LETS TALK ABOUT 1080p/24fps - Page 3

Film as a technology is not perfect, however, in the context of the movie itself, the film @24fps is essentially the most perfect final rendition of that movie that can exist physically today.

If the goal is to get the best transfer of that film and render it the way it is given the limitations that already exists, then there can be no dispute that each frame should be visible for that 1s/24 time period and to do that, the TV must handle 24p and repeat each frame to fill up a multiple of 24p.

1. Interpolating missing pictures to fill up the 120Hz is wrong because there is no heuristic in the world than can flawlessly create detail or information that does not exist in the original stream.
2. Sending the 60I via the display and then relying on the TV to do the inverse 3:2 and then process it to 24P or 120Hz is a fall back if the TV can actually do this flawlessly, but given what I've seen with even simple deinterlacing of 1080i, I am not confident a lot of TVs do this without mistakes.
3. We already have the first piece of the requirement, these BD disks are encoded at 1080P24. Most also have the 2nd piece since quite a few players already do 1080P24 output. The last thing missing is the TV that accepts 24P natively, which is still a rarity.

The Showscan 70mm system of shooting film at 60 fps and then projecting it at 60 fps was invented and promoted by Douglas Trumbull back in the 70s and 80s.He could not get studios and theatre chains to go for the major improvement in visuals.It looked incredible ,it had a 3-d depth to it and had 70mm resolution!He pushed for wall to wall,floor to ceiling curved screens with stadium seating!The industry took the last part but shunned the 70mm 60fps.It was a perfect match for HD also.

vic1964, there have been many different/specialized movie formats over the years... yes, with different frame rates. Showscan technology still lives for simulator-like ride attractions.

I think there's a certain photographic/artistic advantage of having a 24th of a second to have a picture burned into our retinas as opposed to a 60fps video. I also think that the 24fps helps to hide flaws like twitches and shakiness in an actor's body that might be distracting. Also, 24fps is soothing and calming, classy and stylish, traditional and faithful. I will cry if movies ever move to a higher framerate

A dam shame something like that wasn't standardized a long time ago. Instead we are still stuck with the archaic 24fps.

Its actually more like 1/48th of second capture interval per frame because of the shutter angle but I agree with your points.

The movie Brainstorm was originally planned to be shot in Showscan. There are sequences in the movie where the characters put on a headset that shows them what other people were seeing, and those sequences were suppose to look larger, sharper, and have smoother motion than the rest of the film. The entire print would have had to be in the Showscan format with most of the movie being shot on 35mm and then conformed to look like standard 24 frames per second while actually running at 60 frames per second. The effect would have been very outstanding, but there were virtually no theaters that could run such a print, so a convential version of the film would have had to be made as well. The film industry is very reluctant to change any standards, especially one that would have increased the film stock costs dramatically and forced theater owners to retool.

The 1/48 shutter is an analog effect --- how can we replicate that on the progressive displays today. Or should we even try.

Sounds like it would have been really cool. Also goes to show if they want the 24fps look they could drop down the quality to similulate that, the reverse isn't true. Having a 120hz set with interpolation does help with some films, granted not perfect.

No it obviously still runs at 24fps but the capture interval for each frame is 1/48th not 1/24th . 1/24th would likley look overly smeary and motionblurred.

If the capture interval is lowered even further by changing the shutter angle to smaller than 180 you get a strobing look to the action because of the lack of motionblur: Gladiator , Saving Private Ryan.

It's an interesting dilemma this 24fps thing. Some people like it and it's legacy, others can't wait to kick it out the door.

It's hard to objectively evaluate the issue to some degree, because we always carry along the baggage of what we are used to watching, especially in terms of 24fps film. But I don't think the objection "You just like 24fps ONLY because you are used to it" quite gets the whole story in terms of the preferences being expressed.

It's true to point out that 24fps is in some technical sense a limitation, not a feature, in terms of it's rational. But that technical decision nonetheless has aesthetic consequences that needn't be swiped aside simply because of the technical-limitations argument.

It seems that 24fps is one of the elements that makes film look like film (or "movies" look like "movies"). (Other elements to my mind are film color/film stocks/film contrast and even the delivery system - projected on a screen). Having shot a lot of film myself I'm all too aware of it's limitations, including having to account for how movement will look on film vs real life (much more blurry or choppy, if you aren't careful how you frame the shot and move the camera).

And yet for me the legacy of 24fps (and film capture and projection in general) is the slightly surreal nature it helps impart. It has a slightly otherworldly quality that says "fantasy." It has an artistic quality - an artistic quality that you don't get when simply standing on a film set and watching actors say the lines. It all comes together once it enters that film-world and somehow the slight disconnect, the artistic effect, of film makes the experience MORE believable not less.

