or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 24/30/60 fps comparison
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

24/30/60 fps comparison - Page 2

post #31 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbird8450 View Post

A very basic explanation follows...

Traditional TVs operate at 60Hz, or 60fps. Film is shot at a rate of 24fps. Nearly all movies and many television shows are shot at this rate.

When displaying 24fps material, a 60Hz TV needs to fit 24 frames into 60 so that it can display them. This is generally accomplished by repeating a frame twice, then the next frame three times, until you get to 60 (2:3:2:3, etc). The process then repeats for the next two frames, and repeats again for as long as you're watching the material. This process is referred to as 3:2 pulldown and creates "judder" as the frames are being displayed in an uneven fashion.

With, say, 120Hz, each frame is simply repeated five times, or 5:5:5, etc. This eliminates pulldown judder as the frames are being output evenly. This is also true of displays that can operate at 48Hz, 72Hz, 96Hz, or any multiple of 24.

Very good explanation.

If you ask me... the most ideal refresh rate is 240Hz. This way... your TV refresh rate is a multiple of ALL standard framerates... including 24, 30, 48, AND 60 Hz!
post #32 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post


why the hell are they still shooting in 24p?

quick answer from what i hear in these forums is (in order of importance):

1: many prefer the surreal yet technically inferior picture they grew up with (my friend for instance does not know what 120hz is. she simply likes judder and blur with movies)
2: most theaters only show 24fps (that's changing). directors must use this format to sell tickets and recoup their money.
3: the high cost of film/bandwidth, and converting a century-old 24fps equipment standard.
4: high fps motion has been said to be realistic enough to induce nausea within the human vestibular system in certain cases (haven't seen specific studies though)

lastly are the artifacts from 120hz/240hz motion processing. not included because its a by-product of tv processing not higher frame rates!
post #33 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbird8450 View Post

A very basic explanation follows...

Traditional TVs operate at 60Hz, or 60fps. Film is shot at a rate of 24fps. Nearly all movies and many television shows are shot at this rate.

When displaying 24fps material, a 60Hz TV needs to fit 24 frames into 60 so that it can display them. This is generally accomplished by repeating a frame twice, then the next frame three times, until you get to 60 (2:3:2:3, etc). The process then repeats for the next two frames, and repeats again for as long as you're watching the material. This process is referred to as 3:2 pulldown and creates "judder" as the frames are being displayed in an uneven fashion.

With, say, 120Hz, each frame is simply repeated five times, or 5:5:5, etc. This eliminates pulldown judder as the frames are being output evenly. This is also true of displays that can operate at 48Hz, 72Hz, 96Hz, or any multiple of 24.

Some would say that 3:2 pulldown judder is a lesser evil than 24fps judder:

http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm

Quote:


Therefore, there are two basic conclusions we can draw. First, motion judder is a natural byproduct of the 24 fps film rate. You will see it if you play a Blu-ray or HD DVD movie in native 24p transmission. How much of it you see will be directly related to how much moderate speed camera panning there is in the movie. Second, 3:2 pulldown conversions are a secondary source of judder. However, they tend to blur and soften the more aggressive instances of motion judder that you'd see in native 24p display. Leaving conventional wisdom aside, if you have the option to play your Blu-ray movies in either 24p or 60p, don't be surprised if you prefer the relative stability of 60p.
post #34 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tqn View Post

Some would say that 3:2 pulldown judder is a lesser evil than 24fps judder:

http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm

24 fps has problems both at 24 and 60 hz (as they say)
but what if the clips in that article were changed to 60 fps?
i already had these clips (first time shown @ 24, then @ 60fps)
again, the tv should be at default 60hz.



even with camera blur (from being shot at 24fps) the second time around the poker table is quite different.
i noticed james bond sitting there this time. it also felt like a pbs special for a moment.
as always the 120hz / 240hz setting is optional & usually adjustable.
post #35 of 82
That was some very good information!. It looks to me like having the capability of 24fps isn't really anything to write home about and more than likely will be standard issue in the future for most flat panels.

I'm looking at either a 65" V10 Panasonic Plasma, 65" Samsung B650 LCD, the 65" Sony LCD, or the Sharp 65" LCD. Now I can add the S1 Panasonic 65" plasma as well. All of them have 120hz but the V10 touts 24p "cinematic playback" which is one of the differences that make it cost $1000 more dollars than its S1 brother. Not sure why, but I have a better understanding now so I thank you all for your replies!!
post #36 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by borf View Post

24 fps has problems both at 24 and 60 hz (as they say)
but what if the clips in that article were changed to 60 fps?
i already had these clips (first time shown @ 24, then @ 60fps)
again, the tv should be at default 60hz.



even with camera blur (from being shot at 24fps) the second time around the poker table is quite different.
i noticed james bond sitting there this time. it also felt like a pbs special for a moment.
as always the 120hz / 240hz setting is optional & usually adjustable.

