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 - Page 4

post #91 of 121
2/23/08 at 1:30pm
Movie makers (notice I did not say "film") are on the verge of a change as dramatic as the adoption of HDTV. We already see things happening, and the momentum will soon cause new standards to be set. The motion picture industry has a great opportunity to leap-frog HDTV by a considerable margin.

Movie makers have used "film" to display their talents and creativeness. New technology will continue to expand the ability to display the art of the movie maker. And it is that art that is important! The fewer the limitations of the medium, the better the art can shine through.

Can we dispense with the term "filmmaker"? OK, maybe I'm a little premature..

Dave
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #92 of 121
2/23/08 at 5:49pm
I posted this in another thread, but today's experience is relevant to this one too:

On the subject of the motion enhancement feature of new displays:

Today was interesting. I was at an interior design show, looking for some stuff for my home theater when my back went out. I retired to the Sony exhibit to rest on a sofa in front of their Blu Ray set up. They had the latest James Bond Blu Ray playing on their 52" LCD flat screen and obviously the 120 hz and motion enhancement was on. It looked nothing like film, but like astoundingly clear HD-cam footage...and almost window-like.

It was a busy show so tons of people were entering the Sony booth to stand in front of this LCD screen. Some of us have talked about the odd effect the clarity of these screens with HD movies. I often wonder if it's only something we neurotic AVSers would care about or if the average joe would notice. I sort of presume most people would be enamoured with the clarity. So it was very interesting to sit there and listen to lots of reactions to the Blu Ray images.

To my amazement there was a lot of comments in line with what we've been saying here. Often the comments would start with "Oh my God, look at this, the picture is so clear!" "It looks like they are standing right in front of you!"

But then after that initial reaction a number of folks started to say things like "But...it's kind of weird. It looks sort of too clear."

People were finding something mildly "wrong" or off-putting about the image but were struggling to understand or articulate what it was. This Asian couple who sat beside me were first amazed and then both started to say things like "But it looks...I don't know...real...but it also looks kind of fake. Do you know what I mean? It's kind of weird..."

I knew exactly what they were seeing - how the fact the image looked so real and unlike film made the actors saying their lines somehow seem more "acting" or just speaking their parts in front of you.

A surprising portion of the people mentioned the odd effect of seeing a movie that looked as that screen was portraying it, and that it
was somehow off-putting.

I guess it's not just us...
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 121
2/23/08 at 6:35pm
I wonder how 120hz motion smoothing handles grain? It can't predict where the grains will be in-between frames because they don't travel- they just pop up unpredictably. Would it be like looking at a 120fps scene through a 24fps window covered in mosquitos?
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 121
2/23/08 at 7:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayrab View Post

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?

Yes actually. Obviously it's something you just try to tune out, but it is always easy to see the limitations of 24fps in any movie shot where it's not just still actors delivering dialog, and it's impossible to ignore in most action scenes.

I'm not saying 24 makes movies unwatchable, but rather just suggesting it is much too old a standard for the time we live in. Even a bump to 30fps would be a very noticeable improvement (to me, at least), though I hope we eventually can make 60 a standard in film. Going too far beyond that may never be necessary due to human eyeball hardware.

As other people have mentioned, perhaps it is just easier to notice when you're a pretty big gamer, as FPS is a crucial detail.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 121
2/24/08 at 9:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I posted this in another thread, but today's experience is relevant to this one too:

On the subject of the motion enhancement feature of new displays:

Today was interesting. I was at an interior design show, looking for some stuff for my home theater when my back went out. I retired to the Sony exhibit to rest on a sofa in front of their Blu Ray set up. They had the latest James Bond Blu Ray playing on their 52" LCD flat screen and obviously the 120 hz and motion enhancement was on. It looked nothing like film, but like astoundingly clear HD-cam footage...and almost window-like.

It was a busy show so tons of people were entering the Sony booth to stand in front of this LCD screen. Some of us have talked about the odd effect the clarity of these screens with HD movies. I often wonder if it's only something we neurotic AVSers would care about or if the average joe would notice. I sort of presume most people would be enamoured with the clarity. So it was very interesting to sit there and listen to lots of reactions to the Blu Ray images.

To my amazement there was a lot of comments in line with what we've been saying here. Often the comments would start with "Oh my God, look at this, the picture is so clear!" "It looks like they are standing right in front of you!"

But then after that initial reaction a number of folks started to say things like "But...it's kind of weird. It looks sort of too clear."

