OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 277 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 39Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #8281 of 10438 Old 01-18-2014, 02:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weboh 
And you know this because you haven't seen them yet? I'd advise you to wait until its over.
I know all i need to know about 2014 LG Plasma's and LCd's wink.gif


Both Samsung and LG need a kick in the bum. I'll give you that.

Weboh is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #8282 of 10438 Old 01-18-2014, 03:57 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post

My friend decided to sell his VT50 and replace it with a his second 65ZT60 because he had a buyer and plenty of money.

I supported this decision in case my ZT60 goes bad, I can make him an offer biggrin.gif

- Rich
Mine has no choice but to last.
RichB likes this.
vinnie97 is offline  
post #8283 of 10438 Old 01-18-2014, 04:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Weboh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 20

Make sure the air conditioner and zt60 fans work then. And whatever you do-- don't exceed the contrast and briteness of THX mode. :o

Weboh is offline  
post #8284 of 10438 Old 01-18-2014, 04:40 PM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1000
I'm pretty sure the ZT60 will shut down if the fans are faulty (hooray for failsafes).
vinnie97 is offline  
post #8285 of 10438 Old 01-18-2014, 04:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 711
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist 
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist 

And I look forward to viewing upscaled content. I feel like I've been saying it a lot recently, but 1080p looks better on a 4K display than it does on a 1080p native display. Fine details are much better resolved.
That might be the case. When i buy a 4K TV i want 4K content..and leave all the lower resolutions behind smile.gif

I just hope someone takes the effort to make the 4K playable on 2K devices (blu-ray/cable STB/netflix app/etc).  With proper downsampling, the 4:4:4 might really be something.  It might be a refreshing "whoa, 2K can do this???" moment.

Biggest bang for the buck for current 2k owners is getting off the 24p "back in my day"-mentality and moving up to a higher framerate, and suddenly 2k is much, MUCH better in terms of clarity. But, people persist in hating smoothness and chasing resolution. Contrast, black levels, dynamic range, are all important, but what about motion? What about reducing inherent blur in the source material? You have this terrific display and it usually isn't even using half of its capability. Fluidity is sexy, and is available now. 1080p / 60 can be done on Blurays already, can't it?

I don't care if LCD or OLED or whatever wins in the end, so long as stuff keeps progressing, eventually people will have a facepalm moment that, hey, guys, the biggest limitation on our display quality is one we imposed on ourselves : this antiquated addiction to 24hz material. That's a much, much bigger issue, I think, and every other tech you talk about would benefit that much more from being shot and displayed at a decent clip, instead of the now venerable framerate from circa 1920s silent films.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #8286 of 10438 Old 01-18-2014, 05:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,813
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post

this antiquated addiction to 24hz material. That's a much, much bigger issue, I think, and every other tech you talk about would benefit that much more from being shot and displayed at a decent clip, instead of the now venerable framerate from circa 1920s silent films.

 

I've railed about this endlessly.  There a confusion about 24FPS being somehow intrinsic to the "cinematic artform", when what they really mean by that is that 24 FPS is merely intrinsic to the "24 FPS cinematic artform".  I have NO idea where this love-afair with substandard frame rates comes from, but it's patently absurd.


Well Vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, got one of these. I wonder how much longer before I get such a message...
You have been banned for the following reason: No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
tgm1024 is offline  
post #8287 of 10438 Old 01-19-2014, 12:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

That might be the case. When i buy a 4K TV i want 4K content..and leave all the lower resolutions behind smile.gif
Good luck with that. I assume you have a 1080p display now - have you stopped watching SD content?
There are so many great films and television shows that will likely never see a 1080p Blu-ray release, let alone a 4K master, I couldn't do that. And believe me - I've tried.
There was a time when all I was watching was Blu-ray. But then I had seen all the titles which interested me, and I started buying DVDs again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post

Biggest bang for the buck for current 2k owners is getting off the 24p "back in my day"-mentality and moving up to a higher framerate, and suddenly 2k is much, MUCH better in terms of clarity. But, people persist in hating smoothness and chasing resolution. Contrast, black levels, dynamic range, are all important, but what about motion? What about reducing inherent blur in the source material? You have this terrific display and it usually isn't even using half of its capability.
The problem is that film makers are chasing 48fps rather than 60fps. Very few displays are capable of showing a 48Hz signal. At best, your display supports 50Hz (typically non-US display) and supports loose enough timings that it will sync to 48Hz. Mine will go down to 48.5Hz but no lower.

