VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and download streaming video, copy, convert or make Blu-rays,DVDs! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14
Thread
  1. Specifically the movie Phantasm Ravager. I own the Blu-ray and it's already at 23.976fps, but the entire movie has the crummy soap-opera motion interpolaton effect going on. Is there any methods/filters/etc that could be used to re-encode the movie so that this effect is at the least greatly reduced? It makes the movie nearly unwatchable.

    Thanks in advance.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Are you sure it's not from a setting on your TV? For example, in LG TV's many recommend turning off "TruMotion"
    Quote Quote  
  3. Originally Posted by davexnet View Post
    Are you sure it's not from a setting on your TV? For example, in LG TV's many recommend turning off "TruMotion"
    Thanks, but yes. I have turned that garbage off on every HDTV I've owned. Currently a Vizio P-55 with both Reduce Judder and Reduce Motion Blur disabled. It's common knowledge among fans of the Phantasm series that Ravager had a very heavy video look to it, even though it's 23.976fps. It was one of the main reasons people were unpleased with the movie.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    According to the IMDB, it was shot on HDCAM. Perhaps it's something to do with this, but if it really is 23.976 fps,
    then perhaps some other property of the video is to blame.
    My LG TV has a setting called Real Cinema. Does the Vizio have something similar?
    Quote Quote  
  5. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by D34DL1N3R View Post
    crummy soap-opera motion interpolaton effect
    Originally Posted by D34DL1N3R View Post
    I have turned that garbage off on every HDTV I've owned.
    I never understand this. Viewed at a large size, 55"+, the choppiness of 24p can be obvious, especially during any motion. I prefer the realistic fluidity of motion. In fact, the fluid motion is how a director saw this. For years now, stuff has been shot at 48p/60p, and only the home version is downsampled framerates.

    The bigger problem is most TV manufacturers suck at this filtering. Sony gets it right, while Samsung and LG fail. The Sony allows low/med/high settings, while the crappy ones are usually on/off. Tuned too high, those filters can screw up just as much as they fix. That's the real problem: filter quality, not the fac that the filters exist.

    Originally Posted by october262 View Post
    For every article bitching about it, you find one or more that supports it. I'm all in favor of preserving video, but something like this is just troglodytes who pine for CRT TVs for god-knows-why reasons.

    The term "soap opera effect" has never made any sense to me, as soap operas were not any smoother motion-wise. If anything, they were worse quality, more like VHS tapes, because they were usually shot on broadcast grade videotape (U-matic, D1, etc).
    Quote Quote  
  6. Ummmm. It's NOT my television. Lmfao. Everyone who has seen this movie complained about it. It's the way it was filmed. Why do people automatically think that because someone asks a question - that they are a completely clueless noob? The thread also wasn't about whether or not anyone else likes or dislikes motion interpolation or their opinion on it. I'm asking about a possible way to reduce the effect that is already present in the actual film itself, through re-encoding and the possible use of filters.

    Btw, the Vizio outclasses the Sony as far as motion/judder settings. They have a reduce judder setting that goes from 0-10, a separate reduce motion blur setting that goes from 0-10, and also a separate pure cinema setting for 24p content. Regardless... the thread isn't about that. Please keep tv settings and personal opinions out of it please. Answer with something pertaining to what my question is, or move along. Not being a jerk, just no need to post if it's not going to help my question.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Interframe(SVP) or FrameRateConverter with Avisynth,.. but those would add motion interpolation,..
    users currently on my ignore list: deadrats, Stears555
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by Selur View Post
    Interframe(SVP) or FrameRateConverter with Avisynth,.. but those would add motion interpolation,..
    Not sure how to work SVP to achieve my goal. Converting the frame-rate is something that can be done with a gazillion and one different apps, but lowering it to 20 may be the only solution. I don't know.
    Last edited by D34DL1N3R; 23rd Dec 2017 at 00:39.
    Quote Quote  
  9. I want the opposite of what Interframe does.
    -> sRestore
    users currently on my ignore list: deadrats, Stears555
    Quote Quote  
  10. Is it this one ? 5/10 rating ? Are you sure the visuals were the main reason people were "unpleased" ?
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3627704/

    Just joking...

    But seriously - maybe you're not describing it correctly ? If it's already 23.976 , maybe something else is going on? That's not what I would expect from the term "soap opera motion interpolation effect" which implies a higher frame rate, motion fluidity.

    The term "video look" makes more sense, and is maybe more applicable - but what characteristics specifically about the "video look"? Because the term "video look" can encompass about a dozen different things. Commonly it's used to contrast against the "film look" - but that can be interpreted to mean more than a dozen different things too... So what specifically is bugging you or do you want to do something about? I haven't seen the move and I doubt anyone here has either . Or maybe post a sample so people know what you're talking about.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    I have not seen this movie nor do I know how it was filmed other than with HDCAM. But if it was filmed at 24fps but does not have a long exposure time, then there won't be much motion blur to help transition from frame to frame. Usually film makers try to expose close to the 24fps, like 1/30th to 1/60th of a second exposure to capture most of the motion.

    If you are truly watching your Bluray @24fps without your TV interpolating extra frames, it's possible they shot it a really fast shutter speed. Especially if you say other people are reporting the same thing about this particular film.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I've seen a few comments on the net, one guy pointing out, that in his opinion, this kind of low budget movie looks better on film,
    and he attributes the soap opera effect due to the cheap digital camera's they used. Perhaps the "look" can be somewhat mitigated?
    What about adding some grain?
    http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3430926/don-coscarelli-sixth-phantasm-exclusive/
    Quote Quote  
  13. Shooting on video and high frame rate is a recipe for problems later. The movie can be converted to 24p to look theatrical - in THEORY. But most often than not no matter how hard you try its hard to make video/HFR footage look like a movie.

    Take the movie Hobbit which was shot in 48fps on video-ish equipment. Initial screenings showed that the audience hated it. So they converted it to 24fps for theatrical release but oh boy, does it look artificial or what! Bad move Mr Peter Jackson.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads