Why does conversion to 60p add video look?

[brassplyer]

From what I understand this Youtube user converts clips to 60p - it imparts a video look to the clips. I realize it was created digitally in the first place including any live shots, but I saw this in the theater and don't recall it looking like this. I.e. it alters the original "film" look. What causes this?





Might be more obvious in this clip.

[_Al_]

because it looks too real, as if you recorded it yourself with videocamcorder 60fps or 30i
our brain takes 60fps as well enough, fluid, as if you see it really happening in front of you, like in real world
movies with 24p cannot fool our brain that it is real, we are just used to it, it adds sort of outworldy look - film look

[LMotlow]

It's because of filtering and low-bitrate encoding, which loses a great deal of the original atmospherics and detail. In other words, it's been transformed from art to plastic crap. Par for the internet.

[KarMa]

You are talking about the Soap Opera Effect, even with this recreated 60fps with interpolation and blending from a 24fps source. Also seems like the motion blur has been reduced from the 24fps source, which is a big part of the film look. The fake plastic look of CGI is usually well camouflaged these days with motionblur, but with that blur reduced it seems to not look so good and seemless anymore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation#Soap_opera_effect

[JVRaines]

Video has always had higher temporal resolution than film. Analog TV used interlacing to achieve 60 half-updates per second, yielding far smoother motion than sound film at 24 fps. The "film look" is an antiquarian peccadillo.

[LMotlow]

You folks will have to forgive JVraines and the antiquarian b.s. He hasn't been around very long (atleast, he acts that way sometimes), his parents never took him to a movie theater where original film is shown. Also doesn't see too well and never noticed that film has a greater contrast range, a greater chroma range, and infinitely more resolution than HD digital video, which itself has about 20 to 30 percent if an equivalent film scene's innards thrown away and untold numeric rounding errors that prevents digital video from ever approaching real-life color accuracy. The film look is a lot more than visual data reduced to pixels. Fortunately film originals still live in many active places and activities that JVRaines will never ever see in his lifetime because of a contemptt for anything more than 15 minutes behind him.

Damn, this is really getting to be one damn depressing forum.

[pandy]

You folks will have to forgive JVraines and the antiquarian b.s. He hasn't been around very long (atleast, he acts that way sometimes), his parents never took him to a movie theater where original film is shown. Also doesn't see too well and never noticed that film has a greater contrast range, a greater chroma range, and infinitely more resolution than HD digital video, which itself has about 20 to 30 percent if an equivalent film scene's innards thrown away and untold numeric rounding errors that prevents digital video from ever approaching real-life color accuracy. The film look is a lot more than visual data reduced to pixels. Fortunately film originals still live in many active places and activities that JVRaines will never ever see in his lifetime because of a contemptt for anything more than 15 minutes behind him.

Damn, this is really getting to be one damn depressing forum.

Well... allow me to be same patronizing as you was - obviously you didn't understood JVRaines... he used term temporal resolution which is main difference between cinema and video. This term describe how frequently frames are acquired over time and describe how accurately motion is sampled and it doesn't have anything common with compression, details i.e. spatial resolution etc as you wrote, and yes, fully agree with you - reading messages like yours can be depressing - pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.