AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/)
-   OLED Technology and Flat Panels General (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-panels-general/)
-   -   First movie in 120fps HFR said to be "absolutely spectacular" (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-panels-general/2439650-first-movie-120fps-hfr-said-absolutely-spectacular.html)

popyang45 04-30-2016 03:28 AM

First movie in 120fps HFR said to be "absolutely spectacular"
 
First movie in 120fps HFR said to be "absolutely spectacular"
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php...&id=1461939863



OLED screen going to have 120 fps, 4K and 3D, "the new platinum standard" :confused:
HFR ?

talk about the movie 4K3D

8mile13 04-30-2016 09:00 AM

That was just a 120fps demo. Though most folks loved it. What can you conclude based upon a 10 minutes demo? Really? 3D TV is on its way out so going on discussing it makes very little sense (PAST). HFR for TV? not any time soon (FUTURE). btw I read somewere that the movie actually has variable frame rates.

saprano 04-30-2016 10:23 AM

No thanks.

sytech 04-30-2016 11:49 AM

Hmmm? Maybe this is the trick Cameron has up his sleeve for Avatar 2 thru 4? Also, you will need a display with a SuperMHL of USB-C port like the Hisense MU9600/9800 because HDMI will not pass 10-bit [email protected]

8mile13 04-30-2016 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sytech (Post 43682458)
Hmmm? Maybe this is the trick Cameron has up his sleeve for Avatar 2 thru 4? Also, you will need a display with a SuperMHL of USB-C port like the Hisense MU9600/9800 because HDMI will not pass 10-bit [email protected]

It is really hard to tell. There is one projector that is able to do the 120fps so it has a long way to go. For now i stick with Cameron going 48fps, 3D and proper HDR for cinema. Maybe he even drop the 3D. With all this stuff going on, 3D going down, HFR stuck (when one looks what The Hobbit movies achieved), HDR on the rise, its really tough for a guy like that...postponing is not that big of a surprise.

Chronoptimist 04-30-2016 06:28 PM

Can't wait.
24 FPS should have been killed off as soon as we started to move away from shooting on film, and televisions have been limited to 60Hz for too long.

48 FPS is a poor choice because you're still going to get very noticeable flicker on a low-persistence display, and even though it's less than the maximum our current displays can handle (60 FPS) it will still require new displays since the majority will not support a 48Hz input.

TuteTibiImperes 04-30-2016 07:08 PM

I'd be willing to see an HFR movie in the theater to give it a fair shot, but I've been very unimpressed by the HFR trailers I've seen on YouTube from the Hobbit movies that were filmed at 48fps. Instead of making it look more real, it makes it look fake, and cheap.

I suppose for the right content it could work, and it would probably be great for documentaries and nature footage, I'm just not sure of its utility for other things. I've never felt that movies at 24fps were lacking anything in terms of smooth motion.

sytech 04-30-2016 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TuteTibiImperes (Post 43691114)
I'd be willing to see an HFR movie in the theater to give it a fair shot, but I've been very unimpressed by the HFR trailers I've seen on YouTube from the Hobbit movies that were filmed at 48fps. Instead of making it look more real, it makes it look fake, and cheap.

I suppose for the right content it could work, and it would probably be great for documentaries and nature footage, I'm just not sure of its utility for other things. I've never felt that movies at 24fps were lacking anything in terms of smooth motion.

I think it is all what you are used to. I use to hate using motion compensation, but after a few weeks at the minimum setting on my Samsung F8500, I could not go back to the motion blur from cars and fast motion. Just try watching Spectre without MEMC. I agree that to much gives it the SOE and makes it look fake though.

NintendoManiac64 04-30-2016 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sytech (Post 43682458)
you will need a display with a SuperMHL of USB-C port like the Hisense MU9600/9800 because HDMI will not pass 10-bit [email protected]

DisplayPort 1.2 can do 4k 60hz 10bit at 4:4:4, so mathmatically it should be able to do 4k 120Hz 10bit at 4:2:0.

Of course, the strange part is that HDMI 2.0 actually has a teeny bit more bandwidth than DisplayPort 1.2 yet apparently can't do 4k 60Hz 10bit 4:4:4...less efficient protocol perhaps?

