AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › LETS TALK ABOUT 1080p/24fps
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LETS TALK ABOUT 1080p/24fps

post #1 of 121
2/21/08 at 11:23am
Thread Starter 
I have not found a thread dedicated to just talking about 24fps.
so thought I would start one.
I think I like it.
Many of the movies @ 1080p/24fps look very much like the theater and some not so good.
But would like to here other peoples thoughts on this subject.
Likes and dislikes, it is it overrated...Hyped?
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 121
2/21/08 at 11:26am
The thing that gets me is the players some not all have that spec but very few hdtv's,
which i wish they did.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 121
2/21/08 at 11:28am
Pretty much all cinema content is 24fps.

It's definitely an improvement over 60fps if your display can handle it, aside from some recent content filmed on 1080p/i HD cams.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 121
2/21/08 at 11:30am
Part of me wonders if I should wait to get a 120hz LCD or if I won't notice that much of a difference over a much more affordable model.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 121
2/21/08 at 11:34am
120hz + cinemotion (or propriatary pull down) gives the movies an extremly odd look. Think hand held video camera over film. It definelty makes CGI look, CGI (PotC: Dead Man's Chest).
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 121
2/21/08 at 11:38am
It's rubbish for concerts and documentaries. I wish some feature film content was a higher frame rate too for that bit more realism.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 121
2/21/08 at 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Figgie View Post

120hz + cinemotion (or propriatary pull down) gives the movies an extremly odd look. Think hand held video camera over film. It definelty makes CGI look, CGI (PotC: Dead Man's Chest).

You can turn off cinemotion though. The few 120hz screens I've seen in homes look outstanding (with the cinemotion turned off of course.)
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 121
2/21/08 at 11:40am
Out of curiosity which is the best UK TV with this motion interpolation stuff? And is it 120hz capable or just 100hz?
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 121
2/21/08 at 11:41am
Ahhhh....lets talk about it. My Pioneer 5080HD has an advanced cinema mode which refreshes at 72Hz. Perfect for 24fps content. So, I force my PS3 to output 24fps with blu-rays and everything looks smooth as a babys-behind.

Hehehehehehehehehe.

Discuss.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 121
2/21/08 at 11:41am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Digital View Post

Part of me wonders if I should wait to get a 120hz LCD or if I won't notice that much of a difference over a much more affordable model.

My set does 120hz I like it but some dont because it looks more like video than film.
I have noticed at 120hz there is a invisible silhouette around people when they move quickly.
What I mean by invisible it is clear and see through but visible, not distracting but visible.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 121
2/21/08 at 11:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

Ahhhh....lets talk about it. My Pioneer 5080HD has an advanced cinema mode which refreshes at 72Hz. Perfect for 24fps content. So, I force my PS3 to output 24fps with blu-rays and everything looks smooth as a babys-behind.

Hehehehehehehehehe.

Discuss.

How smooth are slow/fast camera pans at only 24fps?
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 121
2/21/08 at 11:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadbury8 View Post

I just dont understand how 24 frames per second could look better then 60 frames per second. could you explain some more?

I'm assuming he means native 24 fps it looks better than 24 fps converted to 60 fps. Anything shot natively in 60 fps would look oh-so-silky smooth by comparison. But I'm not sure anyone shoots in 60 fps (except for maybe high speed sports or wildlife recording?) and 1080/60p would break the bank, so to speak, as far as storage and bandwidth goes. Lots of 60i, though... but in this age of flat panel progressive displays, I'd rather have 30p.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 121
2/21/08 at 11:48am
Don't confuse 120hz refresh (which can do 24fps @ 5:5) and motion compensation/enhancement technology. They are two different things.

Playing 24fps movies at 120hz (5:5) without processing should not introduce artifacts.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 121
2/21/08 at 11:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by btp View Post

Lots of 60i, though... but in this age of flat panel progressive displays, I'd rather have 30p.

I'd like to see the same type of content encoded with both to see which is best
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 121
2/21/08 at 11:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by grommet View Post

Playing 24fps movies at 120hz (5:5) without processing should not introduce artifacts.

With LCD HDTVs, what exactly does the refresh rate actually mean for 24fps?

