HD TV & "looks fake"
-
- Posts: 49034
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
HD TV & "looks fake"
For various reasons, I have not had a TV in a long time. We stream programmes and watch them on the laptop (or, shock horror, use DVDs -- it's quite an old laptop).
I was in a North American hotel recently, which had what I took to be a very up to date, high definition TV. Usual 30 cable channels with nothing to watch except the odd old episode of Star Trek (The Original Series).
And things looked .. horrible. The regular (new) TV shows.
TCM (Turner Channel Movies) the movies looked different - All the President's Men (1974?). Not worse, however, just different. Some of the shots (eg the canonical shots of the busy Washington Post newsroom) looked better.
I am trying to decide what it was that I am seeing that I found difficult. I think it is that there is much higher resolution, so the foreground characters are seen in a detail that they were never filmed at? So for example the makeup really shows. Also, however the backgrounds looked somehow detached from the foreground.
I am trying to discover whether this is a "me" thing-- not staying up to date with technology. Or whether there is something about the higher resolution and/or depth perception of the shows and films I was watching - they weren't filmed in that high a definition, and so when shown in it, they just don't look right?
(I learned that with the problem of not being able to hear dialogue in films in theatres, it is not just "my old ears". It's become a quite noticeable problem for many movie goers).
I was in a North American hotel recently, which had what I took to be a very up to date, high definition TV. Usual 30 cable channels with nothing to watch except the odd old episode of Star Trek (The Original Series).
And things looked .. horrible. The regular (new) TV shows.
TCM (Turner Channel Movies) the movies looked different - All the President's Men (1974?). Not worse, however, just different. Some of the shots (eg the canonical shots of the busy Washington Post newsroom) looked better.
I am trying to decide what it was that I am seeing that I found difficult. I think it is that there is much higher resolution, so the foreground characters are seen in a detail that they were never filmed at? So for example the makeup really shows. Also, however the backgrounds looked somehow detached from the foreground.
I am trying to discover whether this is a "me" thing-- not staying up to date with technology. Or whether there is something about the higher resolution and/or depth perception of the shows and films I was watching - they weren't filmed in that high a definition, and so when shown in it, they just don't look right?
(I learned that with the problem of not being able to hear dialogue in films in theatres, it is not just "my old ears". It's become a quite noticeable problem for many movie goers).
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
This is the soap opera effect because of some processing. You can turn it off.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Were you standing in front of the TV or sitting on the end of the bed when noticing this phenomenon?
Larger TVs usually need to be viewed at a distance, my TV looks weird if I get too close.
Larger TVs usually need to be viewed at a distance, my TV looks weird if I get too close.
Bad spellers of the world untie |
Autocorrect is my worst enema
-
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:46 pm
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
It sounds like the TV may have had motion smoothing on. Many TVs come with it on by default, and it looks terrible.
https://www.vulture.com/article/how-to- ... ur-tv.html
https://www.vulture.com/article/how-to- ... ur-tv.html
-
- Posts: 49034
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
-
- Posts: 49034
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Thank you. I shall investigate.Millennial wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 6:41 am It sounds like the TV may have had motion smoothing on. Many TVs come with it on by default, and it looks terrible.
https://www.vulture.com/article/how-to- ... ur-tv.html
-
- Posts: 49034
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
That might be part of it, but I hadn't noticed it, staying at that hotel, in previous years.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Sounds like a “me” thing.
Vanguard/Fidelity | 76% US Stock | 16% Int'l Stock | 8% Cash
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Most tvs have the brightness set way too high and things look very unrealistic compared to real life.
Older shows sometimes are stretched to fill a tv screen instead of being letter boxed and proportions are inaccurate.
Depending on the provider often various compressing methods are used to reduce bandwidth and things get a bit messed up. One reason why a simple antenna to receive over the air channels provide the best picture if where you live receives OTA channels.
Older shows sometimes are stretched to fill a tv screen instead of being letter boxed and proportions are inaccurate.
Depending on the provider often various compressing methods are used to reduce bandwidth and things get a bit messed up. One reason why a simple antenna to receive over the air channels provide the best picture if where you live receives OTA channels.
----------------------------- |
If you think something is important and it doesn't involve the health of someone, think again. Life goes too fast, enjoy it and be nice.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
There are at least dozens of settings which could cause the picture to look bad which a prior guest, or there kids, may have changed.
The hotel may have been using a cheaper cable system which was not giving the TV a high resolution image. Those would look much worse than the DVD or streaming that you have been watching on your laptop.
