4 ms·

Sitcoms and soap operas look the way they do because of lighting. I won't disagree that 24 fps has something to do with the 'film' look, but I think camera lens

Sitcoms and soap operas look the way they do because of lighting. I won't disagree that 24 fps has something to do with the 'film' look, but I think camera lens, filters, and lighting affect the look of the movie more then the framerate.

ciupicri 16y ago
I have always asked myself why films made for television look different than the ones made for cinema. Thank you for the explanation!
nitrogen 16y ago
Not to mention dynamic range/gamut, gamma, etc.
vetinari 16y ago
That's what I always used to think, until few years ago. Then a new crop of TVs came and it started to mess up the movies. The movie looked like a soap opera. It turned out, that it was caused by a feature that increases fps and inserts interpolated frames (every manufacturer calls it differently). After turning it off, the movies look like movies again.
encoderer 16y ago
I'm just a layperson when it comes to film but I want to respectfully disagree with the assertion that it's all about lighting. A friend recently picked-up an LED "3D" tv. Now, I always thought the 3D is a BS gimmick, and I still do, though I will conceed that it does work far better than I ever thought it would. Which is, not at all. But the TV -- a samsung -- had a feature that reminds me a bit of up-converting, however it's used on every input, even 1080P from the blu ray. I googled it at the time but the gist is that it, on 2D mode, it computes deltas between frames and inserts new ones to make the image seem more fluid. IT LOOKED LIKE TRASH! It made everything look soap-opera or like a documentary. It messed up the depth of field. Sure, things were hyper-crisp but alarmingly so. It made it look cheap. Now, there's a setting buried in the control panel to tweak or disable that, but this is how it came from the factory, and i thought it was un-watchable. So it's not merely lighting. One last thought which is I actually think the perception of higher quality shots in films has a lot to do with stedicam which of course will be the same at 60fps. But that's just a guess.
- peng 16y ago
  This is a straw man. Interpolated tweening frames are not the same as actual frames with new content. It may look like trash, but--then again--so do upscaled images.
  - encoderer 16y ago
    A "straw man" ? I didn't know this was a debate. Besides, I think you missed my point: That it's not just about lighting.
    - georgieporgie 16y ago
      But seanalltogether never said it was just about lighting. He mentioned, "camera lens, filters, and lighting." Your dissection of what is wrong with Samsung's interpolation had nothing whatsoever to do with seanalltogether's comment.
      - encoderer 16y ago
        Does Saturday bring out the debaters? What is this? "Sitcoms and soap operas look the way they do because of lighting." Now come back at me with some word-by-word, point-by-point dissection, but i'm done, this isn't worth it.
        9999 16y ago
        "It messed up the depth of field." Absolutely preposterous. Depth of field is a function of lens focal length, aperture, and sensor size. There is no way that Samsung's TV could in any way effect the depth of field of the original recording. If it could, then it would be a magical motherfucking TV.
        encoderer 16y ago
        You ought to watch the TV before wetting the bed over it. Go to a Best Buy and have a look. Because as much as you clearly know about film tech more than I do, you seem to be lacking a slight amount of common sense: What's happening there is processing of a digital signal. Specifically, the TV is creating frames for you to create the illusion of smoother video. And what this effect does, is it appears to flatten the shot. What your slashdot-worthy post overlooks is that you're speaking from your limited knowledge of film. However, in this TV, there's a feature that lets you apply this setting to just half the screen, so you can see them both, side by side, and tweak as you wish. Just like in life, there's no amount of theoretical education than can make-up for actually being there, for actually having hands-on. So really, save the hyperbole.

ciupicri 16y ago

I have always asked myself why films made for television look different than the ones made for cinema. Thank you for the explanation!

nitrogen 16y ago

Not to mention dynamic range/gamut, gamma, etc.

vetinari 16y ago

That's what I always used to think, until few years ago. Then a new crop of TVs came and it started to mess up the movies. The movie looked like a soap opera. It turned out, that it was caused by a feature that increases fps and inserts interpolated frames (every manufacturer calls it differently). After turning it off, the movies look like movies again.

encoderer 16y ago

I'm just a layperson when it comes to film but I want to respectfully disagree with the assertion that it's all about lighting. A friend recently picked-up an LED "3D" tv. Now, I always thought the 3D is a BS gimmick, and I still do, though I will conceed that it does work far better than I ever thought it would. Which is, not at all. But the TV -- a samsung -- had a feature that reminds me a bit of up-converting, however it's used on every input, even 1080P from the blu ray. I googled it at the time but the gist is that it, on 2D mode, it computes deltas between frames and inserts new ones to make the image seem more fluid. IT LOOKED LIKE TRASH! It made everything look soap-opera or like a documentary. It messed up the depth of field. Sure, things were hyper-crisp but alarmingly so. It made it look cheap. Now, there's a setting buried in the control panel to tweak or disable that, but this is how it came from the factory, and i thought it was un-watchable. So it's not merely lighting. One last thought which is I actually think the perception of higher quality shots in films has a lot to do with stedicam which of course will be the same at 60fps. But that's just a guess.

peng 16y ago
This is a straw man. Interpolated tweening frames are not the same as actual frames with new content. It may look like trash, but--then again--so do upscaled images.
- encoderer 16y ago
  A "straw man" ? I didn't know this was a debate. Besides, I think you missed my point: That it's not just about lighting.
  - georgieporgie 16y ago
    But seanalltogether never said it was just about lighting. He mentioned, "camera lens, filters, and lighting." Your dissection of what is wrong with Samsung's interpolation had nothing whatsoever to do with seanalltogether's comment.
    - encoderer 16y ago
      Does Saturday bring out the debaters? What is this? "Sitcoms and soap operas look the way they do because of lighting." Now come back at me with some word-by-word, point-by-point dissection, but i'm done, this isn't worth it.
      - 9999 16y ago
        "It messed up the depth of field." Absolutely preposterous. Depth of field is a function of lens focal length, aperture, and sensor size. There is no way that Samsung's TV could in any way effect the depth of field of the original recording. If it could, then it would be a magical motherfucking TV.
        encoderer 16y ago
        You ought to watch the TV before wetting the bed over it. Go to a Best Buy and have a look. Because as much as you clearly know about film tech more than I do, you seem to be lacking a slight amount of common sense: What's happening there is processing of a digital signal. Specifically, the TV is creating frames for you to create the illusion of smoother video. And what this effect does, is it appears to flatten the shot. What your slashdot-worthy post overlooks is that you're speaking from your limited knowledge of film. However, in this TV, there's a feature that lets you apply this setting to just half the screen, so you can see them both, side by side, and tweak as you wish. Just like in life, there's no amount of theoretical education than can make-up for actually being there, for actually having hands-on. So really, save the hyperbole.