AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was playing a dvd in powerdvd 9 ultra and I like the way it looks with truetheater motion on high. I know some people hate the soap opera look, but I like it. I just want to get it on my blu ray movies now too. So I would like to know if there is any way to get it without buying a new tv that has it built in. In the best scenario, cyberlink would release a patch to do that. I don't mind if I have to use other software to get this, but I really want that effect on my blu ray movies. Please help!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,042 Posts
What you ask goes beyond the realm of software and into hardware. The reason it works with 'new' TV's is that they can display a multiple of 24 Hz. 120 Hz, for example. So the TV can display 5 interpolated frames to smooth motion for every one BD frame.


If you just have a 60 Hz TV, software can't change that. And you can't divide 60 by 24. 3:2 pulldown is all you get in that case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,355 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvalica /forum/post/16987827


So why is it possible with dvds on my computer and not blu ray?


The processor required for motion based interpolation is rather steep.




Not so sure most htpc's could come close to doing it on a blu-ray. That's why it doesn't work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
So do tv's with this feature have a powerful processor inside? Is that how they are able to process 1080p signals? So if my only option was to get a 120hz tv with motion interpolation effect, what would guess is the cheapest price I could get one for. Size isn't a big deal, just full 1080 and motion interpolation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,654 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvalica /forum/post/16987895


So do tv's with this feature have a powerful processor inside? Is that how they are able to process 1080p signals? So if my only option was to get a 120hz tv with motion interpolation effect, what would guess is the cheapest price I could get one for. Size isn't a big deal, just full 1080 and motion interpolation.

Id say just look for the cheapest LCD that is 120hz. You should take this question to the lcd section. Theres a wealth of knowledge and you have a lot of researching to be doing.


I believe the lowest samsung models are the 6 series that have the 120hz feature.


To give you an idea on price Besybuy has the LN32B640 which is a 32" on sale for $799


Here are all the sammy 120hz they sell 120hz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,042 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvalica /forum/post/16987827


So why is it possible with dvds on my computer and not blu ray?

DVD are 480p30 for the most part. What you are seeing is probably software (or hardware) upscaling to 1080p, motion interpolation from 480p30 to 480p60, and/or deinterlacing of 480i DVD. But most DVD are 480p already
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifespeed /forum/post/16989473


DVD are 480p30 for the most part. What you are seeing is probably software (or hardware) upscaling to 1080p, motion interpolation from 480p30 to 480p60, and/or deinterlacing of 480i DVD. But most DVD are 480p already

So the only way to get that with bluray is to get a 120hz set with a built in interpolation processor. After watching a movie at 60hz, its hard to watch one at 24 or 30. The fact that it's shot at 24 fps nearly makes blu ray useless. Consider that the majority of the time in a movie, the scene isn't just a still scene, its moving in some way. So how can you get any detail in the scene if it refreshes less then half the rate our brain naturally does. You can hardly make out any detail in a moving scene. Sure it looks great if it's a still dialogue scene, but otherwise, I need more frames. I don't think it's worth it for me now to buy a 120hz tv, but thats something I think I will definitely need in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,042 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvalica /forum/post/16992193


So the only way to get that with bluray is to get a 120hz set with a built in interpolation processor. After watching a movie at 60hz, its hard to watch one at 24 or 30. The fact that it's shot at 24 fps nearly makes blu ray useless. Consider that the majority of the time in a movie, the scene isn't just a still scene, its moving in some way. So how can you get any detail in the scene if it refreshes less then half the rate our brain naturally does. You can hardly make out any detail in a moving scene. Sure it looks great if it's a still dialogue scene, but otherwise, I need more frames. I don't think it's worth it for me now to buy a 120hz tv, but thats something I think I will definitely need in the future.

Well, you've been watching movies in the theater at 24 FPS your whole life . . .


But, the sharpness of a high quality, large, LCD or plasma does reveal the inadequacy of the 24 Hz legacy. I think this came about as the minimum acceptable without using too much celluloid.


