Comment by knorker
11 hours ago
If you think this is about snobbery, then I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood the problem.
This is more comparable to color being turned off. Sure, if you're completely colorblind, then it's not an issue. But non-colorblind people are not "snobs".
Or if dialog is completely unintelligible. That's not a problem for people who don't speak the language anyway, and would need subtitles either way. But people who speak English are not "snobs" for wanting to be able to understand dialog spoken in English.
I've not seen a movie filmed and played back in high frame rate. It may be perfectly fine (for me). In that case it's not about the framerate, but about the botched interpolation.
Like I said in my previous comment, it's not about "art".
There is no such thing as the soap opera effect. Good quality sets and makeup and cameras look good at 24 or 48 or 120 fps.
People like you insisting on 24 fps causes people like me to unnecessarily have to choose between not seeing films, seeing them with headaches or seeing them with some interpolation.
I will generally choose the latter until everything is at a decent frame rate.
> There is no such thing as the soap opera effect.
What has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I'll take the Pepsi challenge on this any day. It looks horrible.
> Good quality sets and makeup and cameras look good at 24 or 48 or 120 fps.
Can you give an example of ANY movie that survives TV motion interpolation settings? Billion dollar movies by this definition don't have good quality sets and makeup.
E.g. MCU movies are unwatchable in this mode.
> People like you insisting on 24 fps
I don't. Maybe it'll look good if filmed at 120fps. But I have seen no TV that does this interpolation where it doesn't look like complete shit. No movie on no TV.
Edit: I feel like you're being dishonest by claiming that I insist on 24 fps. My previous comment said exactly that I don't, already, and yet you misrepresent me in your very reply.
> causes people like me to unnecessarily [… or …] seeing them with some interpolation
So you DO agree that the interpolation looks absolutely awful? Exactly this is the soap opera effect.
I know that some people can't see it. Lucky you. I don't know what's wrong with your perception, but you cannot simply claim that "there's no such thing" when it's a well known phenomenon that is easily reproducible.
I've come to friends houses and as soon as the TV comes on I go "eeew! Why have you not turned off motion interpolation?". I have not once been wrong.
"There's no such thing"… really… who am I going to believe? You, or my own eyes? I feel like a color blind person just told me "there's no such thing as green".
I agree with you that the interpolation isn’t ideal, I’m not praising it. It’s merely a necessity for me to not get headaches. It’s also much less noticeable on its lowest settings, which serve just to take the edge off panning shots.
The “soap opera effect” is what people call video at higher than 24 fps in general, it has nothing to do with interpolation. The term has been used for decades before interpolation even existed. You seem to be confused on that point.
Source video at 120 looks no worse than at 24, that’s all I’m saying.
5 replies →