A Rant About The "Soap Opera Effect"

[Robert-The-Rambler]

I can't stand reading on various forums and customer reviews the people who are turned off by the Soap Opera effect caused by 120hz technology in HDTVs. When you see things in the real world do things ever judder? When something passes by you do things blur? I can't stand people calling 120hz motionflow or whatever name given to interpolation more artificial than the 24hz frame rate on a 60hz display. 24 Frames per second is just not fast enough. For me a smooth fast moving image is a lot more realistic than awful judderific 24 FPS. I watched Avatar in 2D on my 42" 120hz LCD HDTV with full blast interpolation and the experience was better than in 3D at the theater and a whole lot brighter. It just moved so smooth. I was over at Bestbuy the other day and I tested some 3D glasses with Avatar at the store and it was laughable watching 3D at such a pathetic frame rate. I can't stand the judder and it doesn't look real.

Titanic is notorious for having some of the worst judder in the business during the scene when the ship first goes out to see. Do you really want to see that crap judder and stutter as the ship horizontally goes across the screen from left to right? HDTVs with 120hz are adjustable so if the motion seems to fast for a particular film or game or whatever you can slow it down in increments. But why you would want to have it off for anything other than twitch gaming I have no understanding of the thought process at all. Those that turn off 120hz entirely should be turning on the motionflow in their brain.

[Mr Peabody]

The reason "videophiles" seem to be against 120 or 240 Hz is it takes the "grain" effect out of films. I don't think any one minds judder or other negative effects being smoothed. When watching movies the goal seems to be to make it look like in the theater.

It may also depend on the set up or system. Avatar looks more realistic on my older DLP and Marantz BDP than it did on my friend's 240Hz Samsung playing through a PS3. His system made the movie look more like a video game, not sure if that was the fault of the
PS3 or the 240Hz effect.

[Robert-The-Rambler]

The reason "videophiles" seem to be against 120 or 240 Hz is it takes the "grain" effect out of films. I don't think any one minds judder or other negative effects being smoothed. When watching movies the goal seems to be to make it look like in the theater.

It may also depend on the set up or system. Avatar looks more realistic on my older DLP and Marantz BDP than it did on my friend's 240Hz Samsung playing through a PS3. His system made the movie look more like a video game, not sure if that was the fault of the
PS3 or the 240Hz effect.

Its funny how people have such different goals. I want the movie to look more real and I don't even want to try to emulate the theater experience; I want to exceed it.

Watching Avatar "too fast" is a little bit dizzying. I tend to be on the fence with my TV whether the normal setting or high setting is best for interpolation. Sometimes I think the motion enhancement is too aggressive and it is akin to watching the movie after drinking a gallon of coffee.

It was probably the 240hz that was the culprit since after the BLU RAY transfers the data the ball is in the TVs court. Largely the players are going to be similar. The processing on the TVs is going to vary based on the power of the processor in the TV.

I really like DLP. It is unfortunate that the bulbs burn out so quickly. With LED backlights lasting 100000 hours that tech hasn't got a chance without a major overhall and even then it might be too late.

[Woochifer]

I think you're getting some of the concepts mixed up here. The 120/240 Hz screen refresh are fine for judder reduction. Using a 120/240 Hz display and applying a whole number 5:5 or 10:10 frame repeat does a pretty good job of reducing the film judder and preserving the original image integrity.

The primary issue that reviewers (and myself) have brought up is what the motion interpolation (separate feature from the higher native display refresh rate, but typically sold as a package) does to the original image. Unlike with 5:5 or 10:10 frame repeating (or even 3:2 pulldown on 60 Hz TVs), motion interpolation uses the video processor to "fill in the gaps" when translating a 24 FPS film source to a 120/240 Hz display.

On a 120 Hz TV with the motion interpolation turned on, this means that 4 out of every 5 frames displayed on the TV were artificially filled in by the video processor, not native to the source. That creates the "soap opera effect" -- making something originally shot on a 35/70mm film camera look like it was created on a cheap camcorder. It might smooth out the panning shots, but it also washes out a lot of the fine detail and completely changes the look and feel of a movie.