Older shows like the original Star Trek series were shot to fit the old style TV screen shape which had a 4:3 aspect ratio which was almost square and the new HD TVs are much wider with a 16 x 9 aspect ratio. This means that show an old Star Trek show on a HD TV they will need to either leave black bars on the since of the TV screen or stretch the image to fit which looks odd at best.
The old special effects on a show like Star Trek were made to be shown on maybe a 25 to 32 inch standard resolution TV and they also do not hold up well when shown in high resolution on a huge HD TV. This can also be a problem with makeup like you mentioned.
Even at in a stores showroom the TVs often look terrible to me because they sometimes intentionally set the color saturation too high to make the demonstration images "pop" and stand out which looks unnatural.
The hotel may have been using a cheaper cable system which was not giving the TV a high resolution image. Those would look much worse than the DVD or streaming that you have been watching on your laptop.
Older shows like the original Star Trek series were shot to fit the old style TV screen shape which had a 4:3 aspect ratio which was almost square and the new HD TVs are much wider with a 16 x 9 aspect ratio. This means that show an old Star Trek show on a HD TV they will need to either leave black bars on the since of the TV screen or stretch the image to fit which looks odd at best.
The old special effects on a show like Star Trek were made to be shown on maybe a 25 to 32 inch standard resolution TV and they also do not hold up well when shown in high resolution on a huge HD TV. This can also be a problem with makeup like you mentioned.
Even at in a stores showroom the TVs often look terrible to me because they sometimes intentionally set the color saturation too high to make the demonstration images "pop" and stand out which looks unnatural.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
I don't think it's you, I agree with those saying it was the TV settings.
I have an OLED TV. and the picture quality is awesome. However when taking delivery of a new TV, I know to turn off all video processing designed to "improve" the picture, and to set the brightness/contrast/etc profile to the correct profile. On most TV's "cinema" is a good profile.
I have in the past received a brand new, very expensive TV, and found the quality out of the box to be horrible. Corrected in seconds by making the aforementioned changes. (Can't remember if it was my current one or the previous that made such a bad first impression.)
I have an OLED TV. and the picture quality is awesome. However when taking delivery of a new TV, I know to turn off all video processing designed to "improve" the picture, and to set the brightness/contrast/etc profile to the correct profile. On most TV's "cinema" is a good profile.
I have in the past received a brand new, very expensive TV, and found the quality out of the box to be horrible. Corrected in seconds by making the aforementioned changes. (Can't remember if it was my current one or the previous that made such a bad first impression.)
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52215
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
We don't watch a lot of TV. About half of it is over-the-air digital, great when the channel is actually HDTV. (The rest is streaming Internet video via WiFi from a 300 mbps service, and we see lots of defects in that and don't care about them).
Our kids have Comcast, i.e. this isn't in a hotel, and what I notice on it, often, is "plastic skin." The characters look just a little bit like dolls, or airbrushed, or ten-year-old CGI. I assume it is come kind of compression artifact and that it comes from compression that is much cleverer than the kind that creates pixellation and blockiness. But I don't know. It's confusing because the "plastic skin" only occurs in between all kinds of sharp little details. It's as if it is saying "we mustn't remove spots, but we don't need to reproduce the pores in between?"
But of course hotels are not the best. I remember many eons ago, late 1950s, when color TV was still a luxury, staying in a hotel in New York--the Tuscany--which apparently still exists--which bragged of having color TV in every room. (Before that become a "motel thing.") Big, heavy, 21" RCA TVs with circular-tube-with-top-and-bottom-sliced-off, and a screen that looked pale grey before you turned the TV on. The best things on it were watching the colored confetti snow between stations, and cartoons (where you didn't really care that the flesh tones were purple on one side of the screen and green on the other). On live TV, everything had the R, G, and B images out of register, and the color balance would have gross changes from program to commercial and next program. It was great!
Our kids have Comcast, i.e. this isn't in a hotel, and what I notice on it, often, is "plastic skin." The characters look just a little bit like dolls, or airbrushed, or ten-year-old CGI. I assume it is come kind of compression artifact and that it comes from compression that is much cleverer than the kind that creates pixellation and blockiness. But I don't know. It's confusing because the "plastic skin" only occurs in between all kinds of sharp little details. It's as if it is saying "we mustn't remove spots, but we don't need to reproduce the pores in between?"