I Hate, Hate, hated the second version of everything. The pan down the building looked fake, and the poker game was so in your face it was terrible. However it's a great demo for the horrible Soap Opera Effect the many of us hate with LCD displays.

The video look takes you out of the story. It's too jarring and disrupts the storytelling. When you turn your head, things do not stay in sharp focus, some blur and you focus of another thing. With the fake look of the second runs of the scenes, everything is sharp and to me that's what makes it look fake.

Did I mention I Hate It?
post #37 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack8322 View Post

I Hate, Hate, hated the second version of everything. The pan down the building looked fake, and the poker game was so in your face it was terrible. However it's a great demo for the horrible Soap Opera Effect the many of us hate with LCD displays.

The video look takes you out of the story. It's too jarring and disrupts the storytelling. When you turn your head, things do not stay in sharp focus, some blur and you focus of another thing. With the fake look of the second runs of the scenes, everything is sharp and to me that's what makes it look fake.

Did I mention I Hate It?

I agree that the high frame rate 2nd versions look jarring at first. I *suspect* it's because we've been "taught" since birth that 24fps is cinematic, emotional, dramatic, and exciting while 60fps (or higher) is all about documentaries, 6 o'clock news, and soap operas.

If since the advent of movies and TV, it was film that was 60fps and TV that was 24fps, would we prefer the 24fps look of TV compared to the 60fps look of movies?
post #38 of 82
Great thread, and it's time to resurrect it!

I, as most film purists, prefer native 24p playback over 60p via 2:3 pulldown.

What I'm curious about is if there is any perceptible difference in motion between 24p playback at 48Hz vs. 72Hz vs. 96Hz vs. 240Hz, etc.?

Assuming all MCFI features are disabled of course, are there differences across even pulldowns? Like is there any benefit of 5:5 pulldown (120Hz) over 3:3 pulldown (72Hz on Pioneer PDPs)?
post #39 of 82
Apologies in advance for an ignorant question:

When I view a DVD on my plasma (Panasonic 58S1), what exactly am I seeing in terms of native frame rates and displayed frame rates?
I assume that I'm seeing 60 fps on my TV, from a DVD encoded to display 60 fps, created from a 24 fps source via 3:2 pulldown.
Yes? No?
What about Blu Ray?
post #40 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by scionracing View Post

Great thread, and it's time to resurrect it!

I, as most film purists, prefer native 24p playback over 60p via 2:3 pulldown.

What I'm curious about is if there is any perceptible difference in motion between 24p playback at 48Hz vs. 72Hz vs. 96Hz vs. 240Hz, etc.?

Assuming all MCFI features are disabled of course, are there differences across even pulldowns? Like is there any benefit of 5:5 pulldown (120Hz) over 3:3 pulldown (72Hz on Pioneer PDPs)?

On an AM-based display, no

On pulse based displays (or displays with black period), higher cycle will help to reduce/eliminate flicker
post #41 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazefrog View Post

Apologies in advance for an ignorant question:

When I view a DVD on my plasma (Panasonic 58S1), what exactly am I seeing in terms of native frame rates and displayed frame rates?
I assume that I'm seeing 60 fps on my TV, from a DVD encoded to display 60 fps, created from a 24 fps source via 3:2 pulldown.
Yes? No?
What about Blu Ray?

If you TV has the ability to apply reverse 2:3 where 60i/p is converted back to 24p, then you'll be seeing multiples of 24 (e.g. 48, 72, 94 etc...)


As for BD, most movies (if not all) are encoded in 24p.
post #42 of 82
So if my TV is capable of "24p playback via 3:2 pulldown," (not "cinematic 24p") what's the difference:

1. BD player outputs 60hz signal to TV (presumably via 3:2 pulldown within the BD player)

vs.

2. BD player outputs 24p signal to TV and TV converts it to 60hz via 3:2 pulldown




Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielo TM View Post

If you TV has the ability to apply reverse 2:3 where 60i/p is converted back to 24p, then you'll be seeing multiples of 24 (e.g. 48, 72, 94 etc...)