The perspective that most professional reviewers come from is that theatrical presentation is the reference standard. And that's also the reference that movie directors and cinematographers come from as well. Everything in the production and post production chain is optimized around what the movie looks like in the theater. And in most cases, that holds true for the home video versions as well.

HD and Blu-ray represent the first opportunity for consumers to actually get close to the resolution of 35mm film and see more of what's actually on the film negative. If you peruse through several home theater boards, you'd see that there's a raging debate going on right now about film grain. Blu-ray and HD have the bandwidth and resolution to display the grain without haloing and other visible compression artifacts. DVD did not have sufficient resolution, so noise reduction got applied. Some people like DNR because it smooths out the image. But, it also represents another layer of abstraction away from what's on the original film negative.

Having grown up in SoCal, I was fortunate to live close to several showcase theaters that the studios used for their screenings. These theaters would regularly screen 70mm prints and occasionally show 70mm prints for older movies. For me, that's the look and feel that I aim for in setting up and calibrating my TV. With movies like Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now or Lawrence of Arabia, the film grain and other fine details are an essential element in the cinematography. I've seen what movies like those are supposed to look like on the big screen -- and motion interpolation looks nothing like that.

Heavy-handed video processing, like what you see with motion interpolation, washes out the cinematography and adds its own layering to the image, outside of what the director and cinematographer originally intended. THAT'S why you see so much criticism of the soap opera effect. With Blu-ray and a HDTV, I can finally get close to the sublime experience of a 70mm screening of Blade Runner in my living room. Why would I want to mess with that?

[Mr Peabody]

The DLP bulbs got a bad rap from the manufacturers apparently using cheaper or inferior bulbs. My original burnt out alarmingly fast and I even started a thread about it, I'm still using the same replacement bulb today. I would have to check to see the exact year I purchased my DLP but the replacement bulb has lasted 3 to 4 times as long as the original so far. Knocking on wood :)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think you're getting some of the concepts mixed up here. The 120/240 Hz screen refresh are fine for judder reduction. Using a 120/240 Hz display and applying a whole number 5:5 or 10:10 frame repeat does a pretty good job of reducing the film judder and preserving the original image integrity.

The primary issue that reviewers (and myself) have brought up is what the motion interpolation (separate feature from the higher native display refresh rate, but typically sold as a package) does to the original image. Unlike with 5:5 or 10:10 frame repeating (or even 3:2 pulldown on 60 Hz TVs), motion interpolation uses the video processor to "fill in the gaps" when translating a 24 FPS film source to a 120/240 Hz display.

On a 120 Hz TV with the motion interpolation turned on, this means that 4 out of every 5 frames displayed on the TV were artificially filled in by the video processor, not native to the source. That creates the "soap opera effect" -- making something originally shot on a 35/70mm film camera look like it was created on a cheap camcorder. It might smooth out the panning shots, but it also washes out a lot of the fine detail and completely changes the look and feel of a movie.

The perspective that most professional reviewers come from is that theatrical presentation is the reference standard. And that's also the reference that movie directors and cinematographers come from as well. Everything in the production and post production chain is optimized around what the movie looks like in the theater. And in most cases, that holds true for the home video versions as well.

HD and Blu-ray represent the first opportunity for consumers to actually get close to the resolution of 35mm film and see more of what's actually on the film negative. If you peruse through several home theater boards, you'd see that there's a raging debate going on right now about film grain. Blu-ray and HD have the bandwidth and resolution to display the grain without haloing and other visible compression artifacts. DVD did not have sufficient resolution, so noise reduction got applied. Some people like DNR because it smooths out the image. But, it also represents another layer of abstraction away from what's on the original film negative.

Having grown up in SoCal, I was fortunate to live close to several showcase theaters that the studios used for their screenings. These theaters would regularly screen 70mm prints and occasionally show 70mm prints for older movies. For me, that's the look and feel that I aim for in setting up and calibrating my TV. With movies like Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now or Lawrence of Arabia, the film grain and other fine details are an essential element in the cinematography. I've seen what movies like those are supposed to look like on the big screen -- and motion interpolation looks nothing like that.