But of course hotels are not the best. I remember many eons ago, late 1950s, when color TV was still a luxury, staying in a hotel in New York--the Tuscany--which apparently still exists--which bragged of having color TV in every room. (Before that become a "motel thing.") Big, heavy, 21" RCA TVs with circular-tube-with-top-and-bottom-sliced-off, and a screen that looked pale grey before you turned the TV on. The best things on it were watching the colored confetti snow between stations, and cartoons (where you didn't really care that the flesh tones were purple on one side of the screen and green on the other). On live TV, everything had the R, G, and B images out of register, and the color balance would have gross changes from program to commercial and next program. It was great!
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Although old TV shows make look bad due to the resolution they were filmed with, there's no reason movies should look particularly bad. Footage on film can be rescanned at modern resolutions.
On Youtube you can see some scenes from a recently digitalised version of "Zulu" where the picture quality is, in some senses, awesome. In addition to a high resolution and frame rate, from memory I think they've digitally removed all the blemishes to make it an improvement on the film source. But some people do complain they've overdone the processing. The immaculate redness of the soldiers uniforms does sometimes look a bit unrealistic!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPegFguqR8o
On Youtube you can see some scenes from a recently digitalised version of "Zulu" where the picture quality is, in some senses, awesome. In addition to a high resolution and frame rate, from memory I think they've digitally removed all the blemishes to make it an improvement on the film source. But some people do complain they've overdone the processing. The immaculate redness of the soldiers uniforms does sometimes look a bit unrealistic!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPegFguqR8o
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
I believe this is because of the new TV refresh rates (60 vs 120Hz). I find 120Hz rate too much like soap operas and use it only for live sports. 60Hz is what I use for movies and shows. There should be a menu option to switch between the two.
-
- Posts: 49034
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
You won't remember but moving from North America to Europe in the age of analog TV was... a shock. The picture was so much better on the PAL (German & British) system than NTSC (American).cjking wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 7:41 am I don't think it's you, I agree with those saying it was the TV settings.
I have an OLED TV. and the picture quality is awesome. However when taking delivery of a new TV, I know to turn off all video processing designed to "improve" the picture, and to set the brightness/contrast/etc profile to the correct profile. On most TV's "cinema" is a good profile.
I have in the past received a brand new, very expensive TV, and found the quality out of the box to be horrible. Corrected in seconds by making the aforementioned changes. (Can't remember if it was my current one or the previous that made such a bad first impression.)
It does sound like it is the video processing.
- Doom&Gloom
- Posts: 5417
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 3:36 pm
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Agree with it being the video processing.
DS recently returned home for a while and brought a TV with him. It is bigger than the one DW has in the den/kitchen area that she watches during the day so they replaced that one. I can not stand the picture on the "new' one when I walk through primarily due to the soap opera effect, but they haven't complained about it. They are going to be gone for a couple of days, and I intend to do some tinkering with the settings. They may or may not notice, but it should no longer annoy me when I pass through or sit down in there for a few minutes.
DS recently returned home for a while and brought a TV with him. It is bigger than the one DW has in the den/kitchen area that she watches during the day so they replaced that one. I can not stand the picture on the "new' one when I walk through primarily due to the soap opera effect, but they haven't complained about it. They are going to be gone for a couple of days, and I intend to do some tinkering with the settings. They may or may not notice, but it should no longer annoy me when I pass through or sit down in there for a few minutes.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Its the higher frame rate aka refresh rate.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
As others have said, look at the input, bandwidth or cable signal. Then the TV settings. Then the room lighting and distance. Some very high resolution TVs actually look better closer than others. Don’t be reluctant to change any of those elements to your preference.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Old show don’t look that good on a new tv since they were not shot in high definition ( many more pixels).. So the tv attempts to make the picture better may not succeed.
Newer content looks really goid on my tv and I have 2006 tv.
Newer content looks really goid on my tv and I have 2006 tv.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
You can typically find out how to adjust your exact TV with a quick YouTube or internet search. They can walk you through the menus so you can get the motion smoothing, or whatever your brand might call it, turned off.
They will also walk you through dialing in the picture for exactly how you want it.
They will also walk you through dialing in the picture for exactly how you want it.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
It looks like you're in the room with them instead of watching on a screen, right? Like it's a play, and not a movie/show. Really showcases bad acting / dialogue that is normally otherwise mostly successfully hidden.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
On better TVs motion interpolation has multiple settings, not just off and on. I use moderate interpolation on my Sony TV because otherwise, there is obnoxious flicker on film (24fps) content - most apparent in scenes with high contrast and camera movement.
I am pleased to report that the invisible forces of destruction have been unmasked, marking a turning point chapter when the fraudulent and speculative winds are cast into the inferno of extinction.
