or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Will movies filmed in 48fps require new home theater equipment?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Will movies filmed in 48fps require new home theater equipment? - Page 5

post #121 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

The PS4 (or whatever it will be called) might be unveiled on 20th February this year., so we might find out a bit more about things then. Though if it is the actual video standards could still be changed ie. it would probably use software playback.

Interesting.

Have any of the upcoming TV's themselves stated explicit support for 1080p48? IOW, is it soon to be considered a requirement for it to be listed out on TV's and Blu-Ray players, etc.?
post #122 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Interesting.

Have any of the upcoming TV's themselves stated explicit support for 1080p48?
I haven't seen any statements like that about TVs.
Quote:
IOW, is it soon to be considered a requirement for it to be listed out on TV's and Blu-Ray players, etc.?
I don't know, though other film makers might use 60/120 fps.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 2/4/13 at 11:54pm
post #123 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Interesting.

Have any of the upcoming TV's themselves stated explicit support for 1080p48? IOW, is it soon to be considered a requirement for it to be listed out on TV's and Blu-Ray players, etc.?

I feed my Elite 70X5 1080 48p from a lumagen Radiance and it has no problems. Provides smooth motion and little if any SOE on 24p blu-rays.
post #124 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

I haven't seen any statements like that about TVs.
I don't know, though other film makers might use 60/120 fps.

I just hope we soon give up on this pointless pixel quest and go for perceived "effective" resolution as the goal by going straight to 120 FPS source material.
post #125 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

That's not true. 48 fps isn't part of the DVD or Blu-ray standard. 48 fps will require new equipment - unless they encode it in 60 frames/fields per sec or 50 in Europe. Blu-ray doesn't support 60 fps either at 1920x1080 resolution as part of the standard specs, even in 2D (it does at 720p).

If high frame rate (at >=full hd resolution) or 4K content becomes available on Blu-ray we'll need new players to play it, and probably new displays to play it unless you convert it to a format accepted by the TV (there are some 4K displays already available but even they may not be compatible with a future 4K format other than at 24 fps 2D or 30 fps in 2160p)..

The Redray player is compatible with 48 fps.

1080p 60hz is not part of the US ATSC standards and was not part of the original written bluray standard, but nearly all bluray players ever produced can do it. And nearly all flat screens, TV or computer types, with resolutions 1080p or higher can do it. The ATSC standards are an already outdated system that was originally intended for tube TVs.
post #126 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoozthatat View Post

I'm calling shenanigans on this one. HFR equals soap opera effect depending on one's opinion, not "without question."

The soap effect is caused by motion blur and to some extent the contrast curve of video cameras versus film, the former which should be the exact opposite effect. Film sometimes still has a superior and more natural contrast range to the eye, but video is much better than it used to be. What HFR does (especially HFR 3D) is make it easier to see that the CGI is fake... not just static images, but how they move. The fake physics become more obvious.
post #127 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reticuli View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoozthatat View Post

I'm calling shenanigans on this one. HFR equals soap opera effect depending on one's opinion, not "without question."

The soap effect is caused by motion blur and to some extent the contrast curve of video cameras versus film, the former which should be the exact opposite effect. Film sometimes still has a superior and more natural contrast range to the eye, but video is much better than it used to be. What HFR does (especially HFR 3D) is make it easier to see that the CGI is fake... not just static images, but how they move. The fake physics become more obvious.

 

4 opinions:

  • SOE is mostly caused by trying to counter the motion blur, not the motion blur itself, no?
  • I think we're just more used to film.  Video has always been almost "too real" for me, and makes me seem too much like I'm there, and film is far from a natural contrast range.
  • Further, the problem with the HFR revealing what's underneath it all is mostly because of the increase in effective resolution you get with additional frames.  As a hair on someone's head wanders through a pixel, there are more shades of it available in any given second, increasing the anti-aliasing of the edges.
  • And to the above point: the problem with HFR & the filming and CGI is not with the HFR.  It's with the filming and CGI not catching up to the new quality demands placed upon it.

 

4 opinions.


Edited by tgm1024 - 6/23/13 at 12:34pm
post #128 of 190

Speaking of resolution effects.

 

If any of you get a chance to view the remastered (HD) version of the Star Trek (TOS), it's a little humorous.

 

They opted to redo the ships/planets/space in CGI.  I really would love to see what the models looked like.

 

But get this: the make-up is hysterically bad.  You can see the off-and-on shaving shadow on the faces (depending on what time of day it was filmed).  And everything just looks much more toyish than normal.  Like most TV shows (when did this tip to mostly digital---10 years ago?), they filmed in 35mm film, but they just were never expecting it to be seen higher than the SD quality of the era.

