or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Let's set this straight - No one can do 24p consistently well
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Let's set this straight - No one can do 24p consistently well - Page 9

post #241 of 1281
I have read through most things I can find on this subject and think I know the answer, but am not sure. Is there any way to do proper 23.976 on a HTPC, even if it requires a high end dedicated graphics card? I know you can use the custom settings, but from what I have read that is only slightly better. I really, really want to use an HTPC, but my first priority is 100% true playback with no compromise. To me not being an obvious flaw is very different than not being a flaw. I certainly don't look poorly on anyone who feels differently, it is just how I am.
post #242 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhereToStart View Post

I have read through most things I can find on this subject and think I know the answer, but am not sure. Is there any way to do proper 23.976 on a HTPC

It seems like you're looking for absolute perfection. I don't think there's a "perfect" solution especially considering the other componts like the AVR and the TV you may have.

I'm extremely happy with my setup (Zacate + Onkyo HT-R390 + Samsung LN40C630). Seems to play 23.976 nearly perfect. There might be an actual variability of +- .002 fps - which I consider fantastic. After all, we're dealing with strange numbers here (23.976). It would be easier if everything was 24p, but it isn't.
post #243 of 1281
I am curious on this quest for total "perfection". Why?

Chances are the movie theater projectionist putting together the film may have accidently spliced out a few frames. I would know, as I was one.

Nothing is "perfect".

I can tell a difference when I watch at 23.976 vs 60. It's now weird for me to watch movies at 60 - difficult to explain. But I really can't tell that my 23.976 isn't an absulute pefect 23.976
post #244 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by chomper87 View Post

I am curious on this quest for total "perfection". Why?

Chances are the movie theater projectionist putting together the film may have accidently spliced out a few frames. I would know, as I was one.

Nothing is "perfect".

I can tell a difference when I watch at 23.976 vs 60. It's now weird for me to watch movies at 60 - difficult to explain. But I really can't tell that my 23.976 isn't an absulute pefect 23.976

I guess the best I can explain it is not that I want perfection... I want the best available option. If a dedicated player can do something better than an HTPC, I want to use the dedicated BR player. But if they are equal, I want the perks of a HTPC.
post #245 of 1281
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhereToStart View Post

I guess the best I can explain it is not that I want perfection... I want the best available option. If a dedicated player can do something better than an HTPC, I want to use the dedicated BR player. But if they are equal, I want the perks of a HTPC.

You should probably just get a dedicated BR player then because if you are looking for absolute perfection a HTPC will drive you mad.

I agree though that you will likely never notice the tiny imperfections of HTPC. It seems that just knowing that its not perfect though will drive you, and others, absolutely crazy.
post #246 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

You should probably just get a dedicated BR player then because if you are looking for absolute perfection a HTPC will drive you mad.

I agree though that you will likely never notice the tiny imperfections of HTPC. It seems that just knowing that its not perfect though will drive you, and others, absolutely crazy.

I'm sure a stand alone BD player has it's own tiny imperfections.

A stand alone BD player is going to be easier to plug and play. But as I see it, if you're dealing with a collection of files on a hard drive that want to play - an HTPC is the way to go. Or do you just want to plop in the occasional movie by manually searching through physical Discs (yuck). I'd say that should be you're deciding factor.
post #247 of 1281
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chomper87 View Post

I'm sure a stand alone BD player has it's own tiny imperfections.

Absolutely agree.
post #248 of 1281
Pleasant playback on htpc changes with driver updates and if you choose not to update, you will have to eventually. The best option is to have a firmware updated bd player (yes you have to do that too) in the event of needing a backup.
post #249 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by chomper87 View Post


I'm sure a stand alone BD player has it's own tiny imperfections.

A stand alone BD player is going to be easier to plug and play. But as I see it, if you're dealing with a collection of files on a hard drive that want to play - an HTPC is the way to go. Or do you just want to plop in the occasional movie by manually searching through physical Discs (yuck). I'd say that should be you're deciding factor.

Just to clarify, I am not looking for the simplest solution, but the solution with the best playback.
post #250 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhereToStart View Post

Just to clarify, I am not looking for the simplest solution, but the solution with the best playback.

Best playback and closest to HTPC you can get is a media streamer/player like the Dunes or PCH.

