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

[Variety Films 3D]

I agree wholeheartedly, HFR (high frame rate) is the best. I can understand though not wanting to use an algorithm that has distracting artifacts, such as a Samsung I saw that would have a jerk/snag every few seconds. My previous Sony however was smooth all the way through, and the free software SVP (smooth video project) has similar good results. As for my 3D camcorder, it has 24p and 60p to choose from, and I will choose 60p anyday. If only more movies would be natively filmed in HFR that would be great, but some motion interpolation features run a close second.

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by GenPion

Interpolation is the worst. Keep it OFF. Keep it 24fps.

This. All the time, every time.

Oh, and HFR is the worst. I saw Battle Of The Five Armies in HFR 3D and it was like watching a 2,5 hours behind the scenes special. Everything looked fake as hell. Absolutely horrifying to look at. There was no sense of any movie magic at all and I hate that smooth motion.

Motion interpolation and HFR is right up there with DNR and EE for me.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by wildbill722

Thread gone in 3, 2, 1......

As a mod I still see deleted threads so I prefer to merge duplicate threads into the main thread.

Originally Posted by Bluray3d4life

Watching a movie in 3d is giving you the immersive impression that you are part of the action! Why not make it more like real life my fellow 3d enthusiast?!?!

Watching a movie in 3D does make me feel like I am part of the action. Motion smoothing makes me feel like I am watching digital video, it absolutely destroys the movie illusion for me.

Perhaps it's my age, my eyes or my brain but the fact is that I hate it and can't stand the way it looks in 2D or 3D.

[8traxrule]

3D without high frame rates is like having a GTO Judge and only going the speed limit. You're missing half the fun.

If it had been meant to be seen in a higher frame rate, it would have been SHOT that way. It wasn't, so it isn't. I don't watch 2D movies in "fake 3D mode" either. But The Hobbit movies are among the few 3D titles I haven't bought since they're in the wrong frame rate- they could have at least done them at 60fps in 720 resolution, as the 3D format allows for that but not in 1080.

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by 8traxrule

If it had been meant to be seen in a higher frame rate, it would have been SHOT that way. It wasn't, so it isn't. I don't watch 2D movies in "fake 3D mode" either. But The Hobbit movies are among the few 3D titles I haven't bought since they're in the wrong frame rate- they could have at least done them at 60fps in 720 resolution, as the 3D format allows for that but not in 1080.

Horse crap. It doesn't matter if a director prefers high frame rates or not. Hollywood doesn't want them used after they feel The Hobbit didn't do well at 48fps. They're afraid it won't sell. They don't want to rock the boat when people DEMONIZE higher frame rates. Soap Opera Look, FAKE looking, too real, not cinematic etc.

That 24fps rate was based on technological and price limits. It needs to go, but they're too afraid to get rid of it. Besides, I couldn't care less what on person thinks about something technical like 5.1 versus Atmos. Nolan is an idiot to not allow upgraded soundtracks on his films. 5.1 sucks compared to Atmos. I don't really want mono or black and white to make a comeback either.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

people DEMONIZE higher frame rates. Soap Opera Look, FAKE looking, too real, not cinematic etc... I don't really want mono or black and white to make a comeback either.

You may call it demonization but that's actually how I feel about higher frame rates.

It has its place of course, some productions may call for an uncinematic reality soap opera look, just as some may call for black & white... Once More With Feeling recently, for example.

But the fact is, I see a regular black & white film as being more cinematic than one in colour with a high frame rate.

[VonMagnum]

I think the soap opera effect only happens for me with interpolation. I don't think it would happen if they were native 60fps or more. In fact, the only times I though it looked bad with The Hobbit was when CGI was present. I think it was the incorrect animation that gave it that appearance. The scenes without CGI looked fine to me.

