Why do special effects look worse on DVD?

I was watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy this week and I noticed that some of the CGI effects look a lot more obvious on the TV than they did in the theater. At least from my memory.

As I know the Fort is the repository of much little known, forgotten, or useless information, I thought I would put the question out there.

Why is this?

Is it all about the transfer process from film to DVD?

Is it the level of lighting used? Are DVD's too bright?

Does it have anything to do with the frame rates in theaters vs. tv's?

These thoughts weigh heavy on my mind. Aid me, my friends. I seek knowledge.

I think it's resolution versus how close you are to the screen.

Resolution is one thing. Proper film also has some natural anti-aliasing that helps hide the edges.

It is possible that the frame rate *IS* the worst offender, however. Film is 24fps, and video is 30 or 60---let's assume 60. And modern TV's will merrily start interpolating that into 120 or 240.

First of all, if you watch something on a TV that runs at 120 or 240, EVERYTHING looks wrong. It is the highest bandwidth possible, but the extreme clarity of the visuals kind of makes everything look like a live TV show. The weird TV interpolation makes any movement (people, CGI) on the screen stand out quite strongly.

One thing I've found is that The PS3 and Blu-Ray can do pretty impressive video. One of those is a 1080p x 24Hz mode that looks EXACTLY like film if the TV or projector supports it. The John Carter Blu-Ray supports this, and it looked so good, even with the CGI-heavy movie.

Maybe this explains Peter Jackson's use of higher frame rates for the upcoming Hobbit? Gearing it more towards Blu-ray's and DVD's?

I've noticed this too and it only happens in some people's homes (my sister's house for one). It's not the DVD, it's your TV. Your TV is TOO GOOD. It is probably perfectly calibrated and when it is, it removes ALL movie magic. You are no longer looking at Gandalf in the Mines of Moria. You are looking at Ian McKellan on a movie studio in costume. It's especially brutal with action movies where it is so obvious you are looking at a movie studio and not a movie. My wife and I hate this effect some of the modern televisions are doing and I've heard some big people in hollywood complaining about it too. it's kind of cool in a way because it looks NOTHING like the first time you saw the movie so it's a new experience.

But it removes movie magic. I'm quite certain the answer is the calibration of your TV is too perfect.

To prove my theory, try hooking your DVD player up into a non LCD or non plasma television. Movie magic comes back!

If I had to guess which aspect of the calibration it was, I would say it's the perfect contrast. That's probably what's doing it.

moofrank wrote: Resolution is one thing. Proper film also has some natural anti-aliasing that helps hide the edges.

It is possible that the frame rate *IS* the worst offender, however. Film is 24fps, and video is 30 or 60---let's assume 60. And modern TV's will merrily start interpolating that into 120 or 240.

First of all, if you watch something on a TV that runs at 120 or 240, EVERYTHING looks wrong. It is the highest bandwidth possible, but the extreme clarity of the visuals kind of makes everything look like a live TV show. The weird TV interpolation makes any movement (people, CGI) on the screen stand out quite strongly.

One thing I've found is that The PS3 and Blu-Ray can do pretty impressive video. One of those is a 1080p x 24Hz mode that looks EXACTLY like film if the TV or projector supports it. The John Carter Blu-Ray supports this, and it looked so good, even with the CGI-heavy movie.

This. If you feel that a movie looks like a cheap TV-show on your TV, it's almost certain that you have a modern TV with interpolation turned on. Go to the menu, and turn it off, if you can. It's good for watching sports, but it kills the "movie feel".

There was a story recently about the upcoming Hobbit movie's screening, where everybody was complaining that the movie looked like a TV-show. It's because it was filmed and projected in 48fps, as opposed to the usual 24fps.

Interestingly, higher frame rate doesn't actually looks worse or cheaper: it feels worse and cheaper. It's because TV-shows are both worse/cheaper looking and of higher frame rate, and our mind associates the higher frame rate with the cheap look. A child, who would grow up watching movies with 48 (or more) fps, would actually find the old movies funny-looking.

wice wrote: Interestingly, higher frame rate doesn't actually looks worse or cheaper: it feels worse and cheaper. It's because TV-shows are both worse/cheaper looking and of higher frame rate, and our mind associates the higher frame rate with the cheap look. A child, who would grow up watching movies with 48 (or more) fps, would actually find the old movies funny-looking.

