
The Soap Opera Effect and how to make it go away - d99kris
http://hometheaterreview.com/what-is-soap-opera-effect-and-how-to-make-it-go-away/
======
mortenjorck
It's nice to see a piece on this subject that's friendly, non-technical, and
non-judgmental.

That said, there are two reasons I never watch movies with frame interpolation
on: One is the old artistry argument, that the movie was shot and cut at 24
fps and anything else is a distortion of how it was intended to be seen, but
the other is one I don't see much: Most interpolation algorithms are highly
inconsistent.

I think I would be considerably less distracted by frame interpolation if it
didn't tend to fail completely on fast motion. It's less noticeable in dialog-
heavy films than in thrillers, for sure, but even a character gesticulating as
they speak can trip up the most advanced 240hz interpolators, throwing a few
immersion-breaking frames of judder into the otherwise silky-smooth movement.

I don't think this is really a solvable problem (outside of exotic computer
vision systems, at least) – at 24 frames per second, there's often simply not
enough visual information to go on. For now, only the unmatched power of your
own visual cortex can fill in those gaps.

On the flip side, I quite enjoyed the aesthetic of The Hobbit in 48fps.
Produced and mastered at that frame rate, it looked great.

~~~
function_seven
> I think I would be considerably less distracted by frame interpolation if it
> didn't tend to fail completely on fast motion.

I just got a new (to me) TV and realized it was interpolating. I'm not too
bothered by the soap-opera effect in general. But the first football‡ game I
watched on it made me turn it off in a hurry. The ball seemed to disappear
when it was passed. The motion smoothing algorithm somehow ghosted it right
out of the picture, so that it appeared to leave the QB's hands and magically
teleport to the receiver.

‡ Gridiron Football

~~~
to3m
For anybody else that might otherwise have to look it up: Gridiron Football is
American Football.

The name comes from the layout of the pitch, which looks nothing like a
gridiron (which appears to be a type of portable grill). There's probably a
joke in there somewhere.

~~~
function_seven
It looked like a gridiron 100 years ago. Field changes, name stays the same.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gridiron_football#/media/File:...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gridiron_football#/media/File:Football_Diagram_1904.jpg)

------
Camillo
The interesting question is whether the dislike for HFR cinema is:

\- Purely due to habit, with people having learned to associate LFR with high
quality content (film) and HFR with low quality content (video). In this case,
the problem will go away as soon as people get used to HFR (or die off).

\- Due to the increased realism exposing sets, costumes etc. as fake. LFR may
help filmmakers by providing a distraction that masks all the little flaws. In
this case, the problem will go away (but only for new movies) as soon as
filmmakers learn how to make things look good enough for HFR.

\- Due to some intrinsic quality of LFR that is key to the magic of cinema. In
this case, the problem will never go away.

Of course, people are immediately going to seize on one of these answers based
on their personal preferences, but in reality we have no concrete evidence for
any of them.

~~~
hammock
I remember reading about how actors hated the switch to video and then the
switch to HD, because it was far more likely to reveal their acne, other flaws
etc.

In audio engineering, the Yamaha NS10 studio monitors (now discontinued) are
famous for their faithful, naked reproduction of sound. As a result, more
mixes sound terrible on NS10's than on other speakers. They expose the flaws.
Which is why an engineer tests his mix on them. "If it sounds good on NS10's
it'll sound good on anything."

------
matt-attack
The 3:2 pulldown judder that the author grew up watching is unrelated to the
"look" of 24ps. The soap-opera effect is purely a frame-rate issue.

It's also unrelated to the artifacts resulting from "motion interpolation".
Again, it's purely related to frame-rate. High frame-rates look real, and
therefore like soap-operas. 24fps content (e.g. most films) look "unrealistic"
which is a good thing. In the same way a van Gogh painting looks
"unrealistic". Impressionism is actually a valuable art form, and is actually
appealing to the brain. It's not something that needs to be "engineered" away
as Peter Jackson thought.

Only an engineer would look at a masterpiece of impressionistic painting, and
think "Hmm, if only the painter used a finer brush we'd get more _detail_! Say
this painting could really use some up-rez'ing."

24fps video is precisely "impressionistic". It's distinctly _not_ what our
brain perceives in the real world. It's what makes movies look slightly
"other-worldly". And that's a GOOD THING. In fact it's one of the reasons it's
been such a hugely successful art form for 100 years. Impressionism is a
fantastic form of art, whether you're talking about broad brush strokes, or
low frame-rate video.

Can we all stop (looking at you Peter Jackson [1], Ang Lee [2], and James
Cameron [3]) wishing van Gogh used a finer brush?

