Will movies filmed in 48fps require new home theater equipment?

Only a minor change may be required since currently 25fps movie filming is done with the camera shutter set to 1/48 of a second and the projectors in theaters are also set to display each frame twice with the shutter speed set to 48 fps.

We don't need different equipment to display movies shot on film vs HD video, that's taken care of in the mastering of the movie to dvd or BD. I see no reason why this would not be the case with movies shot at 48 vs 24 fps.

Peter Jackson's thoughts about shooting a 48 frames per second movie PJ Facebook

Bye bye low fps content Though as usual this will take a long time like 10 years?

Wonder how it'll look vs 60fps video (especially soap operas) which is the perpetual argument for 24fps for movie aficionados. I always thought the diff is more than frame rates and may involve color palettes and cinematography,etc.

Plus the inimitable Kuro...with its 72hz operating frequency, it should be able to handle double that of the 24 fps it supports now, but I doubt Pioneer will release an update for it when the first BD using the new fps arrives.

A 48fps input video stream will require approximately twice the video processor bandwidth of 24fps in a 2D display. 3D capable displays can already accept 48fps and (provided that the manufacturer is still actively supporting said display) should only need new firmware. Likewise the faster LCD displays such as those with 240Hz and 480Hz refresh should be able to accept and display that input frame rate, again with new firmware.

But if your display is already 1+ years old, and has already been superceded by a newer model, chances are excellant that it will never get the necessary 48fps firmware upgrade. Manufacturers are under no particular requirement to retrofit brand new features to older displays, and have good reasons not to do so - in what by then is considered a fully mature product.

I also believe that Blu-Ray players will require firmware updates to output 48fps. Again, if the player has the 3D output capability, it should be capable of 48fps 2D. But once again, if the Blu-Ray spec is extended to allow 2D/48fps output, then the manufacturers of existing players are under no particular obligation to do so - and their software developers are probably 100% utilized with fixes to the current production players, and in developing the next generation of player.

IMHO this whole 48fps 2D thing will take a few years to happen, and I don't really expect any updates for already sold and already installed displays and players. I expect that (as with 3D support today) the support of 48fps video streams will be a new feature for which the manufacturers will expect you to upgrade your gear.

One possible exception might be software-based players like the Sony PS3. Sony DOES have a good motive to keep all the PS3's on the same firmware release with the same feature set, and I believe that I have had to accept new firmware 3-4 times since I got mine in 2008. The current PS3 player firmware did acquire 3D capability sometime last year I believe, but I still do not have a 3D capable display.

Since 48fps support is a feature that interests me greatly, I have tentatively added it to the features I want in my next primary HDTV and my next Home Theater projector. But I am guessing, we will wait at least two years and possibly as long as forever to see both 48fps disk or streaming movie distribution, and 48fps capable displays and players.

As for 48fps 3D - that is a whole different story. That is a total of 96fps, which will require new hardware designs in the player and display.

I think they call it built in obsolescence . Thanks for the update.



Ian

Will Plasma owners and film purists hate 48fps? Hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness, more lifelike, get rid of blur and judder, sounds high-end LCd-ish .

Isn't a film purist one who prefers a picture like the director intended it? I would also assume most plasma owners would like the best picture possible that's not artificially created.

LCDs do it artificially with interpolation...who wouldn't prefer it done naturally at the source (the cams)?

Filmpurists/Plasmafans seem to love 24fps incuding the blur and strobing artifacts, 48fps will have a much cleaner look. Its kinda going from analog to digital, Plasmafans and filmpurists are on the anolog side of things.

One responce to the Peter Jackson 48fps Facebook article: ''i love the look of 24fps and i hate the effect of 100Hz that a lot of modern tv-screens are able to output. If 48fps is anything like that then i will be very unhappy.''

Even though the (48fps) frames will be real the look might be artificial-ish when you look at it from the filmpurist/Plasmafan side of things.
Digital-ish stuff has a build-in artificiality.

Until I personally see what authentic 48fps looks like without interpolation, I won't be able to say one way or another.

A videophile is one who is concerned with achieving high-quality results in the recording and playback of movies,TV programs, etc.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videophile

It seems to me that a videophile wants the best equipment -flatscreen, receiver,surroundsystem etc.. -, a film purist is interested in stuff like directors-cut and behind the scenes stuff, high-quality is not his or hers main interest.

Folks on AVS are videophiles.

100Hz already imply MCFI. As per my post above, film look may not be just determined by frame rate. That's too simplistic. Film lovers like some grain but never hear them loving strobe or blur in the AVS blu ray forum. Main discussion is on keeping the original content without EE and DNR with better scanning. In short capture the native as it is.

Remains to be seen.

High-end LCD means MCFI??

