I'm looing into starting my home theater and while looking at projectors I've noticed that some now supprt 1080P 24Frame.

Does this mean 24 frames per second?

It may just be me but I find watching a movie in the theater at 24FPS is jerky as compared to watching it at home at 30FPS.

Would I not get the same effect on the new Projectors supprting this standard?

Is this new standard worth the extra money?

And while I'm at it. What projector would you recomend? I'd like to keep it under $4000 if at all poossible.

Thanks

James

This is a very controversial subject. Many people swear by the ability of 1080p/24 to eliminate a type of motion artifact called Judder, most evident on panning scenes. However, other people, and I must say that I count myself as one of them, are apparently not at all sensitive to this artifact and simply don't see any differences with 1080p/24 content displayed at a multiple.

What I am sure of is that this artifact is VERY subtle. If it weren't, then there would have been universal acclaim for Blu-ray as offering superior image quality compared to HD DVD, since Blu-ray supported this from the beginning and HD DVD only just now is.

However, that's not what happened. The consensus has been that some titles look better in HD DVD, others look better in Blu-ray, but overall the formats are roughly equivalent. This tells me that whatever advantage 1080p/24 provided Blu-ray was very, very small.

Isn't the 1080p improvement mostly dependant upon whether your display device can take a 1080p signal natively? If it can, then the improvement might be noticable on very large displays (over 80" or so).

Also, isn't the improvement with 24fps dependant upon the refresh rate of the display device (i.e. 96hz or 120hz, etc)?

I would guess that a projection on a 120" screen or so with a native 1080p projector that refreshes at 120hz would probably produce a noticably better image. Smaller than than that with lower refresh rates may not produce noticable results.

But I'm just going by what I read and I could be off. I don't even have a 1080p display yet. So somebody else should confirm or correct my observations.

Last night I managed to get my HTPC to send a 1920 x 1080 24p signal to my AE1000 projector onto a 120" screen. I only have a couple of trailers that are 1080/24p (Aeon Flux and Van Helsing) and I tried them both. The picture was really smooth, but to be honest I didn't really notice any problems before when playing these trailers with the HTPC set to 1080/50p or 1080/60p. The biggest issue was when I put BBC HD back on ( which broadcasts at 1080/50i) and that developed a nasty judder with the PC still set to 24p. But I guess that is to be expected.

Bottom line for me is that if I didn't notice the 'improvement' on a 120" screen, maybe it isn't that important?

Yes, you have to have a display that can accept it and also display it at some multiple (48, 72, 96, 120). What I was suggesting is that even under these ideal circumstances, the improvement is very subtle. It may be like RBE. Some people are sensitive to the artifact it eliminates, but most aren't.

Isn't the 1080p improvement mostly dependant upon whether your display device can take a 1080p signal natively? If it can, then the improvement might be noticable on very large displays (over 80" or so).

Also, isn't the improvement with 24fps dependant upon the refresh rate of the display device (i.e. 96hz or 120hz, etc)?

I would guess that a projection on a 120" screen or so with a native 1080p projector that refreshes at 120hz would probably produce a noticably better image. Smaller than than that with lower refresh rates may not produce noticable results.

But I'm just going by what I read and I could be off. I don't even have a 1080p display yet. So somebody else should confirm or correct my observations.

Here's a new article that explains 1080p24:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zyber/High-Def_FAQ:_Whats_the_Big_Deal_About_1080p24/1015

What I am sure of is that this artifact is VERY subtle. If it weren't, then there would have been universal acclaim for Blu-ray as offering superior image quality compared to HD DVD, since Blu-ray supported this from the beginning and HD DVD only just now is.

However, that's not what happened. The consensus has been that some titles look better in HD DVD, others look better in Blu-ray, but overall the formats are roughly equivalent. This tells me that whatever advantage 1080p/24 provided Blu-ray was very, very small.

I agree that it is subtle, but I like it. I watch almost exclusively Bluray because of this(and the PCM lossless sound on most discs:)). I think there would be more acclaim if more people had displays that would play back 24p. How many people out of all Bluray players sold have displays that can play back 24p? I would guess less than 1 in 10 but this is just a guess.

