6 ms·

The Soap Opera Effect and how to make it go away

46 points by d99kris 11y ago

mmastrac 11y ago
I used to hate it until I just left it on for a month or so on my new Samsung 4k. Eventually you get used to it and move on to more important things in your life.
- copperx 11y ago
  You can get used to living in filth. That doesn't mean it is desirable.
  - stephengillie 11y ago
    Indeed, one can get so used to it that they prefer nothing else. Change isn't always bad, and maybe this will let you appreciate actors in a whole new light.
    - mmastrac 11y ago
      Once you are used to it you realized how much your brain was wired to see 24Hz as "movie-like". You basically just unlearn that connection and enjoy stuff no matter what the framerate is.
  - ant6n 11y ago
    Hey what don't kill you, make you stronger. Like actually, you may get fewer allergies if you grow up playing in dirt.
  - DonHopkins 11y ago
    As if most of what's oozing out of your TV set wasn't filth. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRnNDkHb0MU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRnNDkHb0MU
- to3m 11y ago
  I have friends that always have it active on their TV, and claimed not to mind it. Having watched a few films at their house, I came not to mind it either... at least, not to any distracting extent. Still prefer having it off though. (One funny thing about it is that it often really shows up CGI sequences, the comparative lack of noise apparently giving the interpolation more to work with than usual. The results can be either slightly comical or pleasingly eye-popping.) I wonder when people will actually start to make films that have to be seen at high frame rate. And I wonder how long until I meet somebody who's grown up with motion interpolation and thinks things look funny without it.
  - fluxquanta 11y ago
    >(One funny thing about it is that it often really shows up CGI sequences, the comparative lack of noise apparently giving the interpolation more to work with than usual. The results can be either slightly comical or pleasingly eye-popping.) I've noticed this with anime in particular. Even though none of it's hand drawn these days it isn't done like 3D CGI in movies. It is, for the most part, designed to look two dimensional. The motion smoothing makes it look like you're watching a 2D diorama or pop-up book where the different cells are sliding on top of each other. I kinda like it.
mortenjorck 11y ago
It's nice to see a piece on this subject that's friendly, non-technical, and non-judgmental. That said, there are two reasons I never watch movies with frame interpolation on: One is the old artistry argument, that the movie was shot and cut at 24 fps and anything else is a distortion of how it was intended to be seen, but the other is one I don't see much: Most interpolation algorithms are highly inconsistent. I think I would be considerably less distracted by frame interpolation if it didn't tend to fail completely on fast motion. It's less noticeable in dialog-heavy films than in thrillers, for sure, but even a character gesticulating as they speak can trip up the most advanced 240hz interpolators, throwing a few immersion-breaking frames of judder into the otherwise silky-smooth movement. I don't think this is really a solvable problem (outside of exotic computer vision systems, at least) – at 24 frames per second, there's often simply not enough visual information to go on. For now, only the unmatched power of your own visual cortex can fill in those gaps. On the flip side, I quite enjoyed the aesthetic of The Hobbit in 48fps. Produced and mastered at that frame rate, it looked great.
- function_seven 11y ago
  > I think I would be considerably less distracted by frame interpolation if it didn't tend to fail completely on fast motion. I just got a new (to me) TV and realized it was interpolating. I'm not too bothered by the soap-opera effect in general. But the first football‡ game I watched on it made me turn it off in a hurry. The ball seemed to disappear when it was passed. The motion smoothing algorithm somehow ghosted it right out of the picture, so that it appeared to leave the QB's hands and magically teleport to the receiver. ‡ Gridiron Football
  - to3m 11y ago
    For anybody else that might otherwise have to look it up: Gridiron Football is American Football. The name comes from the layout of the pitch, which looks nothing like a gridiron (which appears to be a type of portable grill). There's probably a joke in there somewhere.
    - function_seven 11y ago
matt-attack 11y ago
The 3:2 pulldown judder that the author grew up watching is unrelated to the "look" of 24ps. The soap-opera effect is purely a frame-rate issue. It's also unrelated to the artifacts resulting from "motion interpolation". Again, it's purely related to frame-rate. High frame-rates look real, and therefore like soap-operas. 