Originally Posted by Lee Stewart
What are the approved frame rates currently in the BD specs? Aren't they 24P and 60i (in the USA)?
How many Hollywood movies have been shot in 48 or 60 FPS?
The BDA has already said they are fast tracking the 3D standard for BD. That means they are going by the KISS principal.
If in the future, movies start to be filmed in frame rates higher than 24, I am sure that the BDA will revisit the BD specs. Just like they are revisiting the specs to include 3D.
Why do you want to limit the Blu-ray 3D specs? I thought in the past you said you wanted the Panasonic system to be selected because it was technically the best. The Sensio system can apparently use 1080p50 and 1080p60. From a technical perspective isn't that better than 1080i50/1080i60 and 1080p24?
I've talked about the directors and cinematographers who are either using or asking for higher fps (and the cinematographers who fought hard to get 1080p60 added to the digital cinema specs - and succeeded). Obviously TV work is going to go 1080p50/60. The Sensio 3D system can do that. These has been added to the digital cinema specs.
Nine Inch Nails: Beside You in Time: recorded at 1080p30. Not in Blu-ray specs.
Various HD Scape titles on Blu-ray claim to be shot at "1080p60".
Oklahoma! shot at 30fps.
Around the World in 80 Days shot at 30fps
Many TV series shot 1080p25. In Blu-ray spec: no.
Obviously concerts and stuff currently shot at 1080i will in future be at 1080p60 etc. Why would consumers want a lower technical standard?
James Cameron has said he would like films shot at 48fps and "maybe on Avatar 2". He has said given his opinions on frame rates multiple times, before even Avatar 1 has been released, before the 3D Blu-ray standards have been set, so now is the time to be setting these standards.
James Cameron (Promoter of the Panasonic 3D Blu-ray system
For three-fourths of a century of 2-D cinema, we have grown accustomed to the strobing effect produced by the 24 frame per second display rate. When we see the same thing in 3-D, it stands out more, not because it is intrinsically worse, but because all other things have gotten better. Suddenly the image looks so real it's like you're standing there in the room with the characters, but when the camera pans, there is this strange motion artifact. It's like you never saw it before, when in fact it's been hiding in plain sight the whole time. Some people call it judder, others strobing. I call it annoying.
...people have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate. Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ... with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won't. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don't solve them at all.
"I would vastly prefer to see 48 frames per second as a new display standard, than 24 frames per second."
Peter Jackson has shot his King Kong thing in 60fps 3D. I know it's not a full length feature film, but what if he wanted to have clips of it in bonus features of a later re-release of King Kong on Blu-ray
Why do you want the BD upgrade (3D) system to have lower technical standards than it could have (not having capabilities that the Sensio system has)?