Nevertheless, this is without considering that DisplayPort 1.3 GPUs are also coming this summer and that the specification for DisplayPort 1.4 was just finalized exactly two months ago.

TheronB 04-30-2016 09:27 PM

Waiting for native 120Hz input OLEDs. :)

Matthias Hutter 04-30-2016 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 (Post 43693002)
Nevertheless, this is without considering that DisplayPort 1.3 GPUs are also coming this summer and that the specification for DisplayPort 1.4 was just finalized exactly two months ago.

Well DP 1.4 just adds stream compression, the raw bandwidth afaik stays the same

NintendoManiac64 04-30-2016 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthias Hutter (Post 43693674)
Well DP 1.4 just adds stream compression, the raw bandwidth afaik stays the same

I am aware of this, but it's the same type of compression that SuperMHL uses in order to claim such high capabilities.

Magnesus 05-01-2016 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8mile13 (Post 43686970)
Maybe he even drop the 3D. With all this stuff going on, 3D going down

There is no way Cameron is dropping 3D. It's also not going down in cinemas, at least not in Europe, only in TVs - which is most likely temporary.
I wonder if the fact that US uses mostly Real3D (active 3D) while Europe mostly Dolby3D (passive 3D) is the reason for the difference.

gsilver 05-01-2016 07:59 AM

Well, my current desktop monitor can do 2560x1440 @ 144hz, so it could at least show the video at full framerate, and the soon-to-be-released UP3017Q OLED monitor should be able to do 3840x2160 @ 120hz. I don't know about TVs, since I'm mostly a computer guy, but if there's a monitor that does it, a TV shouldn't be too far off.

Though I don't know if there will be a disk format that could handle it. AFAIK, UHD Blu-ray is limited to 60 fps encoding.


Though I'd definitely like to see it.

8mile13 05-01-2016 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnesus (Post 43695330)
There is no way Cameron is dropping 3D. It's also not going down in cinemas, at least not in Europe, only in TVs - which is most likely temporary.
I wonder if the fact that US uses mostly Real3D (active 3D) while Europe mostly Dolby3D (passive 3D) is the reason for the difference.

It looks like most important to him is 3D . So you are probably right. Based upon info Avatar 2 will be in 48 or 60 fps, 3D, SDR, 4K.

Chronoptimist 05-01-2016 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TuteTibiImperes (Post 43691114)
I'd be willing to see an HFR movie in the theater to give it a fair shot, but I've been very unimpressed by the HFR trailers I've seen on YouTube from the Hobbit movies that were filmed at 48fps. Instead of making it look more real, it makes it look fake, and cheap.

That's because people are uploading interpolated versions of the 24 FPS trailer and calling it 48 FPS. There has not been any native 48 FPS trailer released that I'm aware of.
Not only that, but it wouldn't look right on the majority of existing displays anyway, since they don't support 48Hz inputs.
48 FPS is a mistake. They should be moving to 60 FPS or some higher multiple of 24 - though there's really no good reason to stick with multiples of 24.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TuteTibiImperes (Post 43691114)
I suppose for the right content it could work, and it would probably be great for documentaries and nature footage, I'm just not sure of its utility for other things. I've never felt that movies at 24fps were lacking anything in terms of smooth motion.

There is unfixable judder and motion blur with 24 FPS motion on all current displays. Even slow-moving panning shots look awful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gsilver (Post 43698290)
Well, my current desktop monitor can do 2560x1440 @ 144hz, so it could at least show the video at full framerate, and the soon-to-be-released UP3017Q OLED monitor should be able to do 3840x2160 @ 120hz. I don't know about TVs, since I'm mostly a computer guy, but if there's a monitor that does it, a TV shouldn't be too far off.

Unfortunately we've had 120Hz LCD monitors available for almost six years now, and televisions are still limited to 60Hz.
Newer monitors are now 144Hz, 165Hz, and even 200Hz.
And that's not even counting the fact that CRT monitors were capable of refreshing at 200Hz 15 years ago.

Worse, most televisions actually refresh at 120Hz or 240Hz, they just don't support any inputs higher than 60Hz.

