AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panel General & New FP Tech › 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 3

post #61 of 124
5/1/12 at 4:12pm
Quote:


See, i'm totally for it. I just don't understand some of the comments against it. "It was too accurate -- too clear" or "it's too smooth."

Old relics like some audiophiles used to say similiar things about digital audio. They just couldn't part with their love of hiss and cracks from vinyl.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #62 of 124
5/1/12 at 5:08pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post


FYI current flat panels support 48fps. High-end PDPs support 72Hz and 96Hz, whereas high-end LCDs support 120/240/480Hz. The real question is what would be the ideal screen refresh rate to avoid flicker?

Film projectors either double-flash film at 48Hz or triple-flash at 72Hz. This works great in a darkened room.

The Pioneer Kuro PDPs did 96Hz which worked great for 24fps film, but they lack firmware support for 48fps and are out of production anyways. Panasonic experimented with 48Hz screen refresh which was OK in a darkened room but flickered horribly in partial artificial lighting. I think a PDP needs to support 96Hz refresh to display 48fps film acceptably.

For LCDs, you want a screen that supports 240Hz or better (5x48fps). 120Hz is no longer enough, although there is no reason many LCDs could not also be run at 96Hz.

Gary, i dare question your expertise as im certain you are much more knowledgeable than I, but i just need some clarification on some things. First, it is from my understanding that Kuros displayed at 72hz, not 96hz, is this not the case?

Also, are you saying that current tvs can accept a 48hz signal w/o any form of an update? All the manuals i have read in the specs list support for 24hz, 30hz, and 60hz input, but fail to mention 48hz. I know they are capable of handling the signal at 48hz since they can handle 60hz, but to me, this says firmware support/update is needed else the signal wont be recognized.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 124
5/1/12 at 6:55pm
More detail:

The most expensive Kuro supported 96Hz refresh, but the other models supported 72Hz. None were ready to display 48Hz source, only 24fps (1080p24), 30Hz interlaced video (1080i60), and 60Hz progressive video (720p60). There would be no support of 1080p48 without firmware update, and Pioneer is gone - no more updates.

Currently there are 60/120/240/480/960Hz screen refresh LCDs. None are ready to accept 48fps source. There is no reason that 96Hz screen refresh could not be supported with new firmware. There is no reason that 1080p48 source video could not be supported on the screens that refresh at 96/240/480/960Hz with new firmware.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 124
5/1/12 at 10:19pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

More detail:

The most expensive Kuro supported 96Hz refresh, but the other models supported 72Hz. None were ready to display 48Hz source, only 24fps (1080p24), 30Hz interlaced video (1080i60), and 60Hz progressive video (720p60). There would be no support of 1080p48 without firmware update, and Pioneer is gone - no more updates.

Currently there are 60/120/240/480/960Hz screen refresh LCDs. None are ready to accept 48fps source. There is no reason that 96Hz screen refresh could not be supported with new firmware. There is no reason that 1080p48 source video could not be supported on the screens that refresh at 96/240/480/960Hz with new firmware.



i c. Thanks for the clarification. As for the bolded part, the only reason would be lack of manufacturer support/force to upgrade. I wonder how difficult it would be for someone to hack the firmware and add support though?
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 124
5/2/12 at 2:48am
The major difficulty would be the complete lack of a financial reward for doing so. If you are one of the few who can write such firmware, you could be getting paid by manufacturers to write for new products.

Planned obsolescence. I have by now discarded a half dozen PCs that were working fine, just obsolete. Yet when I bought each one, I marvelled at it's speed and power.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 124
5/2/12 at 9:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

More detail:

The most expensive Kuro supported 96Hz refresh, but the other models supported 72Hz. None were ready to display 48Hz source, only 24fps (1080p24), 30Hz interlaced video (1080i60), and 60Hz progressive video (720p60). There would be no support of 1080p48 without firmware update, and Pioneer is gone - no more updates.

Currently there are 60/120/240/480/960Hz screen refresh LCDs. None are ready to accept 48fps source. There is no reason that 96Hz screen refresh could not be supported with new firmware. There is no reason that 1080p48 source video could not be supported on the screens that refresh at 96/240/480/960Hz with new firmware.