I am all for high framerate content though. 24fps sucks.
Weboh likes this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #8288 of 10438 Old 01-19-2014, 05:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JazzGuyy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oro Valley AZ
Posts: 2,643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Good luck with that. I assume you have a 1080p display now - have you stopped watching SD content?
There are so many great films and television shows that will likely never see a 1080p Blu-ray release, let alone a 4K master, I couldn't do that. And believe me - I've tried.
There was a time when all I was watching was Blu-ray. But then I had seen all the titles which interested me, and I started buying DVDs again.
.
+1

JazzGuyy is online now  
post #8289 of 10438 Old 01-19-2014, 07:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,675
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist 
Good luck with that. I assume you have a 1080p display now - have you stopped watching SD content?
75+% of what i watch is HD. On my 1080p laptops i watch some more of the lesser quality stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist 
There are so many great films and television shows that will likely never see a 1080p Blu-ray release, let alone a 4K master, I couldn't do that. And believe me - I've tried.
There was a time when all I was watching was Blu-ray. But then I had seen all the titles which interested me, and I started buying DVDs again.
Only a fraction of the movies i watch are DVDs these days, most movies that are DVD only i do not care about anyway. When movies are outdated, and lots of the older ones are, i easily lose my interest. I do have some comedy series on DVD but i do not watch those on a regular basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist 
I am all for high framerate content though. 24fps sucks.
I kind of agree.
8mile13 is offline  
post #8290 of 10438 Old 01-19-2014, 08:01 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1000
Newer != better wink.gif
vinnie97 is offline  
post #8291 of 10438 Old 01-19-2014, 08:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gadgtfreek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,691
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Newer != better wink.gif
Unless you are talking about CE devices...

65" VT50 / BDP-S6200
X4000 / Outlaw Model 7125
Klipsch RF82 II and RC62 II / Hsu VTF-15H (2)
Directv HR44-200 / TiVo Roamio
gadgtfreek is offline  
post #8292 of 10438 Old 01-19-2014, 08:51 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1000
Nope, cinema/television, but on some CEM fronts I would wager it still applies (i.e. on matters like build quality). Display technology (available to the public) hasn't particularly improved much year-on-year either when you consider the benchmarks that have been set (Kuro, Sharp Elite), though 2013-2014 looks to be unseating those kings (for the most part).
vinnie97 is offline  
post #8293 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 12:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,474
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnie97 View Post

Nope, cinema/television, but on some CEM fronts I would wager it still applies (i.e. on matters like build quality). Display technology (available to the public) hasn't particularly improved much year-on-year either when you consider the benchmarks that have been set (Kuro, Sharp Elite), though 2013-2014 looks to be unseating those kings (for the most part).
That was due there was no challenger to LCD and Samsung/LG dominated which resulted in cost-cutting based on edge-lit as the major battlefield. This year Vizio showing is indicating PQ battle in the LCD area may be back. If full arsenal of LCD potenial is used in the form of dense FALD with RGB backlight plus advanced HDR algorithms plus chinese manufacturing, OLED future may be written on the wall.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #8294 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 09:10 AM
 
vinnie97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nunya
Posts: 11,657
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 213 Post(s)
Liked: 1000
^It's a promising looking combination, but there is still the prospect of blooming. As one well renowned CES attendee put it: "Maybe next year..."
vinnie97 is offline  
post #8295 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 09:36 AM
Advanced Member
 
RadTech51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I've railed about this endlessly.  There a confusion about 24FPS being somehow intrinsic to the "cinematic artform", when what they really mean by that is that 24 FPS is merely intrinsic to the "24 FPS cinematic artform".  I have NO idea where this love-afair with substandard frame rates comes from, but it's patently absurd.