8mile13 05-01-2016 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist (Post 43698450)
48 FPS is a mistake. They should be moving to 60 FPS or some higher multiple of 24 - though there's really no good reason to stick with multiples of 24.

CAMERON
“My thinking at the time was that 60 [FPS] might be a better segue to the video market. I’ll be plugging into a system that’s a little more mature, so it makes sense for me to do 48 frames at this point.”
http://screenrant.com/avatar-2-3-4-s...s-hfr-cameron/

ambesolman 05-01-2016 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnesus (Post 43695330)
There is no way Cameron is dropping 3D. It's also not going down in cinemas, at least not in Europe, only in TVs - which is most likely temporary.
I wonder if the fact that US uses mostly Real3D (active 3D) while Europe mostly Dolby3D (passive 3D) is the reason for the difference.



I agree, no way he drops 3D for avatar. When I saw the first one in 3D IMAX, it was the best visual experience I'd had to that point. Still one of the best. I expect the next ones to be just as good though I'm on the fence with hfr.
The hfr hobbit took me about 20min to get used to before I stopped noticing it. Just looked more like I was watching a play or something.

RLBURNSIDE 05-01-2016 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8mile13 (Post 43678290)
That was just a 120fps demo. Though most folks loved it. What can you conclude based upon a 10 minutes demo? Really? 3D TV is on its way out so going on discussing it makes very little sense (PAST). HFR for TV? not any time soon (FUTURE). btw I read somewere that the movie actually has variable frame rates.

Discussing the future makes little sense?

VR is the future of video, and that's both high frame rate and stereo 3D.

TVs, 24p, all that stuff is the real fossil in this discussion, although I agree with you we should be moving on from that. 3D never left, it just quit TVs because the experience at 24p and typical TV sizes just wasn't there, and the content wasn't either. In VR, it's a completely different story. High frame rates are mandatory, as is stereo 3D. 3D at 24p is garbage, IMO, and that's what people have been fed this entire time so of course it's going to fail when it was presented so poorly, on awful low contrast LCDs with terrible crosstalk and tiny screen sizes.

If you think that an entire generation growing up with VR and AR glasses won't be demanding more from their entertainment than paltry 2D at 24 frames per second, it is you, I'm afraid, who is living in the past. Holographic displays are coming too, and the demand is going to be enormous. This content will be produced with stereo 3D and high frame rate in mind, because it's mandatory in order for the experience to not suck. Which 24p stereo 3D does, for the most part.

TuteTibiImperes 05-01-2016 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist (Post 43698450)

There is unfixable judder and motion blur with 24 FPS motion on all current displays. Even slow-moving panning shots look awful.

You may think that, but I've never thought 24fps film looked bad. Real life has motion blur - you can't discern fine details in fast moving objects. HFR breaks the fourth wall, it destroys the distance between the film and the audience making it look too real.

For content that's supposed to look real though, like documentaries, nature footage, etc, I can see it being nice. Something like BBC's Planet Earth in HFR with HDR in 4K could be awesome.


Quote:

Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE (Post 43698834)
Discussing the future makes little sense?

VR is the future of video, and that's both high frame rate and stereo 3D.

TVs, 24p, all that stuff is the real fossil in this discussion, although I agree with you we should be moving on from that. 3D never left, it just quit TVs because the experience at 24p and typical TV sizes just wasn't there, and the content wasn't either. In VR, it's a completely different story. High frame rates are mandatory, as is stereo 3D. 3D at 24p is garbage, IMO, and that's what people have been fed this entire time so of course it's going to fail when it was presented so poorly, on awful low contrast LCDs with terrible crosstalk and tiny screen sizes.

If you think that an entire generation growing up with VR and AR glasses won't be demanding more from their entertainment than paltry 2D at 24 frames per second, it is you, I'm afraid, who is living in the past. Holographic displays are coming too, and the demand is going to be enormous. This content will be produced with stereo 3D and high frame rate in mind, because it's mandatory in order for the experience to not suck. Which 24p stereo 3D does, for the most part.

I believe VR will play a larger role in the future, but it's going to share the same big problem that current 3D at home does - most people don't want to wear something on their head while they're watching a movie. It's anathema to social viewing, and makes it much more difficult to have a drink or dinner while you watch something.