24fps content (e.g. most films) look "unrealistic" which is a good thing. In the same way a van Gogh painting looks "unrealistic". Impressionism is actually a valuable art form, and is actually appealing to the brain. It's not something that needs to be "engineered" away as Peter Jackson thought. Only an engineer would look at a masterpiece of impressionistic painting, and think "Hmm, if only the painter used a finer brush we'd get more detail! Say this painting could really use some up-rez'ing." 24fps video is precisely "impressionistic". It's distinctly not what our brain perceives in the real world. It's what makes movies look slightly "other-worldly". And that's a GOOD THING. In fact it's one of the reasons it's been such a hugely successful art form for 100 years. Impressionism is a fantastic form of art, whether you're talking about broad brush strokes, or low frame-rate video. Can we all stop (looking at you Peter Jackson [1], Ang Lee [2], and James Cameron [3]) wishing van Gogh used a finer brush? [1] http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/faq.html http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/faq.html [2] http://variety.com/2015/film/news/ang-lee-shooting-billy-lynns-long-halftime-walk-at-120-frames-per-second-in-3d http://variety.com/2015/film/news/ang-lee-shooting-billy-lyn... [3] http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/could-avatar-sequels-be-first-732772 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/could-avatar-...
- santaclaus 11y ago
  The transition from film to digital was a bit jarring at first, as well, but after acclimating over the years, movies shot on film look a bit old-timey. Who is to say frame rate isn't a similar issue? Other-worldly 24fps could just be what we are used to and thus temporarily comforting.
- Afforess 11y ago
  I disagree. I do look at impressionistic paintings, and wish they looked good on large high-definition displays. I am not sure why you think a finer brush would destroy the impressionistic qualities of artwork. That seems like saying we've lost our appreciation for good lighting, because we use LED light bulbs instead of wax candles. Artists can easily canvas on 4k, 8k, or larger resolutions with modern tools, and achieve vistas that will outshine most previous artwork in fidelity. I'm not trying to compare contemporary digital art to pre-modern paintings, because there would be no point. But we can compare the quality of the canvas medium, the fidelity of the work. I am certain anyone who has spent any amount of time creating a digital college, set of high quality wallpapers, etc, has noticed that pre-digital artwork is often vastly lacking in terms of resolution. This contrast is difficult to notice in a museum, where artwork is displayed alongside its peers; it is obvious when comparing it to digital styles of art. There is nothing wrong with wishing for more detail. You can have impressionistic artwork in 16k resolution, and enjoy it too.
Camillo 11y ago
The interesting question is whether the dislike for HFR cinema is: - Purely due to habit, with people having learned to associate LFR with high quality content (film) and HFR with low quality content (video). In this case, the problem will go away as soon as people get used to HFR (or die off). - Due to the increased realism exposing sets, costumes etc. as fake. LFR may help filmmakers by providing a distraction that masks all the little flaws. In this case, the problem will go away (but only for new movies) as soon as filmmakers learn how to make things look good enough for HFR. - Due to some intrinsic quality of LFR that is key to the magic of cinema. In this case, the problem will never go away. Of course, people are immediately going to seize on one of these answers based on their personal preferences, but in reality we have no concrete evidence for any of them.
- hammock 11y ago
  I remember reading about how actors hated the switch to video and then the switch to HD, because it was far more likely to reveal their acne, other flaws etc. In audio engineering, the Yamaha NS10 studio monitors (now discontinued) are famous for their faithful, naked reproduction of sound. As a result, more mixes sound terrible on NS10's than on other speakers. They expose the flaws. Which is why an engineer tests his mix on them. "If it sounds good on NS10's it'll sound good on anything."
mrob 11y ago
Low frame rate is the reason I can't take film seriously as an art form. It seems to me utterly bizarre that people would choose a frame rate that can't show realistic action scenes. Fight scenes have annoying foley sound effects partly to compensate for the frame rate making fast movement invisible. And camera work is severely limited - fast pans are near unwatchable. I've seen 60fps Showscan film and it's such a huge improvement I can't understand how people could still argue for 24fps. It can only be "baby duck effect", where people like something only because they grew up with it. Imagine if music wasn't considered musical unless you listened to it from a wax cylinder. Technology has moved on and we can do much better. I realize that cost was an issue, but with digital production that's no longer the case. And yes, it's true that higher frame rate exposes flaws in sets and props, but that's no excuse to stick with low frame rate. The correct solution is to improve those sets/props. 60fps should be considered the bare minimum.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  Is smearing charcoal across canvas art?
- rsl7 11y ago
  Art isn't about the technology. That you can't take it seriously says nothing about the artists. Only that you don't understand it.
  - mrob 11y ago
    Deliberate limitations can facilitate art. The demoscene proves that. But what if the entire demoscene collectively refused to use modern hardware? Or insisted that only 1K demos are acceptable? Deliberate limitations are only one tool an artist can use. The film industry has collectively decided to do something equivalent to specializing in 1K demos and then denying that any other types could be any good. This does not look like a carefully considered artistic choice.