People were finding something mildly "wrong" or off-putting about the image but were struggling to understand or articulate what it was. This Asian couple who sat beside me were first amazed and then both started to say things like "But it looks...I don't know...real...but it also looks kind of fake. Do you know what I mean? It's kind of weird..."

I knew exactly what they were seeing - how the fact the image looked so real and unlike film made the actors saying their lines somehow seem more "acting" or just speaking their parts in front of you.

A surprising portion of the people mentioned the odd effect of seeing a movie that looked as that screen was portraying it, and that it
was somehow off-putting.

I guess it's not just us...



ive noticed this too. also seems to tire your eyes out a bit faster as well..
:/
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 121
2/24/08 at 2:27pm
is there away for an xbox 360 to output 24fps
thanks
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 121
2/24/08 at 7:20pm
Wouldn't going beyond 24 fps (and hence, beyond the 1/48s exposure) cause problems as far as exposure goes ? You may get more fps, but if movie film is anything like photo film, your faster exposure is going to need faster, grainier film, which I'm guessing won't look to great projected on a massive screen.

Even if it were filmed digitally, the sensors will be need to have a higher ISO, and again, more noise.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 121
2/25/08 at 2:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

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

Here's a very small (<5 MB) but highly detailed 1080p/60 clip you can probably play on many PC's.

www.trbarry.com/Valley_Of_Fire_1080p_60fps.avi

- Tom
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 121
2/25/08 at 5:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I knew exactly what they were seeing - how the fact the image looked so real and unlike film made the actors saying their lines somehow seem more "acting" or just speaking their parts in front of you.

A surprising portion of the people mentioned the odd effect of seeing a movie that looked as that screen was portraying it, and that it
was somehow off-putting.

I guess it's not just us...

As I've stated in the past, it makes movies look unlike movies.

There is an LG XCanvas here in Korea with the 120hz thing on display at the Homever store near here. It looks horrible. Artifacts everywhere!

I have yet to see any display by any manufacturer that produces a pleasing 24fps image -- motion enhancing on or off -- that makes me feel like I'm watching a movie, rather than a movie made to look like video.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 121
2/25/08 at 5:59am
It would have been interesting to compare the responses of the people at the show to seeing the Bond movie to seeing some non-dramatic program material, like a concert or sports. I can imagine fewer comments about the experience seeming "odd" and a general thumbs up for the clarity. I'm betting it's seeing a movie in particular that looks so unlike film that brought upon many of the comments.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 121
2/25/08 at 6:29am
I am have a hard time seeing the difference. I tested a section in Inside Man where one of the bad guys was eating pizza while the ipod is playing. There is a long horizontal pan around the room and noticed a lot of jiddering and motion blur on my Sharp 52SE94U (at 120hz) then changed my A30 to 1080p24hz and noticed the same effect.

Was this a bad example/test?
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 121
2/25/08 at 6:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbarry View Post

Here's a very small (<5 MB) but highly detailed 1080p/60 clip you can probably play on many PC's.

www.trbarry.com/Valley_Of_Fire_1080p_60fps.avi

- Tom

Wow! Thanks Tom. That's beautiful.

I believe most of the issues with the 120Hz sets looking "funny" have to do with the interpolation, not the frame rate. A simple 3:3 or 5:5 repetition shouldn't do anything to a 24Hz source except eliminate the 3:2 pulldown.

Apples and oranges. It's not the higher framerate that looks funny.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 121
2/25/08 at 6:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5harkology View Post

I am have a hard time seeing the difference. I tested a section in Inside Man where one of the bad guys was eating pizza while the ipod is playing. There is a long horizontal pan around the room and noticed a lot of jiddering and motion blur on my Sharp 52SE94U (at 120hz) then changed my A30 to 1080p24hz and noticed the same effect.

Was this a bad example/test?

Verify your dislay and player properly talk to each-other on the 24p thing. Many displays will do 24p only if the player is set to "force" that framerate.

That aside, I'm not familiar with the scene so can't say how good it is as an example.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 121
2/25/08 at 7:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5harkology View Post

I am have a hard time seeing the difference. I tested a section in Inside Man where one of the bad guys was eating pizza while the ipod is playing. There is a long horizontal pan around the room and noticed a lot of jiddering and motion blur on my Sharp 52SE94U (at 120hz) then changed my A30 to 1080p24hz and noticed the same effect.

Was this a bad example/test?

