The "soap opera effect"

[Artemus]

This is related to my When "better" is actually worse thread from a few years ago. My soon-to-be son-in-law started complaining about how our newish OLED television was set up while he was here with my daughter over the holidays. We had tried the presets when we got it and decided that "Standard" looked the best and just left it there. He complained that contrast was too high and that moderate motion smoothing was enabled, making movies look like "a soap opera." I let him adjust it to "proper" settings and it was terrible in comparison.

This is perfect example of the "worse is actually better so therefore I am superior" attitude that annoys me so much. I have never liked watching movies in a theater. I have found the jerky, blurred motion that you get with the industry standard 24 frames per second to be extremely unpleasant on large screens...less so on television but getting worse as screen size increased. The motion smoothing gets rid of the annoying strobing effect and makes things much more viewable. But the "purists" have decreed that movies must be filmed and viewed at 24 fps despite how unpleasant it is because "that is what film looks like." The complaints are that a higher frame rate looks "too real." WTF???? (My favorite comment I found on the web is that higher frame rates makes things look "unnaturally realistic." Again, WTF???) And yes, I know you can get interpolation artifacts in individual stills when there is a great deal of motion, but the likelihood that you will ever notice them in real time is trivial compared to the improvement you get with smoother motion.

The irony is that the 24 frames-per-second standard had nothing to do with artistic merit and everything to with the fact that the technology and film costs of 100 years ago required that the absolute minimum frame rate that most audience members found tolerable be used. Movies could look much better now, but the idiotic "it has always looked like shit so therefore shit must be better" attitude seems to be very hard to break. I'm glad that television manufacturers are at least willing to take the steps minimize the effects of a problem that the film producers refuse to fix in the first place.

The same soon-to-be son-in-law buys vinyl records.

 

[ZiprHead]

The same soon-to-be son-in-law buys vinyl records.

One of my greatest wishes is that I had my 500 LP record collection and my turntable back.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is related to my When "better" is actually worse thread from a few years ago. My soon-to-be son-in-law started complaining about how our newish OLED television was set up while he was here with my daughter over the holidays. We had tried the presets when we got it and decided that "Standard" looked the best and just left it there. He complained that contrast was too high and that moderate motion smoothing was enabled, making movies look like "a soap opera." I let him adjust it to "proper" settings and it was terrible in comparison.

Good gawd! I hate 120 Hz, at least for movies. Movies aren't shot in 120 frames per second, so when I was overseeing The Secret Life of Pets, my brain was getting a bit unnerved by the smoothness. And to make things clear, I didn't know the TV was 120 Hz, and it was really the first one I had seen.

This is perfect example of the "worse is actually better so therefore I am superior" attitude that annoys me so much. I have never liked watching movies in a theater. I have found the jerky, blurred motion that you get with the industry standard 24 frames per second to be extremely unpleasant on large screens...less so on television but getting worse as screen size increased. The motion smoothing gets rid of the annoying strobing effect and makes things much more viewable. But the "purists" have decreed that movies must be filmed and viewed at 24 fps despite how unpleasant it is because "that is what film looks like." The complaints are that a higher frame rate looks "too real." WTF????

For live sports, a higher frame rate can some what look "more real", but the issue is, it isn't real, it is computer interpolation between frames.

The same soon-to-be son-in-law buys vinyl records.

I have heard this is still an option for analog produced albums, but not new ones... for obvious reasons. Still, won't see me spending huge sums on old tech.

 

[Artemus]

Good gawd! I hate 120 Hz, at least for movies. Movies aren't shot in 120 frames per second, so when I was overseeing The Secret Life of Pets, my brain was getting a bit unnerved by the smoothness. And to make things clear, I didn't know the TV was 120 Hz, and it was really the first one I had seen.

That may be because you just aren't used to it. I found the "hyper-reality" of the interpolated OLED a bit unnerving as well at first, but after a few days the old TV in the back seemed laughable in comparison.

For live sports, a higher frame rate can some what look "more real", but the issue is, it isn't real, it is computer interpolation between frames.

24 frames per second isn't real either. It was chosen as adequate 100 years ago but by any objective modern standard it looks terrible. Faces don't turn into smudges when people turn their heads and the scenery when you physically turn your head doesn't jump along. I agree the interpolation is a band-aid that shouldn't be needed today, but it addresses a real problem that exists only because of the luddite inertia of the film industry. I'll take interpolated but watchable over "pure" but nearly unwatchable (at least for me) any day. And screw the directors...they didn't pick the shitty frame rate for "artistic vision," they picked it because historically it was the cheapest way to make a product that was tolerable to most.