I left my HTPC behind the minute I got my Dune although I still use it for very small things like Netflix or MCE.
post #251 of 1281
I agree, if you want a "perfect" (or as close to "perfect" as currently possible) playback solution then get a Dune.

However, HTPC also has it's advantages.... but the Dune or other embedded players are closer to emulating what you get from a standalone BD player than an HTPC is at the moment.
post #252 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by chomper87 View Post

It seems like you're looking for absolute perfection. I don't think there's a "perfect" solution especially considering the other componts like the AVR and the TV you may have.

I'm extremely happy with my setup (Zacate + Onkyo HT-R390 + Samsung LN40C630). Seems to play 23.976 nearly perfect. There might be an actual variability of +- .002 fps - which I consider fantastic. After all, we're dealing with strange numbers here (23.976). It would be easier if everything was 24p, but it isn't.

I personally would like to see the standard set to a perfect 30fps, it would go a long way in helping the motion blur on LCD's and solve this fraction of a decimal problem.
post #253 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post

I personally would like to see the standard set to a perfect 30fps, it would go a long way in helping the motion blur on LCD's and solve this fraction of a decimal problem.

As long as we're making changes, it should be 60.
post #254 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by babgvant View Post

As long as we're making changes, it should be 60.

A true 60fps would also be great, but you are talking double the bitrate for streaming and storage. 30fps is the golden rule for gaming, anything less and the frames become noticeable.
post #255 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post

A true 60fps would also be great, but you are talking double the bitrate for streaming and storage. 30fps is the golden rule for gaming, anything less and the frames become noticeable.

Storage is cheap and change is hard; there's a reason why most sports programing is broadcast at 60FPS.
post #256 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by babgvant View Post

Storage is cheap and change is hard; there's a reason why most sports programing is broadcast at 60FPS.

Yeah, I remember watching a basketball game on an early 1080P LCD screen, it was blur city. Sporting events definitely benefit from high frame rates as the action is very fast and they are always panning and zooming the camera. Its really kind of a bummer that we kind of got locked into 24fps with the blu-ray standard.
post #257 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by babgvant View Post

Storage is cheap and change is hard; there's a reason why most sports programing is broadcast at 60FPS.

TV shows are mostly 1080i60 which is basically 30fps, does anyone notice the blur issue with this? I haven't noticed it. I'm not a huge fan of frame interpolation because it is definitely noticeable to me and it is being pushed as the fix for lcd motion blur at slow frame rates.
post #258 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post

TV shows are mostly 1080i60 which is basically 30fps, does anyone notice the blur issue with this? I haven't noticed it. I'm not a huge fan of frame interpolation because it is definitely noticeable to me and it is being pushed as the fix for lcd motion blur at slow frame rates.

Advanced DI turns 60 fields -> 60 FPS, less advanced methods do create 30 FPS.
post #259 of 1281
Are you sure? My guess is:
HDTV 1080i29 > 3:2 pulldown = 1080p24
Musical BDs 1080i29 > frame doubling = 1080p60
post #260 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qaq View Post

Are you sure? My guess is:
HDTV 1080i29 > 3:2 pulldown = 1080p24
Musical BDs 1080i29 > frame doubling = 1080p60

Its not generally true like that.
You have to separate Telecine with Interlacing. HDTV can be both, Telecined or Interlaced, depending on the source material. If you're watching a movie, it probably was Telecined, which means it was converted from 24p to 30i, so that it matches the standard.

If you're watching material filmed with a NTSC camera, it will most likely be actually interlaced, which means the content consists of 60 fields per second. A proper deinterlacer will turn that into 60 frames per second. Its not "doubling" anything, its just converting every field into one frame.
post #261 of 1281
Ah, ok. Always forget all that stuff about "i".
post #262 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffkro View Post

A true 60fps would also be great, but you are talking double the bitrate for streaming and storage. 30fps is the golden rule for gaming, anything less and the frames become noticeable.

Most Film is already 24 or 48. Some idiot decided to change them to 23.976 on North American Blu-rays. I think certain Internation version are correct - has anyone tried to buy an International Blu-ray that is a pure (whole number) 24 rather than 23.976?
post #263 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by chomper87 View Post

Most Film is already 24 or 48. Some idiot decided to change them to 23.976 on North American Blu-rays. I think certain Internation version are correct - has anyone tried to buy an International Blu-ray that is a pure (whole number) 24 rather than 23.976?

