people activate it for viewing sporting events....football, basketball, etc..do you guys do this?

Yes, for content that's actually shot in 50 or 60i/p like sports I use it there also.

Originally Posted by Spike M.

Alas, imgur isn't working so I can't see your no doubt hilarious gif. Never mind eh.

[JayEmm]

Any form of motion interpolation is the devil's work and we must stop this nonsense.



Regarding Miami Vice and a number of other films acquired digitally, Geoff is correct in saying it is a wider shutter angle that is responsible for the natural amount of extra blur. I do not like the look, and it is something which bugs the living daylights out of me. Film cameras are physically incapable of doing that kind of thing, so it's a dead giveaway a film is shot digitally and therefore one reason I think it should be avoided. Punters, educated or not, tend to pick up on these things even subconsciously.

Not as bad as the blatant GoPro shot in the Hobbit, mind...

Speaking of the Hobbit, it was acquired at 48fps with a 270 degree shutter... meaning when viewed in 48fps it might look similar to 24fps stuff with no shutter on - or 50i material for that matter, however when reduced to 24fps (by eliminating every other frame) it looks roughly similar to "regular" 24fps content.

If you've become used to a motion interpolated signal it can take some getting used to a proper 24fps signal. Some screens display it better than others. Bear in mind 24fps and 24hz are not the same thing. Most cinemas are 72hz.

There are actually a lot of very strict rules as to how fast one should pan when shooting 24fps, in order to avoid strobing artifacts. As you can guess, most of these rules went out the window in the 60s.

[Geoff D]

Yay! I got one right! Just to reciprocate (not that it matters coming from an Armchair Expert™): J is correct that digital cinemas screen 24fps content at 72Hz, not unlike the double (so 48Hz) or triple bladed shutters on ye olde filme projektors. (And the 48fps 3D Hobbit went out at 144Hz to each eye!)

When I brought up the 270º shutter angle of the Hobbit elsewhere someone said to me that the effective shutter angle of the 24fps extraction would be halved (so it's 135º than the usual 180º) and that's why it's still got something of a slightly odd look to the motion? Any thoughts on that James?

In any case, the MotionFlow Clear option on my set does a great job with The Hobbitses as well, making them look smoother but not unnaturally so. And I just want to reiterate that I do NOT use the motionflow by default when viewing movies that are acquired at 24p, but when something is shot with a shutter angle that's different from the norm - thereby shedding the typical motion blur in the first place - then I like to experiment with it.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by JayEmm

Any form of motion interpolation is the devil's work and we must stop this nonsense.



Regarding Miami Vice and a number of other films acquired digitally, Geoff is correct in saying it is a wider shutter angle that is responsible for the natural amount of extra blur. I do not like the look, and it is something which bugs the living daylights out of me. Film cameras are physically incapable of doing that kind of thing, so it's a dead giveaway a film is shot digitally and therefore one reason I think it should be avoided. Punters, educated or not, tend to pick up on these things even subconsciously.

Not as bad as the blatant GoPro shot in the Hobbit, mind...

Speaking of the Hobbit, it was acquired at 48fps with a 270 degree shutter... meaning when viewed in 48fps it might look similar to 24fps stuff with no shutter on - or 50i material for that matter, however when reduced to 24fps (by eliminating every other frame) it looks roughly similar to "regular" 24fps content.

If you've become used to a motion interpolated signal it can take some getting used to a proper 24fps signal. Some screens display it better than others. Bear in mind 24fps and 24hz are not the same thing. Most cinemas are 72hz.

There are actually a lot of very strict rules as to how fast one should pan when shooting 24fps, in order to avoid strobing artifacts. As you can guess, most of these rules went out the window in the 60s.

[JayEmm]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yay! I got one right! Just to reciprocate (not that it matters coming from an Armchair Expert™): J is correct that digital cinemas screen 24fps content at 72Hz, not unlike the double (so 48Hz) or triple bladed shutters on ye olde filme projektors. (And the 48fps 3D Hobbit went out at 144Hz to each eye!)

When I brought up the 270º shutter angle of the Hobbit elsewhere someone said to me that the effective shutter angle of the 24fps extraction would be halved (so it's 135º than the usual 180º) and that's why it's still got something of a slightly odd look to the motion? Any thoughts on that James?

In any case, the MotionFlow Clear option on my set does a great job with The Hobbitses as well, making them look smoother but not unnaturally so. And I just want to reiterate that I do NOT use the motionflow by default when viewing movies that are acquired at 24p, but when something is shot with a shutter angle that's different from the norm - thereby shedding the typical motion blur in the first place - then I like to experiment with it.

To answer as best I can.... and I should be able to answer better, I'm a member of the British Kinematograph Society so I'm meant to know these things! But projection is not the end of the business I deal with...

Digital projection will certainly be at a higher refresh rate than 24hz, 72 seems like a sensible starting point but like all things digital there is nothing really mechanical that limits you to the one standard.

The Hobbit's problems are legion. A 135 degree shutter would certainly contribute to issues. 90 degree shutters are very different from 180 degree, with 135 sitting roughly in-between as the maths would suggest. I think The Hobbit's real issues lie more with the digital capture, the way they decided to shoot it and also the huge amount of CGI compared with LOTR which has a lot more practical elements than non-film people realise.

Motionflow/interpolation is one of these things people probably get used to. A bit like a really shitty EQ on a hi-fi system. You might get really used to a tinny equaliser, when you return to "flat" you will instantly hate it, it'll sound poor etc... then after a while you quickly acclimatise.

For the record, I really like 48fps 3D - I just don't like it for fiction.

[JayEmm]

Further to the above.... quick research tells me there is basically no standard for refresh rates in digital projection. It seems people are using refresh rates from 24 to 144hz.

Obviously a digital projector has no down-time when the film must advance, hence actual 24hz is definitely possible. There are many reasons to maintain higher refresh rates though.

[Geoff D]

But as I keep saying: I hate the interpolation artefacts and weird sped-up SOE look like everyone else does. It's not that I'm getting used to that crap, it's that the MotionFlow Clear on my TV - which adds a combo of mild interpolation and black frame insertion to 'refresh' the eye - really does seem to jive very well with certain sources, displaying none of the usual artefacts and adding more temporal resolution without tipping into daytime soap territory.

[JayEmm]

Yes, most TVs now seem to have variable levels of it but I try and keep it all off. As you can probably appreciate, I prefer to see my sources as unfiltered as possible - for better or for worse

[Fraga]

Nay. Motion flow is terrible.

in-camera HFR is good, in my opinion.

[Auditor55]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I hate SOE on most films, it makes me feel queasy. That said, some digitally shot shows which don't have the usual film-like cadence can work pretty well with mild motion interpolation, looking smoother without producing either motion artefacts nor outright SOE. Mann's Miami Vice and the Hobbit movies look great using the Clear Motionflow setting on my Sony TV.

High frame rate will be the next must have feature in HDTV.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Auditor55

High frame rate will be the next must have feature in HDTV.

Not until there are more than 3 movies

[JayEmm]

I would have thought the vast majority of displays are already high frame rate capable. I don't know if they could do 48 frames but they can definitely do 50 and 60. There is just no source material.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by JayEmm

I would have thought the vast majority of displays are already high frame rate capable. I don't know if they could do 48 frames but they can definitely do 50 and 60. There is just no source material.

UHD can't do it yet, and if it comes in we are in upgrade cycle again