Heavy-handed video processing, like what you see with motion interpolation, washes out the cinematography and adds its own layering to the image, outside of what the director and cinematographer originally intended. THAT'S why you see so much criticism of the soap opera effect. With Blu-ray and a HDTV, I can finally get close to the sublime experience of a 70mm screening of Blade Runner in my living room. Why would I want to mess with that?

Thank you for clearing this up, because if you didn't, I sure would have!

Reviewers and the video press have done a piss poor job at provided the detailed information on refresh rates and judder reduction algorithms in televisions.

[Robert-The-Rambler]

Thank you for clearing this up, because if you didn't, I sure would have!

Reviewers and the video press have done a piss poor job at provided the detailed information on refresh rates and judder reduction algorithms in televisions.

Damn what was originally intended. I think a compromise between some sort of interpolation and the original source is maintained by not running the interpolation at its highest setting. I do wish companies would explain a little bit more about how their magical motionflow works. Why the hell can't a movie be filmed at 60fps? It is 2010 afterall and not 1910.

A 120hz TV this day and age is nothing special without interpolaton since they are only able to accept a max of 60hz inputs. Not sure if even the 3D sets are able to even do 2D at true 120hz input. Most HDTVs are not going to be able to do anything better without the motionflow.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Damn what was originally intended. I think a compromise between some sort of interpolation and the original source is maintained by not running the interpolation at its highest setting. I do wish companies would explain a little bit more about how their magical motionflow works. Why the hell can't a movie be filmed at 60fps? It is 2010 afterall and not 1910.

The bottom line is it would cost a fortune to do this. Showscan runs at 48fps, and it costs a bundle to make films for that format.


A 120hz TV this day and age is nothing special without interpolaton since they are only able to accept a max of 60hz inputs. Not sure if even the 3D sets are able to even do 2D at true 120hz input. Most HDTVs are not going to be able to do anything better without the motionflow.

The new 3D sets can do 2D at true 120hz. I have a 120hz set, and I don't use motion interpolation. 120hz refresh rate does a good of removing motion judder without the need of interpolation.

[SlumpBuster]

Ignant guy alert! (that would be me)

Sorry if this seems to ignant, but as soon as I read "soap opera effect" I got the idea of what it is, but I don't think I've ever seen it. Then I got really confused as I read the whole thread. My TV claims a refresh rate of 600hz. What does that mean? Or am I just drowning in the deep end here?

EDIT: I think I just figured it out. You guys are talking about LED-LCD, ect. My display is a plasma. Is this not an issue that affects plasma?

[SlumpBuster]

Nevermind, done googled it and done figured it out. While I've spent months agonizing over a new cartridge for my turntable, my HDTV research prior to purchase was limited to going to Best Buy, looking at the wall, and pointing while saying "That one." So now I have a cursory knowledge of refresh rates.

[Woochifer]

Ignant guy alert! (that would be me)

Sorry if this seems to ignant, but as soon as I read "soap opera effect" I got the idea of what it is, but I don't think I've ever seen it. Then I got really confused as I read the whole thread. My TV claims a refresh rate of 600hz. What does that mean? Or am I just drowning in the deep end here?

EDIT: I think I just figured it out. You guys are talking about LED-LCD, ect. My display is a plasma. Is this not an issue that affects plasma?

Just a quick note about that 600 Hz figure. That refers to the subfield processing speed. Basically, it's a form of frame repeating, except it occurs at the pixel level. This is an artifact of how plasma sets flash the individual pixels, nothing more than advertising jargon. The refresh rate for the whole frames is still 60 Hz (except for those plasma sets that have a mode that allows for viewing in even multiples of 24 FPS, i.e. 48, 72, 96, or 120 Hz).