I agree that it is subtle, but I like it. I watch almost exclusively Bluray because of this(and the PCM lossless sound on most discs:)). I think there would be more acclaim if more people had displays that would play back 24p. How many people out of all Bluray players sold have displays that can play back 24p? I would guess less than 1 in 10 but this is just a guess.

Same here. I now have a display that supports 1080p 24/50/and 60. Subtle, that's right.

Dang subtle. I may have sensed some additional smootherness. :) Lots of purist items that in the past have been reserved only for the highest end crowd trickling down into the mid-fi and less expensive video equipment crowd these days. It sure seems to make most people I come across feel better if they are getting lossless audio and running 1080p/24 video source. I have taken quite a few PS3 owners to task blind testing them using 1080i/60 output against 1080p output and having them choose 1080p/60 as the best overall PQ video output for them from their 1080p/24 capable PS3's. :)

Overall best PQ, I still seem to prefer sending 1080i/60 to my 1080p displays even the displays that would supposedly benefit from 1080p/24 source.

The problem of course is with the slow rate of the film not the fast rate of the video. Persistance of vision breaks down at low frame rates. The 24fps rate was adopted as the slowest and therefore cheapest rate that audiences would tolerate. In a couple years no new professional material is likely to be recorded at 24fps. 60fps is inherently superior to slower film based rates.

A skiamorph is an artifact that retains the properties of an obsolete technology because people are comfortable with those older associatons. The first pottery was made to resemble basketry. The Pantheon was made in stone to resemble wooden post and beam construction. Ford station wagons used to have fake wooden body work.

Similarly today people cling to even the least desireable characteristics of movie theater technology, like 24fps and 2.45:1 aspect ratios. I imagine there are those who like to cover their popcorn with that awful fake butter oil that you got in movie theaters in the 70s.

Dang subtle. I may have sensed some additional smootherness. :) Lots of purist items that in the past have been reserved only for the highest end crowd trickling down into the mid-fi and less expensive video equipment crowd these days. It sure seems to make most people I come across feel better if they are getting lossless audio and running 1080p/24 video source. I have taken quite a few PS3 owners to task blind testing them using 1080i/60 output against 1080p output and having them choose 1080p/60 as the best overall PQ video output for them from their 1080p/24 capable PS3's. :)

Overall best PQ, I still seem to prefer sending 1080i/60 to my 1080p displays even the displays that would supposedly benefit from 1080p/24 source.


Just curious, what size display are you watching?
To me the 60p with telecine judder is comparable to DLP RBE. I don't always notice either one, but when I see a rainbow or a stutter it bothers me. My preference would be no rainbows or judder, but there are other factors in picture quality that concern me a lot more than either of these.

Just curious, what size display are you watching?
To me the 60p with telecine judder is comparable to DLP RBE. I don't always notice either one, but when I see a rainbow or a stutter it bothers me. My preference would be no rainbows or judder, but there are other factors in picture quality that concern me a lot more than either of these.

106" AE1000U and 61" 1080p LCOS............ I never run 1080p/60 either, I really seem best off over all with 1080i/60 as best source resolution.

I don't have this capability, but it seems a little strange that a technology that removes the need for 3:2 pulldown is considered subtle improvement when just a few years ago everyone was sooooooooo concerned about 3:2 pulldown. Remember those countless screenshots of 3:2 artifacts. They were only sporatic and didn't bother most people.

Even if it only fixed the motion judder on fast pans or those helicopter pans of cityscapes I'd be happy to use it if I had it. Are there any good examples of scenes where it makes a difference. The opening scene from Transporter 2 where the cityscape and coastline of Florida are shot from a helicopter always bothers me as looking blurry and the rest of the film is very detailed and sharp. I thought this maybe an example where 1080p24 capability would help. Does anyone know?

I can't argue with you John. In the end it comes down to what you prefer. Personally I'll take 24p every time with a film source. I think we get used to what we watch and learn to filter out the flaws somewhat. When I had a DLP projector I got used to the rainbows and they didn't bother me much.

