Do you use smooth motion / interpolation / the Soap Opera Effect for 3D content?

[ARCAM]

Absolutely LOVE the Soap Opera Effect !! Hate any kind of grain whatsoever !
Ramp it up....ramp it up !!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ARCAM

Absolutely LOVE the Soap Opera Effect !! Hate any kind of grain whatsoever !
Ramp it up....ramp it up !!

Joke, right? Right?

[ARCAM]

No Joke...no kidding here !!

[the13thman]

This is an argument that can't be won, some people hate higher frame rates, some people love them. It's telling though that many proponents say it's something you have to get used to, like a disability...

But as we don't have a 3D Blu-ray of Mission Impossible Fallout to talk about, and the star and director of the film have come out against watching the film with motion smoothing while ignoring that the 3D version of the film ever existed, feel free to vent here...

[VonMagnum]

Like a disability.

I think people have gotten used to 24fps as it IS a disability (barely fast enough to trick the brain into seeing motion). Ask video game players if they want to play a game at 30fps, let alone 24fps.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

Like a disability.

I think people have gotten used to 24fps as it IS a disability (barely fast enough to trick the brain into seeing motion). Ask video game players if they want to play a game at 30fps, let alone 24fps.

Some people don't want movies to look like video games though. Maybe for all-CGI animations or something striving to look as "real" as possible but "movies" as we have enjoyed them for a century have a set frame rate. The jerky frame rates of early cinema have their own magic but for better or worse we've settled on 24fps as far as cinema as an art form goes, and it will stay that way until people who share your views are in the majority. Might not be so long, but then again we still have DVD as the preferred physical media option for movies - ask any home cinema fan if that's their preferred format...

[VonMagnum]

"Most" people don't know that interpolation is even (let alone care) on or we wouldn't get Tom Cruise giving service messages about it. Given most have never seen a movie in a high native frame rate, it's utterly meaningless to suggest ANYONE can even have an informed opinion about filming at higher frame rates. I'd like to see more than just one showing of The Hobbit from many years ago (which was only 48fps) to make a proper decision.

The truly SAD part is that it would be considerably easier to convert DOWN to 24fps than up without artifacts. It's always easier to add blur than remove it. They should film at 240fps and then dump 9/10 frames for those that believe the equivalent of flip book stick animation is superior to reality....

[Damon1281]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

"Most" people don't know that interpolation is even (let alone care) on or we wouldn't get Tom Cruise giving service messages about it. Given most have never seen a movie in a high native frame rate, it's utterly meaningless to suggest ANYONE can even have an informed opinion about filming at higher frame rates. I'd like to see more than just one showing of The Hobbit from many years ago (which was only 48fps) to make a proper decision.

The truly SAD part is that it would be considerably easier to convert DOWN to 24fps than up without artifacts. It's always easier to add blur than remove it. They should film at 240fps and then dump 9/10 frames for those that believe the equivalent of flip book stick animation is superior to reality....

But that would cost money! I had a brother in law about 30 years ago who purchased a high frame rate video camera. I don't remember the actual rates but he used his new camera at a firing range and you could watch the shells ejecting from his handgun whereas with his old camera, you didn't even hardly see evidence of shells ejecting. Yes I would take any higher frame rate over a lower one.

[VonMagnum]

With digital, it's less than it used to be and getting cheaper all the time.

[Variety Films 3D]

I do video work as a side business and a hobby, and I ONLY film in HFR with my pro camera, 60p all the way. It won't translate to DVD, (60i, essentially 30p), but when customers see it in HD on streaming or Blu-ray they think it looks extra clear, not just because of the marginal jump to 720p resolution, but the HFR especially.

[emailking]

Originally Posted by the13thman

Some people don't want movies to look like video games though. Maybe for all-CGI animations or something striving to look as "real" as possible but "movies" as we have enjoyed them for a century have a set frame rate. The jerky frame rates of early cinema have their own magic but for better or worse we've settled on 24fps as far as cinema as an art form goes, and it will stay that way until people who share your views are in the majority.

I guess. But then it's the same thing with 3D. Vast majority of movies ever made are not 3D, and when they tried to introduce it, or bring it back, most people are either indifferent or don't like it. And I know you're very adamant about 3D (as am I), as it is the better way to watch almost anything.

Originally Posted by DJR662

I guess you're writing him/her off, but I like VonMagnum's suggestion of making everything 240 fps (or rather, I would prefer a 600 fps standard so legacy 24/25/50/60/120 fps content can all play without judder) and have an option for the TV or player to throw out most of the frames so people who prefer 24 fps can still have that.

I honestly believe you guys would become ok with it if you were forced to get used to it. It's only something we have to get used to because we're used to something else. It's way worse going the other direction.

Originally Posted by ARCAM

Absolutely LOVE the Soap Opera Effect !! Hate any kind of grain whatsoever !
Ramp it up....ramp it up !!

I definitely don't like grain and usually don't mind DNR, although I can see the reasons why some prefer to have the grain. The Soap Opera Effect I think is driven by more than just HFR. But I've never really understood the dislike for this either. I used to watch soap operas all the time and had no issue with how they looked.

[Damon1281]

Originally Posted by emailking

I definitely don't like grain and usually don't mind DNR, although I can see the reasons why some prefer to have the grain. The Soap Opera Effect I think is driven by more than just HFR. But I've never really understood the dislike for this either. I used to watch soap operas all the time and had no issue with how they looked.

I like HFR and my only issue with soap operas is the sound. They are usually very claustrophobic sounding.

[sevenlilies1937]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

No, the BEST way is with 3D with motion smoothing turned on MAXIMUM!

I don't usually care for the effect with 2D so much (too many blur points that create distortion), but it works fine on "low" with the Epson 3100 here (no artifacts and smoother than without for panning). But 3D is different for some reason. It looks like real life on high (save the occasional glitch). 3D without high frame rates is like having a GTO Judge and only going the speed limit. You're missing half the fun.

hahahahahaha

thanks for the early morning laugh von

[Joe D.]

I love it too. Eliminates harshness and grain while retaining detail. It also enhances the 3D effect.

Overall it's a cleaner picture, at least in my opinion.

Hey, just noticed it was me who started this thread in the first place