-
- Posts: 3061
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:55 am
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Original series Star Trek implemented (then) state of the art signal processing to make Shatner look thinner in later seasons. Probably conflicts with upscaling resolution and frame rate.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Some older shows were filmed in high resolution, but mixed down to "TV resolution" at the time.
And when they rebroadcast them now, they use the high resolution footage, but since it wasn't designed for it, you can see tons of imperfections that were hidden by the lower TV resolutions of yore.
But it sounds like you're getting upscaling processing or other TV trickery; I've noticed it here and there (sometimes the show provider has done it for you and you can't turn it off).
And when they rebroadcast them now, they use the high resolution footage, but since it wasn't designed for it, you can see tons of imperfections that were hidden by the lower TV resolutions of yore.
But it sounds like you're getting upscaling processing or other TV trickery; I've noticed it here and there (sometimes the show provider has done it for you and you can't turn it off).
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Yep - you see it really often in stores where TV's are displayed - they do that deliberately. It reminds me of how shows and music videos looked like back in 80's that were filmed on videotape vs. photographic film.Valuethinker wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 6:44 amThank you. "Soap opera effect" is a good way of describing it.
Cheers
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
All decent modern tv's offer 120hz refresh rate which (with proper settings) eliminates this problem. Most films and higher-end tv content is shot at 24fps. 'Normal' tv is often shot at 30fps. A typical inexpensive or older 60hz tv will have to convert 24fps content into a 3:2 cadence where every other frame is displayed three times. If all motion smoothing is off, it will typically look 'better' but have judder in panning shots also noticeable with lots of motion. Motion smoothing 'interpolates' these frames rather than tripling them, but ends up making the content look un-natural (soap-opera effect).dumbmoney wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:19 pm On better TVs motion interpolation has multiple settings, not just off and on. I use moderate interpolation on my Sony TV because otherwise, there is obnoxious flicker on film (24fps) content - most apparent in scenes with high contrast and camera movement.
A 120hz tv properly configured can handle all frame rates natively without having to interpolate or add frames to any one of them.
-
- Posts: 49034
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Puzzled. There wasn't signal processing in the late 1960s? At least not that could be done to an analog medium - film. ST The Original Series was shot straight to film.Doctor Rhythm wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:29 pm Original series Star Trek implemented (then) state of the art signal processing to make Shatner look thinner in later seasons. Probably conflicts with upscaling resolution and frame rate.
Did you mean when Star Trek was finally released to DVD? Late 1990s-early 2000s?
The re-release of ST The Original Series included much more "realistic" space shots, orbiting planets etc. I think it's something of a travesty which raises my hackles.
George Lucas of course did worse with his digital re-release of the original Star Wars Trilogy. Actually changed a couple of key points #HanShotFirst etc.
-
- Posts: 49034
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Yes. Like Soap opers in the 1980s that were shot to video tape. That's a good way of describing it.dcabler wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 5:42 amYep - you see it really often in stores where TV's are displayed - they do that deliberately. It reminds me of how shows and music videos looked like back in 80's that were filmed on videotape vs. photographic film.Valuethinker wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 6:44 amThank you. "Soap opera effect" is a good way of describing it.
Cheers
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
It's motion smoothing - if you google the brand/model and "motion smoothing" you should be able to find the setting to turn it off
- Harry Livermore
- Posts: 1937
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:32 am
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
OP, this is in my wheelhouse so I'll comment. Many posters have already touched on what you are seeing. Most have given accurate information but I will try to clarify.
The motion picture film standard of 24 (25 in various other countries) fps has a very specific cadence. It's above the threshold of persistence of vision but below the threshold of transparency (somewhere between 60 fps-72 fps for most people) The viewer is treated to a look that is not quite reality, but pleasing. An even more "dreamlike" look is old silent films properly projected at 16 fps (not 24 fps, as is often mistakenly done and results in "ye olde sped up walking" effect) The human mind fills in the frames and it's a different experience than real life.
It's not strictly motion picture film- this is very often true for digitally shot content as well. Because of this pleasing effect, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, video camera manufacturers were urged by directors, cinematographers, and other professionals to come up with digital cameras that could shoot at 24 fps (really 23.98 but I won't muddy the waters by discussing the tech details) Prior to that, most electronic cameras shot at a fixed 30 fps (really 29.97), but captured and broadcast at 60 interlaced fields per second (yawn, I could explain why but it's Bogleheads, not TV Technology Magazine) The effect is much more "live" looking; the news, soap operas, and many sitcoms shot on video show this effect. Take a look at "Full House" versus "Cheers"- two sitcoms of the same era. "Full House" was shot on video, "Cheers" on film. Daytime soaps like "General Hospital" were shot on video, nighttime soaps like "Dynasty" were shot on film. See if you can spot the difference.