As for BD, most movies (if not all) are encoded in 24p.
post #43 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielo TM View Post

On an AM-based display, no

On pulse based displays (or displays with black period), higher cycle will help to reduce/eliminate flicker


That makes sense Nielo. So with AM-LCD, even pulldowns for 24p are equivalent for motion perception.

With PDP, my theory was correct. A higher refresh rate (such as 96Hz Panasonic, the V-Series) reduces flicker perception over 48Hz Panasonics (the G-Series), which exhibited flicker for many viewers.
post #44 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazefrog View Post

So if my TV is capable of "24p playback via 3:2 pulldown," (not "cinematic 24p") what's the difference:

1. BD player outputs 60hz signal to TV (presumably via 3:2 pulldown within the BD player)

vs.

2. BD player outputs 24p signal to TV and TV converts it to 60hz via 3:2 pulldown

DVDs are encoded with 480i/30 format. That is, DVDs, unlike Blu-Ray, have already been raised to video rates (the process has been known as "telecine" since the dawn of TV). Present on the DVD is 480i/30 - which translates to 60 interlaced fields per second – or 30 video frames per second complete with cadence judder. A DVD’s encoding also contains “flags” for progressive players and displays to assemble the interlaced fields (deinterlace). So if you set your DVD/BD player to 480p/30, then the player will deinterlace the DVD video to 480p and output the 30p/60Hz cadence.

Now, if you set your DVD player to output 24p/24Hz, then the player will attempt to extract the original 24p imaging stream from what's coming off the disc. This is not easy. In fact with some discs, especially older transfers, it is essentially impossible. Why? Because there's no way to decide which frames to discard to reduce 30fps to 24fps. If you try, you will get "stuttering" of the video which is much MUCH worse than the cadence judder you were trying to eliminate. Therefore, sometimes DVD/24 output is not optimal.

For DVDs, I recommend you leave 24p/24Hz mode OFF by default. Then try enabling it with higher quality DVD transfers, or newer transfers that appear to have been done more cleanly.

Also, what Nielo was describing above is reverse 2:3 pulldown, an example of which is Sony's Cinemotion feature. If the display detects film-based (24p) content, either from a television broadcast or from 480i/p/30 DVD output from a player, then the same extraction attempt will occur. The display rather than the player will attempt to restore the original 24p cadence. Again, sometimes this works; sometimes, it fails epically.

P.S. Your #2 above does not happen anymore with modern displays. In the past, when you output a true 24p/24Hz signal, some displays would internally convert to 60Hz via 2:3 pulldown and therefore could not display native 24p. Most modern HDTVs can display 24p judder-free, assuming you have the proper features enabled of course.
post #45 of 82
Thread Starter 
48Hz vs. 72Hz vs. 96Hz vs. 240Hz (while keeping the same frame rate) -

i'd also add impulse displays (crt, plasma maybe) effectively become sample & hold displays (lcd, amoled) at high hz. they blur more & judder less. around flicker-fusion you basically have a "sample & hold impulse display" (the eye sees quickly repeating frames appear as one long frame). i can say the effect is dramatic on my crt monitor - sample & hold blur covering up judder.
since lcd & amoled a.m. displays are already sample & hold there's not much change (as long as the frame rate is kept low - i.e. no interpolation).
post #46 of 82
Very interesting demonstrations of faster framerates here!

When movies are shot at 24fps the shutterspeed most used is 1/48s, this creates the motion blur that is needed for many scenes to retain the "movie magic" compared to the "video look" much despised by film makers.

By increasing the the framerate to 48fps you can still use a shutterspeed of 1/48s and keep the "motion blur" while reducing the motion judder in panning and fast moving objects. You can also use faster shutterspeed when motion blur is not desired.
When the framerate is increased to 60fps you lose the motion blur and get the "video look" which is great for TV sports, but which will never be considered in feature film making.

Feature films that are shot in 48fps can still be displayed at any faster refreshrate that are a multiple of 24Hz - 48 - 72 - 96 - 120 - 240Hz etc. without any need for pulldown conversion or negative effect of the image.

All feature film projections both in film and digital are displayed at double flash of 48Hz. By doubling the picture information from 24fps to 48fps during capture, you get not only less motion judder but also better sharpness and overall image quality.

A similar demo project like those that are posted in this thread, shot at 24fps and 48fps at 1/48second shutterspeed side by side and played back like that would be very welcome, even if I don't know exactly how to do that.
This would demonstrate the quality lift in a "feature film scenario".
2x48fps will be a must in 3D movie making (which was what Cameron wanted for Avatar), which opens the possibility for 48fps in 2D movies, especially now when moviemaking becomes more and more digitalized and the filmstock cost argument isn't there anymore.