[1]
[http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/faq.html](http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/faq.html)

[2] [http://variety.com/2015/film/news/ang-lee-shooting-billy-
lyn...](http://variety.com/2015/film/news/ang-lee-shooting-billy-lynns-long-
halftime-walk-at-120-frames-per-second-in-3d)

[3] [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/could-
avatar-...](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/could-avatar-
sequels-be-first-732772)

~~~
Afforess
I disagree. I do look at impressionistic paintings, and wish they looked good
on large high-definition displays. I am not sure why you think a finer brush
would destroy the impressionistic qualities of artwork. That seems like saying
we've lost our appreciation for good lighting, because we use LED light bulbs
instead of wax candles. Artists can easily canvas on 4k, 8k, or larger
resolutions with modern tools, and achieve vistas that will outshine most
previous artwork in fidelity.

I'm not trying to compare contemporary digital art to pre-modern paintings,
because there would be no point. But we can compare the quality of the canvas
medium, the fidelity of the work. I am certain anyone who has spent any amount
of time creating a digital college, set of high quality wallpapers, etc, has
noticed that pre-digital artwork is often vastly lacking in terms of
resolution. This contrast is difficult to notice in a museum, where artwork is
displayed alongside its peers; it is obvious when comparing it to digital
styles of art.

There is nothing wrong with wishing for more detail. You can have
impressionistic artwork in 16k resolution, and enjoy it too.

~~~
djur
> as noticed that pre-digital artwork is often vastly lacking in terms of
> resolution

Non-digital artwork has infinite resolution (well, down to the Planck length,
I suppose). The texture of the painting surface and of the brushstroke is
relevant in the creation of art. In fact, you are demonstrating exactly what
the previous poster said: impressionism consciously chose to omit the finer
details that other schools included as a stylistic decision, but that lower
level of detail in the depiction does not imply a lower level of fidelity
unless your only definition of fidelity is accurate depiction of an object.

------
ars
Am I in the minority in finding Judder very distracting? And film grain too
for that matter? Or overly dark night scenes?

The better my monitor the more distracting those things are - I never used to
notice them on CRT's. But with new high resolutions screens film grain is very
noticeable which is unpleasant - I don't see film grain when I look around,
there is no reason I should see it in a movie.

~~~
acqq
I find it strange insisting on "flickering" screens. No "artist" desired it
(as in "let's make this movie, but it has to flicker!") it was always just the
limitation of the technology. If you'd want the "whole original effect" you'd
have to insist on the 35mm films and their projection in the movie theater.
The only thing that is true is that with the limitations of the technology,
some "corny" scenes looked more acceptable, as our brain actually got _less_
information and in more _unnatural_ form so then our brain turned on its "more
tolerance" mode while watching, reimagining the scene better than what it saw.

Also:

[http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm](http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm)

On another side, what I fully understand is that the older frame interpolation
algorithms did very poor job for moving scenes, so people turned it off
because of that, but it seems that the algorithms got noticeably better.

~~~
lmm
The artist created something for the limitations of the technology they were
working with. It's unfair to look at it through a different technology, where
careful effort will end up looking worse than someone who threw it in. E.g.
good pixel art often looks worse when upscaled than sprites where the artist
didn't pay any attention to the pixels.

~~~
acqq
You know the sound of very old records, most people today can't listen to
them. Now, imagine there were technology to make them sound clear, and that
therefore you hear errors by musicians. It can break the illusion you had
about the music of that particular record, but it actually reflects more
exactly the event that was recorded.

It's the same with the films. With our new algorithms, what was once
flickering "action" suddenly becomes "some people doing something that is
obviously in studio, and wow I can see how sloppy their make-up is too." Which
is something that we can more easily see even in the movies actually fully
produced with the modern equipment and from the start with the higher frame
rate: we see them more like they looked like at the set where they were filmed
(not counting the CGI that now tries as hard as possible to remove or modify
that).

So it is somewhat the opposite of your pixel artist example: it's that the
production then didn't have to care for the details we easily see now as they
were unnoticeable because of the limitations of the presentation then.

An exception to that "we don't have to worry about the details" approach:
Kubrick producing 2001: A Space Odyssey. Looks great on Blue Ray with as many
frames as it's possible, as it was produced to look good in high resolution.
And today it would be extremely hard to organize that projected "as it was
produced to be shown" (Super Panavision 70, using 70 mm prints). Other
examples welcome.

------
ollifi
This explanation is wrong. The effect is very visible also in Europe where tv
is 25 fps and no 3:2 pull down is performed to 24fps material.

The soap opera look came from the video camera which operated similar way as
video playback. Although the systems run 25 or 30fps they show each frame in
two interlaced fields. This meant screen was updated 50 or 60 times per
second, but showing either the odd or even lines of the frame at once.

Video was recorded in similar fashion so each field was captured with half a
frame offset in time to give it effective frame rate of 50 or 60fps even
though this meant actual frames would look funny on noninterlaced displays.

Film was transferred to video by taking both fields from one frame or with 3:2
pull down in 60hz countries. This made the effective frame rate closer to 24
fps like it was intended to be shown in cinemas.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video)

edit: added link

------
mmastrac
I used to hate it until I just left it on for a month or so on my new Samsung
4k. Eventually you get used to it and move on to more important things in your
life.