Change is always difficult, when people are used to seeing something a certain way and then it gets changed the results are often mixed. Often times people don't know what the change is exactly but they ether like it or don't like it, much like enabling the higher frame rate on television making it look soap operai-ish. Much of this can be blamed on the director, For Example: I don't think many directors do 3-D any justice, James Cameron is the one exception that comes to mind however. Other directors will just film their films in 2-D and then convert them later to 3-D missing the point entirely. It's just some directors don't have any experience in shooting 3-D and due to the pressure in Hollywood pushing 3-D everywhere they're forced to convert their films afterwords.

As you probably already know James Cameron, Peter Jackson and George Lucas got together and decided to push the frame rate higher, to 48fps but were even talking about 64fps. In fact James Cameron want's to shoot in 68fps in his next 3 Avatar movies coming out in 2016-2018. James Cameron is a big supporter of the higher frame rate and has been trying to push it for a-long time now, so I don't see why he wouldn't continue with his plan even after that horrible failure with the Hobbit movie directed by Peter Jackson. I think James Cameron might just be the first person to pull it off and make it look right, you can think of James Cameron like Apple computer in the same sense they show the world how things are done raising the bar for everyone else to follow.

PS: Of course he showed the world how a do 3-D correctly with Avatar and put it back on the map now everyone else is now mutilating it, so who who knows if it'll work out in the end? It may just be small niche for James Cameron only until we get other directors that know what they're doing.

 

Sharp Elite PRO- 70X5FD 
Pioneer Elite VSX- 52 (A/V receiver)
Pioneer Elite BDP3FD (Blu-Ray) Player
Surround sound system: B&W (2) CM8's, (1) CENTER CHANNEL, (2) CM1 BOOKSHELF MONITORS's, (1) ASW10CM ACTIVE SUBWOOFER.
RadTech51 is offline  
post #8296 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 10:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,813
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadTech51 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I've railed about this endlessly.  There a confusion about 24FPS being somehow intrinsic to the "cinematic artform", when what they really mean by that is that 24 FPS is merely intrinsic to the "24 FPS cinematic artform".  I have NO idea where this love-afair with substandard frame rates comes from, but it's patently absurd.

Change is always difficult, when people are used to seeing something a certain way and then it gets changed the results are often mixed. Often times people don't know what the change is exactly but they ether like it or don't like it, much like enabling the higher frame rate on television making it look soap operai-ish. Much of this can be blamed on the director, For Example: I don't think many directors do 3-D any justice, James Cameron is the one exception that comes to mind however. Other directors will just film their films in 2-D and then convert them later to 3-D missing the point entirely. It's just some directors don't have any experience in shooting 3-D and due to the pressure in Hollywood pushing 3-D everywhere they're forced to convert their films afterwords.

As you probably already know James Cameron, Peter Jackson and George Lucas got together and decided to push the frame rate higher, to 48fps but were even talking about 64fps. In fact James Cameron want's to shoot in 68fps in his next 3 Avatar movies coming out in 2016-2018. James Cameron is a big supporter of the higher frame rate and has been trying to push it for a-long time now, so I don't see why he wouldn't continue with his plan even after that horrible failure with the Hobbit movie directed by Peter Jackson. I think James Cameron might just be the first person to pull it off and make it look right, you can think of James Cameron like Apple computer in the same sense they show the world how things are done raising the bar for everyone else to follow.

PS: Of course he showed the world how a do 3-D correctly with Avatar and put it back on the map now everyone else is now mutilating it, so who who knows if it'll work out in the end? It may just be small niche for James Cameron only until we get other directors that know what they're doing.

 

I agree, but not everyone F's it up.  I've seen a number of 3D films following suit now (with the emphasis on most of the imaging behind the screen instead of the hokey crap always flying around in front of your face forcing you to cross your eyes absurdly.