    - Animats 11y ago
      It's been tried. There's not just the "demoscene". There's Dogma.[1] There's a Fisher-Price PixelVision film-making cult. They're all dead or tiny niches. Probably the most limiting technique with a mainstream following is stop-motion animation. [1] http://www.economist.com/node/328590 http://www.economist.com/node/328590
biot 11y ago
I'm really glad I didn't wait to purchase my 600Hz plasma screen. Got it for an incredible deal and the image quality and color reproduction (dark scenes especially) are off the charts. These days other screens just can't compare and, as the article mentions, nobody makes plasma any more.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  That 600Hz number is basically meaningless. There is no 600Hz motion interpolation being done; it's just an evil marketing trick. That said, plasmas do have great color, but they also have motion trail problems like CRTs and severe risk of burn in.
  - biot 11y ago
    Yep I'm well aware of burn-in issues. And the screen I have is just a dumb monitor; it has no interpolation feature so the 600Hz claim is what the display is theoretically capable of, though it's different from LCD refresh: http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-600hz/ http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-600hz/
ollifi 11y ago
This explanation is wrong. The effect is very visible also in Europe where tv is 25 fps and no 3:2 pull down is performed to 24fps material. The soap opera look came from the video camera which operated similar way as video playback. Although the systems run 25 or 30fps they show each frame in two interlaced fields. This meant screen was updated 50 or 60 times per second, but showing either the odd or even lines of the frame at once. Video was recorded in similar fashion so each field was captured with half a frame offset in time to give it effective frame rate of 50 or 60fps even though this meant actual frames would look funny on noninterlaced displays. Film was transferred to video by taking both fields from one frame or with 3:2 pull down in 60hz countries. This made the effective frame rate closer to 24 fps like it was intended to be shown in cinemas. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video edit: added link
ars 11y ago
Am I in the minority in finding Judder very distracting? And film grain too for that matter? Or overly dark night scenes? The better my monitor the more distracting those things are - I never used to notice them on CRT's. But with new high resolutions screens film grain is very noticeable which is unpleasant - I don't see film grain when I look around, there is no reason I should see it in a movie.
- test1235 11y ago
  There is actually a lot of stuff your brain automatically filters out when you look at things. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Floaters/Pages/Introduction.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Floaters/Pages/Introduction.asp...
- acqq 11y ago
  I find it strange insisting on "flickering" screens. No "artist" desired it (as in "let's make this movie, but it has to flicker!") it was always just the limitation of the technology. If you'd want the "whole original effect" you'd have to insist on the 35mm films and their projection in the movie theater. The only thing that is true is that with the limitations of the technology, some "corny" scenes looked more acceptable, as our brain actually got less information and in more unnatural form so then our brain turned on its "more tolerance" mode while watching, reimagining the scene better than what it saw. Also: http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm On another side, what I fully understand is that the older frame interpolation algorithms did very poor job for moving scenes, so people turned it off because of that, but it seems that the algorithms got noticeably better.
  - lmm 11y ago
    The artist created something for the limitations of the technology they were working with. It's unfair to look at it through a different technology, where careful effort will end up looking worse than someone who threw it in. E.g. good pixel art often looks worse when upscaled than sprites where the artist didn't pay any attention to the pixels.
anentropic 11y ago
What's it called in VLC? I don't like the judder, would like to see how I get on with a bit of smoothing
davenonymous 11y ago
This is a highly subjective topic. Is it possible that Televisions are just doing a very bad job at interpolating? I've been using the SmoothVideoProject for over a year now and I can't watch movies/series anymore without frame interpolation. It's just to hard to follow what happens in very fast action scenes or enjoy camera pans across a beautiful, nay, any setting in 24/30fps. Of course native 48/60fps is a lot better, but having a good interpolation is a start. I highly recommend checking out the SmoothVideoProject at https://www.svp-team.com/wiki/Main_Page https://www.svp-team.com/wiki/Main_Page
scandox 11y ago
I'm just glad to hear that evil has a name. I've bored way too many people going: "...y'know that smooth thing on big tellies..that makes all the old black and white movie actors glide out of rooms on rollers...you do know! You must know! Don't f##king tell me you can't see that... I'll be back in a minute... " and so forth