ETA: And to be clear, I couldn't care less if he wants to watch the jumpy motion. It is the fact that he said I had set things up "wrong" and demanded the right to "fix" it that got on my nerves..

I have heard this is still an option for analog produced albums, but not new ones... for obvious reasons. Still, won't see me spending huge sums on old tech.

We can agree on this one.

 

[Artemus]

The same soon-to-be son-in-law buys vinyl records.

One of my greatest wishes is that I had my 500 LP record collection and my turntable back.

To each his own. I've kept a couple LP jackets for the artwork. The music I replaced on CD decades ago. My turntable got fused (along with a lot of other electronic equipment) in a lightning strike in the mid-90s and I've never considered replacing it.

 

[Artemus]

Double post.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That may be because you just aren't used to it. I found the "hyper-reality" of the interpolated OLED a bit unnerving as well at first, but after a few days the old TV in the back seemed laughable in comparison.

It is different, ergo wrong. Get off my lawn hippie!

24 frames per second isn't real either.

But it is... well, it isn't... but it is! Each frame of broadcast at 24 fps, is a representation of the actual reality. The addition of frames in between is merely interpolation. While that interpolation is likely accurate because we are talking about 0.04 seconds per real frame having stuff interpolated in between, it is still originating from interpolation between frames. I do find it interesting we can actually see the difference between 24 Hz and 120 Hz.

It was chosen as adequate 100 years ago but by any objective modern standard it looks terrible. Faces don't turn into smudges when people turn their heads and the scenery when you physically turn your head doesn't jump along. I agree the interpolation is a band-aid that shouldn't be needed today, but it addresses a real problem that exists only because of the luddite inertia of the film industry. I'll take interpolated but watchable over "pure" but nearly unwatchable (at least for me) any day. And screw the directors...they didn't pick the shitty frame rate for "artistic vision," they picked it because that is how it has always been done.

I don't think my new tv has motion control. I think it was given up to hit the budget price, while still having good HDR backlighting. And I think the image on that screen in impressive!

ETA: And to be clear, I couldn't care less if he wants to watch the jumpy motion. It is the fact that he said I had set things up "wrong" and demanded the right to "fix" it that got on my nerves.

Yeah, I did that with my Sister-In-Law's tv. They couldn't even tell the difference.

So, is changing the recording standard to 60 Hz or better an option that wouldn't cause the heat death of the universe, or is the standard too ingrained in everything?

 

[Artemus]

So, is changing the recording standard to 60 Hz or better an option that wouldn't cause the heat death of the universe, or is the standard too ingrained in everything?

The backlash after the first Hobbit film was released in 48 fps makes me think we are stuck with 24 for a long time. The funny thing is, the 48 fps version was also only released in 3-D, so of course it looked really different from the 2-D, 24 fps standard that people claim to love. (Not to mention that it was a children's story that was faithfully reproduced, so was going to look, dare I say it, childish no matter what the frame rate.)

Maybe I'm just very sensitive to flicker/jumpy movement. I know that back in the CRT days I had to set the monitor to 72 Hz refresh even if it was a lower resolution since 60 Hz really did look like a strobe if I moved my head at all. But I find the outrage over something that is better by just about any objective standard to be ludicrous.

I wonder if someday the "purists" will be outraged that my grandkids have televisions with a "cinema" setting that throws away 4 of 5 frames of the now-standard 120 fps movies and adds motion smearing to get the "old-time" look?

Yeah, I did that with my Sister-In-Law's tv. They couldn't even tell the difference.

I always knew you were a trouble maker.

 

[Artemus]

Double posted again. I seem to have forgotten how to use this board.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think there are at least three things at play here. The first is simply the fact that there isn't enough high def content to play on high def TVs, so the problems are exacerbated by the technology not being in sync. Obviously any new technology is going to make any old technology played on it look bad.

The second is the fact that we're not used to it.

But the third (and this may be the uncanny valley effect), we are evolved predators who are keenly aware of spatial placement between something moving in the foreground as opposed to the background and I'm not sure how cinematographers will be able to account for that and that's the main problem.

As this author from techcrunch put it way back when:

This extremely smooth motion has earned the name the “Soap Opera Effect,” after the way those shows looked, having been shot on cheaper 30Hz video instead of regular broadcast equipment or film. Although it might be technically superior it is very disconcerting. The movement looks like a digital video, not like film. This problem is exacerbated by the high definition. I’ve seen this happen in standard definition video as well and you essentially see the “moving” objects on a different plane than the background, as if they were cut outs moving on a painted background.