 

Really great to see in its own way.  Big plus, and kind of a funny minus.

post #129 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reticuli View Post

1080p 60hz is not part of the US ATSC standards and was not part of the original written bluray standard, but nearly all bluray players ever produced can do it. .
The players can output a 1080p60 signal but they can't decode 1080p60 content (other than the few that can play the 1080p60 AVCHD files). So realistically, unless it's made part of the specs, they aren't going to distribute Blu-ray content in that format.
post #130 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reticuli View Post

1080p 60hz is not part of the US ATSC standards and was not part of the original written bluray standard, but nearly all bluray players ever produced can do it. .
The players can output a 1080p60 signal but they can't decode 1080p60 content (other than the few that can play the 1080p60 AVCHD files). So realistically, unless it's made part of the specs, they aren't going to distribute Blu-ray content in that format.

 

Is that really true?  Wow.  I had thought that there were 1080p60's made.

post #131 of 190
Many HDTV's that support 1080p60 can be "underclocked" to 1080p48 successfully.

For example, the cheap SEIKI 4K HDTV can sync to 1080p@48Hz easily.
Also, many of the TV's that that can be used as a 120Hz monitor (overclocks to 120Hz), can also sync to 48Hz.

So this is a new piece to this equation -- TV's with undocumented 48p support. Not even listed in EDID, but works.
post #132 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rejhon View Post

So this is a new piece to this equation -- TV's with undocumented 48p support. Not even listed in EDID, but works.
I suspect a number of displays that have 50Hz support will also sync to 48Hz, or close to it. Unfortunately mine is quite strict on timings and will only sync down to 48.5Hz. I'd like it to be better, but that's probably close enough.
post #133 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoozthatat View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

It is without question that HFR equals "Soap Opera" effect. That could be good or bad depending upon an individual's preference.

I'm calling shenanigans on this one. HFR equals soap opera effect depending on one's opinion, not "without question."

 

Perhaps this is appropriate to bring up here.

 

When my TV has it's motion handling turned up, the SOE is pronounced.

 

When I pause the video feed, the frozen picture I see has the same level of SOE.  It's not related to frame rate per se in this case, it's the motion handling / interpolative effects: the drawing of each of the images is altered and the effect is visible even one frame at a time.

 

I'm not saying that boosted native frame rate can't cause SOE or an SOE-like effect.  I'm just giving an observation.

post #134 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Perhaps this is appropriate to bring up here.
When my TV has it's motion handling turned up, the SOE is pronounced.
When I pause the video feed, the frozen picture I see has the same level of SOE.  It's not related to frame rate per se in this case, it's the motion handling / interpolative effects: the drawing of each of the images is altered and the effect is visible even one frame at a time.
I'm not saying that boosted native frame rate can't cause SOE or an SOE-like effect.  I'm just giving an observation.
I think you're seeing something else. The "soap opera effect" is: "this video is moving extremely fluidly, it looks like a soap opera". (which I guess are shot at 60fps?)
This is not something you would be able to see when pausing the video - because it isn't moving.
post #135 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Perhaps this is appropriate to bring up here.
When my TV has it's motion handling turned up, the SOE is pronounced.
When I pause the video feed, the frozen picture I see has the same level of SOE.  It's not related to frame rate per se in this case, it's the motion handling / interpolative effects: the drawing of each of the images is altered and the effect is visible even one frame at a time.
I'm not saying that boosted native frame rate can't cause SOE or an SOE-like effect.  I'm just giving an observation.
I think you're seeing something else. The "soap opera effect" is: "this video is moving extremely fluidly, it looks like a soap opera". (which I guess are shot at 60fps?)
This is not something you would be able to see when pausing the video - because it isn't moving.

 

No, I don't think that's quite right.

 

The soap opera effect isn't because of fluid motion per se, though in the case of TV's it's caused by motion processing often.  Before motion processing, it's the "shot in video" look of a soap opera compared to things that were shot in film.  Motion per se, isn't the culprit in TVs, it's the side effect of the motion processing.  On a non-motion-processing CRT, if you look at a stationary background scene of a soap opera (or today of any scene in an SOE riddled TV), it doesn't suddenly lose it's stark effect in comparison to the objects moving in the foreground.

 

The whole image is uniformly "SOE'd".

post #136 of 190
I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no difference to a static image if I have interpolation enabled or disabled on my TV.
Interpolation only adds intermediate frames during motion.

You can't pause the image and see these, because they are not a part of the source. (and you're pausing the source, not the TV)
post #137 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

It is without question that HFR equals "Soap Opera" effect. That could be good or bad depending upon an individual's preference.

The term "soap opera effect" did refer to the look of soaps & video shot at 60fps (or progressively interlaced video). If I'm not mistaken you were here when the term was coined here back around 2006. It would be fun to do a search to see who said it first.

