First movie in 120fps HFR said to be "absolutely spectacular" - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 25Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 77 Old 04-30-2016, 03:28 AM - Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 441
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 299 Post(s)
Liked: 72
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"
HFR ?

talk about the movie 4K3D

Last edited by popyang45; 04-30-2016 at 08:36 AM.
popyang45 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 77 Old 04-30-2016, 09:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,531
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2376 Post(s)
Liked: 1380
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.
8mile13 is online now  
post #3 of 77 Old 04-30-2016, 10:23 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
saprano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 4,120
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 582 Post(s)
Liked: 602
No thanks.

home theater addict
saprano is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 77 Old 04-30-2016, 11:49 AM
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,567
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2104 Post(s)
Liked: 1520
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]
Magnesus likes this.
sytech is offline  
post #5 of 77 Old 04-30-2016, 03:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,531
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2376 Post(s)
Liked: 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post
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.
8mile13 is online now  
post #6 of 77 Old 04-30-2016, 06:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 557
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.
tgm1024 likes this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #7 of 77 Old 04-30-2016, 07:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,788
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1782 Post(s)
Liked: 1476
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.
tazz3, skoolpsyk and seanbryan like this.
TuteTibiImperes is offline  
post #8 of 77 Old 04-30-2016, 07:30 PM
 
sytech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,567
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2104 Post(s)
Liked: 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuteTibiImperes View Post
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.
Magnesus likes this.
sytech is offline  
post #9 of 77 Old 04-30-2016, 09:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 2,009
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1026 Post(s)
Liked: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post
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.

Last edited by NintendoManiac64; 04-30-2016 at 09:11 PM.
NintendoManiac64 is offline  
post #10 of 77 Old 04-30-2016, 09:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 946
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 485 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Waiting for native 120Hz input OLEDs.
TheronB is offline  
post #11 of 77 Old 04-30-2016, 10:01 PM
Member
 
Matthias Hutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 View Post
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
Matthias Hutter is offline  
post #12 of 77 Old 04-30-2016, 10:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 2,009
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1026 Post(s)
Liked: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias Hutter View Post
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.
NintendoManiac64 is offline  
post #13 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 02:58 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
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.
ambesolman likes this.
Magnesus is offline  
post #14 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 07:59 AM
Member
 
gsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 61
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 18
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.
gsilver is offline  
post #15 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 08:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,531
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2376 Post(s)
Liked: 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnesus View Post
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.
8mile13 is online now  
post #16 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 08:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuteTibiImperes View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
nathanddrews likes this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #17 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 08:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,531
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2376 Post(s)
Liked: 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
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/
8mile13 is online now  
post #18 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 08:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ambesolman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,733
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1159 Post(s)
Liked: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnesus View Post
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.

"Rockbiter" DO SI18 sub build - https://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-d...o-si-18-a.html
Ambesolman's Cleverly Titled Theater build - https://www.avsforum.com/forum/19-de...ter-build.html
ambesolman is online now  
post #19 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 08:26 AM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
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.

Last edited by RLBURNSIDE; 05-01-2016 at 08:37 AM.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #20 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 09:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,788
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1782 Post(s)
Liked: 1476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

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 View Post
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.
dschulz and skoolpsyk like this.

Last edited by TuteTibiImperes; 05-01-2016 at 09:07 AM.
TuteTibiImperes is offline  
post #21 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 09:41 AM
 
RLBURNSIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,901
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked: 1407
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.
RLBURNSIDE is offline  
post #22 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 10:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,531
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2376 Post(s)
Liked: 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by RLBURNSIDE View Post
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..
8mile13 is online now  
post #23 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 12:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 2,009
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1026 Post(s)
Liked: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuteTibiImperes View Post
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.
NintendoManiac64 is offline  
post #24 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 01:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,531
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2376 Post(s)
Liked: 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 View Post
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
8mile13 is online now  
post #25 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 01:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 2,009
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1026 Post(s)
Liked: 456
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post
the ''wave your hand in front of your face'' test
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.
WOLVERNOLE and Chronoptimist like this.
NintendoManiac64 is offline  
post #26 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 01:45 PM
Member
 
Matthias Hutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 96
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)
Chronoptimist likes this.
Matthias Hutter is offline  
post #27 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 02:04 PM
boe
AVS Forum Special Member
 
boe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,292
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1212 Post(s)
Liked: 546
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.
ambesolman and kohe321 like this.

Last edited by boe; 05-01-2016 at 02:22 PM.
boe is online now  
post #28 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 02:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 7,590
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4280 Post(s)
Liked: 3707
^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.
video_analysis is offline  
post #29 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 02:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuteTibiImperes View Post
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 View Post
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.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #30 of 77 Old 05-01-2016, 02:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,531
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2376 Post(s)
Liked: 1380
Quote:
Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 View Post
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.
8mile13 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off