Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk in Dolby Vision HDR, 3D, 120 fps, Atmos Sound - Page 4 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 24Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 95 Old 12-24-2016, 10:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 449 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manu Delpech View Post
On UHD Blu Ray yes. And they've made it very clear that UHD Blu Ray was a 2D deal only, fine by me. 720p 60fps would be awful, especially considering the source format .
Why because it would be less blurry, less motion judder than the 24 fps version? You're just going by the fact that 720p is a lower number than 1080p (without doing an actual comparison between the two), when what the director really wanted for the film is 3D and high frame rate (and lack of judder and motion blur), which I doubt the current Blu-ray will be giving (ie. it won't be if it's only 1080p24 3D). The opening logo/statiionary shots may look better at 1080p24 but the rest (anything in motion) likely won't - and it won't be what the director/film makers intended. The 24 fps version can have 2.5x the motion blur of the 60 fps version (though it depends on what virtual shutter was decided on for both - but it's going to be less blurry on the 60 fps version anyway) so is it really going to be much more detailed for shots that have motion or is it going to be mostly worse resolution due to the motion blur (and be harder to watch and less like the intended version due to the strobing motion).

Do you really think the version with over twice as much motion blur and judder/strobing is going to look better in 3D (actually won't the 24 fps version have about 3x the motion blur of the 60 fps version (per frame) if the 60 fps version uses a 180 degree virtual shutter (which I'm guessing it does) and the 24 fps version uses a 216 degree virtual shutter?)?

So lets say the 1080p24 3D version has 2.25x the pixels of a 720p60 3D version (1920*1080)/(1280*720)=2.25), won't it, as above have about 3x the blur per frame. So although it may have 2.25x the pixels, it's likely storing content with 3x the motion blur - so surely it's actually worse - purely in resolution - never mind the lower quality motion (eg. when there is camera motion/object motion taking up quite a lot of the frame) - since blurred frames don't actually have much effective resolution.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 12-24-2016 at 11:09 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 95 Old 12-26-2016, 06:23 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 5
I'm aware of all this, but the 24 fps 3D will still look better than if it had been captured the standard way. And yeah, 720p resolution per eye is unacceptable to me especially in this day & age. I have my doubts that a 720p 60fps version would look somewhat better than a 1080p 24fps (numbers might sound great, but what does it actually look like?), although we've seen with videogames that sometimes a better framerate has a clear impact than a higher resolution. We probably won't even know ^^
Manu Delpech is offline  
post #93 of 95 Old 12-26-2016, 08:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 449 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manu Delpech View Post
I'm aware of all this, but the 24 fps 3D will still look better than if it had been captured the standard way. And yeah, 720p resolution per eye is unacceptable to me especially in this day & age. I have my doubts that a 720p 60fps version would look somewhat better than a 1080p 24fps (numbers might sound great, but what does it actually look like?), although we've seen with videogames that sometimes a better framerate has a clear impact than a higher resolution. We probably won't even know ^^
There's the FIFA World Cup 3D Blu-ray which is in 720p60 3D. Though that's not a good example because it was likely converted from 1080/50i 3D. A 720p60 3D version of Billy Lynn's... converted from 2160p120 3D to 720p60 3D should look better (the source is better, and it's oversampled rather than undersampled (sort of), plus the shutter duration will be different).

You could get a rough idea of the visual difference in 2D when the UHD Blu-ray is released by playing the UHD Blu-ray (60 fps) of it with the HDMI output of the player set to 720p (60) - or a video scaler converting it to 720p60. Then comparing that against the 1080p24 Blu-ray of the film. Both connected to the same model TV (2160p or 1080p). You could do two seperate tests on the same player and TV (and maybe scaler) or have two setups so you can compare side by side, with one TV showing the output of one and the other TV showing the other. You could then compare different frames to see which showed the most effective resolution. If might be that the fast moving scenes (eg. Iraq war footage) might show more resolvable detail on average on the one converted to 720p60 then upscaled and the slow moving/stationary shots show more effective resolution on average on the 1080p24 version. It's not an ideal test (eg. one is encoded with HDR - it's probably best to view both in SDR for a fair test), but it should give an idea. This also wouldn't tell how the higher frame rate benefits the 3D version, not just in resolvable detail/lack of blur but in lack of judder/strobing.

You could also do a test with a video with similar detail & motion & the same shutters which had no copyright issues and with that you could use software to tell you which was better (eg. more detail/closest to the source).

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 12-26-2016 at 10:42 PM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #94 of 95 Old 02-17-2017, 02:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Mark Dymek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Boston MA
Posts: 202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 114 Post(s)
Liked: 47
So the UHD Blu-ray is in 60fps?

Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk
Mark Dymek is offline  
post #95 of 95 Old 02-18-2017, 09:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,118
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 449 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Dymek View Post
So the UHD Blu-ray is in 60fps?

Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk
Yes, 2D 2160p 60 fps, because the UHD BD specs don't include the film's original 120 fps. The reviews, from what I've seen seem to be very positive about the picture quality. It (US version) also includes a Blu-ray in it (one in 2D and one in 3D) that is 24 fps (they could have made it 60 fps 720p for the 3D but they didn't).*

* The UK version doesn't seem to include 3D - just UHD BD and BD (2 discs only) - unless there's going to be a different version of it released in UK that includes 3D.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 02-18-2017 at 09:28 PM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

Tags
120 fps , billy lynn's long halftime walk , hdr

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