I love, love, love the soap opera effect! (1 Viewer)

[Panavision70]

Just bought a new TV. My first with 1080p. And I just love the soap opera effect! I love the way movies and television shows look like super sharp live television broadcasts. The images have a nearly 3-D look. I'm very pleased the effect works not just on blu ray disc, but also plain DVDs. Just got the 4-disc Eleanor Powell "Broadway Melody" set and they look spectacular! I wonder if there are any others here who like this look? I know most of you don't.

 

[Mark-P]

The "soap-opera effect" has nothing to do with sharpness or detail. It has to do with motion, as in frame-interpolation to reduce judder and smooth out the motion to give an appearance of a higher frame rate. It's not the way 24 frames-a-second film is supposed to look. Does your new TV have this feature, or are you just enjoying your introduction to true high-definition?

 

[Race Bannon]

What's causing it when it's there and not supposed to be? The disk, the player, the screen?

 

[RichMurphy]

I have a very large projection screen, and I find that minimal frame interpolation greatly reduces the strobing effect during certain camera pans that can often be distracting.


For example, in the beginning sequence of CASABLANCA after the map montage, when the camera pans down from the minaret, the strobing and change of perspective gives away the beginning of the shot as a visual effect. With frame interpolation, the strobing is removed and it looks more like a simple pan down an actual building.


That said, I usually turn off the interpolation when my movie-loving friend visits, as he considers it heresy.

 

[schan1269]

I don't own any Lousy Craptastic Displays, so I have no idea what SOE is.

 

[DaveF]

I don't like it. It doesn't look like film and it doesn't look like TV. It's weird.


But I admit that this is a matter of taste, and specifically what I grew up with. A generation of kids are growing up with 60 fps video games, 240Hz LCD HDTV and HFR The Hobbit. To them, they'll think that 24fps film looks janky.

 

[Worth]

I don't get the appeal, but to each his own. As long as it's something that can be switched off, enjoy.

 

[Thomas T]

Welcome to the 21st century where you can make a movie look the way you want it to look instead of the way it was intended to look. Some companies take the time and effort to restore films as close as possible to their original look and the home viewer can bypass all that and make it brighter, darker, sharper, softer, stretch it, squeeze it, zoom it etc. Hey, you paid for it, do what you want but the idea of Black Narcissus or West Side Story looking like a soap opera telecast just creeps me out. But hey, that's just me.

 

[Alf S]

The first time I saw the soap opera effect was when Best Buy was playing the Blu-Ray of U-551. It was quite interesting and you felt like you could reach into the TV and touch the actors/sets it was that "realistic" looking. It didn't really bother me like it does some diehard moviegoers, I could sit and watch a whole movie with that effect with no issues.

 

[TonyD]

A friend of mine turns this on for his tv. I turned it off a couple times but seems he likes it.

I only use it for sports.

 

[Richard V]

An unpopular opinion, but I too, like the "soap opera effect". And, the brighter screen effect too. (as compared to the "plasma effect" where everything looks too dark to suit my tastes). I know that is heresy around here, and I don't want to open up that can of worms again, but it is, what it is. (For me anyways)

 

[Vic Pardo]

Not everything is meant to be seen that clearly.

 

[David_B_K]

I think the "soap opera effect" looks pretty awful for film. My TV had it when I first set it up. I couldn't handle Citizen Kane looking like a live black and white video feed from coverage of the Kennedy Assassination. I spent several days tweaking it and eventually bought a calibration disc to get film to look film-like.


I guess people who dig it are like the people who zoom their picture to get rid of black bars. I see my TV as a vehicle for the programming and like to reproduce the programming as faithfully as possible. I think some people think their TV is more important than the content.

 

[Jim*Tod]

It is a personal choice of course and everyone has the right to adjust their tvs as they want.


But for me use of the frame interpolation function makes everything look like a video game, especially when the camera moves. It also makes motion, especially the movement of actors, look snakelike.


But I wonder if this is because for generations we have looked at film at (mostly) 24 fps and for those of us of a certain age, this looks right and is what we have been conditioned to expect. Perhaps younger generations, more used to looking at everything on computers and tv, may not be able to make that distinction.


It is important to note though that in all things everyone sees things in a different way.

 

[Will Krupp]

It is a personal choice of course and everyone has the right to adjust their tvs as they want.

and we have the right to talk trash them behind their backs for it!!


(Just kidding...sort of)

 

[Daresaur]

I'm very late to this discussion, but I love the soap opera effect. I bought a new TV just to obtain the same look I saw in the Hobbit HFR version. I have purchased a lot of movies on blue ray so I can enjoy them in a super sharp reality.
It's true that motion smoothing, ie insertion of frames to achieve an HFR look, is not the only thing a TV will do, there is also upscaling to 4k and sharpening, but all this combines to create a startling image.
A lot of people hate the look, as they associate low frame rates with high quality movies, and high frame rates with low quality television production, but thats either a learned perception or just taste, and variables in taste are what makes the world interesting, I too have this learned perception, being raised on this standard, but I have put this aside and I see a better quality image. I see the production values present, not the style of photography. A well crafted movie will look amazing no matter what the frame rate. A higher frame rate will allow more of that beautiful craft to be revealed. There's a younger generation who are more used to higher frame rates, via video games, they don't regard this look as cheap. They see it for what it is, a more true to life way of viewing filmed content. I'm hoping in time HFR will become the new norm.