So yeah, a 120 Hz TV is pretty desirable for blu-ray. But don't think it is a cure-all. Motion interpolation software is imperfect but improving. You should carefully check this for quality when making a purchase decision
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifespeed /forum/post/16993536


Well, you've been watching movies in the theater at 24 FPS your whole life . . .


But, the sharpness of a high quality, large, LCD or plasma does reveal the inadequacy of the 24 Hz legacy. I think this came about as the minimum acceptable without using too much celluloid.


So yeah, a 120 Hz TV is pretty desirable for blu-ray. But don't think it is a cure-all. Motion interpolation software is imperfect but improving. You should carefully check this for quality when making a purchase decision

I know I've been watching movies at 24fps all my life, but before tapes and cds, people had been listening to records all their lives. I have always felt that movies felt a little choppy though. I'll just have to monitor the prices of 120hz tv's and jump on one if I find a good price. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I also think another reason studios have stuck with 24fps is because it makes it a lot easier for their special effects and such to look realistic. When you watch movies with motion interpolation, it makes it so easy to spot the cgi elements in movies. I was just watching shooter last night on dvd and the helicopters that crash in the movie just looked so fake. Just a thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,056 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvalica /forum/post/16997493


I also think another reason studios have stuck with 24fps is because it makes it a lot easier for their special effects and such to look realistic. When you watch movies with motion interpolation, it makes it so easy to spot the cgi elements in movies. I was just watching shooter last night on dvd and the helicopters that crash in the movie just looked so fake. Just a thought.

I don't this is correct.


I think that is more a flaw in the frame interpolation algorithm in dealing with the CGI elements. If the whole movie was 60fps (or more) and the CGI was built at that rate, I don't think you'd notice the a difference in quality any more than you do now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,056 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvalica /forum/post/16987827


So why is it possible with dvds on my computer and not blu ray?

The reason is because in order to do the processing you need to decode the movie in software. When using hardware accel with the video card the frame is constructed in the video card and there is no way to get that information back to the CPU for effects processing. So the decode must happen in the CPU. For BD you need something like an athlon X2 3.0ghz chip or a core2 duo in the 2.6ghz range. And that is using 100% cpu usage. So in order to have enough processing power to spare to go back and apply the motion comp on top then 1080p has over 3x as many pixels so at minimum the work requires 3x the processing power as DVD.


Could a 3ghz tri or quad core handle it? Probably.

Could a o/c'd 4ghz core i7 handle it? Surely.

Could the majority of HTPCs handle it? no way.


Why can the TVs do it?

Because with your TV, it has specialized fixed function hardware that only does motion compensatin, it also works only on full decoded video, the TV doesn't do any of the decode steps and has the advantage of having the decoded input piped directly to this chip. The BD player also has quite a bit of processig power that takes care of decoding the H.264 to the 1080p stream.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,056 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvalica /forum/post/16993598


I know I've been watching movies at 24fps all my life, but before tapes and cds, people had been listening to records all their lives. I have always felt that movies felt a little choppy though. I'll just have to monitor the prices of 120hz tv's and jump on one if I find a good price. Thanks.

Don't forget a fresh record on a good record player is BETTER than CD.


Just like Film is higher resolution and wider color gammut than BD.


For the most part accient analog formats store more data then the best current digital formats. Not to say they are better, analog has a ton of problems that going digital solves. But older tech sometimes did alot of things right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti /forum/post/17000069


Don't forget a fresh record on a good record player is BETTER than CD.


Just like Film is higher resolution and wider color gammut than BD.


For the most part accient analog formats store more data then the best current digital formats. Not to say they are better, analog has a ton of problems that going digital solves. But older tech sometimes did alot of things right.

Better is subjective. Try pausing a record, then come back in ten minutes and resume playing from the same spot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,056 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvalica /forum/post/17030741


Better is subjective. Try pausing a record, then come back in ten minutes and resume playing from the same spot.

Oh wait I thought we were talking about quality, ala 120hz processing vs 24hz. And you haven't been watching 24hz all your life. you've been wachin 24fps telecined to 60hz of interlaced content.