If you see motion picture film projected in a theater (rare these days) you are watching 48 images per second, but it's just a "butterfly" shutter in the projector showing each frame twice in quick succession. You are still seeing 24 distinct frames per second. Your mind is still "filling in" frames.
In the days of analog TV, film was transferred to video by sampling each frame once per field (60 per second) of two fields per second, with various "third" fields being given a film frame. This "3:2 pulldown" process kept the cadence of film but made it fit into the 30 (really 60) "containers" per second in video. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down
In the HD/ digital era, what many of these TV manufacturers have done is to use modern computing power to interpolate frames that are not really there, as well as show each frame multiple times (like a film projector but several times more per frame) 120 fps and 240 fps are often shown. The result is very smooth motion and continuity and fluidity of action, but the complete loss of the dream like quality a lower refresh rate gives...
Thus "The Soap Opera Effect"...
Several camera manufacturers offer an option to shoot at a true 48 fps, for projection at 48 fps, but by a simple post process of dropping every other frame, offer 24 fps deliverables as well. Peter Jackson did this for "The Hobbit" but distributed in 24 fps after initial screenings yielded bad audience reviews.
Interestingly, younger people I've polled, many of whom who grew up playing high-refresh rate video games, seem to not be able to tell the difference, or actually prefer the "smooth" motion of the higher frame rate TVs.
I think it's dreadful. Just my opinion though.
Cheers
The motion picture film standard of 24 (25 in various other countries) fps has a very specific cadence. It's above the threshold of persistence of vision but below the threshold of transparency (somewhere between 60 fps-72 fps for most people) The viewer is treated to a look that is not quite reality, but pleasing. An even more "dreamlike" look is old silent films properly projected at 16 fps (not 24 fps, as is often mistakenly done and results in "ye olde sped up walking" effect) The human mind fills in the frames and it's a different experience than real life.
It's not strictly motion picture film- this is very often true for digitally shot content as well. Because of this pleasing effect, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, video camera manufacturers were urged by directors, cinematographers, and other professionals to come up with digital cameras that could shoot at 24 fps (really 23.98 but I won't muddy the waters by discussing the tech details) Prior to that, most electronic cameras shot at a fixed 30 fps (really 29.97), but captured and broadcast at 60 interlaced fields per second (yawn, I could explain why but it's Bogleheads, not TV Technology Magazine) The effect is much more "live" looking; the news, soap operas, and many sitcoms shot on video show this effect. Take a look at "Full House" versus "Cheers"- two sitcoms of the same era. "Full House" was shot on video, "Cheers" on film. Daytime soaps like "General Hospital" were shot on video, nighttime soaps like "Dynasty" were shot on film. See if you can spot the difference.
If you see motion picture film projected in a theater (rare these days) you are watching 48 images per second, but it's just a "butterfly" shutter in the projector showing each frame twice in quick succession. You are still seeing 24 distinct frames per second. Your mind is still "filling in" frames.
In the days of analog TV, film was transferred to video by sampling each frame once per field (60 per second) of two fields per second, with various "third" fields being given a film frame. This "3:2 pulldown" process kept the cadence of film but made it fit into the 30 (really 60) "containers" per second in video. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down
In the HD/ digital era, what many of these TV manufacturers have done is to use modern computing power to interpolate frames that are not really there, as well as show each frame multiple times (like a film projector but several times more per frame) 120 fps and 240 fps are often shown. The result is very smooth motion and continuity and fluidity of action, but the complete loss of the dream like quality a lower refresh rate gives...
Thus "The Soap Opera Effect"...
Several camera manufacturers offer an option to shoot at a true 48 fps, for projection at 48 fps, but by a simple post process of dropping every other frame, offer 24 fps deliverables as well. Peter Jackson did this for "The Hobbit" but distributed in 24 fps after initial screenings yielded bad audience reviews.
Interestingly, younger people I've polled, many of whom who grew up playing high-refresh rate video games, seem to not be able to tell the difference, or actually prefer the "smooth" motion of the higher frame rate TVs.
I think it's dreadful. Just my opinion though.
Cheers
Last edited by Harry Livermore on Mon May 29, 2023 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Thank you. That was fascinating and had just enough detail for me to deal with at 8:20 a.m.