I could see it being awesome for things like video games or for watching a movie on a plane though.

3D in the theaters can be awesome or gimmicky depending on the implementation. Gravity in 3D at the theater was awesome, but most releases where 3D is just added so that theaters can sell higher priced tickets doesn't add anything worthwhile to the experience, and in fact detracts from it IMO.

RLBURNSIDE 05-01-2016 09:41 AM

I agree that generally speaking spending money to go see a movie in the cinema is not worth it.

I much prefer watching 3D movies on my cheap w1070 simply because I get to run it at 60hz per eye through interpolation and I find the 3D experience is much more convincing that way.

But they're (MIT labs) working on glasses-free 3d front projection as well as holographic, and even though people watch TV together on the couch there's no reason that simultaneous experiences can't be had.

Put it this way : once big companies start producing TV shows like The Flash in a 360 VR version I see people more and more watching it from their own comfy / second gen VR / AR glasses. It's a brave new world and things are going to change. TVs will get bigger, and better, and you can already do very convincing 3D without glasses. It just wasn't ready for prime time and if not wearing glasses is the biggest impediment (with 24 frames per second being the second) to enjoying 3D, then both those roadblocks will be removed and people will change their minds.

There is no reason that there can't be a compromise between full 360 VR experiences and glasses-free couch 3D on a wall-sized OLED that can actively adapt to people's perspectives collectively. If I'm watching a show on my own, I'd like to be able to move my head a bit to the left and right and get a different perspective out of it. That's what 3D at the movies is lacking, IMO, it's when you shift your body back or to the sides the image actually adapts. VR can do that, but for multi-viewer projector it's much harder if not impossible. However let's not say impossible, I've read some papers going back 20-30 years discussing multi-perspective holography and I'm 100% it's not only coming but it will offer a more compelling experience.

All of this content will be in 3D, and probably in higher frame rates too since it's a low-hanging fruit that gives big dividends in terms of realism / immersion. Motion being un-fluid is a huge problem in 2D, but even huger in 3D.

I can't wait to see Ang Lee's movie, even if the only way I can see it at its native framerate is through the PS4 Morpheus. I have one at work so far it's the only HMD that does 120hz and I look forward to comparing it to the Rift and Vive with native 90hz vs 120hz content fed appropriately.

8mile13 05-01-2016 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE (Post 43698834)
Discussing the future makes little sense?

VR is the future of video, and that's both high frame rate and stereo 3D.

TVs, 24p, all that stuff is the real fossil in this discussion, although I agree with you we should be moving on from that. 3D never left, it just quit TVs because the experience at 24p and typical TV sizes just wasn't there, and the content wasn't either. In VR, it's a completely different story. High frame rates are mandatory, as is stereo 3D. 3D at 24p is garbage, IMO, and that's what people have been fed this entire time so of course it's going to fail when it was presented so poorly, on awful low contrast LCDs with terrible crosstalk and tiny screen sizes.

If you think that an entire generation growing up with VR and AR glasses won't be demanding more from their entertainment than paltry 2D at 24 frames per second, it is you, I'm afraid, who is living in the past. Holographic displays are coming too, and the demand is going to be enormous. This content will be produced with stereo 3D and high frame rate in mind, because it's mandatory in order for the experience to not suck. Which 24p stereo 3D does, for the most part.

Currently there is a VR bubble just like a few years ago when there was a 3D bubble...looks like 3D will only survive in cinema. VR will probably only survive in gaming..

NintendoManiac64 05-01-2016 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TuteTibiImperes (Post 43699658)
You may think that, but I've never thought 24fps film looked bad. Real life has motion blur - you can't discern fine details in fast moving objects.

Last time I checked, when your eyes follow a moving object in real life, it doesn't look blurry.

8mile13 05-01-2016 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 (Post 43705354)
Last time I checked, when your eyes follow a moving object in real life, it doesn't look blurry.

the ''wave your hand in front of your face'' test :rolleyes:

NintendoManiac64 05-01-2016 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8mile13 (Post 43706010)
the ''wave your hand in front of your face'' test :rolleyes:

I don't know about you, but when I actually follow my waving hand, the hand is not blurry while the background is.