The reason you do not see the difference is because your TV does not do 5:5 pull down. It accepts 24Hz but does 2:3 pull down and then displays it at 120Hz. So far the only LCD's that are confirmed to do proper 5:5 pull down are Sony XBR4, XBR5 and Samsung 71 series. No other 120Hz LCD's do it properly so far.
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 121
2/25/08 at 7:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Schauer View Post

I believe most of the issues with the 120Hz sets looking "funny" have to do with the interpolation, not the frame rate. A simple 3:3 or 5:5 repetition shouldn't do anything to a 24Hz source except eliminate the 3:2 pulldown.

Apples and oranges. It's not the higher framerate that looks funny.

Well, it is and it isn't, depending on what you mean by "framerate". The 120Hz refresh will remove judder and do very little else. What the interpolation does is give you a glimpse of what movies would look like if they were made at higher film framerates like some folks here are calling for.

I concur with R Harkness about how the general public seems to perceive the motion enhancement. Back in December I was in Best Buy and had them put Spiderman 3 on one of the enhancing XBRs so I could get a look at the tech. I stood there for a good 15-20 minutes watching it and eavesdropped on conversations around me as people stopped and stared. They would be captivated by the image at first, then after a minute or two say it looked weird or bad and walk away, sometimes saying things like "if that's what HD looks like, no thanks".

That said, I did eventually buy a motion-enhancing set. I don't use motion enhancement when watching a movie the first time, but I'll use it when watching the commentary/extras. I've also spent quite a lot of time throwing movies at it just to see what it does to them. Just yesterday I was amused by how it made parts of Star Wars look like an old Dr. Who episode.
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 121
2/25/08 at 7:16am
^^^ Yeah, I should have said refresh rate, not frame rate. The frame rate of the 24fps source doesn't change on 120Hz sets.

My point is that I believe a higher framerate, while highly unlikely to materialize any time soon, would not necessarily ruin the movie look, and is possibly not the real difference in look people are pointing out. There are many many other factors, like depth of field film speed etc. Adding fake frames poorly done is not the ultimate test.
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 121
2/25/08 at 7:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CKNA View Post

The reason you do not see the difference is because your TV does not do 5:5 pull down. It accepts 24Hz but does 2:3 pull down and then displays it at 120Hz. So far the only LCD's that are confirmed to do proper 5:5 pull down are Sony XBR4, XBR5 and Samsung 71 series. No other 120Hz LCD's do it properly so far.

The display definately accepts the 1080p24 when forced by the A30 and I do not believe there is any documentation that the 94U's do 5:5.

However, when I go to the 120hz demo screen, there is a diagram showing the differences between 3:2 and 5:5. I know, I'm now pushing the topic limits for this thread, but wouldn't that indicate that the set does do 5:5?
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 121
2/25/08 at 7:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5harkology View Post

The display definately accepts the 1080p24 when forced by the A30 and I do not believe there is any documentation that the 94U's do 5:5.

However, when I go to the 120hz demo screen, there is a diagram showing the differences between 3:2 and 5:5. I know, I'm now pushing the topic limits for this thread, but wouldn't that indicate that the set does do 5:5?

I said it accepts 24Hz, but it does not do 5:5 pulldown. There is a thread here that lists displays that do real 5:5 pulldown.
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 121
2/25/08 at 8:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CKNA View Post

I said it accepts 24Hz, but it does not do 5:5 pulldown. There is a thread here that lists displays that do real 5:5 pulldown.

I understand that you did state that, I was simply re-stating it. That thread has been around for a while and this display just became available, Sharp has not confirmed whether it does or does not do 5:5. I guess I will take your word for it, which is based on the OP of that thread's research.

I wonder how he confirmed that it does not do 5:5 pulldown?
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 121
2/25/08 at 8:24am
Quote:


LETS TALK ABOUT 1080p/24fps

AVSers that can not just enjoy a good movie and instead constantly look at the imperfections.....very important HENCE the thread

The rest of the world.....no one cares, its overrated
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 121
2/25/08 at 10:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Schauer View Post

My point is that I believe a higher framerate, while highly unlikely to materialize any time soon, would not necessarily ruin the movie look, and is possibly not the real difference in look people are pointing out. There are many many other factors, like depth of field film speed etc.

Except that the motion enhancer doesn't change those other factors; it just changes the framerate.

Up until a few months ago I would have agreed with you. I always assumed things like lighting, contrast, lens flaring, and so on were big reasons why film looked like film and video looked like video. And while it's true that the intensity of the transformation does seem to be dependent on the way the film was shot, after hours and hours of repeatedly turning the enhancer on and off while watching scenes in a pile of movies, I'm convinced that changing the framerate really is all it takes to make film look like video. I'm still surprised by it but I can't deny what I'm seeing.