We already have smoothness from 2:3 pulldown of pseudo 60fps. As I posted multiple times, LCD needs higher frame rate (native or otherwise) to reduce sample and hold. This is separate issue from source/24fps induced artifact and irrelevant to 24fps or 48fps for plasma.

Improvement in native is ALWAYS preferred vs manipulation of source, whether i/p, resolution, frame rate, pulldowns, reduction of compression etc, if life is ideal and there is no constraints.

What i wrote is totally based upon what Peter Jackson wrote in his BLog, he is an experts who is surrounded with experts, if he write's nonsense they certainly will tell him. PJ Facebook
Also he is working with 48fps right now so he is better able to judge.


The description reminds me of high-end LCd.


Well, on my european 100Hz LCd i turn off the smoothing options combined with 576p when watching satellite TV, i see no need for higher frame rate in general tv content.
When watching bluray movies i also turn of smoothing options, on a regular basis i see weird things in the source, i believe partly it can be solved by 48fps, i'm against Motion Interpolation and want to get rid of 24fps.
I believe source should be of better quality, don't forget making money is the industry's prime target.

I am not against 48fps but to say film purists love artifacts is simply oxymoron.

What he said: "Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew--many of whom are film purists--are now converts."


Peter Jackson is a master but so is Steve Job, yet he said 7" tablet is too small to type on. (err think 4" iPhone)

Nonetheless we digress. My point is that film purists' focus on 24fps may be oversimplistic, while display tech artifacts should not be confused with the shortcomings of 24fps.

You appear to be making a lot of generalities without much representation.

I view the increase in frame rate as a good thing. But then my judgement has often been called into question in this forum because my standard for comparison is real life as seen directly with your eyes. This is a vastly different look from the artificial look of 24fps film, displayed on a Plasma video display at 60/72/96Hz.

I've decided that in the world of movie fans, as with most things, people are basicly Luddites. They cling to the familiar, even when something new is widely recognized as superior. This is why you can visit the more esoteric and limited patronage corners of AVS and find people who prize the look of CRT front projection and the sound of vacuum tube audio amplifiers. Those folks even stubbornly insist that what they have is the ultimate in A/V.

This is also why people who don't even know that film video is 24fps, prefer the look of 24fps source as displayed on the most common 60Hz HDTV display - it has the comforting familiarity of and a distinct resemblance to the NTSC CRT direct-view displays we grew up viewing.

Peter Jackson has proved himself to be non-traditional in many ways in the past few years, as has James Cameron, king of 3D technology. The recognition of the superiority of 48fps source over 24fps source is a symptom of people a bit less hide-bound than the majority of folks in the movie-making industry, or the hobby of Home Theater.

48fps is NOT NEW. In fact it can be found in a great many simulator rides at places like Disneyland and Universal Studios - as well as in professional simulations of aircraft, spacecraft, merchant ships, and Army tanks.

Most of us have extolled the virtues of the larger film formats such as 70mm and IMAX here at AVS, including me. If you have to view film, those are the best film formats.

But the BEST candidate for commercial film format I have ever seen by far, was the Maxivision 48 format invented in nearby San Luis Obispo, CA. Even noted cranky critic Roger Ebert liked it:

You can even find if you look hard enough, what I believe is the ultimate film display, IMAX 15/70 simulator rides that project at 48fps. It just doesn't get closer to real life than that, for my money. Too bad film is rapidly disappearing from the earth, it was an unsurpassed analog capture medium in a digital world.

I WANT theatrical movie distribution in 48fps, and I'll be delighted if the original film is captured at that frame rate. I WANT the Blu-Ray standard extended to 48fps, and I want players and displays capable of 48fps in 3D with full 1080p resolution. I'll spend my hard-earned cash on it - as long as it happens in the next 5 or 6 years, before I retire to a lower income level.

In fact, I think that the hobby would be significantly advanced if film - even 35mm film - were captured at 48fps, digitized onto a 48fps 4K digital intermediate, and then distributed in 4K D-Cinema at 48fps. Then the Blu-Ray disks at 1080p48 would be great for hobbyists, while remaining noticeably below theatrical movie quality. 3D I can take or leave, the only film where I really appreciated 3D tech remains Avatar.

But I'm not holding my breath. Now all of you Luddites out there, have your say.

I do not see a lot of folks on AVS complain about 24fps.
On a regular basis i see weird moments in 1080p blurays movies which mostly is fast/weird motion related, such a moments often ruins the whole experience for me. I find it peculiar that such a thing happens in $100.000.000 movies. Why does nobody complain about stuff like thisz? Or are we so used to this weirdness that we don't notice it any more?
Jackson:'' Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or 'strobe'. Shooting and projecting at 48fps does a lot to get rid of these issues.''

