7 ms·

It makes everything look like a cheap soap opera to me. I can't stand it. I think this might be either a generational thing or perhaps a cultural thing, or mayb

It makes everything look like a cheap soap opera to me. I can't stand it. I think this might be either a generational thing or perhaps a cultural thing, or maybe some of both.

j45 3y ago
It feels like the jump to 4K and 240hz tv at the same time as one groups normal and another groups exception may have something to do with it. Maybe the group who doesn’t want it too life like is inoculated, or the other way around.
jjoonathan 3y ago
I suspect it has to do with the degree to which your past was plagued with cheap soap operas vs poorly performing video games.
thedougd 3y ago
Maybe some people can pick up on the fact that those extra frames aren't real more easily than others. Some innate sense thrown off by the interpolation. Motion interpolation gives me an uneasy feeling more than anything. For example, some people can see a high frame rate and thus can't watch color wheel based DLP because they see rainbowing in the screen. I can't watch my old plasma in 48hz mode because it flickers. My spouse can't see the flicker at all.
- prometheus76 3y ago
  For me, the interpolation really seems to separate the "layers" in a shot, and it just completely destroys the illusion of them not being a set with some lights. Like I said, it feels like a cheap soap opera from the developing country no matter what movie or show I'm watching. Some of the problem for me may be related to the fact that I worked as a camera operator and video editor during the years from transitioning from the old NTSC standard to HD, and I paid hyperattention to detail as HD came online. For some reason, the interpolation just screams "this is fake" to me.
  - resters 3y ago
    > For me, the interpolation really seems to separate the "layers" in a shot, and it just completely destroys the illusion of them not being a set with some lights. Great description. It's the same for me.
ilamont 3y ago
I noticed this too after getting a 4K TV earlier this year. It really ruins a lot of films.
llm_nerd 3y ago
"It makes everything look like a cheap soap opera to me" This is nothing more than conditioning. "Quality" TV shows "film" at 24 fps despite the fact that they were going to be viewed at 30/60. They did this because even though 3:2 pulldown incontestably is a dirty, ugly hack that reduced quality, people were conditioned to think that if something went through that hack, it's quality. If it didn't, it can't be quality. So when people talk about the "soap opera" effect, what they usually mean is concise and clear. The best example of this was The Hobbit when presented at the original, director's intention 48FPS. People were so conditioned to movies being a blurring mess at 24FPS that a frequent complaint about the Hobbit was that it had the purported "soap opera effect".
- lifeformed 3y ago
  It's not conditioning. Frame rate is a tool in the toolbox, and more isn't always better, just like a colorized black and white film isn't better just because it has added information. This is most easily apparent in animation, which frequently makes use of variable frame rates to achieve different effects and feelings, often even within elements of the same scene. A character might be animated at 12 fps while the background is at 8 fps. Bumping those all up to 60 would be an entirely different shot with very different vibes.
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    Surely 24 fps was made the standard to save money on film. It's about the slowest frame rate that's not very distracting. Needless to say, film is no longer the major expense it used to be. In the early days the film itself was a fairly big part of the production cost (and don't forget distribution - cost to replicate the film - and operating cost for the projectors - handling film rolls twice as big, etc.). And standards are sticky, so the industry stayed on 24fps for decades.
    - andersa 3y ago
      > It's about the slowest frame rate that's not very distracting. Except, it is very distracting. Around 60 it starts to become bearable for me and allow camera pans to be interpreted as fluid motion.
andersa 3y ago
Where does this nonsensical argument keep coming from? No idea what a "cheap soap opera" is even supposed to be. The only thing I notice is that the horrifying judder during camera pans is replaced by minor artifacts that don't distract anywhere near as much. It's literally not possible for me to interpret a 24hz pan as fluid motion.
- ac2u 3y ago
  See llm_nerd's answer below. Conditioning or not, it takes me out of the realism of whatever I'm watching if interpolation is applied. People don't really have to rationally justify it, they're used to a certain way of footage being played growing up and when some folk see interpolation it just feels off to them right away, and reminds them of those soap operas.
  - andersa 3y ago
    I wonder if you'd have the same reaction to a movie properly authored at 120Hz without the subtle artifacts.
    - bozhark 3y ago
      Nah it’s much better at higher Hz
    - hug 3y ago
      There's a point at which these things balance out and work. I'm not sure that 120 frames per second is high enough, but it's much closer. We have anecdotal evidence (the fact that everyone hated The Hobbit) that 48 frames per second isn't. One of the rules of cinema and shooting at low frame rate is to use "180 degree shutter" (a term that comes from the spinning shutters used in old film cameras), or in other words a shutter that is open for half as long as the frame rate. i.e.: If you're filming at 24 frames per second, use a 1/48th second shutter speed. The reason for this is that 24 FPS @ 1/48" exposure film adds enough motion blur to each exposure that any movement that occurs over a small number of frames is naturally smeared by a consequence of the exposure time, but anything that is relatively steady across frames tends to look crisp. If you shoot at 24 FPS @ 1/1000", you end up with something that looks like a fast flipbook of static pictures. 24 FPS just isn't fast enough, and people can see that each individual frame doesn't contain movement. Anecdotally, 120FPS @ 1/1000" on a 120Hz display doesn't exhibit this same problem, at least to me or people I've shown it to, although some people will notice it "feels fast". 48 FPS @ 1/96" seems to be the worst of both worlds: Too fast a shutter for motion blur to compensate nicely, too slow a frame rate to to make it look seamless, so it ends up in the uncanny valley where people know there's something missing, but not what. The frame interpolation feature that people seem to hate is almost directly designed to fall into this horrible territory.
hackernewds 3y ago
for as much debate there was on 60fps, I do agree. games and movies on 60fps do not feel "cinematic". I indulge in these to escape from reality.