 

[Craig Beam]

Here's my take: if you respect the art and craft of film, you want to see it the way it was intended to be seen. This is not a "everybody has different tastes and that's okay" situation. Film is an intricate, complex medium, and the cinematography therein is a delicate balance of detail and depth, light and shadow. When you apply after-the-fact processing like SOE, you are brazenly disregarding the artists' intent. This is NOT how they intended their work to be seen.

From the HTF Mission Statement: We the members of the forum are interested in the film product to be recorded and reproduced as closely as possible to the way the original creator(s) of that particular film intended. We respect the integrity of all artists involved in creating the original film as well as those who helped bringing the product to a form suited to be used in a home theater environment.

We are finally at a point when we can reproduce the theater experience--- even surpass it sometimes--- in our own homes. SOE is a huge step backwards. I don't want films to look like real life. I want them to look like FILMS.

 

[Angelo Colombus]

On my tv and media players I have most of the picture enhancing settings turned off so I can have the film as close to how it was shown in the theater.

 

[Craig Beam]

On my tv and media players I have most of the picture enhancing settings turned off so I can have the film as close to how it was shown in the theater.

This guy gets it.

 

[Daresaur]

I understand your point.
I often have artwork printed, and when they get it wrong, if the print differs from the artwork, I get pretty frustrated.
The same applies to film.
However, sometimes one of my pieces is printed and differs but looks better.
Were I a movie director who has spent many hours sitting in a grading suite lovingly crafting a piece that has taken the last two years of my life, I'd want it viewed as I intended.
I feel this is a case of taste, and it's not ok to impose on others. Choice is a good thing. A democracy is based on a level within reason of personal freedom.
Altering frame rates has no bearing on cinematography. That is unchanged.
Another however, there are many other things inflicted on a movie, that eclipse the frame rate issues.
A studio will often edit a movie, how often have you seen a ' directors cut' on blue ray? Because the movie has had whole sequences hacked out against the wishes of the director.
In the digital age, a director would like you to view the product in a theatre, but a lot of people view on a tiny phone screen, this alters the experience much more than a higher frame rate. I don't hear many people complaining about which device something is viewed on.
Television broadcast would in the past chop the image to a different ratio, television will still interrupt every ten minutes with advertising breaks. Nothing will ruin a viewing quite like someone trying to sell you breakfast cereal every few minutes.
People continue to use 24 FPS because of convention. Tradition is hard to break, especially when so many people have been accustomed to a look, and make association accordingly.
In other areas, film has strived for greater realism and naturalism, grain has been minimised, sets are more convincing, acting is more natural, writing has tended towards naturalism, visual effects are constantly evolving for greater realism. All this is an attempt to make movies closer to how we see the real world, but the greater naturalism attained by a higher frame rate is still frowned upon by some.
I' m not one of those. I find the soft grainy film look distracting, it's like viewing through a dirty window. If I can clean the window via some very clever television technology, I will.
Even if the director disapproves. But as I have already said, viewing with ad breaks on a six inch screen would also be not what was intended.
Digital Tek has enabled choice. Anyone can choose to view what they want, when they want, how they want. Television, in that regard, is way ahead of cinema, which hangs on to old conventions, and is at risk of being left behind as the world moves on.
In a theatre, you have little control over how you view or when you view.
TV allows freedom. Netflix will release an entire series so you can either view in installments or all at once. Films like okja were turned down by many film studios, Netflix allowed it to be made, as the writers wanted -slaughter scenes intact. If you object to the slaughter scenes, you can fast foreward.. The director wanted you to see it, but you don't have to. Freedom to choose.
If film doesn't evolve, it risks being left behind. TV and games are moving at a faster pace. Games already surpass film in popularity, why? Maybe because they offer more personal choice? . TV is now 4k whilst film stays predominantly 2k.
To view in whatever frame rate you wish, is there. I think all movies should be shot HFR, and screened in both HFR and low frame rate. The viewer can choose.
HFR will be attended by a younger audience, whilst low frame rate will be an older clientel.
Give it time and low frame rates will be phased out.the 1927 decision to use 24 FPS, will eventually be forgotten. Only now has the technology allowed this to happen. But change doesn't come easy.
In some countries, a manual car gear box is still the most used! I find the rejection of an automatic gear shift incomprehensible. Some people can't let go of old ways. I've heard objection to driverless cars on the grounds of ' I enjoy driving'. Fair enough, buy a day at a racetrack to do your driving.
I'll be relaxing in my driverless car, thanks.