Depending on the source material, I could be fooled a bit as to whether it was 24P or 60P. A movie with a lot of shaky camera scenes or one with no smooth pans can make the judder more difficult to detect.

I have two output setting for my Blu-ray player through my processor. One is for 24p and the other is for 60p. I have accidentally started a Blu-ray movie more than once at 60p, but I always notice and switch to the 24p. I normally spot it almost immediately.

I don't have this capability, but it seems a little strange that a technology that removes the need for 3:2 pulldown is considered subtle improvement when just a few years ago everyone was sooooooooo concerned about 3:2 pulldown. Remember those countless screenshots of 3:2 artifacts. They were only sporatic and didn't bother most people.I think that you refer to simple deinterlacing errors that had nothing to do with judder and could be resolved by more sophisticated processing. We still see this stuff. Look at the opening scene of Chapter 8 of MI:3. The stair steps will show moire and line twitter for all but the best deinterlacers.

The problem of course is with the slow rate of the film not the fast rate of the video. Persistance of vision breaks down at low frame rates. The 24fps rate was adopted as the slowest and therefore cheapest rate that audiences would tolerate. In a couple years no new professional material is likely to be recorded at 24fps. 60fps is inherently superior to slower film based rates.



24fps is going to be around for many years to come. Just because you shoot to a digital format does not change the problem of "twice the frame rate, twice the storage requirement, twice the processing cost, etc". That formula is the same for film stock or digital memory be it disk, tape, or solid state. And digital footage is still "processed". Not in a chemical tank like film but the post production and editing process for a major feature still requires you to have up to and over a million feet of film or the digital equilivant on the shelf.

The DCI spec does allow for 48fps at 2K resolution. At 4K resolution they only support 24fps as the technology to run 48fps at 4K resoltion in a profitable business model is a few years out at least.

I can't argue with you John. In the end it comes down to what you prefer. Personally I'll take 24p every time with a film source. I think we get used to what we watch and learn to filter out the flaws somewhat. When I had a DLP projector I got used to the rainbows and they didn't bother me much.

Depending on the source material, I could be fooled a bit as to whether it was 24P or 60P. A movie with a lot of shaky camera scenes or one with no smooth pans can make the judder more difficult to detect.

I have two output setting for my Blu-ray player through my processor. One is for 24p and the other is for 60p. I have accidentally started a Blu-ray movie more than once at 60p, but I always notice and switch to the 24p. I normally spot it almost immediately.


Interesting. You have a dedicated scaler / processor? This may change my opinion. 1080p stresses cables and switching devices. As I stated for me it is about more than just some judder and I still find 1080i/60 best over all.

If I had a dedicated processor? I'd playing with all sorts of stuff, not just the frame rates.

PLB Wrote:

The problem of course is with the slow rate of the film not the fast rate of the video. Persistance of vision breaks down at low frame rates. The 24fps rate was adopted as the slowest and therefore cheapest rate that audiences would tolerate. In a couple years no new professional material is likely to be recorded at 24fps. 60fps is inherently superior to slower film based rates.

A skiamorph is an artifact that retains the properties of an obsolete technology because people are comfortable with those older associatons. The first pottery was made to resemble basketry. The Pantheon was made in stone to resemble wooden post and beam construction. Ford station wagons used to have fake wooden body work.

Similarly today people cling to even the least desireable characteristics of movie theater technology, like 24fps and 2.45:1 aspect ratios. I imagine there are those who like to cover their popcorn with that awful fake butter oil that you got in movie theaters in the 70s.

PLB,
I just wanted to say that I love this post! A 'skiamporh', eh? I never realized there was a word for this. (Can I please add the fake wood paneling so popular in the 60s, and most plastic items made in the early 20th century to your list?)

For the record, I've done some blind tests of 24 frames VS 60 and I personally do see the artifacts on horizontal pans. But, I also see flicker on computer monitors when they're set for 60 cycles per second that most people don't.

