DS9 on blu ray?
- Thread starter borgboy
- Start date
The soap opera effect is godawful. Let's take film and make it look like local TV news.
One of my friends who usually comes every Monday for home theatre night asks me each time to switch off the "soap opera effect" of my Optoma HD front projector (well, we agree to a lower setting of the frame interpolation). 
My reasoning on behalf of it:
My reasoning on behalf of it:
- Most of us are so conditioned to 24 fps that we don't appreciate a more natural 48+ fps representation
- What the directors saw through their camera viewfinders were images with a higher frame rate than 24 fps
I could see using it for sporting events, video games, things like that, but for a movie?
It's earned the name "soap opera effect" for a very specific reason.
It's earned the name "soap opera effect" for a very specific reason.
Film is supposed to have jutter.
I don't know how many directors watch what's being shot through a viewfinder. The ones I've seen are sitting in a chair sipping coffee. What they watch are the dailies, which is 24fps. 24fps is not a limitation, it is the way it is. If 48fps is "more natural", then audiences are not in agreement. Most of the reaction I read about the 48fps Hobbit was negative. "Looks like a video game"
First the talk was about chopping off part of the image to accommodate today's televisions, and now the talk is about fudging the frame rate to accommodate today's televisions. Yikes.
First the talk was about chopping off part of the image to accommodate today's televisions, and now the talk is about fudging the frame rate to accommodate today's televisions. Yikes.
Last edited:
Actually I was rather pleased with it; supposedly the frame rate change in that case was supposed to ease the burden that standard 24fps 3D film puts on the brain. In that case I think it succeeded, but I wouldn't want to see the 2D version presented that way.
From what I understood, that's it exactly. The 48fps supposedly works best for 3D, while in a normal 2D movie, it would make things look weird and videogame like. Not sure about that myself, since 48fps isn't that big over here yet, haven't seen a movie like that myself.
Let's not confuse footage that's actually shot and intended to be seen at a high framerate, which looks incredible, with footage that's shot at 24fps and then has a cheap TV scaler chip add a load of fake frames inbetween, which looks horrific. Jus' sayin'.
It's impossible to take a movie seriously when it looks like it was shot with an 80s video camcorder.Let's not confuse footage that's actually shot and intended to be seen at a high framerate, which looks incredible, with footage that's shot at 24fps and then has a cheap TV scaler chip add a load of fake frames inbetween, which looks horrific. Jus' sayin'.
Exactly. I went to see the Hobbit in 3D twice now knowing that it was shot at 48fps in 3D. All the other 3D films I've skipped, only to see "3D conversion by _____" in the credits? Haven't missed a thing.Let's not confuse footage that's actually shot and intended to be seen at a high framerate, which looks incredible, with footage that's shot at 24fps and then has a cheap TV scaler chip add a load of fake frames inbetween, which looks horrific. Jus' sayin'.
Same's true for framerate and motion smoothing.
It's spectacular in 2D 48 frames. With 2 exceptions.
Fast cut scenes, didn't look that great, and fake sets, really need huge level of detailing, otherwise the extra frames bring out the "fake ness" of movie making. For example, the worst set pieces were fake rocks. They looked well fake with 48 frames on 2D. But built wood sets, like a Bag End (which is an insanely detailed set, was really beautiful. But if you have exceptional detailing, or filming fully real things it was glorious.
Yes I am sick and tired of the constant references to "Enterprise" getting released in HD, like it's some big achievement.
All it had to do was show up to the game.
The work needed to get DS9 and Voyager to HD quality is enormous compared to the work that has been done on TNG-R, and just go back a few years to see how most people were skeptical there would even *be* an effort to get it done.
I think TNG-R sales are waning due to the fact that, the novelty of seeing TNG in HD has worn out in 3 Seasons of watching "the same old" (but in "HD").
Personally I think they should have reimagined the FX a little more and given TNG a bit more snappiness. As it is right now, it's the exact same scenes, frame by frame, but "HD"
Why "HD" in quotation marks? It is HD!
What did you expect from a remaster?
I always spot a slight judder in the second DS9 titles, when the camera swings past the ship docked on the outer docking ring
Let's not confuse footage that's actually shot and intended to be seen at a high framerate, which looks incredible, with footage that's shot at 24fps and then has a cheap TV scaler chip add a load of fake frames inbetween, which looks horrific. Jus' sayin'.
Most of the surviving 60s Doctor Whos were shot on videotape, but only survive due to the film telerecordings made for selling overseas. They've all been professionally restored to their video look and look amazing. It really breaths new life into them.
And another can of worms: IIRC, in the UK, Europe, Australia and other PAL territories we got an extra judder effect "thanks" to the NTSC > PAL conversion.
Would trade my PAL DVDs instantly for their NTSC counterparts (but keep the nice, solid TNG "field equipment" boxes we got in the PAL territories
).Bob
And another can of worms: IIRC, in the UK, Europe, Australia and other PAL territories we got an extra judder effect "thanks" to the NTSC > PAL conversion.
Would trade my PAL DVDs instantly for their NTSC counterparts (but keep the nice, solid TNG "field equipment" boxes we got in the PAL territories
Not usually - the NTSC-PAL conversion they did sped it up (by 4%), but removed the juddering artifacts of playing a 24p signal at 30 frames/second. There might be some judder on stuff shot at 30p, but that's the minority of the footage.
Similar threads
