LETS TALK ABOUT 1080p/24fps - Page 2

Changing the equipment in theatres would be a problem, it might also be possible for some forms of movies to be made at 30fps to use extra available processing power in the BD players. Animation for example could do this easily if they rendered their images this way.

The problem then would be as you stated, in the cinemas, when printed on film, some frames have to be dropped, and you now get distorted 24p film projection out of original 30fps material, which is shifting the problem to someone else.

It's legacy problems like this that keeps armies of engineers employed, because if people did the logical thing, the world would have a lot less interesting problems to solve.

To me judder is very noticeable at 30/60fps on panning scenes. But much more so on HD content... don't know why this would be. When I set my projector to 1080/24 the panning smoothes out completely. I spent some time replaying 1 scene over and over at 24 and 60. Even the wife thought it was night and day.

But for some reason DVDs don't bother me... different player, maybe its a better 3:2 implementation.

I have a samsung HLT6187S which is supposedly 120hz, but also has "Cinema Smooth Film Mode" that does a 3:2 pull down.

My question: if the TV can do 120hz, then why would it need a pulldown mode?

Well, obviously if you aren't feeding it 24fps content to your TV at 24hz... There is world outside of 1080p24...

I happen to agree with you. give us 60 fps digital cameras and throw those old film based things in the can.

A few of you are saying you like the 120hz smooth motion effect that adds in-between frames to create the illusion of a higher framerate source. Others are saying that 120hz is divisible by 24hz and just want to run that refresh rate for a true-to-the-director's intent 24fps film mode. I side 100% with the latter, and am truly ashamed at the former. How can the former actually live with themselves? a) it's not really adding detail, it's substituting artificially-generated frames of animation and b) we've been watching movies @ 24fps for decades and we accept that as the official framerate. OMG it's like looking through a window or having the actor actually walking around inside your TV! Are you on drugs?

Instead of 24fps, why not go 12fps or 6?

Official framerate, yeah and the official resolution of 20 years ago is great as well


Exactly.

I don't understand the lack of understanding - the best playback is at a rate that is equal to or an integer multiple of the capture rate.

The majority of movies are 24fps - basic fact and not likely to change soon.

It's elementary that a faster capture rate will produce smoother motion with an equivalent display rate.

24fps at a faster display rate only introduces artifacts. Until the majority of movies are shot at something other (ie. faster) than 24fps, the ability to display at an integer multiple of 24 will have obvious benefits....

a) 24fps is the standard and has been for years. Nothing more, nothing less. 60fps is for sitcoms, news, sports, soap operas and Oprah. 24fps is the sweet spot of film. And that's what alot of us here at AVS strive to recreate in our homes- a setup faithful to the cinema.

b) I don't know of anyone who prefers VHS resolution over 1080p, saying, "I love the low resolution and interlacing artifacts- it's what Hitchcock would have wanted." If you were to see the film in a theater it would have been high resolution. We here at AVS strive to recreate the theater experience, not the 80's television experience.

If I wanted to play with comparing 24 vs 60, where do you make the change? I can set my video source to do 24p or 60p, or am I better off setting something on the TV? I don't know if my XBR4 has a setting offhand. Or is it a combination of setting both?

spag, what exactly are you trying to compare? Do you want to see if you notice the 'judder' that is introduced when your Blu-ray player converts 24fps movies to 60hz output?

If so, just toggle your Blu-ray player's 1080p24 output on and off.

Remember to turn off your XBR4's motion enhancer processing, or comparing would mostly be pointless.

I take it you also refuse to upscale your DVD's as it's not adding detail, but substituting artificially generated pixels.

Don't take it.

Does anyone have any comments on the 72hz mode of Pioneer Kuro plasmas compared to the 120hz mode on a lot of LCD HDTVs?

^ from what i've seen it works nicely. The issue i have at the movies is that i can see the movie flickering! i think they do 48 shutter openings a second to prevent it but i see it regardless.

24fps = 120hz ?

24fps is a limitation of film: however what most of you lot are missing is that its a limitation with a reason: making it possible to complete films successfully so you can view them.