1080p24 does make a big difference in the smoothness of the image, especially in scenes where the camera pans horizontally..
Three days ago, we were reviewing the Toshiba HD-XE1 (the Euro XA2 model) which yet operates in 1080p60 (new firmware pending..). The display was a JVC HD-1 1080p. The 3:2 pulldown judder was most oblvious in scenes like Van Helsing chapter 2 (the camera panning before Notre Dame) and U-571 chapter 2 (the camera panning in the bowlroom scene). It was most obvious, when we performed A-B comparison of the same scenes with our reference HD-HTPC which operates in 1080p24 naturally.. The same scenes, were surely more smooth with the HTPC..

with our reference HD-HTPC which operates in 1080p24 naturally.. The same scenes, were surely more smooth with the HTPC..

I am wondering, did you try the 1080p60 from the HTPC?

I am wondering, did you try the 1080p60 from the HTPC?

Yes, of course, with the exact same results as the Toshiba in terms of smoothness..

I'm glad this topic was created, since 1080p/24 is being sold as a parameter of excellence - for displays and also players.

The list of 1080p/24fps capable equipment is still short, and it would be nice to be sure this feature is worth the extra cost it usually comes with.

In theory it SHOULD make a difference, but if it's subtle or not is a very important detail.
It may happen it depends on the viewer....if it does, consensus won't be reached.

The more people post here about their own experience the better we can decide if this "nirvana" feature lives up to its hype...

It may happen it depends on the viewer....if it does, consensus won't be reached.

Wouldn't it also depend on whether you've watched mostly 60hz (ntsc) or 50hz (pal) material as they say that you do get used to 3:2 pulldown judder on 60hz systems and tend to ignore it so 24p might not look much better.

Ken

I wonder if not all displays are equal on this source as well.

I mean for me, it was smooth looking pans -vs- possible smother looking pans?


If you have to hit a few select scenes in a movie to show it off, I call that subtle. I just ran a few minutes of various titles when I checked it out. it seemed like it was taxing the bandwidth of my long cable runs as much as anything else with some slight video noise of some sort visable. Color me way not so picky, I am NOT a videophile by any means, my background is in audio engineering, production and recording.

I still think my LD's look fine for the most part on my 1080p projector and even thought a hockey game in SD last night looked fine as well. Not HD, but totally enjoyable / watchable anyways.

Similarly today people cling to even the least desireable characteristics of movie theater technology, like 24fps and 2.45:1 aspect ratios.

A constant height scope system is the way to go. When those curtains open up
it is magic.
235:1 as its known also uses more negative surface producing more resolution and brightness in a cinema system verses flat 1.85. I do not know of many who would agree scope is least desirable. 24fps on the other hand, Im with you:)

I must be the only one that still does a lot of 4:3. :) 16:9 screen still seems way best for me personally over all. I am talking OAR 4:3 movies here too. I just don't think scope is going to be for me, maybe ever. But never say never, that's for darn sure.

well, I am about to build my screen wall and thought long and hard about making it 2.35:1 ready, but in the end decided to just do 16:9. I watch a lot of sports and HD programming, so no need to invest in a wider screen, lens, masking for the occasional movie that requires it. I don't have the feeling I am lacking anything when watching scope movies and find them quite enjoyable on the 16:9. YMMV.

I agree scope would only serve the purpose for those who are true movie buffs. Watching sports etc I would also prefer 16x9.

An easy test for seeing the difference between a properly implemented 24p source/display and a 60p ( or 60i ) is the beginning of most Paramount movies where the stars enter stage left and swirl around the center logo. Their movement is definitely smoother at 24p. Another point: there is no downside to 24p, no compromise, so why not have it? Of course I'm not suggesting anyone should dump their current system just to get 24p, but when shopping for a new component I would certainly try to incorporate 24p devices whenever possible.

Dick Fogg

An easy test for seeing the difference between a properly implemented 24p source/display and a 60p ( or 60i ) is the beginning of most Paramount movies where the stars enter stage left and swirl around the center logo. Their movement is definitely smoother at 24p. Another point: there is no downside to 24p, no compromise, so why not have it? Of course I'm not suggesting anyone should dump their current system just to get 24p, but when shopping for a new component I would certainly try to incorporate 24p devices whenever possible.