It makes everything look like a cheap soap opera to me. I can't stand it. I think this might be either a generational thing or perhaps a cultural thing, or maybe some of both.

j45 3y ago

It feels like the jump to 4K and 240hz tv at the same time as one groups normal and another groups exception may have something to do with it. Maybe the group who doesn’t want it too life like is inoculated, or the other way around.

jjoonathan 3y ago

I suspect it has to do with the degree to which your past was plagued with cheap soap operas vs poorly performing video games.

thedougd 3y ago

Maybe some people can pick up on the fact that those extra frames aren't real more easily than others. Some innate sense thrown off by the interpolation. Motion interpolation gives me an uneasy feeling more than anything. For example, some people can see a high frame rate and thus can't watch color wheel based DLP because they see rainbowing in the screen. I can't watch my old plasma in 48hz mode because it flickers. My spouse can't see the flicker at all.

prometheus76 3y ago
For me, the interpolation really seems to separate the "layers" in a shot, and it just completely destroys the illusion of them not being a set with some lights. Like I said, it feels like a cheap soap opera from the developing country no matter what movie or show I'm watching. Some of the problem for me may be related to the fact that I worked as a camera operator and video editor during the years from transitioning from the old NTSC standard to HD, and I paid hyperattention to detail as HD came online. For some reason, the interpolation just screams "this is fake" to me.
- resters 3y ago
  > For me, the interpolation really seems to separate the "layers" in a shot, and it just completely destroys the illusion of them not being a set with some lights. Great description. It's the same for me.

ilamont 3y ago

I noticed this too after getting a 4K TV earlier this year. It really ruins a lot of films.

llm_nerd 3y ago

"It makes everything look like a cheap soap opera to me" This is nothing more than conditioning. "Quality" TV shows "film" at 24 fps despite the fact that they were going to be viewed at 30/60. They did this because even though 3:2 pulldown incontestably is a dirty, ugly hack that reduced quality, people were conditioned to think that if something went through that hack, it's quality. If it didn't, it can't be quality. So when people talk about the "soap opera" effect, what they usually mean is concise and clear. The best example of this was The Hobbit when presented at the original, director's intention 48FPS. People were so conditioned to movies being a blurring mess at 24FPS that a frequent complaint about the Hobbit was that it had the purported "soap opera effect".

lifeformed 3y ago
It's not conditioning. Frame rate is a tool in the toolbox, and more isn't always better, just like a colorized black and white film isn't better just because it has added information. This is most easily apparent in animation, which frequently makes use of variable frame rates to achieve different effects and feelings, often even within elements of the same scene. A character might be animated at 12 fps while the background is at 8 fps. Bumping those all up to 60 would be an entirely different shot with very different vibes.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Surely 24 fps was made the standard to save money on film. It's about the slowest frame rate that's not very distracting. Needless to say, film is no longer the major expense it used to be. In the early days the film itself was a fairly big part of the production cost (and don't forget distribution - cost to replicate the film - and operating cost for the projectors - handling film rolls twice as big, etc.). And standards are sticky, so the industry stayed on 24fps for decades.
  - andersa 3y ago
    > It's about the slowest frame rate that's not very distracting. Except, it is very distracting. Around 60 it starts to become bearable for me and allow camera pans to be interpreted as fluid motion.

andersa 3y ago

Where does this nonsensical argument keep coming from? No idea what a "cheap soap opera" is even supposed to be. The only thing I notice is that the horrifying judder during camera pans is replaced by minor artifacts that don't distract anywhere near as much. It's literally not possible for me to interpret a 24hz pan as fluid motion.

ac2u 3y ago
See llm_nerd's answer below. Conditioning or not, it takes me out of the realism of whatever I'm watching if interpolation is applied. People don't really have to rationally justify it, they're used to a certain way of footage being played growing up and when some folk see interpolation it just feels off to them right away, and reminds them of those soap operas.
- andersa 3y ago
  I wonder if you'd have the same reaction to a movie properly authored at 120Hz without the subtle artifacts.
  - bozhark 3y ago
    Nah it’s much better at higher Hz
  - hug 3y ago
    There's a point at which these things balance out and work. I'm not sure that 120 frames per second is high enough, but it's much closer. We have anecdotal evidence (the fact that everyone hated The Hobbit) that 48 frames per second isn't. One of the rules of cinema and shooting at low frame rate is to use "180 degree shutter" (a term that comes from the spinning shutters used in old film cameras), or in other words a shutter that is open for half as long as the frame rate. i.e.: If you're filming at 24 frames per second, use a 1/48th second shutter speed. The reason for this is that 24 FPS @ 1/48" exposure film adds enough motion blur to each exposure that any movement that occurs over a small number of frames is naturally smeared by a consequence of the exposure time, but anything that is relatively steady across frames tends to look crisp. If you shoot at 24 FPS @ 1/1000", you end up with something that looks like a fast flipbook of static pictures. 24 FPS just isn't fast enough, and people can see that each individual frame doesn't contain movement. Anecdotally, 120FPS @ 1/1000" on a 120Hz display doesn't exhibit this same problem, at least to me or people I've shown it to, although some people will notice it "feels fast". 48 FPS @ 1/96" seems to be the worst of both worlds: Too fast a shutter for motion blur to compensate nicely, too slow a frame rate to to make it look seamless, so it ends up in the uncanny valley where people know there's something missing, but not what. The frame interpolation feature that people seem to hate is almost directly designed to fall into this horrible territory.

hackernewds 3y ago

for as much debate there was on 60fps, I do agree. games and movies on 60fps do not feel "cinematic". I indulge in these to escape from reality.