Why does 48 fps look like a soap opera?

Blackdanger said:
Thats just the real life effect. When LED Tv's first came out everyone was complaining that it was too realistic, didn't have that movie glaze in the image. People got used to it and LED's tv are selling like crazy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you can turn the effect off on an LED. I don't know a single person who watches their HDTV on maximum settings.

This 48fps thing won't catch on. When people aren't complaining about the cheap look of it, they're throwing up from motion sickness.
 
Soap Operas are, or were filmed on actual VHS tapes due to the frequency and speed of the shooting schedule. these tapes actually recorded at around 30 fps which is higher than the averages 24 fps that has been the standard forever (your home video recorders also filmed at these rates which is why it is also called the home movie effect). So, whenever they up the frame rate (like, lets say to 48 fps) you immediately associate it with a soap opera because, unknowingly to you, that is the only other time you have really seen something ran at above 24 fps.
 
I got used to it pretty quick but that first scene really messed with my eyes. Simple thing like hand movements seem so much faster.

I think it really improves the fighting scenes though. None of that blurry shaky mess you get in a lot of movies these days.
 
I thought it made everything smoother and a bit more realistic, honestly.
 
Spoken said:
I thought it made everything smoother and a bit more realistic, honestly.
Click to expand...

This is the entire idea. It's supposed to feel like you're watching through a window rather than film.
 
Yeah I hate this. We're not used to it yet.

It's like your behind scenes watching them film. It's too real.

I imagine we'll get used to it in time.
 
I don’t buy the whole “it’s better, but your eyes just have to get used to it” If it looks like cheap sci-fi or soap opera then it’s bad. I remember watching Fantastic 4 at a Best Buy once with the high framerate crap and it looked so cheap and the everything just looked odd. Background stuff that wasn’t supposed to be in focus looked sharp too.
 
I imagine this might be the norm eventually, and once everyone adjusts to it, it will b as common as HD.
 
shera said:
I don’t buy the whole “it’s better, but your eyes just have to get used to it” If it looks like cheap sci-fi or soap opera then it’s bad. I remember watching Fantastic 4 at a Best Buy once with the high framerate crap and it looked so cheap and the everything just looked odd. Background stuff that wasn’t supposed to be in focus looked sharp too.
Click to expand...
This is because your eye's acuity isn't intended to be as broad or deep as a filmscreen. If you look closely at THIS WORD, the words surrounding it aren't as sharp because your focus is so precise. It's surprising how tunnel-like our vision is without our realizing it. Peripheral vision helps.
 
My tv has the option to turn that off...watching batman looks stupid at that rate...looks like a bad halloween party
 
Someone made a thread recently about a motion-something option on TVs. It has basically the same effect. What you're seeing, I think, is more movements from the actors and more life-like environments. When we use the term life-like in movie discussion it usually means the opposite. Turning off motion control on my TV fixed the problem for me.
 
surf fu said:
Wth does a soap opera look like?
Click to expand...

Video, as in a video camera.

Film was shot at 24 fps because that's as low as film studios could go on the frames without films looking choppy.

That said, they created a happy accident and hit upon a golden formula. This new "anti-judder" movement strikes me as a group of gadflies, simply because 48 fps is not innovative.

As is pointed out on the previous page, our eyes can't focus on everything at once. Or try to look at one wall in a room and quickly turn your head to look at another wall. Your vision blurs because that's how our eyes work.
 
People are still confusing framerate with interpolation effects on modern TVs.

48fps appears life-like and smooth because it's double the rate of frames as standard film.

Interpolation is taking a movie or TV show and making the framerate APPEAR to be higher than it is thus creating a weird strobe like effect that some people enjoy (who are morons).

48fps is a problem because it's so smooth, it just simply looks like real life. It makes movies like "fake" as if they were just shot on a camcorder. 24fps was a happy accident because it gave film a slow, blurry, dream-like feeling that people have just gotten used to.

48fps is an improvement in every way but it's one of those things that everyone will have to get used to and may not catch on.

I think it's similar to when New Coke was released. It was taste tested and an improved formula but the public rejected it because it wasn't what they were used to.
 
Saw it in Imax 48FPS.

I must saw it looked off at first but to me the pros outweighed the cons. I've never seen 3d look that crisp and beautiful before. No weird motion blur that's usually associated with action sequences in 3D. It was amazing to look at.

The biggest difference the scenes where they show running water or a camp fire. You never see it looking that good before.

There definitely is a period of adjustment to get used to it though.
 
I'm pretty hyped to see this film due to the new technology.

Then I saw a sleigh with giant rabbits that made me think twice.
 
Explosion Man said:
I saw The Hobbit as soon as it came out and I enjoyed it immensely. I had read about it being filmed at 48 fps and I really had no idea what this would do, when the film first came on I couldn't put my finger on it but something was off, then I realised that it looked like a soap opera or a drama or sort of a documentary or news broadcast.

I think 48 fps added to some scenes like when the history of Erebal was shown, it gave it this look that made all the fantasy elements look real. However some scenes like when Frodo is talking to Bilbo looks really strange.

What I can say is I'm glad that there is a version in 24 fps as well, I think in general 24 fps is better suited but 48 fps is a great experience in itself.

Can someone explain to me why 48 fps looks like a soap opera or why soap operas look the way they do?
Click to expand...

Are you talking about that B movie look that you see in some syfy channel zombie flicks.
 
Auspex said:
This is the entire idea. It's supposed to feel like you're watching through a window rather than film.
Click to expand...

Probably the best way to describe it.

Like I said before, it was add at first but for some of the shots it was absolutely stunning
 
Because those medium moved forward with technology while the cinema industry stuck to 24fps for that classic "feel". That visual rhythm has to be violated in order to get a better image at the movies, and it's going to be just as weird as when movies first started being shot in digital, and green screens rose in prominence among special effects scenes.

Hyper-real looks fake. Ironic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,281,014
Messages
58,335,576
Members
176,003
Latest member
HeneryH

Share this page

Back
Top