46 points by d99kris 11y ago

I used to hate it until I just left it on for a month or so on my new Samsung 4k. Eventually you get used to it and move on to more important things in your life.

copperx 11y ago
You can get used to living in filth. That doesn't mean it is desirable.
- stephengillie 11y ago
  Indeed, one can get so used to it that they prefer nothing else. Change isn't always bad, and maybe this will let you appreciate actors in a whole new light.
  - mmastrac 11y ago
    Once you are used to it you realized how much your brain was wired to see 24Hz as "movie-like". You basically just unlearn that connection and enjoy stuff no matter what the framerate is.
- ant6n 11y ago
  Hey what don't kill you, make you stronger. Like actually, you may get fewer allergies if you grow up playing in dirt.
- DonHopkins 11y ago
  As if most of what's oozing out of your TV set wasn't filth. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRnNDkHb0MU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRnNDkHb0MU
to3m 11y ago
I have friends that always have it active on their TV, and claimed not to mind it. Having watched a few films at their house, I came not to mind it either... at least, not to any distracting extent. Still prefer having it off though. (One funny thing about it is that it often really shows up CGI sequences, the comparative lack of noise apparently giving the interpolation more to work with than usual. The results can be either slightly comical or pleasingly eye-popping.) I wonder when people will actually start to make films that have to be seen at high frame rate. And I wonder how long until I meet somebody who's grown up with motion interpolation and thinks things look funny without it.
- fluxquanta 11y ago
  >(One funny thing about it is that it often really shows up CGI sequences, the comparative lack of noise apparently giving the interpolation more to work with than usual. The results can be either slightly comical or pleasingly eye-popping.) I've noticed this with anime in particular. Even though none of it's hand drawn these days it isn't done like 3D CGI in movies. It is, for the most part, designed to look two dimensional. The motion smoothing makes it look like you're watching a 2D diorama or pop-up book where the different cells are sliding on top of each other. I kinda like it.

mortenjorck 11y ago

It's nice to see a piece on this subject that's friendly, non-technical, and non-judgmental. That said, there are two reasons I never watch movies with frame interpolation on: One is the old artistry argument, that the movie was shot and cut at 24 fps and anything else is a distortion of how it was intended to be seen, but the other is one I don't see much: Most interpolation algorithms are highly inconsistent. I think I would be considerably less distracted by frame interpolation if it didn't tend to fail completely on fast motion. It's less noticeable in dialog-heavy films than in thrillers, for sure, but even a character gesticulating as they speak can trip up the most advanced 240hz interpolators, throwing a few immersion-breaking frames of judder into the otherwise silky-smooth movement. I don't think this is really a solvable problem (outside of exotic computer vision systems, at least) – at 24 frames per second, there's often simply not enough visual information to go on. For now, only the unmatched power of your own visual cortex can fill in those gaps. On the flip side, I quite enjoyed the aesthetic of The Hobbit in 48fps. Produced and mastered at that frame rate, it looked great.

function_seven 11y ago
> I think I would be considerably less distracted by frame interpolation if it didn't tend to fail completely on fast motion. I just got a new (to me) TV and realized it was interpolating. I'm not too bothered by the soap-opera effect in general. But the first football‡ game I watched on it made me turn it off in a hurry. The ball seemed to disappear when it was passed. The motion smoothing algorithm somehow ghosted it right out of the picture, so that it appeared to leave the QB's hands and magically teleport to the receiver. ‡ Gridiron Football
- to3m 11y ago
  For anybody else that might otherwise have to look it up: Gridiron Football is American Football. The name comes from the layout of the pitch, which looks nothing like a gridiron (which appears to be a type of portable grill). There's probably a joke in there somewhere.
  - function_seven 11y ago

