I have the feeling that the manufacturers don't think this is an important question at all. They use 1080p as a marketing point, but no mention is being given of how that 1080p is being handled and displayed.
However, video guru Joe Kane is very concerned about that, as we can see from an interview he did with Microsof's Ben Waggoner. Some sections follow:
First-hand testimony of native 24 in action during the CEATEC fair in Japan:
However, video guru Joe Kane is very concerned about that, as we can see from an interview he did with Microsof's Ben Waggoner. Some sections follow:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Kane 
The most important thing to me is I can tell you that the most efficient way to encode film-based information is to encode it as 24 pictures per second. But that offers opportunities to me in playback, in trying to do the presentation. First of all, I think the idea of a player playing back 24p -playing it back or not playing it back- I'm actually in favor of talking to all manufacturers of players. I don't care if it's Internet download. Actually, in the computer domain right now, playing back 24p is fairly straightforward.
So as an example, you claim that the other camp- you discuss that the other camp is discussing how they're delivering 24p and of course we know they're not. At least in the first generation of players, the 1080p24 that's on the disc is being converted to 1080i60 and then being converted back to 1080p24. There is a potential of harm happening in this double conversion. Actually, the same double conversion could happen in a player that only put out 1080i because you would also do the same transformation back.
I am actually pushing really hard to have player manufacturers provide a true 24p output. I do not want the 24p that's on the disc to be processed. I want it to be handed out in the native format.
[...]
The most important point that I wanted to bring up with 24 is that in the US world, we normally convert that to 60 and add the 2-3 motion where there is judder. I'm actually going to all manufacturers that I'm working with and telling them they have to be able to accept this 24p as an input and then they have to be able to play it back as 24, 48 or 72, so there is no 2-3.
[...]
As much as I have been working with Microsoft, I'm also working outside of Microsoft so that what you produce in source video can look even better to the consumer than they have ever seen it before, and playing back in 24, 48 or 72 is a critical part of what I'm trying to make happen.
[...]
I honestly believe I'm in this for the consumer. I honestly believe that I'm trying to advocate for the consumer what the consumer should have. I don't think the consumers actually do know for themselves what they should have, and I'm actually trying to be an advocate for what they should have.
The most important thing to me is I can tell you that the most efficient way to encode film-based information is to encode it as 24 pictures per second. But that offers opportunities to me in playback, in trying to do the presentation. First of all, I think the idea of a player playing back 24p -playing it back or not playing it back- I'm actually in favor of talking to all manufacturers of players. I don't care if it's Internet download. Actually, in the computer domain right now, playing back 24p is fairly straightforward.
So as an example, you claim that the other camp- you discuss that the other camp is discussing how they're delivering 24p and of course we know they're not. At least in the first generation of players, the 1080p24 that's on the disc is being converted to 1080i60 and then being converted back to 1080p24. There is a potential of harm happening in this double conversion. Actually, the same double conversion could happen in a player that only put out 1080i because you would also do the same transformation back.
I am actually pushing really hard to have player manufacturers provide a true 24p output. I do not want the 24p that's on the disc to be processed. I want it to be handed out in the native format.
[...]
The most important point that I wanted to bring up with 24 is that in the US world, we normally convert that to 60 and add the 2-3 motion where there is judder. I'm actually going to all manufacturers that I'm working with and telling them they have to be able to accept this 24p as an input and then they have to be able to play it back as 24, 48 or 72, so there is no 2-3.
[...]
As much as I have been working with Microsoft, I'm also working outside of Microsoft so that what you produce in source video can look even better to the consumer than they have ever seen it before, and playing back in 24, 48 or 72 is a critical part of what I'm trying to make happen.
[...]
I honestly believe I'm in this for the consumer. I honestly believe that I'm trying to advocate for the consumer what the consumer should have. I don't think the consumers actually do know for themselves what they should have, and I'm actually trying to be an advocate for what they should have.
First-hand testimony of native 24 in action during the CEATEC fair in Japan:
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3code
It also was the first time I saw a player which can do 24-frame output and also had a TV which could input that 24 frames. so for the very first time no pulldown stuff to 60i etc., just the real video on disc and output. And oh boy does it look good!!!!
It also was the first time I saw a player which can do 24-frame output and also had a TV which could input that 24 frames. so for the very first time no pulldown stuff to 60i etc., just the real video on disc and output. And oh boy does it look good!!!!
(Yes, I agree p24 support on LCD's would be a good thing, but not the end all fix to addressing poor frame rate.)