 

And Gravity absolutely did it right.  I can't say for sure because I gave it away without watching, but I've also heard that Life of Pi "did it right".  I can also vouch for even lesser blockbuster movies like Oz: Great and Powerful (very easy to "forget" it's 3D and just enjoy the immersion into the storyline) and even Monster's University was surprising in its smoothness (IMO).

 

ABOUT HFR:

 

I just saw an interesting video (I'll look for it) where a speaker pointed out that the biggest impact on that "video" look that people don't like so much was the angular sweep of the shutter.  The increase in frame rate impacted it somewhat, but by far the biggest impact was the change in shutter.  Interesting.

 

I have long since believed that HFR isn't 1:1 with Soap Opera Effect, because (and to honest, several don't believe me) if I set Sony MotionFlow to "high" (and get SOE) and then pause the feed, the SOE remains.  Further, completely stationary items in screen space with MotionFlow set to high remain with SOE.  Those should be immune to SOE if it were strictly HFR.

 

I'm guessing this has to do with a cut-out sort of effect.  With interpolation, perhaps there is a cut-n-paste mechanism that does not feather the result back into the object's new destination.  I wonder if this is roughly analogous to grabbing a region of a photograph, cutting it, and pasting it without careful blending.  You get a harsh cut-out look where the object just doesn't smoothly connect with its surroundings.

 

Perhaps the people who don't see what I'm seeing perhaps have high end TVs that do the blending properly to mitigate the SOE?


Well Vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, got one of these. I wonder how much longer before I get such a message...
You have been banned for the following reason: No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
tgm1024 is offline  
post #8297 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 10:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 99
All and only real HFR movie (The Hobbit) is judged by the 3D version where so many things can go wrong and have been going wrong in the cinema displaying it.

If The Hobbit was released in HFR 2D, we would have had a proper way of comparing it to 24fps movies. I believe the reactions would have been very different, particularly if HFR was not announced beforehand.

This is the report I saw on another forum recently and is similar to many other negative reports I'v seen. How many cinemas has had some type of variations of this?
Quote:
I saw the Hobbit HFR 3D in a normal theatre when it first came out. I thought it looks really nice.

Recently I was incline to see it again at an IMAX theatre to see what it was like on a really big screen. The IMAX version was terrible.

Not sure if it was because of the warped screen, or the two projector system it takes to run the IMAX…but there were some very unusual results.

Objects that were supposed to be in the background would randomly flicker into the foreground. There are all kinds of watering distortions throughout the movie.

It was so bad the much of the crowd would move their seats constantly, people kept taking off their glasses, kids were complaining…and my wife and I left with a headache (for the first time on a 3D movie.)

Anyone else had that kind of experience watching 3D IMAX.

Of course I tried to explain this to the manager…his response was…its supposed to be that way.

his was in Short Pump VA. Probably best to avoid that theatre.
coolscan is offline  
post #8298 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 11:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadTech51 View Post

As you probably already know James Cameron, Peter Jackson and George Lucas got together and decided to push the frame rate higher, to 48fps but were even talking about 64fps. In fact James Cameron want's to shoot in 68fps in his next 3 Avatar movies coming out in 2016-2018. James Cameron is a big supporter of the higher frame rate and has been trying to push it for a-long time now, so I don't see why he wouldn't continue with his plan even after that horrible failure with the Hobbit movie directed by Peter Jackson. I think James Cameron might just be the first person to pull it off and make it look right, you can think of James Cameron like Apple computer in the same sense they show the world how things are done raising the bar for everyone else to follow.
He's been talking about 48 fps or 60 fps, and I think preferring 60 fps.