matt-attack 11y ago

The 3:2 pulldown judder that the author grew up watching is unrelated to the "look" of 24ps. The soap-opera effect is purely a frame-rate issue. It's also unrelated to the artifacts resulting from "motion interpolation". Again, it's purely related to frame-rate. High frame-rates look real, and therefore like soap-operas. 24fps content (e.g. most films) look "unrealistic" which is a good thing. In the same way a van Gogh painting looks "unrealistic". Impressionism is actually a valuable art form, and is actually appealing to the brain. It's not something that needs to be "engineered" away as Peter Jackson thought. Only an engineer would look at a masterpiece of impressionistic painting, and think "Hmm, if only the painter used a finer brush we'd get more detail! Say this painting could really use some up-rez'ing." 24fps video is precisely "impressionistic". It's distinctly not what our brain perceives in the real world. It's what makes movies look slightly "other-worldly". And that's a GOOD THING. In fact it's one of the reasons it's been such a hugely successful art form for 100 years. Impressionism is a fantastic form of art, whether you're talking about broad brush strokes, or low frame-rate video. Can we all stop (looking at you Peter Jackson [1], Ang Lee [2], and James Cameron [3]) wishing van Gogh used a finer brush? [1] http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/faq.html http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/faq.html [2] http://variety.com/2015/film/news/ang-lee-shooting-billy-lynns-long-halftime-walk-at-120-frames-per-second-in-3d http://variety.com/2015/film/news/ang-lee-shooting-billy-lyn... [3] http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/could-avatar-sequels-be-first-732772 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/could-avatar-...

santaclaus 11y ago
The transition from film to digital was a bit jarring at first, as well, but after acclimating over the years, movies shot on film look a bit old-timey. Who is to say frame rate isn't a similar issue? Other-worldly 24fps could just be what we are used to and thus temporarily comforting.
Afforess 11y ago
I disagree. I do look at impressionistic paintings, and wish they looked good on large high-definition displays. I am not sure why you think a finer brush would destroy the impressionistic qualities of artwork. That seems like saying we've lost our appreciation for good lighting, because we use LED light bulbs instead of wax candles. Artists can easily canvas on 4k, 8k, or larger resolutions with modern tools, and achieve vistas that will outshine most previous artwork in fidelity. I'm not trying to compare contemporary digital art to pre-modern paintings, because there would be no point. But we can compare the quality of the canvas medium, the fidelity of the work. I am certain anyone who has spent any amount of time creating a digital college, set of high quality wallpapers, etc, has noticed that pre-digital artwork is often vastly lacking in terms of resolution. This contrast is difficult to notice in a museum, where artwork is displayed alongside its peers; it is obvious when comparing it to digital styles of art. There is nothing wrong with wishing for more detail. You can have impressionistic artwork in 16k resolution, and enjoy it too.

Camillo 11y ago

The interesting question is whether the dislike for HFR cinema is: - Purely due to habit, with people having learned to associate LFR with high quality content (film) and HFR with low quality content (video). In this case, the problem will go away as soon as people get used to HFR (or die off). - Due to the increased realism exposing sets, costumes etc. as fake. LFR may help filmmakers by providing a distraction that masks all the little flaws. In this case, the problem will go away (but only for new movies) as soon as filmmakers learn how to make things look good enough for HFR. - Due to some intrinsic quality of LFR that is key to the magic of cinema. In this case, the problem will never go away. Of course, people are immediately going to seize on one of these answers based on their personal preferences, but in reality we have no concrete evidence for any of them.

hammock 11y ago
I remember reading about how actors hated the switch to video and then the switch to HD, because it was far more likely to reveal their acne, other flaws etc. In audio engineering, the Yamaha NS10 studio monitors (now discontinued) are famous for their faithful, naked reproduction of sound. As a result, more mixes sound terrible on NS10's than on other speakers. They expose the flaws. Which is why an engineer tests his mix on them. "If it sounds good on NS10's it'll sound good on anything."

mrob 11y ago

Low frame rate is the reason I can't take film seriously as an art form. It seems to me utterly bizarre that people would choose a frame rate that can't show realistic action scenes. Fight scenes have annoying foley sound effects partly to compensate for the frame rate making fast movement invisible. And camera work is severely limited - fast pans are near unwatchable. I've seen 60fps Showscan film and it's such a huge improvement I can't understand how people could still argue for 24fps. It can only be "baby duck effect", where people like something only because they grew up with it. Imagine if music wasn't considered musical unless you listened to it from a wax cylinder. Technology has moved on and we can do much better. I realize that cost was an issue, but with digital production that's no longer the case. And yes, it's true that higher frame rate exposes flaws in sets and props, but that's no excuse to stick with low frame rate. The correct solution is to improve those sets/props. 60fps should be considered the bare minimum.