It's almost funny sometimes; for example in "The Shining" there's a scene where "Summer of '42" (1971) is playing on a black-and-white TV in the background, and the enhancer makes that look like video as well.

Quote:


Adding fake frames poorly done is not the ultimate test.

The enhancers certainly do screw up and display artifacts, but not all the time.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 121
5/4/10 at 10:39am
This topic regarding frame rate and Showscan has come up again big time with Roger Eberts Newsweek 3D article!
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 121
5/9/10 at 10:53pm
Here is a thought which I have never seen presented in a 24fps thread. In the decades of interlaced CRT sets which we all grew up watching we saw a different presentation then we do today on our 60 Hz progressive sets. I don't know how much difference there realy is but I believe the CRT sets were inherently smoother then the 2:3 pulldown we see on 60 Hz progressive sets. First the deinterlaceing was was not done in the set. The interlacing in the set was perfect and controlled from the source. Second the odd/even frame sequence required a 10 subframe sequence for each 4 frames. The sequence was 1o, 1e, 2o, 2e, 2o, 3e, 30, 4e, 4o, 4e. You can see that even/odd sequence in the first 5 subframes was reversed in the second 5 because of the required the odd/even sequence. I can't prove it but the 2:3 judder may have been much less noticable especially when you add in the phosphor decay time of the CRT. Still not a match for todays 72/120/240 Hz sets but it may have been better than the best 60 Hz sets.
Just food for thought.
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 121
5/13/10 at 9:07am
Encountered 1080/24p issues this week while watching a Discovery travelogue, not a drama. The production, "Sunrides: St. George River," is like the older Sunrise Earth series, except there's constant camera motion versus Sunrise's mostly static shots. Unlike typical documentaries/travelogues, often shot/delivered at 1080i30 (1080/60i), these Discovery 24p-captured series have a slightly blurred look instead of the distinct crispness often achieved with 60 'snapshots/sec' with, say, older HDCAMs capturing 1/60-sec TV fields or half-frames--versus 24pSF (segmented-frame mode).

Both SunRise and SunRides deliver remarkably good color here, but blurred nature scenes--both static and motion shots--is initially distracting, once suggesting a display problem. Watching the St. George river trip--a slow boat ride past red, orange, yellow and green autumn Maine foliage--provided a comparison of HD display technology: Noticed switching the 3:2 pulldown option off on my '09 Panasonic plasma eliminated a slight 'busyness' throughout the mass of finely detailed leaves. By contrast, viewing such scenes on a CRT RPTV until last spring, more interlace twitter was present. HD documentaries/travelogues shot at 1080/60i could be viewed that way on the CRT display, versus the added 2-3 pulldown needed for 1080/24p capture.

Increasingly nature productions (and dramas) are being shot with ~4k digital-cinema cameras like the Red One and its updates. Downconverting higher-resolution captures to 1920X1080 or 1280X720 HD can boost the coarser resolution contrast, making images appear 'sharper', as Arri engineer Hans Kiening outlines in his 4k tutorial (Figs. 6,8). Similarly and closer to OP, British (BBC) researchers note in "High Frame-Rate Television" that temporal oversampling can provide new video and film 'looks' (see part 5). -- John
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 121
1/7/12 at 9:42am
Sorry to revive this thread again but it's never been more timely than right now!
Douglas Trumbull has been very busy with new projects such as Showscan Digital which is capable of 120fps digital capture and capable of changing frame rates instantly.
His website has videos explaining the process.
He and James Cameron have been in talks about the potential of higher frame rates for 3d in particular and of course Peter Jackson is shooting The Hobbit at 48fps.

There are new interviews where Trumbull says HFR are the key to improving 3d and even 2d fast action.It is a subject that has caused much discussion.
Many people are more upset at the idea of losing 24fps than losing film.
I think this is a runaway train at this point because of theaters being mostly all D Cinema capable of effortless HFR.
It will be interesting.
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 121
1/7/12 at 9:51am
+1 to it being a limitation.
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 121
1/7/12 at 1:06pm
Can Blu Ray handle 48fps?
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 121
1/8/12 at 1:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

Can Blu Ray handle 48fps?

Right now no, not without conversion to about 24/50/60 (or 25/30).
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 121
1/14/12 at 11:36pm
Can Blu Ray handle sepia tone?
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 121
2/15/12 at 12:36pm
http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsono...ture-of-movies
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