The "soap" look wasn't due to high frame rates though. It was the coincidental lack of repeat frame judder at 60fps (or 30fps progressively interlaced). Judder is by far the biggest contributor to the "film look" and I can scrounge up a few director blogs saying so (but not going to). 24fps without frame repeats is just as "soapy" as 60fps and I can vouch for that. The "film look" includes blur, grain, ect, but the one that really separates film from video is the repeat frame judder.
post #138 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no difference to a static image if I have interpolation enabled or disabled on my TV.

 

When I watch a movie on my TV and see it totally SOE'd up, if I hit pause on the feed, the SOE remains.  It doesn't suddenly look like a film again.  If you can't believe me on that, then don't.  Instead, go back to the CRT days and video vs. film was still evident:

 

The stark look of the stationary items in the scene of a video shot (like from a soap opera) stay the same starkness as the moving items.  They don't suddenly go to film like quality.  Even the still stuff looks like video.  As with a soap opera.

post #139 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

When I watch a movie on my TV and see it totally SOE'd up, if I hit pause on the feed, the SOE remains.  It doesn't suddenly look like a film again.  If you can't believe me on that, then don't.  Instead, go back to the CRT days and video vs. film was still evident:
The stark look of the stationary items in the scene of a video shot (like from a soap opera) stay the same starkness as the moving items.  They don't suddenly go to film like quality.  Even the still stuff looks like video.  As with a soap opera.
It sounds to me like you are talking about production values and things like lighting and set design, which have nothing to do with framerate or motion interpolation.
post #140 of 190
Add to the things said above.

The "Soap Opera Effect" also comes from shooting with interlace cameras, with small sensors and thereby deep depth of filed, and flat harsh studio lighting and stationary sets.
Soap Operas can more be compared to TV Theatre, like filmed stage theatre, than movie production.

That the "Soap Opera Effect" is used as a term for HFR by people that had some delusional agenda to rant against HFR in drama movies, long before they had seen it, was used a convinient way of trying to tag a negative term to HFR to try to win an argument on the internet.

Whatever negative responses people had to The Hobbit after it was released had mostly nothing to do with HFR, even if HFR always got the blame. Because people have still not seen HFR in the most normal conditions to compare to, which would be 48fps in 2D.

HFR is a different look, and a different improved quality which for some takes time to get used to.

A lot of the blame on The Hobbit HFR can easily be explained with various technical problems in HFR and 3D sync in various Cinemas because the HFR servers where not tested enough, and we also know that even with digital projections, Cinemas manage to "screw-up" even in regular 2D projection.

The Hobbit finished the edit 2-3 days before the premiere screening in New Zeeland, and there was no time to properly test the release for various conditions and projection systems and go back to the editing bay and make adjustments.
I am sure that The Hobbit looked magnificent on the Christie 3D projector system at Weta in NZ, but that doesn't mean it would look as flawless on other 3D systems.

Hopefully Weta has now been around doing tests on various systems and made adjustments before the next Hobbit chapter.
Just like with the LOTR where they changed the system and workflow for part 2 and 3 after learning from the miss-steps they made in part 1.

Every new movie is a learning process. Nothing is really set in stone when it comes to movie making.
And more so when you incorporate new untried technology.
post #141 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

When I watch a movie on my TV and see it totally SOE'd up, if I hit pause on the feed, the SOE remains.  It doesn't suddenly look like a film again.  If you can't believe me on that, then don't.  Instead, go back to the CRT days and video vs. film was still evident:
The stark look of the stationary items in the scene of a video shot (like from a soap opera) stay the same starkness as the moving items.  They don't suddenly go to film like quality.  Even the still stuff looks like video.  As with a soap opera.
It sounds to me like you are talking about production values and things like lighting and set design, which have nothing to do with framerate or motion interpolation.

 

No, I'm saying that frame rate is not the cause of SOE, at least I can't see how given my observations.

 

AFAICT, there are two direct causes of SOE:

  1. Things filmed in video <---not frame rate dependent.
  2. And things filmed even in film, but displayed with motion interpolation on

 

Motion interpolation (and other motion algorithms) do *something* to the images themselves to enhance their look as if they were shot on video.  Even *if* the source feed of the movie Looper on HBO is put on pause (at my DVR), there's something going by the TV on with each of those duplicate identical frames sent to the tv that keeps it consistently SOE.  Otherwise things would be non-uniform between moving and stationary objects (in screen space).

 

So I suppose to boil it down, my guesses are:

  • A soap opera with frames thrown out to reverse-pulldown it to 24 fps will still look like video and not look like film suddenly.
  • A soap opera with a stationary scene doesn't somehow lose the video soap opera look.  Moving items in front don't suddenly have the soap opera effect with items behind it in film effect.
  • A 24fps movie with every other frame in the source thrown out (to 12 fps) and then interpolated back up to 24 fps again *will* have the soap opera effect even though only 24 fps output resulting.  It's the interpolation effect that adds the SOE, not the resulting frame rate.