30fps will look minimally different from 24fps so much so that there is little point having it: lots of people might even consider it to exhibit more strobing relative to 24fps given the smaller 1/60 capture period and limitations as to how fast the shutter can reliably spin in a film camera.

No.

24 fps = 24 frames per second, or 24Hz.

A 120Hz screen will "refresh" or update the image displayed 120 times per second.

So in a perfect world, a 120Hz display will display each of those 24 frames five times each before moving on to the next one.

With the 72Hz Kuros, it would be three times each (3 x 24 = 72).

The idea is that each frame is shown on-screen for exactly 1/24th of a second.

When you try to take 24fps content and display it on a 60Hz display, you end up with uneven amounts of time for each frame, since you can't divide 60 evenly by 24. This imbalance in time per frame is what is called "judder".

I prefer my delivery, playback. processing, and display equipment impart as few of it's own artifacts as possible.

hence if the original conetnt is 24p, then i enjoy playing and displaying it that way. No 3:2 pulldown judder. No extra 120Hz frame interpolation.

Whether or not the original 24p is sufficient is a different discussion altogther.

After reading this thread I remembered why I LOVE AVS.........thanks guys, very informative thread.

On my Sony XBR4, I have all processing turned off and 1080p/24fps films look amazing with the set doing a straight 5:5 pulldown. I personally can't stand motion enhancer on the Sony. Make film look like video with all the weird interpolation it does.

Most people here don't understand that you probably wouldn't be able to see a difference between 24fps sourced material or 60fps sourced material - your eye/brain wouldn't notice. Why use all the extra resources and bandwidth to capture 60fps? Most people don't see the difference between 24fps displayed at 60hz with 3:2 or 72Hz with 3:3, i.e. film based jutter. People always want something they don't have even if they don't really know why they want it.

larry

I'm with you. Motion blur was introduced, long ago, to account for the crippled 24fps. Ever since I was a kid, I've disliked motion blur. I guess my brain is sensitive to it. It's even more noticeable now that we have such high resolution playback, at home. There's a large gap in perceived detail between static and panned images. I live for the day when on screen movement remains just as sharp as static images.

IMO, video needs to take the next step and get away from that old fashioned "film like" quality, and needs to resemble how we see in real life.

I will add that "depth of field" also plays an important role in how we perceive the overall clarity of the image. In real life, we never notice our vision's limited depth of field, because our eyes refocus quickly as we look around. But while watching film, our eyes are free to wonder around the entire image and see all the out of focus areas of the image, which also messes with the brain.

If you want to learn how to see jitter it is easy. Watch most movies end credits roll and notice how they will make several small jumps up and then one big jump up. The big jump up is 3:2 jitter.

I guess watching video (with motion blur) at 24fps is one thing, but have you ever played an FPS video game at only 24fps? Yikes!

Many believe that 24fps is some sacred speed that is holly and proves it is true film. In fact 24fps was picked as a compromise. It is about the slowest speed that can be used and get fluid motion (in most cases*). Remember film is (and especially was) expensive so the less that could be used for a movie the better and easier for the industry. Many are pushing for a higher speed in the switch to digital filming. However the problem is it must be a multiple of 24 to be compatible with legacy film and work with post production equipment. 120Hz may be the best choice (and is also compatible with HDTV's 60Hz) but it is still a few years away from being practical.

* Many compromises must be made like panning of a star field (or any other static scene) must be at a certain speed to avoid star flicker. Everyone is familiar with the "waggon wheel" effect caused by films slow speed.

So.....film for the past 70 or so years has been choppy and unnatural? I think when I go the theater and watch a movie in 24fps I don't notice any problem. Are you saying filmmakers need to change the way they film movies for home viewing when they are making them for the cinema?

I don't know if I know what judder is. Maybe my HDTV doesn't have it. The spec's include: "... Picture enhancement 3/2 - 2/2 motion pull down, ...
1080p, 24Hz, 25Hz, 30 Hz , 50Hz, 60Hz"

I assume that means I would see cable and DVDs in true 24fps at 24Hz?