Does that mean the mighty Kuro is obsolete?
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 124
5/2/12 at 11:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

The most expensive Kuro supported 96Hz refresh, but the other models supported 72Hz.

Which Kuro supported 96Hz?
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 124
5/2/12 at 11:26am
The Kuro(s) have been obsolete for two years. Which is not the same after all as being undesirable displays. The Kuro was only the ultimate display quality for it's time. It never had the best selection of Internet apps, the best value, or the best compatibility with assorted source frame rates.

I quit trying to buy "the best" tech decades ago. You can get "state of the art" but it's always a debateable and at best fleeting status. You can get 95+% of the state of the art for about 50% cost, and that allows you to refresh the tech more often and stay closer to the ultimate, and have more fun.

I never would have paid for a Kuro, just as I would not today buy the high-end Sharp Elite or the top offerings from Samsung, Panasonic, or Sony. But I frequently select offerings from the next-to-the-high-end product lines. Because my definition of "best tech" includes VALUE for my money.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 124
5/2/12 at 11:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Does that mean the mighty Kuro is obsolete?

Yes - it doesn't have Facebook.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 124
5/2/12 at 2:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

The Kuro(s) have been obsolete for two years. Which is not the same after all as being undesirable displays. The Kuro was only the ultimate display quality for it's time. It never had the best selection of Internet apps, the best value, or the best compatibility with assorted source frame rates.

I quit trying to buy "the best" tech decades ago. You can get "state of the art" but it's always a debateable and at best fleeting status. You can get 95+% of the state of the art for about 50% cost, and that allows you to refresh the tech more often and stay closer to the ultimate, and have more fun.

I never would have paid for a Kuro, just as I would not today buy the high-end Sharp Elite or the top offerings from Samsung, Panasonic, or Sony. But I frequently select offerings from the next-to-the-high-end product lines. Because my definition of "best tech" includes VALUE for my money.

I have to agree with much of what you are said, with this exception of internet apps, I don't why TV companies insists what we need Youtube and Facebook on our screens.

I think that Kuro is at least equal to what the current best displays have offer interms of black level. I think I would have to pay quite a lot for an LCD display with superior black levels to the Kuro. While the Kuro has its flaws, as do PDP technology in general, I don't think I could go back to inferior blacks for my primary display. I love sci-fi, that's my thing, its a lot of blacks in sci-fi, I don't want to watch a Star Trek movie where outer space doesn't look black.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 124
5/2/12 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

I have to agree with much of what you are said, with this exception of internet apps, I don't why TV companies insists what we need Youtube and Facebook on our screens.

You can stream movies on YouTube, so what's wrong with that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

I think that Kuro is at least equal to what the current best displays have offer interms of black level. I think I would have to pay quite a lot for an LCD display with superior black levels to the Kuro. While the Kuro has its flaws, as do PDP technology in general, I don't think I could go back to inferior blacks for my primary display. I love sci-fi, that's my thing, its a lot of blacks in sci-fi, I don't want to watch a Star Trek movie where outer space doesn't look black.

I agree. Once you have black, you'll never go back.


Ian
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 124
5/2/12 at 3:17pm
Quote:


You can stream movies on YouTube, so what's wrong with that?

I just don't find the picture quality on Youtube to be very good and typing with a remote control is very cumbersome.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 124
5/2/12 at 3:40pm
Thread Starter 
I think newer tvs support youtube HD, so the quality is better. Still not to be compared to BD, but much better than SD.

The point of apps on a tv is primarily convenience.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 124
5/3/12 at 8:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by maygit View Post

I think newer tvs support youtube HD, so the quality is better. Still not to be compared to BD, but much better than SD.

The point of apps on a tv is primarily convenience.

Agree with you. I never thought we would use Youtube for anything on our TV.
Now, my wife and d-i-l get together to view and record cooking recipes and how to prepare a great varieties of ethnic dishes.

I even use it to occasionally send audio from some of my now dead favorite musicians to my surround sound system and we thoroughly enjoy it, without having to add any more boxes to our system!