With the soap opera effect, it boils down to smoothing out the motion by making something shot on film look like it was done on a video camera. IMO, it cheapens and degrades the cinematography, and makes the image as a whole look fake. As mentioned, you see this on 120/240 Hz sets that have the motion interpolation feature switched on. You'll know it when you see it. Some people like that effect, others (particularly those who use the original theatrical projection as their reference) hate it.

[Robert-The-Rambler]

Just a quick note about that 600 Hz figure. That refers to the subfield processing speed. Basically, it's a form of frame repeating, except it occurs at the pixel level. This is an artifact of how plasma sets flash the individual pixels, nothing more than advertising jargon. The refresh rate for the whole frames is still 60 Hz (except for those plasma sets that have a mode that allows for viewing in even multiples of 24 FPS, i.e. 48, 72, 96, or 120 Hz).

With the soap opera effect, it boils down to smoothing out the motion by making something shot on film look like it was done on a video camera. IMO, it cheapens and degrades the cinematography, and makes the image as a whole look fake. As mentioned, you see this on 120/240 Hz sets that have the motion interpolation feature switched on. You'll know it when you see it. Some people like that effect, others (particularly those who use the original theatrical projection as their reference) hate it.

If you like the idea of "motionflow" depending on your TV it may introduce more problems than you have with judder and studder in the original source. Last night I was watching Incredible Hulk on Bluray and it had more problems with Insignia DCM on then with it turned off. Every time there was motion it would stutter as it tried to move fast and I could see the artifacts. So as long as it works it "may" enhance the experience but it is not guaranteed to work well all the time. I'm sure a higher quality TV with a more powerfull processor might help but I'm not convinced that any reasononable priced TV can outperform a HTPC with an I7 and an I7 with help from ATI Stream or Nvidia Cuda has a lot of trouble interpolating frames for HD content. Something must not be the same the way Cyberlink uses frame interpolating in PoweDVD 9 and 10 that makes it only supported for DVD use. Afterall it seems to look better and work smoother than TVs interpolating to 120hz. Cyberlink's DVD Tru Motion @ 60hz works really well.

[SlumpBuster]

Thanks for the reply Wooch. Even some stuff I read from Panasonic stated that it was
a marketing term designed to give plasma shoppers something to compare LED-LCD to. A savvy reader will see that Panny acknowledges 60hz as the actual maximum frame speed.

[Robert-The-Rambler]

Thanks for the reply Wooch. Even some stuff I read from Panasonic stated that it was
a marketing term designed to give plasma shoppers something to compare LED-LCD to. A savvy reader will see that Panny acknowledges 60hz as the actual maximum frame speed.


I convinced my dad to give the Panasonic TCP50S2 a try for our living room and my god 60hz on a plasma is not at all like an LCD at any hertz. We got a sick deal at Sears after they sold us a shoddy Toshiba 46" 120hz LCD that was DOA. As a courtesy they gave us an additional 10% off any TV we chose and we wound up getting the Panasonic for just $678 plus tax. That price is better than the leaked Black Friday deal. It is simply astounding with motion clarity and football is just an otherworldly experience. It is like sitting in the bleachers at the game. I watched my Jets survive against the Browns and I watched the Giants lose to the friggin Cowboys mesmerized. Particularily during the Giants game when they switched a higher up view of the field it looked like you were really there in the bleachers. From about 15 - 20 feet away it is simply clear. The Eagles right now are up 42 - 14 over the Redskins late in the second quarter. It is so bright and vibrant. I am firmly in the Plasma camp. It simply is far superior in image quality. The power consumption is rated at 353 watts which is fine for me. Down with LCD. Go plasma!!!!!!!

[Northcoaster101]

I think you're getting some of the concepts mixed up here. The 120/240 Hz screen refresh are fine for judder reduction. Using a 120/240 Hz display and applying a whole number 5:5 or 10:10 frame repeat does a pretty good job of reducing the film judder and preserving the original image integrity.

The primary issue that reviewers (and myself) have brought up is what the motion interpolation (separate feature from the higher native display refresh rate, but typically sold as a package) does to the original image. Unlike with 5:5 or 10:10 frame repeating (or even 3:2 pulldown on 60 Hz TVs), motion interpolation uses the video processor to "fill in the gaps" when translating a 24 FPS film source to a 120/240 Hz display.