Which as I've mentioned before the problem I"m finding with these displays that remove the motion blur of film (e.g. the new projectors and flat panels from Sony with their motion enhancement features). The actors look more
real, like they are standing right in front of me, and for that very reason the experience feels more contrived and less convincing to me.

Just as if Toby Mcguire were standing in front of you in his Spiderman suit saying his lines it would feel contrived. But watch him on film doing it and you buy into it.

To some degree that is a matter of expectations to be sure. It's like people who go to live theater vs those in the habit of going to movies. I'm a movie guy who occasionally goes to see a play. But every time I see a play I begin with a sort of struggle with the very experience itself. I see real people walk on to a stage and start "acting." It seems contrived seeing acting done in person and I struggle to get into the drama. Eventually I get there if the drama is good. Whereas someone more habituated to live theater can more easily slip into the mindset demanded to make the experience work.

And I suppose if we have a generation that gets used to seeing movies shot in a way that makes them look starkly realistic, they'll evolve new expectations, and perhaps not understand what the fuss is about that I'm speaking of.

But, still, when I view projected film I really appreciate the difference vs reality or HD video. When I'm staring at super-real HD video it's like looking at real life; when I'm watching film I feel the artistry. I see "cinematography" that I can drink in. When I see the film look taken away by these new displays I don't see "cinematography," don't sense the experience mediated by an artist: I just see a scene as through a window. Perhaps another way of putting it is the HD non-filim look is like someone pointing to a mountain and saying "Isn't that beautiful?" Yup, it is. But the film look is more reminiscent of viewing the mountain as captured by, say, Ansel Adams. I can appreciate the experience of the mountain as mediated by the artist as well, which is the experience the "film look" gives me. And an experience I don't think I'd like to throw away.

Anyway...that's my 99 cents on the issue.

Killed the thread, did I ?

I read this thread (last page anyway) because I noticed you posted. That 99 cents was worth every penny.

I do love Hi Def movies. Not to take the thread off topic but I'm still trying to decide if I like digital theaters?

Dunno. It's mostly a discussion between people that think 24fps is stupid, and people that understand we can't do anything about the fact that our movies exist in a 24fps format, and any attempt to translate that to a display rate that is not an integer multiple of 24 will cause the frames to be visible for uneven amounts of time (24 to 60Hz = 3 cycles for one frame, two for the next... you know, that old 3/2 pulldown).

I doubt very much this was intended to be a discussion of where the film industry should go.

I think it was intended to be a discussion of why having a display capable of a 24fps (or 48Hz or 72Hz or 120Hz), and a source that outputs 24fps, is beneficial.

A lot of TV shows are shot at even lower framerates, particularly older ones. TV animations are, of course, 8 or 10 fps more often than not (at least, those done in the non-digital age).

I'm not entirely a fan of 24fps - I can catch problems in single frames (though I can't usually tell what is wrong - I can only catch the "out of sequence" issues). 3:2 pulldown is bloody obvious to me in certain sequences. I hate it. Much worse problem than rainbows in a DLP.

Who knows. I'm glad we can get rid of 3:2 pulldown.

C

Likewise. What a wonderful medium the new HD format is!

That said, even ridding 3:2 pulldown doesn't totally eliminate judder issues, as some types of judder are inherent in the limitations of 24fps film.

Every thread on this topic is a trainwreck. People are either confused and think that motion interpolation and 24p playback are the same thing, or insist on trying to discuss the merits of shooting film at 24 fps.

I disagree. Most people on this thread seem to understand the difference actually. Most of us know film is shot at 24fps and I myself, as well as others, have specifically referenced the motion interpolation applied by some new displays as a reference for what a movie looks like when look of 24fps blur is removed.


Oh my gosh...in a thread about a 24fps source, people discuss the pluses and negatives of creating a source at 24 fps? How ridiculous!

You're right, what a train wreck!

[sarcasm off]

I think there has been some good discussion in this thread.

I remember people saying here theatres project film at 48 fps (?). If that's the case and if people want the film look as close to what they experience in theatres then why not just have 48fps in home displays?

The 48fps come from the fact that each frame in a 24fps movie is shown twice. This is to reduce percievable flicker. ( some projectors actually show each frame 3 times).

The reason some displays display 24fps in multiples is the same principle although digital displays update in various different ways and this is also a factor.

The 48fps bit is immaterial : the flicker threshold on a given display is.

I think the reason i brought up Showscan is because.1. I loved the system and.2. One of Doug Trumbulls selling points for Showscan was how great it transfers to HD which seems more relevant now than in the 80s when he was saying it.A film capture method with no motion blur ,strobing or flicker.In projection every frame is projected once instead of twice!
In the end Trumbull himself gave up on making a dramatic feature film because he began to suspect the realism of the process actually took you out of the story emotionally.With digital cinema about to take over motion pictures i wonder if this will be proven right or not.