I look forward to the day where we can d/l video/audio as good as our present Bl-ray.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 124
5/3/12 at 8:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hughh View Post

Agree with you. I never thought we would use Youtube for anything on our TV.
Now, my wife and d-i-l get together to view and record cooking recipes and how to prepare a great varieties of ethnic dishes.

I even use it to occasionally send audio from some of my now dead favorite musicians to my surround sound system and we thoroughly enjoy it, without having to add any more boxes to our system!

I look forward to the day where we can d/l video/audio as good as our present Bl-ray.

Apps on TV isn't really for the hardcore enthusiats. Some of the videos on youtube are flat out poor quality.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 124
5/3/12 at 10:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Apps on TV isn't really for the hardcore enthusiats. Some of the videos on youtube are flat out poor quality.

Hard core enthusiasts are a minority. The average consumer happens to enjoy the less then optimal picture quality of streaming, which is threatening the future of replicated formats. I stream occasionally on Netflix and I've even downloaded free movies from various on-line sources, but if it's a block buster type movie, it's BD for me or nothing at all.


Ian
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 124
5/3/12 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mailiang View Post

Hard core enthusiasts are a minority. The average consumer happens to enjoy the less then optimal picture quality of streaming, which is threatening the future of replicated formats. I stream occasionally on Netflix and I've even downloaded free movies from various on-line sources, but if it's a block buster type movie, it's BD for me or nothing at all.


Ian

I happen to agree, the hardcore enthusiasts are in the minority, even though some AVS'ers lose site of that fact. However, since we're discussing 48fps in this thread, I doubt if the mainstream even cares about 48fps. 48fprs is a topic for the hardcore enthusiats, it is for the hardcore enthusiast to decide, initially, wether or not 48fps is a good or needed advancement.

I'm guessing that most folks around here would prefer to have better black levels and motion handling in their displays rather than a Facebook or Youtube app. For example, in the case of Panasonic, how you're going to give me a Plasma with all the apps but not eliminate the floating blacks issue.

What I'm interested in knowing is what noticeable benefits would 48fps give me as opposed to 24fps that we currently have in our displays and source material. Also, will I need a new blu ray player or new display.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 124
5/3/12 at 11:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Apps on TV isn't really for the hardcore enthusiats. Some of the videos on youtube are flat out poor quality.

I have never had the illusion of being a "hard core enthusiast". However, I do enjoy a good AVS system, although due to my age, my hearing is no longer as sharp as it used to be. But I still enjoy 20/20 vision...

As for youtube quality, I agree with you and wish it was better. However, for it's intended use, it wil have to do...actually, better than nothing!

I even put together a BBQ grill a couple of years ago by following the excellent instructions on someone's video.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 124
5/3/12 at 9:26pm
Thread Starter 
Here is a really cool frame rate comparison app tool...thingy....i found.

http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

I would recommend putting the velocity of the background at 0 px/s, change the moons to a soccer ball, then one of the soccer balls at 48 fps, and the other at 24fps and then toggle around their px/s. I left the motion blur at the recommended 1.0 since i think it's a simulation, but not certain because if you mouse over the red/yellow dot in the top right it tells you the actual fps of each animation. If you choose, you can also add additional balls/moons/etc. by clicking the circled "+".

Now, i wonder if someone did HDMI out to their tv from their PC if this would work or look the same? Any takers?
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 124
5/4/12 at 11:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTguru3 View Post

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

Shocker, there.

James
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 124
5/4/12 at 11:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

The Kuro(s) have been obsolete for two years. Which is not the same after all as being undesirable displays. The Kuro was only the ultimate display quality for it's time. It never had the best selection of Internet apps, the best value, or the best compatibility with assorted source frame rates.

I quit trying to buy "the best" tech decades ago. You can get "state of the art" but it's always a debateable and at best fleeting status. You can get 95+% of the state of the art for about 50% cost, and that allows you to refresh the tech more often and stay closer to the ultimate, and have more fun.

I never would have paid for a Kuro, just as I would not today buy the high-end Sharp Elite or the top offerings from Samsung, Panasonic, or Sony. But I frequently select offerings from the next-to-the-high-end product lines. Because my definition of "best tech" includes VALUE for my money.

For once I agree with this guy.