I mean with a CRT TV, the higher the refresh rate, the less it would flicker. But with most LCD HDTVs don't they have a backlight that is on constantly and so shouldn't flicker like CRT, so with those LCD HDTVs, what exactly would be the difference as perceived by the viewer if watching a 24fps film at 24hz, 48hz or 120hz - would the viewer notice any difference (in flicker??)? It's not anything to do with making things less 'LCD motion blurry' is it - as that wouldn't be true 5:5???
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 121
2/21/08 at 12:05pm
It really has nothing to do with flicker. 120hz just allows "easy" playback of 24/30/60hz sources... nice clean multiplier. It also allows the manufacturer to offer the often dreaded motion enhancement technology with frame interpolation.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 121
2/21/08 at 12:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

How smooth are slow/fast camera pans at only 24fps?

It's not smooth, but it does not have that jerky motion (stutter) that you have with 3:2 pulldown. With horizontal pans, the image is motion blurred during fast pans, but consistent blurring rather than jerky blurring. My Panasonic AE2000U does 72 Hz refresh with 1080P24 inputs.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 121
2/21/08 at 12:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by xradman View Post

It's not smooth, but it does not have that jerky motion (stutter) that you have with 3:2 pulldown. With horizontal pans, the image is motion blurred during fast pans, but consistent blurring rather than jerky blurring. My Panasonic AE2000U does 72 Hz refresh with 1080P24 inputs.

With film cameras, and "180 degree" shutters etc (that only capture image content for around 1/2 a frame in duration?), it wouldn't be as smooth as a HD video camera running at 24p (and the electronic shutter always on, ie. capturing image content) would it?
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 121
2/21/08 at 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

How smooth are slow/fast camera pans at only 24fps?

Actually they are pretty smooth overall but as one poster mentioned, they are NOT perfect. It might never be perfect. There are stil scenes that have a slight "stutter" to them but most of the panning is excellent with my 72Hz Pio.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 121
2/21/08 at 12:57pm
Go to Circuit City or Best buy and check out the Sony 52xbr4@120Hz.

That looks awesome. If only I could afford it. Its almost like these movie looks too real. IE actresses look like they are acting. The Trees look like a movie set. Its crazy. I was watching FF4 2.

So beautiful. I want that TV. Dang it... If I didnt just buy a 65" 1080p24 RP DLP TV 3 weeks ago. I would assume these 120Hz TVs take 1080p24 and multiply them by 5? They look awesome though.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 121
2/21/08 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tqlla View Post

I would assume these 120Hz TVs take 1080p24 and multiply them by 5? They look awesome though.

Yes, they do... but not when you have motion enhancement turned on, which is probably the effect you liked. It's on by default on XBR4/5 series sets and I doubt many stores turn it off.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 121
2/21/08 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by autobot View Post

I have not found a thread dedicated to just talking about 24fps.

Here's one I started back in October 2006: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=731479

Quote:


so thought I would start one.
I think I like it.
Many of the movies @ 1080p/24fps look very much like the theater and some not so good.
But would like to here other peoples thoughts on this subject.
Likes and dislikes, it is it overrated...Hyped?

For over a year I used a Toshiba HD-A1 with only 1080i60 output. Now I have a PS with 24p. It's noticeable, especially for a European, and a welcome addition.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 121
2/21/08 at 1:17pm
The slow shutter speed (1/48 second) in most film cameras blurred the motion, which made the slow 24 fps more tolerable. Video cameras look terrible when using a fast shutter speed at 24 fps!

To me, 24 fps isn't a FEATURE of film, it's a LIMITATION! So we incorporate motion blur in each frame to make motion look smoother with what is a pretty low frame rate? I don't get it! More resolution makes a sharper picture - and that's good. And yet a higher frame rate makes smoother motion - and that's BAD?

Let's imitate the better qualities of film with our video. 24 fps is one of its WORST!

It's just my opinion, but I'm entitled to it!

Dave
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 121
2/21/08 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

With film cameras, and "180 degree" shutters etc (that only capture image content for around 1/2 a frame in duration?), it wouldn't be as smooth as a HD video camera running at 24p (and the electronic shutter always on, ie. capturing image content) would it?

That tends to look smeary with fast motion: examples would be some of the footage in Miami Vice (which I like) , Once upon a Time in Mexico( which looks terrible) and Collateral ( which looks good sometimes but generally smears badly on really fast motion in some shots: probably had to really crank open the shutter in low light conditions because of the somewhat limited camera).

Some camera moves exhibit strobing with 24fps film but generally I find it unobjectionable compared with smearing or stuttering.
If you want some idea of what 60fps would look like : 60i material with a bob deinterlace ( or 50i with a bob to take it to 50fps) looks similar motion wise: I don't like it very much but its fine for documentaries/concerts.