There is definitely a film look (24FPS) and video look (60FPS or 60 fields/sec). I prefer film look for movies. Video look takes away that "something" that says that you are looking at creative art and replaces it with something out of broadcast news or sports.

Look I've said this in the past quite a few times now. If you want to know what a high capture rate looks like : get a piece of 60i footage and run it through a bob deinterlace. Sure the resolution is low but the capture period is pretty much what you would see with 60fps.

Guess what ...it looks like the News. Mystery over ....

Can you tell me where you got that info on Trumbull's opinion of showscan?
I'd like to read about it.

I followed Trumbull's work way-back-when as a sci-fi effects fan and had eagerly read about, and awaited, Showscan. I managed to finally see it many years later (in the 90s) in London. It was fascinating to say the least. But I'd be very interested if Trumbull indeed decided the realism was a problem in terms of the general film/movie experience as you say.

Thanks,

Can you tell me where you got that info on Trumbull's opinion of showscan?
I'd like to read about it.
He was quiet about it in the 90s but i read it in a couple of interviews and then his assistant told me over the phone that he was more or less dropping the believe that 60fps was the best thing for mainstream movies.He was interested in 48fps however when he became involved with IMAX.I keep looking for new interviews to hear what he thinks today but he is kind of low profile these days.

Nope. I always wondered why I liked projected images better than on a tv despite it not being as "clear"... now I know!

"It is the standard and has been for years" is a very poor argument for 24fps. Once upon a time, black and white was the standard. Then came color TV, and now we're watching 1080p flat-panel TVs. VHS preceded DVD, and now we have Blu Ray. If there is one thing that we've learned from the history of video and audio entertainment, it is the fact that technology enhances the standard and makes it even more enjoyable. Just because the 24fps has not yet changed, it doesn't necessarily mean it is because it can't be improved upon.

Now, I'm not just saying that new technology is ALWAYS more enjoyable and that more fps is ALWAYS superior to fewer fps. I enjoy watching film in 1080p24 just like you do. I just think that your argument for it is awful, along with your argument against 120Hz interpolation.

A couple of things that I think should be clear in the discussion of this topic:

1) "Tradition" is no substitute for "quality". "How things have been" is no substitute for "how things ought to be". "Staying faithful to cinema" is no substitute for "staying faithful to what is more enjoyable". Please, for the love of god, nobody bring these up as arguments for why you think 24 fps is superior. It is scientific fact that the number 24 was landed upon, not because film producers made any breakthrough research to determine that it looks better, but because of limitations in technology. Whichever you think looks better between 24Hz or 60Hz or 2347908Hz, is for you to decide, but if you are totally adamant about it, surely you can come up with something better than "it's how we've been watching for decades!" For example: "Lower framerate actually fools the eye into perceiving smoother movement and camera panning". Another good one is: "excessive realism takes away from the allure of film and cinematics." You're entitled to your own opinion, but if you're trying to convince someone with an argument, "That's just the way it always has been" won't really get you anywhere.

2) "Artificially generated" is not synonymous with "bad". What about upconversion? It is the product of artificialy generated pixels, and everyone seems to love it. What about special effects in movies? It is artificially generated graphics to make unnatural things seem real. What about animation? Again, artificially generated and not real. How about make-up? What about fiction? These are all things that are artificial but have all made enormous contributions to cinema. Personally, I think that the Auto-Motion Plus/Motonflow/Cinemotion feature looks like it came out of my ass. However, to imply that it should be automatically dismissed as a crime upon home theatre just because it is "artificially generated" is very poor reasoning.

EDIT: By the way, this is an excellent thread. One of the best on these forums for a long time. I'm undecided as to whether I like film in 24 or 60 fps, but one thing is for sure: 3:2 pulldown sucks. I'm not a big fan of Cinemotion, unless it is an animated film.

You seem to be speaking in the theoretical.

For me, where I can switch between 24Hz and 60Hz output on the same 24p material, the irregular cadence is easily detectable on particular scenes.

The irregular timing of the 3:2 pullup is much more objectionable than the "standard" 24p framerate judder, which is baked in to the source material.

is there a list of all TVs capable of 1080p/24 display? not including those that can accept the signals then convert to TV's 60hz.

Good post. 24p, along with film grains, is totally subjective. It's really down to personal taste.

For me, 24pfs is just too slow for fast panning, and the biggest problem is 3:2 cadence judder. Others may not care.

To me, what really defines film is the grain, it is the main factor that distinguishes it from video. I enjoy both though.