 

[Artemus]

I think there are at least three things at play here. The first is simply the fact that there isn't enough high def content to play on high def TVs, so the problems are exacerbated by the technology not being in sync. Obviously any new technology is going to make any old technology played on it look bad.

The second is the fact that we're not used to it.

But the third (and this may be the uncanny valley effect), we are evolved predators who are keenly aware of spatial placement between something moving in the foreground as opposed to the background and I'm not sure how cinematographers will be able to account for that and that's the main problem.

I've been playing around with it a lot the last couple days and I still have to go with option four: "Worse is better and therefore I am superior." The visual aspects that make a well made film look better than cheap home video/soap operas is the same thing that separates serious photography from snap shots: Lighting, composition, locations, sets, framing, depth of focus, etc., not the substandard frame rate. None of that changes when the motion smoothing is enabled and it looks nothing like a soap opera. The only change in experience is that I don't have to look away when things start moving too fast.

I wish that the film industry would move ahead. They could still get the "old-time" look at higher frame rates when artistically desired by filming at the lower rate and duplicating frames (same as they do now, actually), but so much more would be possible with current technology. IMO it is little more than laziness and lack of creativity that is holding them back.

 

[Lion IRC]

This is related to my When "better" is actually worse thread from a few years ago. My soon-to-be son-in-law started complaining about how our newish OLED television was set up while he was here with my daughter over the holidays. We had tried the presets when we got it and decided that "Standard" looked the best and just left it there. He complained that contrast was too high and that moderate motion smoothing was enabled, making movies look like "a soap opera." I let him adjust it to "proper" settings and it was terrible in comparison.

This is perfect example of the "worse is actually better so therefore I am superior" attitude that annoys me so much. I have never liked watching movies in a theater. I have found the jerky, blurred motion that you get with the industry standard 24 frames per second to be extremely unpleasant on large screens...less so on television but getting worse as screen size increased. The motion smoothing gets rid of the annoying strobing effect and makes things much more viewable. But the "purists" have decreed that movies must be filmed and viewed at 24 fps despite how unpleasant it is because "that is what film looks like." The complaints are that a higher frame rate looks "too real." WTF???? (My favorite comment I found on the web is that higher frame rates makes things look "unnaturally realistic." Again, WTF???)

WTF indeed.
The advertising would have you believe these tvs can trick your pet cat into thinking that the goldfish bowl on the screen is right there in the room.

And yes, I know you can get interpolation artifacts in individual stills when there is a great deal of motion, but the likelihood that you will ever notice them in real time is trivial compared to the improvement you get with smoother motion.

The irony is that the 24 frames-per-second standard had nothing to do with artistic merit and everything to with the fact that the technology and film costs of 100 years ago required that the absolute minimum frame rate that most audience members found tolerable be used. Movies could look much better now, but the idiotic "it has always looked like shit so therefore shit must be better" attitude seems to be very hard to break. I'm glad that television manufacturers are at least willing to take the steps minimize the effects of a problem that the film producers refuse to fix in the first place.

So many of the department store / appliance retailer that sell these TV's aren't even set up to live demo the technology they want you to buy. (Antenna strength / bandwidth)

Sales dude seriously expected me to imagine how much 'better' my favourite free-to-air shows would look once I got the tv home.

The same soon-to-be son-in-law buys vinyl records.

...or digital music with fake scratch/dust sound effects.
https://mynoise.net/NoiseMachines/dustyScratchedVinylNoiseGenerator.php

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One would need to be an idiot to buy a TV at the store based on comparing how they look in the store. Televisions these days are so complicated, if you don't do your research, you are flying blind.

We are long past the days of CRTs and walking up to screens to see their performance based on the coax input.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I wish that the film industry would move ahead.

They will, now that porn has moved into 4K. The industry always follows porn, technologically. No joke. Porn is actually the industry standard setter.

 

[Artemus]

I wish that the film industry would move ahead.

They will, now that porn has moved into 4K. The industry always follows porn, technologically. No joke. Porn is actually the industry standard setter.

Armed with this knowledge I had no choice but to search for "high frame rate porn." What I found definitely did not look like a soap opera.

 

[ZiprHead]

I wish that the film industry would move ahead.

They will, now that porn has moved into 4K. The industry always follows porn, technologically. No joke. Porn is actually the industry standard setter.

Armed with this knowledge I had no choice but to search for "high frame rate porn." What I found definitely did not look like a soap opera.

Wait 'til you start getting the ads.