Umm, that idiot was born around the time your grandfather was likely making decisions. Next time do some research before sticking your foot in your mouth.

23.976 FPS has its origins in the NTSC broadcast system for SD TVs and has nothing to do with blu-ray itself.

As to why films don't standardize on 48 or 60fps, the primary reason I would imagine is the cost of film stock itself (yes, amazingly many movies are still shot on celluloid). That is certainly the reason that film was originally shot at 24fps, it was far too expensive to shoot any faster than that.
post #264 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

Umm, that idiot was born around the time your grandfather was likely making decisions. Next time do some research before sticking your foot in your mouth.

23.976 FPS has its origins in the NTSC broadcast system for SD TVs and has nothing to do with blu-ray itself.

As to why films don't standardize on 48 or 60fps, the primary reason I would imagine is the cost of film stock itself (yes, amazingly many movies are still shot on celluloid). That is certainly the reason that film was originally shot at 24fps, it was far too expensive to shoot any faster than that.

According to Wikipedia, when NTSC color was introduced in 1953, the previous rate of 60 fields per second was reduced by a factor of 1000/1001 to avoid interference between the chroma subcarrier and the broadcast sound carrier.

Thus yielding the 59.94, and by extension the 23.976 FPS (24×1000÷1001).
post #265 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by chomper87 View Post

Most Film is already 24 or 48. Some idiot decided to change them to 23.976 on North American Blu-rays.

The factor 1/(1.001) was introduced at the time of transition from black-and-white to color in the NTSC television standard for a reason (as jmpage2 and Zon2020 already mentioned). So almost all DVD movies in NTSC countries are also 23.976 fps (up to telecine).
post #266 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post

Best playback and closest to HTPC you can get is a media streamer/player like the Dunes or PCH.

I left my HTPC behind the minute I got my Dune although I still use it for very small things like Netflix or MCE.

I have both an HTPC and two Dunes. If blu-ray and dvd playback is all you care about, a Dune player is hard to beat. Having said that, Dune front end programs are relatively primitive comapred to their PC counterparts.
post #267 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

Umm, that idiot was born around the time your grandfather was likely making decisions. Next time do some research before sticking your foot in your mouth.

23.976 FPS has its origins in the NTSC broadcast system for SD TVs and has nothing to do with blu-ray itself.

Umm, my problem wasn't with why 23.976 was invented. AND yes I already know this. I was a Theater Projectionist.

My issue is why they STILL use 23.976 for Blu-rays
post #268 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by chomper87 View Post

Umm, my problem wasn't with why 23.976 was invented. AND yes I already know this. I was a Theater Projectionist.

My issue is why they STILL use 23.976 for Blu-rays

There are two reasons.

1. These Blu-rays need to be playable on SD televisions (as silly as that sounds, it was a requirement as far as I know which is why BD players still have analog video outputs).

2. Some early 1080P/720P TVs in NTSC areas were not truly 24P capable, only 23.976hz capable. This very well might still be true today.

The issue is not raging against TV and BD manufacturers and publishers for following the spec laid out eons ago.

The issue is video card manufacturers treating HTPC use as second class citizenry and refusing to FOLLOW a spec that is very well defined.

Look at it this way... if a manufacturer who makes a $15 ASIC that does BD playback and video functions on a standalone BD deck can do this why can't a monster company like Nvidia or Intel do it?
post #269 of 1281
Also, after the outcry over the bug in Sandy Bridge, I think Intel has finally realized how important this is, and they will do better with Ivy Bridge.
post #270 of 1281
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmpage2 View Post

The issue is video card manufacturers treating HTPC use as second class citizenry and refusing to FOLLOW a spec that is very well defined.

Look at it this way... if a manufacturer who makes a $15 ASIC that does BD playback and video functions on a standalone BD deck can do this why can't a monster company like Nvidia or Intel do it?

From the HTPC side, it seems it's equally a software issue as well.

I'll say it as such - on the HTPC, I have to know what the content is. If it's a 23.976 BD then I set Catalyst Control Center to the correct setting. I don't think PowerDVD or TMT automatically do this. MPC HC supposedly does, but I've never tried it. This seem to work well for me, but for others it might be too much of a pain to change this setting manually.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › Let's set this straight - No one can do 24p consistently well