Dick Fogg

That makes sense to me since the judder occurs at 60p because 3:2 (3 of one frame, then two of the next, then three, then 2 and so on) is being applied to something moving across the screen at a constant speed and your mind notices that something isn't quite right. If there isn't much speed in a sceen or it isn't constant, then your mind doesn't notice and 3:2 is fine.

Do you think it makes a difference if the display device outputs the 24P signal at 24, 48 72, 96 or 120hz (FPS)? I can see how with a traditional movie theater projector it made sence to double the frame rate to eliminate flicker, but I wouldn't think it would make a difference with LCD display. What do you think? I believe the output of 24p in the new Panny is 24hz.

I can see how with a traditional movie theater projector it made sence to double the frame rate to eliminate flicker

Eliminate flicker? Well, that's a dismal failure. The flicker in movie theaters drives me crazy. I MUCH prefer my home theater with my LCD projector.

I really recommend that if someone has the time and another person to help, take a classic slow horizontal panning scene and perform a blind test comparing the 1080p/24 and 1080p/60 versions. See if you can reliably tell which is which significantly more often that pure chance would indicate.

I am absolutely certain about two things:

1) There is enough variability in human perception that there's no one thing we can say about this that applies equally to all people. Some people claim that the RBE from single-chip DLPs drives them crazy, but it is completely invisible to me, except when I act to induce it by shaking my head back and forth.

2) I don't see the judder artifact that 1080p/24 "fixes" at all. I have looked as closely as I can at several panning scenes in both 1080p/24 and 1080p/60. They look identical to me.

....I don't see the judder artifact that 1080p/24 "fixes" at all. I have looked as closely as I can at several panning scenes in both 1080p/24 and 1080p/60. They look identical to me.

Tom, if you own the Van Helsing HD-DVD, try the Chapter 2 I mentioned.
It is pretty obvious...
BTW, what display are you using?

I really recommend that if someone has the time and another person to help, take a classic slow horizontal panning scene and perform a blind test comparing the 1080p/24 and 1080p/60 versions. See if you can reliably tell which is which significantly more often that pure chance would indicate.

No problem at all. I flick my VP50 back and forth between 24 and 60 fps quite often, and if I sit down to watch a movie and forgot to set it to 24, I usually spot it within the first minute of watching. If you've spotted the difference once, you will never be in doubt when watching a panning scene. I _hate_ 2-3 judder, growing up with PAL and never having watched that many reg. 1 DVD's, it simply doesn't look right to me. Give me a slow panning like the first scenes of the Colloseum in Gladiator, and I'm willing to bet you that I'll spot the difference 10 times out of 10, even without a comparison.


1) There is enough variability in human perception that there's no one thing we can say about this that applies equally to all people. Some people claim that the RBE from single-chip DLPs drives them crazy, but it is completely invisible to me, except when I act to induce it by shaking my head back and forth..

I strongly believe that it's not as much about physical variables as it is about psychological variables. Just like when some people say DVD looks "Perfect, impossible to beat", then show them HD for a couple of hours, and now they think the DVD looks awful.

2) I don't see the judder artifact that 1080p/24 "fixes" at all. I have looked as closely as I can at several panning scenes in both 1080p/24 and 1080p/60. They look identical to me.

You'll come around... ;-) Is this on several displays? I've _never_ met a person who couldn't see this right away, as soon as I pointed out the difference or just showed an A/B comparison.

Of course, if you don't find it a problem, DON'T LOOK FOR IT!! :-D

A lot of people did not see RBE until someone taught them how to see it, but once they saw it, they continued to see it. I remember that some people actually got mad after learning how to see it from this forum.

No problem at all. I flick my VP50 back and forth between 24 and 60 fps quite often, and if I sit down to watch a movie and forgot to set it to 24, I usually spot it within the first minute of watching. If you've spotted the difference once, you will never be in doubt when watching a panning scene. I _hate_ 2-3 judder, growing up with PAL and never having watched that many reg. 1 DVD's, it simply doesn't look right to me. Give me a slow panning like the first scenes of the Colloseum in Gladiator, and I'm willing to bet you that I'll spot the difference 10 times out of 10, even without a comparison.