Conversely, when I don't follow my waving hand, the background stays not blurry while the hand is blurry.

Matthias Hutter 05-01-2016 01:45 PM

That won't get solved until we combine very low shutter speed and display persistence with an object and eye-tracking motion blur filter.
Or alternatively, use very high frame rates (>700 Hz for UHDTV)

boe 05-01-2016 02:04 PM

Unfortunately HDMI is woefully underspec'd for 4K 120hz. It's like they aren't even trying. They wait until the specs are about 1 year behind current tech then try to create a new spec that takes a long time to ratify then another year for the hardware to reach saturation once the specs are released. Why not get ahead of the curve, skip hdmi 2.1 and go to HDMI 3.0 - 8K, 3D at 120hz, HDR metadata and lossless 11.2 channel sound? Then the committee can go to sleep for another 10 years and we don't have to keep on changing out our prepros and other equipment to catch up with the obsolete hdmi standards. I understand HDMI started out as a HT centric connection but why not put some effort into it and it would be good for gaming monitors as well. Frankly plenty of people hook their gaming PCs to their TVs as well. Let's finally make a jump forward please.


Then you could spend the next 10 years working on things like prepro to amp connections using hdmi instead of xlr or RCA. The committee could work on making sure HDMI can handle developing tech bandwidth requirements for such things as smellovision or whatever it will be called, improved 3D spatially aware tech that does not require glasses, longer distance runs, fiber specs, 10 gigabit network connectivity. power triggers, pohdmi, etc.


Display port is no joy either as the specs still are for short distance cables. And let's face it almost no TVs, prepros or UHD players have supermhl connectivity.

video_analysis 05-01-2016 02:09 PM

^Planned obsolescence is why. With margins razor thin and revenues dipping, they don't want to make it any worse by offering truly futureproof TVs.

Chronoptimist 05-01-2016 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TuteTibiImperes (Post 43699658)
You may think that, but I've never thought 24fps film looked bad. Real life has motion blur - you can't discern fine details in fast moving objects. HFR breaks the fourth wall, it destroys the distance between the film and the audience making it look too real.

There is a constant judder introduced with 24 FPS motion because it cannot be presented at 24Hz natively. (extreme flicker)
It must be displayed at a minimum of 48Hz and typically 72Hz or higher these days, and each time you repeat the original frames, you introduce more and more judder.
So presentation of 24 FPS content has progressively got worse as displays have been trying to reduce flicker.

As far as motion blur is concerned, there is nothing realistic about the amount of motion blur used with 24 FPS film.
If you shoot at really high framerates, say 1000 FPS, and presented that on a 1000Hz flicker-free display, you would have far more natural motion blur - because it's no longer an effect being added to your footage, it's now happening in your eye just as it does in real life.

In real life I can track a fast-moving object with my eyes to eliminate the blur. You can't do that with motion at 24 FPS. It's blurred by the camera instead of your eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TuteTibiImperes (Post 43699658)
I believe VR will play a larger role in the future, but it's going to share the same big problem that current 3D at home does - most people don't want to wear something on their head while they're watching a movie.

Approximately 75% of adults use some form of eye correction, so I've never bought the "people don't want to wear glasses" argument against 3D.
I do agree with you about VR though. I doubt that it is going to take off in a big way for movie watching, outside of perhaps personal viewing devices that you snap your phone into like the Gear VR.
I can see that really taking off with the younger generations who never had a big HT setup to begin with.

Personally, my interest in 3D and VR is 100% gaming related.
I really dislike watching 3D movies on a television and while VR should fix my biggest issues with that, I just don't know that I want to watch movies with a headset on.

8mile13 05-01-2016 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 (Post 43706154)
I don't know about you, but when I actually follow my waving hand, the hand is not blurry while the background is.

Conversely, when I don't follow my waving hand, the background stays not blurry while the hand is blurry.

When i wave my hand in front of my face fast, which is what people usually do when they wave, fast waving, not slowmo waving, my eyes cannot follow my hand. Are you superman or what?

Main point of the hand waving in front of face is, yes, there is blur in real life. The guy who you quoted basically stated that some minor blur in movies is not that bad since in real life we also see blur.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.