Even with the effect at home, it's the motion blur artifacts that really bother me. The soap opera effect diminishes once you're used to smooth motion. In other words, it doesn't look strange forever.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

I don't think it would happen if they were native 60fps or more. In fact, the only times I though it looked bad with The Hobbit was when CGI was present. I think it was the incorrect animation that gave it that appearance. The scenes without CGI looked fine to me.

Even with the effect at home, it's the motion blur artifacts that really bother me. The soap opera effect diminishes once you're used to smooth motion. In other words, it doesn't look strange forever.

60fps turned The Hobbit 3D into a stage performance for me. I lost the unconscious fantasy realism.

[emailking]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

Even with the effect at home, it's the motion blur artifacts that really bother me. The soap opera effect diminishes once you're used to smooth motion. In other words, it doesn't look strange forever.

Yeah. If we got used to movies being 60 fps (better, IMO), then watched a movie in 24 fps after seeing it in 60, it would look absolutely horrible.

A similar thing happens to me with games, where there is a lot more variability among titles. If I've been playing 30 fps games for a while, then play one at 60, its looks strange at first, and sped up, but I get used to it. Now after a month of that, if I go to a 30 fps game, it is extremely jarring. It looks like it's in slow motion or that something's wrong with it, until I get used to that framerate again. Getting used to lower fps is much worse than getting used to higher fps though.

[DJR662]

I really don't understand the need of people to go beyond 24p for movie content. I wouldn't want it any other way. As far as I am concerned, HFR can stay dead and buried for eternity.

[emailking]

Originally Posted by DJR662

I really don't understand the need of people to go beyond 24p for movie content.

I just want it to look more realistic. I don't understand the argument for staying with 24p, other than inertia or avoiding format/compatibility issues.

If a director wanted to make a movie legacy framerate for artistic reasons (like some movies are still B&W) I'd be fine with them doing that. But I see, no intrinsic reason why 24p is better.

[VonMagnum]

It DOES look horrible. I have to at least have it set on low or fast panning looks like a strobe, practically.

And it was shot in 48fps for The Hobbit (2x film speed) not 60fps. I'd prefer 120 or even 240fps.

[LordoftheRings]

In films as in culture as in the laws written hundred years ago, we are living in the prehistoric ages and not adapting with the world we live in in real life today. We are NOT evolving but fulfilling our destiny by annihilating and debilitating ourselves. It is the human race's natural destiny to brainwash itself in favor of accommodating the "washers".

● https://www.filmindependent.org/blog...es-per-second/

When I dream I dream @ various frame rates per second; it is consistent with my brain living in today's reality. Some of my dreams are in black in white, most are in color. I dream mainly in 3D. It is extremely rare that I dream in 2D, but it does happen. I have never dream in 4K, ever. ...Not yet.

About you?

:-)

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

When I dream I dream @ various frame rates per second; it is consistent with my brain living in today's reality. Some of my dreams are in black in white, most are in color. I dream mainly in 3D. It is extremely rare that I dream in 2D, but it does happen. I have never dream in 4K, ever. ...Not yet.

About you?

:-)

IMO, never say never. If someday they can measure the resolution of a dream, you may be surprised.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

It DOES look horrible. I have to at least have it set on low or fast panning looks like a strobe, practically.

And it was shot in 48fps for The Hobbit (2x film speed) not 60fps. I'd prefer 120 or even 240fps.

HFR is ******* hideous! I went my movies to stay like movies not some shitty soap opera documentary feature.

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

HFR is ******* hideous! I went my movies to stay like movies not some shitty soap opera documentary feature.

Listen to yourself. Like movies??? Who defines that? Some guy in 1927? For you, yes. OLD movies. What if they had used 48fps from the start? Soap operas didn't even exist on TV as TV didn't exist at the time. You're comparing things that didn't exist at the time things were standardized. That's a logic fallacy if I ever saw one. You would be used to 48fps and think "movies" look like that. If they then switched to 24fps you would be screaming it looks blankety blank blank blank hideous.