My wife says it's time for me to let the air out of the tires and go to the beach. We just got to Ocracoke yesterday evening on the Swan Quarter ferry.
My wife says it's time for me to let the air out of the tires and go to the beach. We just got to Ocracoke yesterday evening on the Swan Quarter ferry.
-
- Posts: 3061
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:55 am
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Sorry - this was supposed to be a joke about Shatner’s weight gain during the show’s run.Valuethinker wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 6:08 amPuzzled. There wasn't signal processing in the late 1960s? At least not that could be done to an analog medium - film. ST The Original Series was shot straight to film.Doctor Rhythm wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:29 pm Original series Star Trek implemented (then) state of the art signal processing to make Shatner look thinner in later seasons. Probably conflicts with upscaling resolution and frame rate.
Did you mean when Star Trek was finally released to DVD? Late 1990s-early 2000s?
The re-release of ST The Original Series included much more "realistic" space shots, orbiting planets etc. I think it's something of a travesty which raises my hackles.
George Lucas of course did worse with his digital re-release of the original Star Wars Trilogy. Actually changed a couple of key points #HanShotFirst etc.
https://startrekfactcheck.blogspot.com/ ... m.html?m=1
I do recall the show’s use of soft focus/ Vaseline on the lens for some actresses and the “soft” version of Kirk when he had a doppelgänger.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Setting the TV to theater or movie mode is the first place to start. Most TV’s arrive with the picture set so that it stands out in a store, which is not what you want in a hotel or your home.
-
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:57 am
- Location: Ottawa
- Contact:
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Here is a tv reviewer that I follow that had a funnyish video on it:clp21 wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 9:53 am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1nUCyC8hGA
Another video about it that I found interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGFt746TJu0
OP, there are lots of settings are left on by default on some tvs that should be turned off. My understanding is that those settings are left on with the assumption that you are viewing either a crappy source or in bad lighting conditions.
-
- Posts: 49034
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Why I post on Bogleheads - edition number 213...Harry Livermore wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 6:58 am OP, this is in my wheelhouse so I'll comment. Many posters have already touched on what you are seeing. Most have given accurate information but I will try to clarify.
The motion picture film standard of 24 (25 in various other countries) fps has a very specific cadence. It's above the threshold of persistence of vision but below the threshold of transparency (somewhere between 60 fps-72 fps for most people) The viewer is treated to a look that is not quite reality, but pleasing. An even more "dreamlike" look would is old silent films properly projected at 16 fps (not 24 fps, as is often mistakenly done and results in "ye olde sped up walking" effect) The human mind fills in the frames and it's a different experience than real life.
It's not strictly motion picture film- this is very often true for digitally shot content as well. Because of this pleasing effect, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, video camera manufacturers were urged by directors, cinematographers, and other professionals to come up with digital cameras that could shoot at 24 fps (really 23.98 but I won't muddy the waters by discussing the tech details) Prior to that, most electronic cameras shot at a fixed 30 fps (really 29.97), but captured and broadcast at 60 interlaced fields per second (yawn, I could explain why but it's Bogleheads, not TV Technology Magazine) The effect is much more "live" looking; the news, soap operas, and many sitcoms shot on video show this effect. Take a look at "Full House" versus "Cheers"- two sitcoms of the same era. "Full House" was shot on video, "Cheers" on film. Daytime soaps like "General Hospital" were shot on video, nighttime soaps like "Dynasty" were shot on film. See if you can spot the difference.
If you see motion picture film projected in a theater (rare these days) you are watching 48 images per second, but it's just a "butterfly" shutter in the projector showing each frame twice in quick succession. You are still seeing 24 distinct frames per second. Your mind is still "filling in" frames.
In the days of analog TV, film was transferred to video by sampling each frame once per field (60 per second) of two fields per second, with various "third" fields being given a film frame. This "3:2 pulldown" process kept the cadence of film but made it fit into the 30 (really 60) "containers" per second in video. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-two_pull_down
In the HD/ digital era, what many of these TV manufacturers have done is to use modern computing power to interpolate frames that are not really there, as well as show each frame multiple times (like a film projector but several times more per frame) 120 fps and 240 fps are often shown. The result is very smooth motion and continuity and fluidity of action, but the complete loss of the dream like quality a lower refresh rate gives...
Thus "The Soap Opera Effect"...