Though there was this quite recent article (16 Dec 2013):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/james-cameron-3-avatar-sequels-will-be-shot-in-new-zealand-1.2465494
where it says "He said that he intends to make the movies in 3D and to shoot at least some sequences at 48 frames per second."
It could be they misquoted him or misunderstood him (ie. if he was talking about HFR which, to him, could be 48 or 60 fps). And it will be a shame if he only shoots some (and not that many) scenes in a higher frame rate.
Quote:
All and only real HFR movie (The Hobbit) is judged by the 3D version
Ore Nyabagam was judged by the 2D version - or will be.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #8299 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 11:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,813
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadTech51 View Post

James Cameron is a big supporter of the higher frame rate and has been trying to push it for a-long time now, so I don't see why he wouldn't continue with his plan even after that horrible failure with the Hobbit movie directed by Peter Jackson. I think James Cameron might just be the first person to pull it off and make it look right, you can think of James Cameron like Apple computer in the same sense they show the world how things are done raising the bar for everyone else to follow.
He's been talking about 48 fps or 60 fps, and I think preferring 60 fps.

 

I remember when he first started talking about it.  IIRC I believe the word on the [hollywood] street was that he was supposedly "going to demand 60 FPS for Avatar 2" but later caved in to 48 FPS because of either theater or blu-ray issues.

 

Pedants like him are wonderful to have on our side.

 

In any case, hopefully this will be only the start.  Mark Rejhon has been musing about 1000 fps for some time.  Not gonna be there for decades, and as soon as you say "decades", almost anything can happen to render the entire discussion moot.  Frankly, I first want a unified standard between Europe and America (choosing 30/60/120 and axing 25/50/100) and giving 24 and 23.(absurd fraction) the punt for all time.  Then larger frame rates will be smoother to implement (without all these compatibility and pulldown artifacts, etc.).

 

What thread are we in again?  :)


Well Vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, got one of these. I wonder how much longer before I get such a message...
You have been banned for the following reason: No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
tgm1024 is offline  
post #8300 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 12:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I remember when he first started talking about it.  IIRC I believe the word on the [hollywood] street was that he was supposedly "going to demand 60 FPS for Avatar 2" but later caved in to 48 FPS because of either theater or blu-ray issues.
I remember the first article where he was talking about it (the Variety article from 2008: http://variety.com/2008/digital/news/james-cameron-supercharges-3-d-1117983864 - actually the shorter version of that article which displays differently now) he was talking all about 48 fps (for cinema).
Then later he was talking about 48 or 60 and presenting demonstrations of the same sequences at 24, 48 and 60, and saying he hadn't decided on which one to choose. It could be that if many cinemas wouldn't be able to do 60 but could do 48 that he'd do 48 (or whichever had been standardised on, which, since there are 2 big HFR Hollywood films now at 48 fps, he might now think (and I hope not) that 48 fps is now the "standard" for HFR cinema releases). I don't think he would do 48 fps because of "Blu-ray issues" (unless you're talking about ease of conversion to 24 fps) since 48 fps isn't exactly that compatible with Blu-ray (it would work but not evenly) whereas 60 fps (~59.94 fps) would work exactly.

I'm still not convinced that he's decided to go with 48 fps for the Avatar sequels though - I think he still may do the HFR scenes (if it's not going to be the whole thing in HFR) at 60 fps.
Quote:
In any case, hopefully this will be only the start.  Mark Rejhon has been musing about 1000 fps for some time.  Not gonna be there for decades, and as soon as you say "decades", almost anything can happen to render the entire discussion moot.  Frankly, I first want a unified standard between Europe and America (choosing 30/60/120 and axing 25/50/100) and giving 24 and 23.(absurd fraction) the punt for all time.  Then larger frame rates will be smoother to implement (without all these compatibility and pulldown artifacts, etc.).
Yes I agree to get rid of the fractional frame rates - though they've already added them to the ITU BT 2020 recommendations (~59.94p, ~29.97p, ~23.976p) frown.gif. And if we had to have 30/60 that would mess up our video. I think as long as it is high enough it should be okay - eg. choose >=150 fps. The trouble is some broadcasters/stations would probably go with the lower frame rates and that would look a lot worse when converted (since they're not going to totally remove all existing channels and throw away all existing content the moment the UHD format stars broadcasting). NHK have said that it needs to be no lower than 120 fps for good quality motion - so that basically rules out 100 fps (even though some members of the EBU are still considering it), and 120 fps could be a probelm with lighting requirements etc. in Europe. So I'd say stick to just one high enough number (no less than 150 fps if possible).
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #8301 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 01:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post