~~~
copperx
You can get used to living in filth. That doesn't mean it is desirable.

~~~
stephengillie
Indeed, one can get so used to it that they prefer nothing else. Change isn't
always bad, and maybe this will let you appreciate actors in a whole new
light.

~~~
mmastrac
Once you are used to it you realized how much your brain was wired to see 24Hz
as "movie-like". You basically just unlearn that connection and enjoy stuff no
matter what the framerate is.

------
davenonymous
This is a highly subjective topic.

Is it possible that Televisions are just doing a very bad job at
interpolating? I've been using the SmoothVideoProject for over a year now and
I can't watch movies/series anymore without frame interpolation. It's just to
hard to follow what happens in very fast action scenes or enjoy camera pans
across a beautiful, nay, any setting in 24/30fps.

Of course native 48/60fps is a lot better, but having a good interpolation is
a start.

I highly recommend checking out the SmoothVideoProject at [https://www.svp-
team.com/wiki/Main_Page](https://www.svp-team.com/wiki/Main_Page)

------
scandox
I'm just glad to hear that evil has a name. I've bored way too many people
going: "...y'know that smooth thing on big tellies..that makes all the old
black and white movie actors glide out of rooms on rollers...you do know! You
must know! Don't f##king tell me you can't see that... I'll be back in a
minute... " and so forth

------
anentropic
What's it called in VLC? I don't like the judder, would like to see how I get
on with a bit of smoothing

------
biot
I'm really glad I didn't wait to purchase my 600Hz plasma screen. Got it for
an incredible deal and the image quality and color reproduction (dark scenes
especially) are off the charts. These days other screens just can't compare
and, as the article mentions, nobody makes plasma any more.

~~~
nitrogen
That 600Hz number is basically meaningless. There is no 600Hz motion
interpolation being done; it's just an evil marketing trick.

That said, plasmas do have great color, but they also have motion trail
problems like CRTs and severe risk of burn in.

~~~
biot
Yep I'm well aware of burn-in issues. And the screen I have is just a dumb
monitor; it has no interpolation feature so the 600Hz claim is what the
display is theoretically capable of, though it's different from LCD refresh:

[http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-600hz/](http://www.cnet.com/news/what-
is-600hz/)

------
mrob
Low frame rate is the reason I can't take film seriously as an art form. It
seems to me utterly bizarre that people would choose a frame rate that can't
show realistic action scenes. Fight scenes have annoying foley sound effects
partly to compensate for the frame rate making fast movement invisible. And
camera work is severely limited - fast pans are near unwatchable. I've seen
60fps Showscan film and it's such a huge improvement I can't understand how
people could still argue for 24fps. It can only be "baby duck effect", where
people like something only because they grew up with it. Imagine if music
wasn't considered musical unless you listened to it from a wax cylinder.
Technology has moved on and we can do much better.

I realize that cost was an issue, but with digital production that's no longer
the case. And yes, it's true that higher frame rate exposes flaws in sets and
props, but that's no excuse to stick with low frame rate. The correct solution
is to improve those sets/props. 60fps should be considered the bare minimum.

~~~
rsl7
Art isn't about the technology. That you can't take it seriously says nothing
about the artists. Only that you don't understand it.

~~~
mrob
Deliberate limitations can facilitate art. The demoscene proves that. But what
if the entire demoscene collectively refused to use modern hardware? Or
insisted that only 1K demos are acceptable? Deliberate limitations are only
one tool an artist can use. The film industry has collectively decided to do
something equivalent to specializing in 1K demos and then denying that any
other types could be any good. This does not look like a carefully considered
artistic choice.

~~~
Animats
It's been tried. There's not just the "demoscene". There's Dogma.[1] There's a
Fisher-Price PixelVision film-making cult. They're all dead or tiny niches.
Probably the most limiting technique with a mainstream following is stop-
motion animation.

[1]
[http://www.economist.com/node/328590](http://www.economist.com/node/328590)