On a 120 Hz TV with the motion interpolation turned on, this means that 4 out of every 5 frames displayed on the TV were artificially filled in by the video processor, not native to the source. That creates the "soap opera effect" -- making something originally shot on a 35/70mm film camera look like it was created on a cheap camcorder. It might smooth out the panning shots, but it also washes out a lot of the fine detail and completely changes the look and feel of a movie.

The perspective that most professional reviewers come from is that theatrical presentation is the reference standard. And that's also the reference that movie directors and cinematographers come from as well. Everything in the production and post production chain is optimized around what the movie looks like in the theater. And in most cases, that holds true for the home video versions as well.

HD and Blu-ray represent the first opportunity for consumers to actually get close to the resolution of 35mm film and see more of what's actually on the film negative. If you peruse through several home theater boards, you'd see that there's a raging debate going on right now about film grain. Blu-ray and HD have the bandwidth and resolution to display the grain without haloing and other visible compression artifacts. DVD did not have sufficient resolution, so noise reduction got applied. Some people like DNR because it smooths out the image. But, it also represents another layer of abstraction away from what's on the original film negative.

Having grown up in SoCal, I was fortunate to live close to several showcase theaters that the studios used for their screenings. These theaters would regularly screen 70mm prints and occasionally show 70mm prints for older movies. For me, that's the look and feel that I aim for in setting up and calibrating my TV. With movies like Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now or Lawrence of Arabia, the film grain and other fine details are an essential element in the cinematography. I've seen what movies like those are supposed to look like on the big screen -- and motion interpolation looks nothing like that.

Heavy-handed video processing, like what you see with motion interpolation, washes out the cinematography and adds its own layering to the image, outside of what the director and cinematographer originally intended. THAT'S why you see so much criticism of the soap opera effect. With Blu-ray and a HDTV, I can finally get close to the sublime experience of a 70mm screening of Blade Runner in my living room. Why would I want to mess with that?
Woochifer, I'm new at all this and know a lot more about religious history and Bible criticism and hardly a thing about electronics. Your explanation is helpful. I have a follow-up question. I just bought a Samsung UN55D6050TF "Smart" 55" TV and was struck right away--negatively--by the soap opera effect. Its feature that fills in frames--if I understand it correctly and relate it to what you wrote--is called "Auto Motion Plus." Options under it are Standard, Blur Reduction, and Jutter Reduction. In picture adjustments it also has "Film Mode" that includes Film 1 and Film 2 options with no explanations. I can Google these. What I don't understand is how these relate to the 24 frames per second that I keep reading films are shot at. When you are watching films on your TV, are you watching them at 24 fps? Do you know how I get there with this TV?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Woochifer, I'm new at all this and know a lot more about religious history and Bible criticism and hardly a thing about electronics. Your explanation is helpful. I have a follow-up question. I just bought a Samsung UN55D6050TF "Smart" 55" TV and was struck right away--negatively--by the soap opera effect. Its feature that fills in frames--if I understand it correctly and relate it to what you wrote--is called "Auto Motion Plus." Options under it are Standard, Blur Reduction, and Jutter Reduction. In picture adjustments it also has "Film Mode" that includes Film 1 and Film 2 options with no explanations. I can Google these. What I don't understand is how these relate to the 24 frames per second that I keep reading films are shot at. When you are watching films on your TV, are you watching them at 24 fps? Do you know how I get there with this TV?

The answer to your last question depends on the source. If it is DVD, you are watching 30fps. If it is Bluray, you are watching 24fps. If it is television, you are watching 30fps.

All you have to do is connect a Bluray player and set it to output 24fps to the set.

[canuckle]

As soon as Hollywood starts producing movies on $100 camcorders that look like total crap, I will accept that material in my living room should look the same. Until then, no frame interpolation for me. Why anyone would purposely make their TV image lose all of its artistic beauty is baffling.