Are there any Blu-ray titles out there that are mastered at 1080p 60 fps? I'm looking for the highest bit rate video I can find for purposes of creating a demo for optical cable.

I hope to input a high bit rate video stream to an Extron box that will convert it to a serial digital stream across multimode fiber. The only other option would seem to be capturing a video stream from a high end PC running some of the newer games.

A Blu-ray title and player would seem to be a less expensive approach, if any exist. I thought Planet Earth was filmed with HD cameras, but I don't know the actual recorded frame rate. Some threads I've read seem to suggest that 1080p 60fps is not supported by the Blu-ray format.

Does anyone know for sure?

Thanks,
AaronS

Blu-ray does not support 60fps at 1080p. The most you'll get is 30fps through 60Hz interlaced with 2:2 pulldown.

Also how much content out there is it that actually can take advantage of 1080/60P?

Stuff shoot on film are basicly 24-30 fps.

Stuff shoot on video is often limited to interlace when we talking 60hz.

The only other option would seem to be capturing a video stream from a high end PC running some of the newer games.

A PS3 + WipEout HD will give you a game running at 1080p60. There are probably a few other games (Gran Turismo 5 Prologue I believe - although I haven't seen it personally since my current display doesn't accept 1080p - along with some of the PSN-downloadable titles IIRC).

It might be easier/cheaper than going with a "high end PC".

Also how much content out there is it that actually can take advantage of 1080/60P?

The fact that blu-ray can't play it back is probably part of what's stopping content being made which would take advantage of it. Just like there wasn't much PAL or NTSC content before people had PAL or NTSC televisions.

If blu-ray supported 1080/60p, all the stuff that's currently done at 1080/60i would probably be done at 1080/60p instead because:

1) It would be better quality, higher res, no interlacing artefacts and easier
2) It would make people happier that they're always getting "full 1080p" so they don't complain that they're getting the so called "lower resolution" 1080i.

They might even upconvert existing 1080i60 content to 1080p60 if it was possible to play it back, this would enable all the rest of the content on the disc to run at 1080p60, like subtitles, titles, fades, graphics, java graphics, PiP commentaries etc.

I thought Planet Earth was filmed with HD cameras, but I don't know the actual recorded frame rate
Filmed with both 25fps film and 1440x1080@50i HD cameras

The fact that blu-ray can't play it back is probably part of what's stopping content being made which would take advantage of it. Just like there wasn't much PAL or NTSC content before people had PAL or NTSC televisions.

If blu-ray supported 1080/60p, all the stuff that's currently done at 1080/60i would probably be done at 1080/60p instead because:

1) It would be better quality, higher res, no interlacing artefacts and easier
2) It would make people happier that they're always getting "full 1080p" so they don't complain that they're getting the so called "lower resolution" 1080i.

They might even upconvert existing 1080i60 content to 1080p60 if it was possible to play it back, this would enable all the rest of the content on the disc to run at 1080p60, like subtitles, titles, fades, graphics, java graphics, PiP commentaries etc.

While certainly, the lack of delivery medium for 1080/60P, doesnt exactly help producers to go 1080/60P.

But the other factor is, what cam should they use for the production.

Very few videocameras support 1080/60P (RED seems to be one of them) And it hasnt been out long, so filmcameras seems to be the solution for older projects. And since theaters dont use 60P, most filmstuff is shoot on 24fps, or 30fps (when it goes direct to TV).

So there isnt many projects that can take advantage of 1080/60P. On the other hand alot of project can and have used 720/60P.

Good quality 1080i60 deinterlaced with the latest chips gives a good simulation of real 1080p, though. The differences are small.

Good quality 1080i60 deinterlaced with the latest chips gives a good simulation of real 1080p, though. The differences are small.

While I agree that the difference in real life would be small, I still possible to produce material that would show a great difference between 1080/60P and 1080/60i.

Interlaced material usually drop some vertical resolution to diminish the interlace flicker.

That why you often apply a factor 0.7 for the horisontal resolution of interlaced video. And a factor of 0.9 for progressive material.

Thanks everyone for the information. I know the PS3 would be the least expensive way to go, but I'm not sure how I would "capture" a sequence to be repeated in a demonstration. I guess I'm left with the PC approach and FRAP...

AaronS

What material are you going to use for your demo?

The video material doesn't really matter. Of course it can't be objectional material, but otherwise doesn't really matter. What would be important is that a visible difference could be observed with degraded transmission.

AaronS

Good quality 1080i60 deinterlaced with the latest chips gives a good simulation of real 1080p, though. The differences are small.
This is only true for static pictures. For anything with a lot of motion, 1080p60 and 1080i60 would be quite night-and-day in terms of perceived resolution.

The poster citing the lack of cameras to actually shoot 1080p60 was also correct.

The only cinema format I can think of is Douglas Trumbull Showscan 70mm that is filmed with special cameras and projected back in special cinemas equipped to run Showscan 70mm 60fps.

Showscan was retired years ago I don’t think the website is even up and running no more.

NBC on Douglas Trumbull's Showscan - 1984!!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=co_Duv2XCPU

Forget about bluray go to a Real cinema that is still equipped with duel projection 35/70mm.

The video material doesn't really matter. Of course it can't be objectional material, but otherwise doesn't really matter. What would be important is that a visible difference could be observed with degraded transmission.

AaronS


I was wondering what material are you going to use that could benefit from 1080/60P ?

The rationale for 1080p 60fps was simply to get the highest bit rate on the fiber link as possible.

There are a lot of movies being shot in 3D now, and there are an increasing number of displays that support 3D through the use of wireless shutter glasses or polarized glasses. For film sources, 48p should suffice (24fps X 2) however 60fps seems like a safer bet.

There are a lot of movies being shot in 3D now, and there are an increasing number of displays that support 3D through the use of wireless shutter glasses or polarized glasses. For film sources, 48p should suffice (24fps X 2) however 60fps seems like a safer bet.

I don't know. The new 3D they're doing in theaters is actually showing 144 frames per second. The system has 2 lenses, and each one is doing 72 fps, though stuff is done at 24fps, each frame is just projected 3 times. So I don't know if 48fps would be enough.

I don't know. The new 3D they're doing in theaters is actually showing 144 frames per second. The system has 2 lenses, and each one is doing 72 fps, though stuff is done at 24fps, each frame is just projected 3 times. So I don't know if 48fps would be enough.

For what its worth James Cameron is a proponent of 48fps cinema viewing.

For what its worth James Cameron is a proponent of 48fps cinema viewing.

He is also a proponent of sh**ty movies. :p

He is also a proponent of sh**ty movies. :p

:rolleyes:

FYI - ABC's 720p broadcast format is 60 progressive frames a second.