I strongly believe that it's not as much about physical variables as it is about psychological variables. Just like when some people say DVD looks "Perfect, impossible to beat", then show them HD for a couple of hours, and now they think the DVD looks awful.



You'll come around... ;-) Is this on several displays? I've _never_ met a person who couldn't see this right away, as soon as I pointed out the difference or just showed an A/B comparison.

Of course, if you don't find it a problem, DON'T LOOK FOR IT!! :-D

Interesting. Is a PS3 using Blu-ray a good option to see the difference? I have no external dedicated scaler / processor. As stated, when I checked this out, I ran quite a few Blu titles, my result was smooth pans -vs- possibly slightly smoother pans.

A lot of people did not see RBE until someone taught them how to see it, but once they saw it, they continued to see it. I remember that some people actually got mad after learning how to see it from this forum.

True. I remember I had a spot on one of my past screens that drove me crazy.
No one else ever saw this until I pointed it out to them one day. Then when ever they would come over to watch a movie or TV they complained as if the spot were the size of a base ball and kept bugging me to get a new screen. It is strange how psychology works.

The easiest place to see the difference is to look at scrolling white on black credits at the end of a movie. I think most anyone can see telecine judder here. Just remember that once you see it here, it will be more easily seen at other times during a movie. There was also a time when almost noone noticed dithering.

Is there any reason that PAL sources would suffer from judder worse than NTSC? A very unscientific observation is that people from Europe seem particularly vocal about the troublesome nature of this artifact.

I don't think they are saying PAL sources are worse than NTSC---just the opposite; PAL sources don't have 3-2 judder, so when they see it for the first time they are more sensitive to it.

I don't think they are saying PAL sources are worse than NTSC---just the opposite; PAL sources don't have 3-2 judder, so when they see it for the first time they are more sensitive to it.

Yes that would be what we're saying, or at least I am and it's not just Europe as most of the planet uses 50hz PAL or SECAM. 60hz induced 3-2 pull down judder is rather obvious to anyone that hasn't seen it before.

Ken

I noticed when testing between 60hz and 24hz when you pan up and down its a huge difference. If I had my screen id find the spots in Ice Age:The Meltdown that really shows off the difference. Hopefully next week.

Is there any reason that PAL sources would suffer from judder worse than NTSC? A very unscientific observation is that people from Europe seem particularly vocal about the troublesome nature of this artifact.

PAL TV in Europe is 50hz and most film material is adapted (sped up slightly) . Same speed up (~4%) is applied film material during the production of PAL DVD's. Hence the frame repeat is 2:2 at 50hz and motion appears fluid compared to film on the HD disc formats that is repeated in 3:2 to output at 60hz.

D

Well, I'm about to join the ranks of those with 24p display capability. I've been putting off upgrading my Sharp 20k because of an issue I've had with my Lumagen (solved thanks to a tip I got here on AVS). I do see judder during pans, but I'm so used to it that it's just something I've learned to live with.

RBE is a different story. I absolutely love the sharpness of single chip DLP, so I'm perfectly happy with how my brain filters out the rainbows. Judder degrades the image, and my brain's filtering allows me to tolerate it, but I still see it.

A very unscientific observation is that people from Europe seem particularly vocal about the troublesome nature of this artifact.

because PAL dvds, effectively 2:2 speedup, is basically as smooth as 24p. When you are used to the smooth 50hz dvds, and when you are suddenly exposed to a 3:2 dvd/hddvd/bluray playback (whatever 60p), you IMMEDIATELY find something is wrong. I personally have many friends who are used to PAL and will immediately notice something is strange watching a NTSC dvd.

In the US, I believe most ppl are already used to 60hz. That's why the smoothness of 24p is not noticeable at all. And also the reason many ppl claim 24p is over hyped. It's not over hyped. If you spend 10yrs watch PAL dvds, and suddenly go to watch a NTSC one, the difference is immediate. It's the *feel*.