Edited by tgm1024 - 7/25/13 at 9:39am
post #142 of 190
The Hobbit's unique "soap opera" effect was entirely due to the lack of "film judder".
It was shot AND displayed at 48Hz, which eliminated normal repeat frame judder
The higher frame rate was only a catalyst to achieve that goal without flicker.
The only major significance 48fps played here was to match 48Hz projectors.
If you don't believe me you might believe Peter Jackson....


Quote:
We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok–and we’ve all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years–but if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or “strobe. Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch...we’ve actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. We’re getting spoilt!


s.o.e. = lack of judder
post #143 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by borf View Post

The Hobbit's unique "soap opera" effect was entirely due to the lack of "film judder".
It was shot AND displayed at 48Hz, which eliminated normal repeat frame judder
The higher frame rate was only a catalyst to achieve that goal without flicker.
The only major significance 48fps played here was to match 48Hz projectors.
If you don't believe me you might believe Peter Jackson....


Quote:
We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok–and we’ve all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years–but if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or “strobe. Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch...we’ve actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. We’re getting spoilt!


s.o.e. = lack of judder

 

Not convinced you're reading this right.  He said "much more lifelike", never said "video like" or anything akin to what we mean when we say SOE.  Video [of yore---not the carefully mastered stuff of movies today] is different in that we get something that people refer to as "too real", but I think that's only because conventional film is so "not real".  The overly real effect of the HFR is different to what we've been calling SOE.

 

I'm fairly convinced that all the calculations, audience reactions, and metrics are going to take some time to hone down on what we consider to be inarguable reasons for things.  HFR/theater, HFR/TV, 4K, pulse, etc., just hasn't been around long enough IMO.

post #144 of 190
It's not really a matter of me reading it right, it's something I know and have seen. In fact I had not read that article until searching for it today. I knew it existed based on the video-ish complaints. It's known the Hobbit looks video-ish and he clearly explained the difference above. The 24fps version of this movie did not have these complaints, and repeat frame judder is why. It can greatly affect the way motion is seen. I don't know why people have such a hard time believing frame repeats are anything but benign. I did spend some time on this video. It re-constructs the "film look" using just frame repeats and blur.


http://www.mediafire.com/watch/trlf84ed50q35aa/movie_frame_rates.wmv
Edited by borf - 7/26/13 at 7:49pm
post #145 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by borf View Post

The Hobbit's unique "soap opera" effect was entirely due to the lack of "film judder".
It was shot AND displayed at 48Hz, which eliminated normal repeat frame judder
The higher frame rate was only a catalyst to achieve that goal without flicker.
The only major significance 48fps played here was to match 48Hz projectors.
If you don't believe me you might believe Peter Jackson....
s.o.e. = lack of judder
The projectors for the Hobbit 3D 48 fps were set to double flash each frame instead of triple flash like they would for 24 fps 3D
http://info.christiedigital.com/lp/3d-hfr
post #146 of 190
Jackson says it was shot and presented at 48Hz. There was no double or triple flashing.
That article makes no sense btw but feel free to take their word over the director's..

link
post #147 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by borf 
It's not really a matter of me reading it right, it's something I know and have seen. In fact I had not read that article until searching for it today. I knew it existed based on the video-ish complaints. It's known the Hobbit looks video-ish and he clearly explained the difference above. The 24fps version of this movie did not have these complaints, and repeat frame judder is why. It can greatly affect the way motion is seen. I don't know why people have such a hard time believing frame repeats are anything but benign. I did spend some time on this video. It re-constructs the "film look" using just frame repeats and blur.


http://www.mediafire.com/download/trlf84ed50q35aa/movie_frame_rates.wmv

file is blocked for violation frown.gif
post #148 of 190
It downloads at work ok.
post #149 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by borf View Post

Jackson says it was shot and presented at 48Hz. There was no double or triple flashing.
That article makes no sense btw but feel free to take their word over the director's..

link

Look at the date!

That was something PJ said in April 2011, two months after they started shooting the movie. The Hobbit was not finished in post production before the end of November 2012.
A lot will have changed from April 2011 to November 2012.

The Hobbit wrapped shooting some few days ago.

Not that I know what you are really arguing in these posts. confused.gif

.
post #150 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by borf 
It downloads at work ok.

That is what i get - blocked - when i try to download the file. Downloading the previous file you uploaded on Mediafire worked fine. It might be that when you download your own file it works fine. Ask a buddy of yours to download the file, see what happens wink.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › Will movies filmed in 48fps require new home theater equipment?