4 ms·

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

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.
      - georgieporgie 16y ago
        Uh, you started a debate, then got mad at people for responding in like manner. I don't understand. Go back and reread your post, it was both confrontational and of low technical quality.
- Raphael 16y ago
  His observation suggests that higher frame rate, with different content in each frame, does achieve the soap opera look. If the interpolation is advanced enough, it may be arriving at something close to what the extra frame would have been.
seanalltogether 16y ago
The reason it looks like trash is not because it's a higher frame rate, it looks like trash because it's removing natural motion blur from the image. This actually makes it more like a video game in which discreet images are generated from the world, instead of natural film/digital sensor in which millions of photons are captured for a short duration.

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.
    - georgieporgie 16y ago
      Uh, you started a debate, then got mad at people for responding in like manner. I don't understand. Go back and reread your post, it was both confrontational and of low technical quality.
Raphael 16y ago
His observation suggests that higher frame rate, with different content in each frame, does achieve the soap opera look. If the interpolation is advanced enough, it may be arriving at something close to what the extra frame would have been.

seanalltogether 16y ago

The reason it looks like trash is not because it's a higher frame rate, it looks like trash because it's removing natural motion blur from the image. This actually makes it more like a video game in which discreet images are generated from the world, instead of natural film/digital sensor in which millions of photons are captured for a short duration.