No 3/2 reversal technique can be 100% gaurenteed especially on the consumer end. It may seem simple on the surface. Just store a field and compare it to subsequent fields. If they match pixel for pixel, then the two fields must be from the same film frame. However the devil is in the details. While the film grain will be identical between the fields, there is always electrical noise present that can still be resolved in even 8 bit systems. So two fields are never 100% the same even from the same film frame. There are also incorrectable errors on digital tape and disk systems. Due to the realtime nature of video, errors that cannot be corrected are concealed with interpolated values. Unlike offline data backup, digital video cannot go through a write-read-verify-rewrite cycle. These concealed errors will cause also differences between two otherwise identical fields. RAID storage is a great benefit here.

So the solution is to weigh the checksum of the field so that noise and minor concealment errors are below the image change threshold. However this is a fine line, if the threshold is too low, then noise or concealment could cause false detection. If too high, then subtle scene changes will be missed and two different film frames may be counted as the same. There is no perfect solution.

On the professional side we don't look at image data to detect 3/2. There is an analog "timecode" track HH:MM:SS:FF:f on master tape that identifies each frame and field. This data is also embedded into the digital video signal as ancillary data. It is industry practice to start the top of the hour at a film A frame. We simply read the timecode and count fileds never analyzing the actual video. Now this may seem 100% but it requires the material was recorded with consistant 3/2. A bad edit can throw the sequence out. Some professional scalers still look at the video as a backup for this reason. Broadcast material is very likely to have 3/2 breaks due to re-packaging and commercial insertion. DVD masters are usally checked and verified. The pull down flags are derived from the timecode signal.

So unless you have an HD-DVD (or BluRay) with native 24p or 24sF output you can never be assured of consistant 3/2 reversal.

Interesting. Is a PS3 using Blu-ray a good option to see the difference? I have no external dedicated scaler / processor. As stated, when I checked this out, I ran quite a few Blu titles, my result was smooth pans -vs- possibly slightly smoother pans.

Provided your display actually show 24p at a multiple of 24 frames per second, yes that would be a perfectly fine way of testing the difference. As stated earlier in this thread, I definately think that it makes a difference if one grew up watching 2-3 material, as compared to Europeans who are not used to it. In just the same way, I've often heard americans being annoyed with the PAL speedup's affect on sound, if it's not pitched down, whereas most Europeans never notice the difference. In any case, I don't think that an improvement in PQ should have to be an immediately obvious improvement to be worthwhile. I've heard quite a few people say that they didn't find HD that impressive at first (possibly because they were expecting too much, expecting the image to suddenly "pop" off the screen), but after watching a few films they realized just how much more they actually got from the difference. I felt the same way about the speedup - I actually find the difference in "pace" of a film noticably different, and sometimes it bothers me when watching PAL movies. I mentioned the panning of the arena scenes in Gladiator, in PAL they don't have the same "grandness", it just doesn't feel right when sped up. Not a big difference, but a penny here, a penny there...

Personally, I think this in general is one of the most exciting things about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray (whatever you prefer): For the first time, we're very close to matching the replay chain to the source, instead of matching the source to the replay chain. When the transfers are done right, I consider the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray version of a film the "final" release, from that point it's up to the replay chain to create the experience you want.

QUOTE "No 3/2 reversal technique can be 100% gaurenteed especially on the consumer end. It may seem simple on the surface. Just store a field and compare it to subsequent fields. If they match pixel for pixel, then the two fields must be from the same film frame. However the devil is in the details. While the film grain will be identical between the fields, there is always electrical noise present that can still be resolved in even 8 bit systems. So two fields are never 100% the same even from the same film frame. . . . . . . . So unless you have an HD-DVD (or BluRay) with native 24p or 24sF output you can never be assured of consistant 3/2 reversal."
__________________


That's very interesting. Does this mean that even if I WANT to output 3:2 (1080p/60) I may get a better picture if I send the 1080p/24P output of a HD-DVD player (assuming it has this capability) to my outboard scaler and let it do the 3:2?