Then later he was talking about 48 or 60 and presenting demonstrations of the same sequences at 24, 48 and 60, and saying he hadn't decided on which one to choose. It could be that if many cinemas wouldn't be able to do 60 but could do 48 that he'd do 48 (or whichever had been standardised on, which, since there are 2 big HFR Hollywood films now at 48 fps, he might now think (and I hope not) that 48 fps is now the "standard" for HFR cinema releases). I don't think he would do 48 fps because of "Blu-ray issues" (unless you're talking about ease of conversion to 24 fps) since 48 fps isn't exactly that compatible with Blu-ray (it would work but not evenly) whereas 60 fps (~59.94 fps) would work exactly.

I can guarantee that Cameron will not do 60fps. The reason being that now so many cinemas have upgraded their servers to 48fps 3D that they won't take another upgrade again, at least for a very long time.

Blu-ray HD will never get HFR, but the new coming 4K BD format will have no problem to incorporate 48fps in their specs, unless they have some political reason to not.
Quote:
Yes I agree to get rid of the fractional frame rates - though they've already added them to the ITU BT 2020 recommendations (~59.94p, ~29.97p, ~23.976p) frown.gif.

There seems to be some misunderstanding about this.

When people write 60fps or 24fps, it is just a simplified way of writing 59.94fps or 23.97fps which are the right technical term for the actual framerate and how it actually functions in a camera and should be displayed with that count to be correct.
The milliseconds difference is the "blackout" between frames and how long it takes before a new frame is displayed.
It is the black bar between the frames of analog film.
coolscan is offline  
post #8302 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 01:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,813
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I remember when he first started talking about it.  IIRC I believe the word on the [hollywood] street was that he was supposedly "going to demand 60 FPS for Avatar 2" but later caved in to 48 FPS because of either theater or blu-ray issues.
I remember the first article where he was talking about it (the Variety article from 2008: http://variety.com/2008/digital/news/james-cameron-supercharges-3-d-1117983864 - actually the shorter version of that article which displays differently now) he was talking all about 48 fps (for cinema).
Then later he was talking about 48 or 60 and presenting demonstrations of the same sequences at 24, 48 and 60, and saying he hadn't decided on which one to choose.

 

That's interesting.  I have to wonder if the article you're referencing is after what I read.  That he had already decided on giving up on 60 for the time being (and going to 48) because he felt it important to remain compatible with print film standards and that (in his opinion) 60 was deep into the diminishing returns.

 

But thanks for that link.  I'm frankly not sure now where it was that I read he had caved on his initial goal of 60.


Well Vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, got one of these. I wonder how much longer before I get such a message...
You have been banned for the following reason: No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
tgm1024 is offline  
post #8303 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 01:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,813
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

When people write 60fps or 24fps, it is just a simplified way of writing 59.94fps or 23.97fps which are the right technical term for the actual framerate and how it actually functions in a camera and should be displayed with that count to be correct.
The milliseconds difference is the "blackout" between frames and how long it takes before a new frame is displayed.
It is the black bar between the frames of analog film.

 

My understanding was that the 59.94 and 23.97 came about only after NTSC established it for video (?)


Well Vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, got one of these. I wonder how much longer before I get such a message...
You have been banned for the following reason: No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
tgm1024 is offline  
post #8304 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 01:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

My understanding was that the 59.94 and 23.97 came about only after NTSC established it for video (?)
Yes it's when they added colour to NTSC. Before they added colour to NTSC, it was 60.0 fps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC
Quote:
Color information was added to the black-and-white image by adding a color subcarrier of 4.5 × 455/572 = 315/88 MHz (approximately 3.58 MHz) to the video signal. To reduce the visibility of interference between the chrominance signal and FM sound carrier required a slight reduction of the frame rate from 30 frames per second to 30/1.001 (approximately 29.97) frames per second...