According to a BBC research Whitepaper, to eliminate motion judder the framerate must be 300fps or more; http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/w...les/WHP169.pdf



&fs=1" width="644" height="390">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&fs=1" />[ATTN POSTER: YouTube Insert Error: Something went wrong. Please make sure you added the video correctly. Click here to see how YouTube videos should be embedded. There could also be a technical issue that's not your fault. Click 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" target="_blank">here to view the video on YouTube's site. If this link doesn't work, you did something wrong.]
post #47 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack8322 View Post

I Hate, Hate, hated the second version of everything. The pan down the building looked fake,

That's specific example is unfair. The pan down the building looked fake because it WAS fake. The low frame rate just hid the poor special effects.
post #48 of 82
Thread Starter 
thanks for the whitepaper. that is the best technical explanation for the continued use of 24/60hz.
it mentions the three-dimensional feel and creative choices for directors using high fps.

a 24fps/48fps comparison would have to be played back at 60hz but a close approximation
would be the 30fps/60fps video (except the shutter speed is unknown).
post #49 of 82
EDIT: Could some explain to a non English speaker the difference between judder and flicker?
post #50 of 82
I am always curious to know why some people in this forum kept saying some videos look "fake". It seems they will call anything that deviates from or changes 24 fps as fake, which sounds a little bit ridiculous to me since I do know our daily life does not proceed in 24 fps.
post #51 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack8322 View Post

I Hate, Hate, hated the second version of everything. The pan down the building looked fake, and the poker game was so in your face it was terrible. However it's a great demo for the horrible Soap Opera Effect the many of us hate with LCD displays.

The video look takes you out of the story. It's too jarring and disrupts the storytelling. When you turn your head, things do not stay in sharp focus, some blur and you focus of another thing. With the fake look of the second runs of the scenes, everything is sharp and to me that's what makes it look fake.

Did I mention I Hate It?

I couldn't agree more. Look at the poker scene from Casino Royale in that video. With the motion interpolation turned on it looks completely ridiculous. It was more like I was watching a poker tournament on ESPN. And that along with everything else played back in that manner looks like it was filmed with someone's handheld video camera, not with professional equipment.

It's simple really. When you watch a movie on a 120/240hz LCD, turn off the motion interpolation feature. Adding extra frames that weren't there to begin with isn't what the director intended.
post #52 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by arthurking View Post

I am always curious to know why some people in this forum kept saying some videos look "fake". It seems they will call anything that deviates from or changes 24 fps as fake, which sounds a little bit ridiculous to me since I do know our daily life does not proceed in 24 fps.

I fully agree. People should be complaining and saying it looks too real! It all depends on what the user wants. Some are elitist and want the picture to look like what the director intended. Others are just too use to the 24 fps they grew up with and know.
post #53 of 82
This is just a perfect example that I just don't get it: what's wrong with watching a poker tournament on ESPN? Isn't that just a recording of real events? Why should the poker scene in a film be the standard of "real"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by theslug View Post

I couldn't agree more. Look at the poker scene from Casino Royale in that video. With the motion interpolation turned on it looks completely ridiculous. It was more like I was watching a poker tournament on ESPN. And that along with everything else played back in that manner looks like it was filmed with someone's handheld video camera, not with professional equipment.

It's simple really. When you watch a movie on a 120/240hz LCD, turn off the motion interpolation feature. Adding extra frames that weren't there to begin with isn't what the director intended.
post #54 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by arthurking View Post

This is just a perfect example that I just don't get it: what's wrong with watching a poker tournament on ESPN? Isn't that just a recording of real events? Why should the poker scene in a film be the standard of "real"?

This is not what I meant. There is nothing wrong with the way a poker tournament shown on espn looks, but if the movie looks that way, then this is a problem for me. The movie and that scene was filmed at 24fps, not 30 or 60. Watching it any other way is not what was intended. For me it is not a matter of what looks real or not, it's more about artistic integrity. But it really boils down to how it was made to begin with. If the director of something made it to be watched at a high frame-rate, then ok.
post #55 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by theslug View Post

This is not what I meant. There is nothing wrong with the way a poker tournament shown on espn looks, but if the movie looks that way, then this is a problem for me. The movie and that scene was filmed at 24fps, not 30 or 60. Watching it any other way is not what was intended. For me it is not a matter of what looks real or not, it's more about artistic integrity. But it really boils down to how it was made to begin with. If the director of something made it to be watched at a high frame-rate, then ok.