Here is one of those scene's,stuff like this is unwatchable IMO, the director who put stuff like this into a movie is incompetent IMO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzO9nPS3_4A



Right, film purists spin shortcommings of 24fps into filmart.

film definitely is more art than video soap opera Grain and 24fps on the other hand is more involuntary/unintentional, and caters to 80 years of familiarity bias than anything.

I've not seen this movie. Is it really that bad on a 24fps Blu Ray as Iron Man 2 is quite highly rated on PQ I thought? As discussed above we need to separate the native source artifact from display artifacts including deinterlacing VP or compression, or rips/captures.

@Gary I think people mostly disagree with your "MCFI is more natural" rather than "48fps is more natural" argument. They are intrinsically very different.

On the other hand, here's food for thought: Quote "We tested both 48 fps and 60 fps. The difference between those speeds is almost impossible to detect, but the increase in quality over 24 fps is significant."

So why bother with 120Hz/240Hz/480Hz or 600Hz? Practically judder and flickers are virtually eliminated for most people at around 75-85Hz despite some claiming contrary. (Joining the unique ranks of those claiming able to hear >20kHz) The only other reason I think 120Hz make sense is a unification for NTSC, film, PAL standards to converge with a common denominator, as 1080p has done. Otherwise for most real world application 120Hz or above is marketing, all the more ingenious is 2:3 pulldown to pseudo 60fps coupled with interlacing as a technological constraint (not intent), an amazing innovation that many take for granted.

Isn't that what I said a film purist is? You asked if film purists will hate 48fps, and directors are starting to use it so it goes along that film purists will like 48fps where it was intentionally used by the director.

Basicly, the higher the frame rate, the lower the sample-and-hold blur of the display. 120Hz displays are noticeably clearer than 60Hz displays. 240Hz/480Hz/960Hz displays are progressively better in that regard. However, the increased frame rate is accompanied by the need for more CPU horsepower in the higher frame rates is a significant downside.

As for 600Hz, that is a perfectly useless specification that applies to a plasma, and indicates how many times the plasma cells are ionized by high voltage in operation.

I personally think that 120Hz was the sweet spot that seamlessly sync'd with input frame rates of 24/30/60fps. But as the elctronics got cheaper, the sweet spot has moved to the 240Hz rate. Whether any increase above that is worthwhile - well, I just have not seen it.

People's vision is not the same from person to person. I never saw any DLP rainbows, but my kid could with her 25-year younger eyes. I see 35mm film in a theater as a series of flashed images as with a strobe light - I always did, as does about one person in eight. The 120Hz HDTV display for me was the cvery first time I saw smooth motion in a video display, aside from simulators. I've been a believer since.

I've seen both Iron Man 1&2 1080p24, i was not happy with Iron Man 2 PQ, the scene looks much worse on bluray then the Youtube video, there where more scenes in that movie i found unpleasent to watch.

Movie directors must be able to move their camera's as weird or as fast around as they want, they cannot with 24fps and its limitations.

Ok, but you where also talking about Plasma owners - a film purist, who is more interested in the movie itself then PQ might own a LCd, -the film purist who wants the visualisations the way the director intended might own a high-end Plasma.

Film purists might dislike the look of 48fps so much that they will stop being film purist and start looking for another hobby, film might look no longer film like because of 48fps realism .

48fps really will change the look of movies, as Jackson puts it ''We've actually become used to it(48fps) now,to the point that other (24fps) film experiences look a little primitive''.

I am looking forward to seeing The Hobbit in 3D 48 fps. For me, 24 fps really spoiled the experience of seeing Avatar in 3D. The judder and stobing constantly detracted from the immersiveness and realism of the 3D experience.

Now you're just resorting to making stuff up and speaking for film purists. Do you have any quotes from film purists to back your statement up from below up or is this just your opinion? Do you consider yourself a film purist?

Film purists might dislike the look of 48fps so much that they will stop being film purist and start looking for another hobby, film might look no longer film like because of 48fps realism .

Do you also speak for plasma owners as I happen to be one and disagreed with your intial post that I responded to about not liking 48fps. Until I see it consistently used I will withhold my judgement on it and that would be the same whether I watch it on my plasma or one of my LCD's.

I'm talking about my experiences on Forums such as AVS , not a opinion/ not making stuff up.

A large group of people want a film to look filmlike, THEY dislike LCd tech because LCd tend to ruin the filmlook, most of them buy Plasma, THEY UNDERSTAND what realism can do to the filmlook, you apparently don't.

I'm a videophile; i am one of those with the pro calibrated High-end flatscreen and the HD receiver and the bluray player watching TV in a almost dark enviroment, for me its all about accurate source reproduction.

Like I said, you make a lot of generalities and speculate as to how people will feel in the future. It's fine to post your personal opinion but one shouldn't try speaking for others. Let them voice their opinions.