24fps playback of film material at home has a nice solidity to it.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 121
2/21/08 at 1:24pm
I definitely notice an improvement going from my HD A3 to my PS3 (supporst 24p).

Quote:
Originally Posted by autobot View Post

My set does 120hz I like it but some dont because it looks more like video than film.
I have noticed at 120hz there is a invisible silhouette around people when they move quickly.
What I mean by invisible it is clear and see through but visible, not distracting but visible.

I know what you mean, kind of like The Predator but just on the outline. I get it on some video games when I put it on "High" mode on my 120hz 60A3000.

I love it for most content, Planet Earth and CGI stuff have so much pop to them.

Sure I'd love if all films were shot at a much higher framerate but I'm sure the studios don't want to up their costs.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 121
2/21/08 at 1:40pm
Blame it on the old Gurus and gatekeepers of the Video standards on this. When HDTV was defined, they could have easily added a 1080P24 standard mode on top of 1080i60 and 720P60, but these gatekeepers of the standards just weren't thinking of movies for some reason.

---

Anyway, perhaps the OP can take care of the list of TVs that can take 1080P native input and display them properly (improperly with inter-frame interpolation etc).

I'll start :

LG 71PY1M
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 121
2/21/08 at 1:42pm
I don't get why people defend 24 so much. I don't care about tradition, I want what works the best and makes the most sense. I am honestly amazed it is still a standard. Can we please get some more stuff in at least 30 if not 60 sometime in the near future. 24 is terrible for any film that isn't some slow drama type of thing. We have these awesome 1080p TVs and great hi-def media to play on them, but we're still filming our movies in a way that looks choppy and unnatural to anyone who is actually paying attention?
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 121
2/21/08 at 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xijar View Post

I don't get why people defend 24 so much. I don't care about tradition, I want what works the best and makes the most sense. I am honestly amazed it is still a standard. Can we please get some more stuff in at least 30 if not 60 sometime in the near future. 24 is terrible for any film that isn't some slow drama type of thing. We have these awesome 1080p TVs and great hi-def media to play on them, but we're still filming our movies in a way that looks choppy and unnatural to anyone who is actually paying attention?

+1, plus if you want simulate inferior framerate of 24p for artistic reasons it could be done with a much higher actual framerate.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 121
2/21/08 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xijar View Post

I don't get why people defend 24 so much. I don't care about tradition, I want what works the best and makes the most sense. I am honestly amazed it is still a standard. Can we please get some more stuff in at least 30 if not 60 sometime in the near future. 24 is terrible for any film that isn't some slow drama type of thing. We have these awesome 1080p TVs and great hi-def media to play on them, but we're still filming our movies in a way that looks choppy and unnatural to anyone who is actually paying attention?

The problem is that as long as movies on film is shot at 24fps, there's no real choice on what is the optimal way to present it. The problem is a simple one.

On film, 24fps means in any 1 second period, there are 24 individual 'slides' of pictures that make up the illusion of movement. Meaning each slide is displayed roughly 1s/24 = 41.667ms.

If the TV display did not keep each picture on for the same period of time, you will get judder --- meaning some pictures are on for longer periods than others. For those of us who watch DVDs for a long time, our eyes have been 'trained' to compensate for this judder and smooth out the frames, but the effect is not natural, and can still be seen in certain types of movement.

This means really that the only way to see exactly what is in the movie, a display capable of displaying some form of 24p via 120Hz (=24*6=2*60) or other means is required. Anything else would rely on various forms of distortion.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 121
2/21/08 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1965 View Post

The problem is that as long as movies on film is shot at 24fps, there's no real choice on what is the optimal way to present it. The problem is a simple one.

On film, 24fps means in any 1 second period, there are 24 individual 'slides' of pictures that make up the illusion of movement. Meaning each slide is displayed roughly 1s/24 = 41.667ms.

If the TV display did not keep each picture on for the same period of time, you will get judder --- meaning some pictures are on for longer periods than others. For those of us who watch DVDs for a long time, our eyes have been 'trained' to compensate for this judder and smooth out the frames, but the effect is not natural, and can still be seen in certain types of movement.

This means really that the only way to see exactly what is in the movie, a display capable of displaying some form of 24p via 120Hz (=24*6=2*60) or other means is required. Anything else would rely on various forms of distortion.

Isn't the bigger problem that every theater in the united states would have to switch out their hardware (something we all know they are not going to do willingly - especially as most of them are barely turning a profit with $9 popcorn)?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Software Media Discussion

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › LETS TALK ABOUT 1080p/24fps