Several camera manufacturers offer an option to shoot at a true 48 fps, for projection at 48 fps, but by a simple post process of dropping every other frame, offer 24 fps deliverables as well. Peter Jackson did this for "The Hobbit" but distributed in 24 fps after initial screenings yielded bad audience reviews.
Interestingly, younger people I've polled, many of whom who grew up playing high-refresh rate video games, seem to not be able to tell the difference, or actually prefer the "smooth" motion of the higher frame rate TVs.
I think it's dreadful. Just my opinion though.
Cheers
There is always someone who knows a huge amount about some obscure subject (well, obscure to me, at least ).
Thank you. Fascinating. I have not digested it all at first read, but it's fascinating nonetheless.
"General Hospital" v "Dynasty" is a comparison I can make in my mind. I certainly knew Cheers, but not the other one.
Another interesting comment about how tastes change, and one becomes obsolete. Maybe they will create an AI driven avatar of me, to complain about TV pictures, for reference by future historians .Interestingly, younger people I've polled, many of whom who grew up playing high-refresh rate video games, seem to not be able to tell the difference, or actually prefer the "smooth" motion of the higher frame rate TVs.
I think it's dreadful. Just my opinion though.
3D in cinema doesn't really do it for me either.
-
- Posts: 49034
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Apologies. It's partly me, and partly the internet, that irony does not always come across clearly.Doctor Rhythm wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 9:47 amSorry - this was supposed to be a joke about Shatner’s weight gain during the show’s run.Valuethinker wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 6:08 amPuzzled. There wasn't signal processing in the late 1960s? At least not that could be done to an analog medium - film. ST The Original Series was shot straight to film.Doctor Rhythm wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:29 pm Original series Star Trek implemented (then) state of the art signal processing to make Shatner look thinner in later seasons. Probably conflicts with upscaling resolution and frame rate.
Did you mean when Star Trek was finally released to DVD? Late 1990s-early 2000s?
The re-release of ST The Original Series included much more "realistic" space shots, orbiting planets etc. I think it's something of a travesty which raises my hackles.
George Lucas of course did worse with his digital re-release of the original Star Wars Trilogy. Actually changed a couple of key points #HanShotFirst etc.
https://startrekfactcheck.blogspot.com/ ... m.html?m=1
I do recall the show’s use of soft focus/ Vaseline on the lens for some actresses and the “soft” version of Kirk when he had a doppelgänger.
My (British) spouse would say it is mostly me .
Interesting point about "soft focus".
For a while there in the early 1970s Shatner was very hard up (even sleeping in his car?). He made a number of commercials for Presidents' Choice, the leading store own-brand groceries in Canada (Loblaw's). And in particular for their (delectable) chocolate chip cookies... no wonder if he was paid in kind? "By gosh the price is right" became something of a Shatner tagline (in Canada).
He starred in some Made for TV films like "The 10th Level" (about a psychologist conducting dubious experiments) and "The People" (based on the Zenna Henderson novels about an Appalachian Valley where the survivors of an alien race, with telekinetic powers, hide themselves away -- quite powerful metaphors about race and persecution).
-
- Posts: 49034
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
I do wish Roger Ebert of "Sneak Previews" and "Siskel and Ebert at the Movies" was alive to have commented on this.
A man who loved movies, and for the right reasons.
A man who loved movies, and for the right reasons.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Judder is a different issue. The best displays actually have the worst flicker problem, since they don't have (as much) innate smearing of motion. Mild motion interpolation tames the flicker while preserving "film look".onourway wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 6:00 amAll decent modern tv's offer 120hz refresh rate which (with proper settings) eliminates this problem. Most films and higher-end tv content is shot at 24fps. 'Normal' tv is often shot at 30fps. A typical inexpensive or older 60hz tv will have to convert 24fps content into a 3:2 cadence where every other frame is displayed three times. If all motion smoothing is off, it will typically look 'better' but have judder in panning shots also noticeable with lots of motion. Motion smoothing 'interpolates' these frames rather than tripling them, but ends up making the content look un-natural (soap-opera effect).dumbmoney wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 10:19 pm On better TVs motion interpolation has multiple settings, not just off and on. I use moderate interpolation on my Sony TV because otherwise, there is obnoxious flicker on film (24fps) content - most apparent in scenes with high contrast and camera movement.
A 120hz tv properly configured can handle all frame rates natively without having to interpolate or add frames to any one of them.
I am pleased to report that the invisible forces of destruction have been unmasked, marking a turning point chapter when the fraudulent and speculative winds are cast into the inferno of extinction.