I got a 60" for 6020 for $3100 and have zero regrets, as I deemed it a very solid value at THAT time versus the competition, at THAT screen size/performance, but I concur nearly wholly on the value and 95% contention.

Very unlikely I'll ever spend over $3,000 on a tv again regardless of my income level.

James
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 124
5/4/12 at 1:43pm
The Hobbit 3D 48 fps is in theaters in Europe, from what i understand it will hit the theaters in the US 14 december. Would be nice to hear some comments.

Edited by 8mile13 - 12/12/12 at 2:40pm
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 124
12/12/12 at 2:57pm
The Hobbit 3D 48 fps is in theaters in Europe, from what i understand it will hit the theaters in the US 14 december. Seems that it premiered in the New York Ziegfeld Theater last week.
http://movieline.com/2012/12/06/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-premiere-new-york-jeff-robinov-48-frames-per-second/

Would be nice to hear some comments of those who have seen it smile.gif

The Hobbit's 48fps Frame Rate; and how it directly affect you.
http://www.louisville.com/content/hobbit%E2%80%99s-48fps-frame-rate-and-how-it-directly-affects-you

The Hobbit an unexpected journey
http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/movie/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 124
12/14/12 at 2:35am
Thread Starter 
I saw it tonight in the non high frame rate 3D since my theater doesn't support it. I plan to drive down to des moines, ia on sunday or monday to see it in 48fps/3D. If no one comments by then, i'll give my views. If others comment, i'll add in to what they say. I'm really excited for some awesome panning scenes with great scenery in the background that PJ is famous for capturing in the LOTR trilogy. A lot of scenes were noticeably skippy, so I'm pretty excited to see the difference.

Note for those who have not read much in this thread, I'm already a fan of motion smoothers in tvs* so it's likely i'll be biased towards the higher frame rate.

*Since I created this thread, i bought the panasonic vt50 and have been watching nothing but THX mode for the last month and a half, which disables the motion smoother. When i switched back to custom mode momentarily for a test, i could no longer tolerate the smoother on the medium setting, which i preferred in the past, but i did still enjoy/prefer the lowest smoothing setting over "off".
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 124
12/14/12 at 5:59am
FWIW:

Just heard a local radio/newspaper reviewer who's been around for year's take on the Hobbit:

Movie: not crazy about it.

48 tech: "Video/HD clarity at times. Problem: early scenes look very artificial...like watching tv."

take it for whatever you wish, I think it will echo many's opinion.


James
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 124
12/14/12 at 7:00am
On a dutch AVSish Forum three guys have seen the 3D 48fps version till now. Two of them were positiv, one was negativ ( fast moving images looked SOEish).

I myself ain't gonna see it because i do not care about 3D at all smile.gif
Edited by 8mile13 - 12/14/12 at 7:07am
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 124
12/14/12 at 8:13pm
NO. All flat panels, dvd players, bluray players, and computers are capable of running 48 or 60fps, many even higher. And 120hz-capable 3d monitors can handle 1080p 3D at 60hz.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 124
12/15/12 at 2:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reticuli View Post

NO. All flat panels, dvd players, bluray players, and computers are capable of running 48 or 60fps, many even higher. And 120hz-capable 3d monitors can handle 1080p 3D at 60hz.
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.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 12/15/12 at 2:51am
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 124
12/15/12 at 11:19am
After watching the Hobbit in 48 fps, the good news for those that have LCD's with FI, you don't need to upgrade any equipment, the 48fps images look exactly like what you get from FI, which some like to call the "Soap Opera Effect".

That is bad news for some tha aret just hell bent on spending money and looking for a reason to upgrade equipment when its not really necessary.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 124
12/15/12 at 11:24am
Quote:
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).

Once again, you don't need any knew equipment, FI looks the same as native 48fps. Go watch the Hobbit (which by the way is a horrible movie) in HFR and you will see it looks the same. That was reported before in this forum.

I suggest you wait until the blu ray comes out and then turn on your motion flow or whatever the manufacturer of you LCD calls it and you will get the same look and feel of a HFR flick.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panel General & New FP Tech › Will movies filmed in 48fps require new home theater equipment?