forrestthewoods 11y ago
Is smearing charcoal across canvas art?
rsl7 11y ago
Art isn't about the technology. That you can't take it seriously says nothing about the artists. Only that you don't understand it.
- mrob 11y ago
  Deliberate limitations can facilitate art. The demoscene proves that. But what if the entire demoscene collectively refused to use modern hardware? Or insisted that only 1K demos are acceptable? Deliberate limitations are only one tool an artist can use. The film industry has collectively decided to do something equivalent to specializing in 1K demos and then denying that any other types could be any good. This does not look like a carefully considered artistic choice.
  - Animats 11y ago
    It's been tried. There's not just the "demoscene". There's Dogma.[1] There's a Fisher-Price PixelVision film-making cult. They're all dead or tiny niches. Probably the most limiting technique with a mainstream following is stop-motion animation. [1] http://www.economist.com/node/328590 http://www.economist.com/node/328590

biot 11y ago

I'm really glad I didn't wait to purchase my 600Hz plasma screen. Got it for an incredible deal and the image quality and color reproduction (dark scenes especially) are off the charts. These days other screens just can't compare and, as the article mentions, nobody makes plasma any more.

nitrogen 11y ago
That 600Hz number is basically meaningless. There is no 600Hz motion interpolation being done; it's just an evil marketing trick. That said, plasmas do have great color, but they also have motion trail problems like CRTs and severe risk of burn in.
- biot 11y ago
  Yep I'm well aware of burn-in issues. And the screen I have is just a dumb monitor; it has no interpolation feature so the 600Hz claim is what the display is theoretically capable of, though it's different from LCD refresh: http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-600hz/ http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-600hz/

ollifi 11y ago

This explanation is wrong. The effect is very visible also in Europe where tv is 25 fps and no 3:2 pull down is performed to 24fps material. The soap opera look came from the video camera which operated similar way as video playback. Although the systems run 25 or 30fps they show each frame in two interlaced fields. This meant screen was updated 50 or 60 times per second, but showing either the odd or even lines of the frame at once. Video was recorded in similar fashion so each field was captured with half a frame offset in time to give it effective frame rate of 50 or 60fps even though this meant actual frames would look funny on noninterlaced displays. Film was transferred to video by taking both fields from one frame or with 3:2 pull down in 60hz countries. This made the effective frame rate closer to 24 fps like it was intended to be shown in cinemas. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video edit: added link

ars 11y ago

Am I in the minority in finding Judder very distracting? And film grain too for that matter? Or overly dark night scenes? The better my monitor the more distracting those things are - I never used to notice them on CRT's. But with new high resolutions screens film grain is very noticeable which is unpleasant - I don't see film grain when I look around, there is no reason I should see it in a movie.

test1235 11y ago
There is actually a lot of stuff your brain automatically filters out when you look at things. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Floaters/Pages/Introduction.aspx http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Floaters/Pages/Introduction.asp...
acqq 11y ago
I find it strange insisting on "flickering" screens. No "artist" desired it (as in "let's make this movie, but it has to flicker!") it was always just the limitation of the technology. If you'd want the "whole original effect" you'd have to insist on the 35mm films and their projection in the movie theater. The only thing that is true is that with the limitations of the technology, some "corny" scenes looked more acceptable, as our brain actually got less information and in more unnatural form so then our brain turned on its "more tolerance" mode while watching, reimagining the scene better than what it saw. Also: http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm On another side, what I fully understand is that the older frame interpolation algorithms did very poor job for moving scenes, so people turned it off because of that, but it seems that the algorithms got noticeably better.
- lmm 11y ago
  The artist created something for the limitations of the technology they were working with. It's unfair to look at it through a different technology, where careful effort will end up looking worse than someone who threw it in. E.g. good pixel art often looks worse when upscaled than sprites where the artist didn't pay any attention to the pixels.

anentropic 11y ago

What's it called in VLC? I don't like the judder, would like to see how I get on with a bit of smoothing

davenonymous 11y ago

This is a highly subjective topic. Is it possible that Televisions are just doing a very bad job at interpolating? I've been using the SmoothVideoProject for over a year now and I can't watch movies/series anymore without frame interpolation. It's just to hard to follow what happens in very fast action scenes or enjoy camera pans across a beautiful, nay, any setting in 24/30fps. Of course native 48/60fps is a lot better, but having a good interpolation is a start. I highly recommend checking out the SmoothVideoProject at https://www.svp-team.com/wiki/Main_Page https://www.svp-team.com/wiki/Main_Page

scandox 11y ago

I'm just glad to hear that evil has a name. I've bored way too many people going: "...y'know that smooth thing on big tellies..that makes all the old black and white movie actors glide out of rooms on rollers...you do know! You must know! Don't f##king tell me you can't see that... I'll be back in a minute... " and so forth