- TomatoTomahto
- Posts: 17158
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
An entirely useless but interesting thing about frame rate is that, back in 60 fps days, our pets couldn’t “see” television as a motion picture; it was more like being at a disco with strobe lights for them. Modern TVs have now got pets watching differently.
A phenomenon known as flicker fusion, we require 15-20 frames per second (fps) while dogs require 70 fps and cats require about 100 fps.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
- Doom&Gloom
- Posts: 5417
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 3:36 pm
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Wait, what?!?!TomatoTomahto wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 12:07 pm An entirely useless but interesting thing about frame rate is that, back in 60 fps days, our pets couldn’t “see” television as a motion picture; it was more like being at a disco with strobe lights for them. Modern TVs have now got pets watching differently.
A phenomenon known as flicker fusion, we require 15-20 frames per second (fps) while dogs require 70 fps and cats require about 100 fps.
So if I get rid of our plasma sets and replace them with older TVs our dogs will quit barking and lunging at the screen when a dog, wolf, horse, cattle, or various animations appear on the screen?
Be right back! I'm off to check Craigslist for old TVs.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Neither my partner nor I have had a regular TV for 15 or 20 years (it's all been computer screens and projector screens).
We both experience the same thing you seem to when we are somewhere else and newer model TVs are on. Things seem to look crisper and more contrasty and saturated than seems "natural" -- like the TV looks more vivid than real life, which makes it look "fake" in way -- and it weirds us both out a little. I think it's just a consequence of not having gotten used to the new look of the high resolution.
Anyway, you are not alone
We both experience the same thing you seem to when we are somewhere else and newer model TVs are on. Things seem to look crisper and more contrasty and saturated than seems "natural" -- like the TV looks more vivid than real life, which makes it look "fake" in way -- and it weirds us both out a little. I think it's just a consequence of not having gotten used to the new look of the high resolution.
Anyway, you are not alone
- TomatoTomahto
- Posts: 17158
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Haha. Yeah. Or get a different dog (kidding! I’m kidding!). Our old big dog (best dog ever, deeply missed) would watch TV with us, and never got crazy when animals showed up (although she was a sucker for equestrian events). Our smaller dog does not seem to have figured out that we don’t need to be warned about an animal on TV.Doom&Gloom wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 12:43 pmWait, what?!?!TomatoTomahto wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 12:07 pm An entirely useless but interesting thing about frame rate is that, back in 60 fps days, our pets couldn’t “see” television as a motion picture; it was more like being at a disco with strobe lights for them. Modern TVs have now got pets watching differently.
A phenomenon known as flicker fusion, we require 15-20 frames per second (fps) while dogs require 70 fps and cats require about 100 fps.
So if I get rid of our plasma sets and replace them with older TVs our dogs will quit barking and lunging at the screen when a dog, wolf, horse, cattle, or various animations appear on the screen?
Be right back! I'm off to check Craigslist for old TVs.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
This annoys me about laptops. I have some old almost square screen ones, and things often just don''t display as well on the newer sideways elongated/height squished down ones. I'm not talking about films, but websites where things that scroll result in tiny areas, etc. Why are these being sold?
- White Coat Investor
- Posts: 17413
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:11 pm
- Location: Greatest Snow On Earth
Re: HD TV & "looks fake"
Had the same experience with my first nice TV. It's a setting you can adjust to your preference.Valuethinker wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2023 6:17 am For various reasons, I have not had a TV in a long time. We stream programmes and watch them on the laptop (or, shock horror, use DVDs -- it's quite an old laptop).
I was in a North American hotel recently, which had what I took to be a very up to date, high definition TV. Usual 30 cable channels with nothing to watch except the odd old episode of Star Trek (The Original Series).
And things looked .. horrible. The regular (new) TV shows.
TCM (Turner Channel Movies) the movies looked different - All the President's Men (1974?). Not worse, however, just different. Some of the shots (eg the canonical shots of the busy Washington Post newsroom) looked better.
I am trying to decide what it was that I am seeing that I found difficult. I think it is that there is much higher resolution, so the foreground characters are seen in a detail that they were never filmed at? So for example the makeup really shows. Also, however the backgrounds looked somehow detached from the foreground.
I am trying to discover whether this is a "me" thing-- not staying up to date with technology. Or whether there is something about the higher resolution and/or depth perception of the shows and films I was watching - they weren't filmed in that high a definition, and so when shown in it, they just don't look right?
(I learned that with the problem of not being able to hear dialogue in films in theatres, it is not just "my old ears". It's become a quite noticeable problem for many movie goers).
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy |
4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course