Also the Andrew Lesnie said the the Hobbit was shot at 47.96 fps (if that's correct) not exactly 48.0 fps (you'd think that if it was a fractional frame rate, they'd also divide 48/1.001 and get ~47.95 fps). Obviously the used digital cameras for The Hobbit - I think film (not digital) cameras would shoot at whole number fps (or as close as their motor can get to that).
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #8305 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 01:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,813
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

My understanding was that the 59.94 and 23.97 came about only after NTSC established it for video (?)
Yes it's when they added colour to NTSC. Before they added colour to NTSC, it was 60.0 fps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC

 

.....and the (printed) film rate was 24 FPS, correct?  I don't see them as universally swappable or synonymous numbers.  I see them as compromises we no longer need to endure(?)  Or will these dinky fractions below the even number always be there?

 

Unless the 60 Hz was interfering with ambient lights creating a beat frequency.  <----That's yet another thing I've "heard" as an assumption.


Well Vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, got one of these. I wonder how much longer before I get such a message...
You have been banned for the following reason: No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
tgm1024 is offline  
post #8306 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 01:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

.....and the (printed) film rate was 24 FPS, correct? 
Yes, I think so, for film (not digital) cameras. I've just added that to my post smile.gif.
Quote:
I don't see them as universally swappable or synonymous numbers.  I see them as compromises we no longer need to endure(?)  Or will these dinky fractions below the even number always be there?

Unless the 60 Hz was interfering with ambient lights creating a beat frequency.  <----That's yet another thing I've "heard" as an assumption.
About the ambient lights - I think that would be more a problem with 50Hz lights being shot at 60Hz frame rates. I don't think you'd have any problem shooting 60Hz lights at exactly 60Hz frame rates - it should create less of a problem - if there was one.

I agree, though for whatever reason (eg. compatibility with existing video equipment such as video cameras, recorders, TVs, video shot content), that might have been the reason for including them in the BD 2020 UHDTV recommendations.
They haven't added it for 120 fps so far, but for the "NTSC" rates below that, they've added both the integer and non-integer versions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020
Quote:
Rec. 2020 specifies the following frame rates: 120p, 60p, 59.94p, 50p, 30p, 29.97p, 25p, 24p, 23.976p.
Though the above may change when they actually start broadcasts worldwide.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #8307 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 01:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 99
All movies are shot on those numbers, except when some idiot who doesn't know set the camera to 24fps.

There has been some complains about BD players that used 24fps as clock. Not so easy to detect, but stuttering end-rolls is one effect.

Anecdotal; First HD-DVD player that got 24fps was set to 24fps clock because the Toshiba engineers didn't know that it should be 23.97, so Microsoft had to tell them after people here on AVS complained.
coolscan is offline  
post #8308 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 01:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

All movies are shot on those numbers, except when some idiot who doesn't know set the camera to 24fps.
Which numbers? 23.976 fps or 24.0 fps? Wouldn't it depend on whether it was shot on film (eg. 24.0 normally used) or digitally (23.976 used if that was how the cameras recorded it - that's how consumer cameras that record approx 24 fps and The Hobibit (shot digitally) wasn't exactly 48.0 fps)?
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #8309 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 01:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,813
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._2020
Quote:
Rec. 2020 specifies the following frame rates: 120p, 60p, 59.94p, 50p, 30p, 29.97p, 25p, 24p, 23.976p.
Though the above may change when they actually start broadcasts worldwide.

 

Skipping over wikipedia, :) , here's the ITU BT pdf.


Well Vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, got one of these. I wonder how much longer before I get such a message...
You have been banned for the following reason: No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
tgm1024 is offline  
post #8310 of 10438 Old 01-20-2014, 01:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,442
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Skipping over wikipedia, smile.gif , here's the ITU BT pdf.
Yes, I've seen that too. Are you saying Wikipedia is incorrect in this case? Maybe it should it have said "recommends" instead of "specifies" but the numbers were still approximately correct. (eg. if you accept that 59.94 isn't exactly 60/1.001 etc.).
Joe Bloggs is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

Tags
Led Hdtv , Lcd Hdtv , Plasma Hdtv , Oled Tv , Lg , Samsung

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off