Search options (Page 3 of 6)

Isnt "soap opera effect" simply the look of frame rates significantly higher than 24 FPS?
It even happens to material that is filmed in higher frame rates. For example "The Hobbit". People complained about "Soap Opera Effect" in it. Wasnt it filmed in 48FPS?

I recall people complained about "The Hobbit":

- It doesnt look like Hollywood Cinema, it looks like TV-series (Soap Operas). Explanation: Most TV Shows are US-American. Means, they are filmed at 30 FPS. Thats already higher than Cinema, wich is at 24 FPS. Also the interlacing of video works almost like some sort of frame blending, with the result that the FPS apears doubled.

- It doesnt look "professional", it looks like someone filmed it with a Home Video Camera. Explanation: Home Video Cameras are capable of shooting at 60 FPS for several years already. Even my smartphone can shoot at real 60 FPS (or Ultra HD at 30 FPS). People are used to the looks of 60FPS from their home made videos. So they think, thats the look of amateurish cheapness.

- professional filmmakers complained about: That doesnt look like a movie. It looks like beeing life at the set watching the actors life or like beeing at the theatre. Everything looks far too real, the magic is gone blabla no magical hollywood world but reality.... You start recognising that its all fake, because now you see that some things (Silicon masks and other stuff) dont move correctly, what you didnt at 24FPS. But at 60FPS all movement is crystal clear and you start seeing these things.

All those are not problems of "badly done HFR" or "interpolated HFR" (like some claim), its the problem of HFR and of the head of the people (their experience that professional movies are done at 24FPS and mothers film the first steps of their children in 60FPS, wich causes them to think: 24FPS looks = professional hollywood, 60FPS = cheap home made shit)

Yeah. Thats why I said "Fake interpolation" before.

The question remains, if blending frames to a screen refreshrate does actually anything if SVP already does real motion interpolation to screen refresh rate.

Because we are talking here about:
SVP turns 24 into screenrefreshrate, then madVR turns screenrefreshrate into screenrefreshrate and the TVs blending option turns screenrefreshrate once more into screenrefreshrate.

Not with the original question.  Just wondered why Frameinterpolation alone doesnt give a satisfying result and forces someone to fall back to an inferior (less effective but also much less hardware intensive) way of smoothing motions with some kind of fake-interpolation.
I personaly would have thought, stuff like madVR smooth motion or SVPs own one are just there for people whos hardware cant afford true frame interpolation or high FPS one. (say, real interpolation from 24 to 48 and then faking it (madVR or SVPs own one) from 48 to 60.

So I thought, maybe the SVP settings could be improved.

But what was the saying in homeopathy? "He, who heals, is right." You feel better with it. So its fine.

Hmm, thanks for pointing me to that possibility.
Could be interesting for some things.

Though its still rather limited. If I stream video from my home PC to the SP, I should be in reach of a WLAN connection. (my mobile contract has a traffic limit of 1GB/month with 7,5Mbit, after that slowed to 64kbit). Best would be, beeing at home with my local WLAN. But if I am at home, why would I stream video to a smartphone? Well, except if its say, something short from Youtube and I am on the WC. 

There is still some thing "in between" those.

"to small step 6-8" for example.

Uh. I must admid that I just NOW realised that you are talking about video CAPTURE and not playing video from a external HDD as I initially thought you try.

The CPU load I mentioned was the windows task manager numbers. (stutter at 60% windows task manager CPU load, thousands of dropped frames after a few seconds etc)
And it was by playing 1080p MKV, no real life video capture (no epxerience with this in modern times. Last time I experimented with video capturing into the computer was like 1999 when I used an old (maybe 80s) Sony Hi8 Camera over a TV-Card in a Desktop-PC for early Video Chat. 

@Jeff:
As long as it takes maximum 90 minutes  to copy a 90 minutes movie to that harddrive, the speed should be fast enough.

EDIT:
I imagine one exception. If that HDD is in use (because you download more stuff to that drive at the moment you watch the movie), then it MAY cause problems, depends on the speed you are downloading (More than 100Mbit etc) Maybe you are doing even more like moving stuff from one HDD to another AND downloading AND watching the movie, all from the same device...

In that case I would suggest to copy the movie you are actually watching to a physically different HDD, that is not in use atm. to watch it glitch free, while the other HDD work like hell.

Well Met, grid is not the topic. Settings is not the topic.
The topic is, why does the creator of shader 23 use shader 11 as basis. Why didnt he not use a 13, wich apears superior to 11.
In other words: I would like to see a new shader (shader 24 or whatever) that is a 23, but basing on 13 not on 11.

And I hped you would be gone already. ;-P

I just put the 2 images into photoshop and switched the visibility of one layer on and off..... the only thing in these 2 images that changes arevery few pixels at the edge of the dust shields, the rest is not "blinking" (means my eyes cant make out any difference). It apears identical.

Then I mixed them "difference" wise to check the difference. A few (very few) parts of the image differ at about 0,2-0,5%, most parts differ at 0%.

Uh but better stop, this is not the topic here.

I dont get what you want to tell me.

Look at those 2 pictures, they are virtually identical, except for those dustshields, wich have slightly lss aliasing (while other parts do have the very same crappy aliasing). I dont see the "Big improvement" that you seem to see.

Well, me neither. If I use DivX (or XVid) SD material and scale it up with madVR, no matter what scaling method, they all look like the same identical, total unwatchable crap, wich is only bearable on 16 inch laptop screen in 2m distance but not projected to the wall.

Best solution: Fuck SD, get HD material of everything, if possible. That means: Fuck DVD (SD Quality)

Oh yeah and...
Chroma channels are suposedly only 1/4 resolution of Luma (Picture) channel (to get smaller filesizes and chroma is for the colors only while Luma has the details). So they are ALLWAYS scaled. I would say I cant see a difference either if that chroma is scaled bilinear or jinc.

Of course. Its because EVR cant do anything better than bicubic scaling and, even if madVR is set to bicubic scaling aswell, it uses twice the GPU load of EVR. At least for me. (something like 50% GPU load with madVR and 25% GPU load with EVR with identical scaling method chosed)

But EVR has other issues for me (strange doubled tearing test line), thats why I use madVR.