Sandi once ranted to me about my parent's TV. 240Hz interpolated and probably set to "Normal" mode for the Brightness and Contrast settings instead of Cinema or a proper basic calibration. It looked really terrible.

Those default modes for Brightness and Contrast can really screw up video. Default settings on a modern TV have Brightness cranked to max, the hue shifted to blue, and the contrast set somewhere weird. This is designed to make the set look good in a bright showroom with a wall of TVs, but does not accurately show the source material or take into account the local lighting where you are using it.

Film is invariably set to much lower overall brightness as you are watching it in a dark theater and video looks far more natural when brightness is reined in to normal light levels. They really design those effects for film light levels, and some of them may do screwy things on a completely untuned TV.

This disc does come highly recommended:
www.amazon.com/Disney-WOW-World-Wonder-B...ds=video+calibration

Tangential and possibly related question?

Whenever I am in an electronics store and a display TV is playing a movie, usually the movie looks like it is running just slightly too fast, and makes it impossible for me to look at it. Is this a frame rate issue?

I don't have a Blu-Ray player or any other HD peripherals, so I haven't experienced it myself. I shudder at the thought of asking an employee about it and just receiving a blank stare in response.

Movie theaters put laudanum in the popcorn butter. The effects aren't any better in the theater, you're just so completely wasted that you don't notice.

S.

Disgustipater wrote: Tangential and possibly related question?

Whenever I am in an electronics store and a display TV is playing a movie, usually the movie looks like it is running just slightly too fast, and makes it impossible for me to look at it. Is this a frame rate issue?

I don't have a Blu-Ray player or any other HD peripherals, so I haven't experienced it myself. I shudder at the thought of asking an employee about it and just receiving a blank stare in response.

I'd guess it is a 120Hz frame rate. To me, it looks oddly unnatural and distracting. I don't get an impossible to look at response, but brains are funny. That means that anyone you actually mention that to is either going to respond:

1. With a blank look and going back to playing video games. (Best Buy)
2. A scowl and a "it doesn't do that. It can't do that. I should know. I am your god." (Frys)
3. Say "I'll get someone" who never arrives (Walmart)
4. Ask if you want to buy a cell phone (Radio Shack)

Kill 120hz mode/motion enhancement, kill it with fire!

I game at a sub shop with a nice flat screen always playing some sci-fi show. Battlestar Galactica looks like ASS in this mode! I so want to turn it off but feel bad for the owner, maybe he likes it?

I work one and a half days a week at a locally owned video game and movie shop. I put in PotC At World's End thinking it was a blu-ray because it was in the blu-ray holder. It turned out to be a dvd and it looked like garbage. I didn't even make it 5 minutes in.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that's a framerate or interpolation issue. That's probably part of it, but I don't think that's the root cause. I believe a bigger part of it is like Black Barney says: Your viewing setup is too good. You're starting to see more than you're supposed to. All my old movies look just fine; they look just like they always have. CGI effects just don't age well.

Did they ever release an unmodified Star Wars Original Trilogy on DVD? I bet it looks fine. Star Trek looks fine. Even the claymation-looking skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts look fine. Hell, even Spaceballs looks good. Lawnmower Man looks fucking awful. Every time I watch LotR Trilogy I notice the CGI more. Even Inception on Blu-Ray doesn't look quite as believable as it looked in theatres, because on a crisp home theater setup it's too crisp.

They need to release a digitally remastered version of the moon landing and then play it on the OP's TV and then we'll know FOR SURE if it's in a movie studio or if it's real. (if it's real, it will still look like garbage)

wadenels wrote: I'm not sure I'm convinced that's a framerate or interpolation issue. That's probably part of it, but I don't think that's the root cause. I believe a bigger part of it is like Black Barney says: Your viewing setup is too good. You're starting to see more than you're supposed to. All my old movies look just fine; they look just like they always have. CGI effects just don't age well.

Did they ever release an unmodified Star Wars Original Trilogy on DVD? I bet it looks fine. Star Trek looks fine. Even the claymation-looking skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts look fine. Hell, even Spaceballs looks good. Lawnmower Man looks fucking awful. Every time I watch LotR Trilogy I notice the CGI more. Even Inception on Blu-Ray doesn't look quite as believable as it looked in theatres, because on a crisp home theater setup it's too crisp.

www.studiodaily.com/2012/04/the-hobbit-t...er-future-of-movies/