You're right to say that to only watch films at 24fps, with no frame interpolation, is to be true to the source. However I think that if directors really had a choice in choosing the frame rate (today they don't have a choice so it's no more their intention than a director in 1900 to use B&W in a film) then there would be directors who would choose higher frame rates. James Cameron himself had said that the next technological advancement that he would like beyond 3D is higher frame rates.
post #56 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by tqn View Post

You're right to say that to only watch films at 24fps, with no frame interpolation, is to be true to the source. However I think that if directors really had a choice in choosing the frame rate (today they don't have a choice so it's no more their intention than a director in 1900 to use B&W in a film) then there would be directors who would choose higher frame rates. James Cameron himself had said that the next technological advancement that he would like beyond 3D is higher frame rates.

Capturing material at higher framerates is fine.

But when shooting a 24fps film, directors, actors, cinematographers, etc are fully aware of the slow framerate in use and perform accordingly. You can be assured that if, say, Kubrick had filmed The Shining at 60fps, the movie would have turned out far differently. Camera angles, camera movement, lighting, the performance of the actors and much more would all need to be adjusted to account for a far different visual medium.

I have no problem with anyone who says that they prefer shooting at 60fps instead of 24fps or vice-versa. I do have a problem with attempting to output native 24fps as if it were originally 60fps.
post #57 of 82
I'm cramming a bit here due to my CRT apparently dying. I don't like the look of the second version of Casino Royale. Am I correct in stating that this effect is solely because of the AutoMotion Plus-style frame interpolation of the 120Hz+ sets? If so, then if I disable that I should either only expect minor benefit from those sets (via 5:5 pulldown), or, even better, I should just save money by going with plasma and get better viewing angles and motion resolution?
post #58 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielo TM View Post

On the other hand, 60i/p is too high. It has unnatural appearance to it.

Why unnatural? Human vision doesn't operate on discrete frames, so surely the higher the framerate the more natural and closer to human vision it should appear.

Or are you referring to 60i/p as appearing unnatural compared to 24fps, because we are so used to 24fps as representing the natural world?

I've just upgraded to an LCD after my CRT TV died and I'm appalled at 24fps judder on Bluray movies: it doesn't look natural to me at all (natural as in how I would see the real world). Those 60fps videos look much more natural to me. Even cinemas don't seem to have the same sort of judder I see on LCD at 24fps.

Consequently, I would likely find frame interpolation more pleasing to watch if only it didn't come with its own artifacts, due to the infant stages of the technology.

Which leads me to another issue that baffles: DVD and Bluray are based on motion vector compression, so it would theoretically be relatively simple to interpolate those vectors in the player and much more efficient than the display having to work it out from scratch; yet I have not seen any manufacturer offer player-based interpolation. Admittedly this approach would require that displays accept 48p/72p/96p/120p, but I expect this would be easier than performing blind interpolation on an incoming signal. I wonder why the industry has chosen not to adopt this approach.
post #59 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbird8450 View Post

Capturing material at higher framerates is fine.

But when shooting a 24fps film, directors, actors, cinematographers, etc are fully aware of the slow framerate in use and perform accordingly. You can be assured that if, say, Kubrick had filmed The Shining at 60fps, the movie would have turned out far differently. Camera angles, camera movement, lighting, the performance of the actors and much more would all need to be adjusted to account for a far different visual medium.

I have no problem with anyone who says that they prefer shooting at 60fps instead of 24fps or vice-versa. I do have a problem with attempting to output native 24fps as if it were originally 60fps.

I think watching 24fps material with frame interpolation does look funny, but whatever floats some people's boat...

And yes, I can imagine that if Kubrick did film and present The Shining at 60fps he would've taken a much different approach to all those aspects of filming you mentioned. But I see that as the choice that the director consciously makes. For example, a director could choose 24fps for gritty movies set in older times such as Saving Private Ryan, or could choose 60fps (or 48 or 72 or...) for a movie like Avatar 2.
post #60 of 82
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post


Or are you referring to 60i/p appearing unnatural because we are so used to 24fps as representing the natural world

I think that's what most people mean but suppose there is a slight side effect to interpolated motion. cg character animations for instance (their movements are completely interpolated) seldom look right to me. similarly, there could be some "linearization" of motion going on during heavily interpolated (24fps) movies. just a guess.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 24/30/60 fps comparison