Besides, as I've said before, it's not the high frame rates that look bad, it's the fake animation-like look that CGI and interpolation impart. They are not natural and thus look like a video game. Real motion doesn't look fake. Bad acting and bad lighting and cheap sets can look fake which is why people compare interpolation to soap operas. Quality high frame rate looks better, not worse. The problem is all people have seen is interpolation (unnatural fill) and The Hobbit (fake looking CGI looks faker when it's too smooth).

Look at a fast pan at 24fps. Now THAT looks ******* hideous.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

Listen to yourself. Like movies??? Who defines that? Some guy in 1927? For you, yes. OLD movies. What if they had used 48fps from the start? Soap operas didn't even exist on TV as TV didn't exist at the time. You're comparing things that didn't exist at the time things were standardized. That's a logic fallacy if I ever saw one. You would be used to 48fps and think "movies" look like that. If they then switched to 24fps you would be screaming it looks blankety blank blank blank hideous.

Besides, as I've said before, it's not the high frame rates that look bad, it's the fake animation-like look that CGI and interpolation impart. They are not natural and thus look like a video game. Real motion doesn't look fake. Bad acting and bad lighting and cheap sets can look fake which is why people compare interpolation to soap operas. Quality high frame rate looks better, not worse. The problem is all people have seen is interpolation (unnatural fill) and The Hobbit (fake looking CGI looks faker when it's too smooth).

Look at a fast pan at 24fps. Now THAT looks ******* hideous.

Not true. I watched that Billy Lynn’s and some scenes looked like film sets. It’s just so much more obvious that you are watching a ‘production’ rather than a film.

Not for me thanks.

[SLYDoggie]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Not true. I watched that Billy Lynn’s and some scenes looked like film sets. It’s just so much more obvious that you are watching a ‘production’ rather than a film.

Not for me thanks.

I definitely see both sides of this issue and it is definitely a passionate topic. In my case, I despise watching a 24FPS movie where there is a lot of panning and you get the jerky video. I guess you could say that this might be a director issue in how they shot the scene but I would much prefer a format where the jerkiness disappeared.


I've seen Billy Lynn's and don't have any real issues with it... Just like I don't have issues with CGI even though it isn't where "film" started.

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Not true. I watched that Billy Lynn’s and some scenes looked like film sets. It’s just so much more obvious that you are watching a ‘production’ rather than a film.

Not for me thanks.

That sounds more like a cheap set problem if it "looked" like a film set. TV show sets had to adapt to HD. Movie sets can no longer be able to pass off a cheap arse matte painting for a skyline. Is that a bad thing? It is if they use cheap CGI. Beyond that, old people just need to get used to the future. 24fps should have died 10 years ago along with 35mm film.

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

Listen to yourself. Like movies??? Who defines that? Some guy in 1927? For you, yes. OLD movies. What if they had used 48fps from the start? Soap operas didn't even exist on TV as TV didn't exist at the time. You're comparing things that didn't exist at the time things were standardized. That's a logic fallacy if I ever saw one. You would be used to 48fps and think "movies" look like that. If they then switched to 24fps you would be screaming it looks blankety blank blank blank hideous.

Besides, as I've said before, it's not the high frame rates that look bad, it's the fake animation-like look that CGI and interpolation impart. They are not natural and thus look like a video game. Real motion doesn't look fake. Bad acting and bad lighting and cheap sets can look fake which is why people compare interpolation to soap operas. Quality high frame rate looks better, not worse. The problem is all people have seen is interpolation (unnatural fill) and The Hobbit (fake looking CGI looks faker when it's too smooth).

Look at a fast pan at 24fps. Now THAT looks ******* hideous.

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

That sounds more like a cheap set problem if it "looked" like a film set. TV show sets had to adapt to HD. Movie sets can no longer be able to pass off a cheap arse matte painting for a skyline. Is that a bad thing? It is if they use cheap CGI. Beyond that, old people just need to get used to the future. 24fps should have died 10 years ago along with 35mm film.