Quality v convience has and always will be a trade off.


Sometimes everything moves foward at once VHS->DVD

Sometimes quality takes a leap and convience moves back VHS->LD

Sometimes quality takes a small step back for convience LP->CD, CD->MP3


My only point was that newer technology does not equal an increase in quality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti /forum/post/17031023


Oh wait I thought we were talking about quality, ala 120hz processing vs 24hz. And you haven't been watching 24hz all your life. you've been wachin 24fps telecined to 60hz of interlaced content.


Quality v convience has and always will be a trade off.


Sometimes everything moves foward at once VHS->DVD

Sometimes quality takes a leap and convience moves back VHS->LD

Sometimes quality takes a small step back for convience LP->CD, CD->MP3


My only point was that newer technology does not equal an increase in quality.

I still don't think you can say records are better sound quality then cd. Maybe analog is better then digital for reproducing more information. I mean, if I hear pops and clicks in music, that kinda ruins some of the fidelity, right? I would say reel tape>cd for sound quality. Can you actually hear the difference between a cd and record though? As in can you hear how the digital source is missing information that the record has? Of course they sound different, but I don't think you can tell where one is lacking the information that the other is carrying. I just think records sound more muffled, and a cd sounds more clear and polished. Anyways, I don't think you can just say digital sound quality is worse then analog. Technically, yes it lacks the amount of info that analog can store, but I think it sounds just as good or better...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,056 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvalica /forum/post/17033528


I still don't think you can say records are better sound quality then cd. Maybe analog is better then digital for reproducing more information. I mean, if I hear pops and clicks in music, that kinda ruins some of the fidelity, right?

If you hear clicks and pops you either

A) have a worn out record, records didn't last forever

B) have a word out needle/poor quality needle, the players need matience as well


Good LP setups sound better than CD. They just require a ton of matience and care. I haven't bought a LP since like 1987, CD's have such a minor quality difference that is more then made up for with useability gains.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvalica /forum/post/17033528


I would say reel tape>cd for sound quality. Can you actually hear the difference between a cd and record though? As in can you hear how the digital source is missing information that the record has? Of course they sound different, but I don't think you can tell where one is lacking the information that the other is carrying. I just think records sound more muffled, and a cd sounds more clear and polished. Anyways, I don't think you can just say digital sound quality is worse then analog. Technically, yes it lacks the amount of info that analog can store, but I think it sounds just as good or better...

Once again it sounds like you remember playing your chipmunks christmas album on your fischer price record player.


LPs sound as good or better, crystal clear, sharp and damn near perfect with good equpiment and properly cared for LPs.


That said you'd be crazy to go digital if you have the chance, but you'd be recording 24bit 96khz or 24bit 192khz because at those quality levels you've supparessed nearly any analog equipments ability to reproduce the data your capturing.


This is all related back to your 120hz > 24hz comment. My statement is that technological advancements do not represent gains in quality all by themselves. Some advancements are for quality, some are for useability. In the case of 120hz processing it's more like selling rose colored glasses outside the Louvre.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotti /forum/post/17034719



That said you'd be crazy to go digital if you have the chance, but you'd be recording 24bit 96khz or 24bit 192khz because at those quality levels you've supparessed nearly any analog equipments ability to reproduce the data your capturing.

Are you saying suppressed or surpassed? because that would give two different meanings. They say to match, or atleast get close to, the sample rate of analog, you'd need to record at like over 1mil. khz or something ridiculously high. When I said tape, I meant reel to reel tape, like the kind used at recording studios.


But still, what makes analog a better audio medium then digital in your opinion? The only upside I see is higher sample rate, which in turn means wider frequency response. Cd's can only play up to 22khz (half of 44.1khz sample rate). They say vinyl can go up to around 40khz. They also say that even though we as humans can't hear above around 20khz, the information above that is still useful as it interacts with other frequencies to more accurately reproduce what was recorded.


But how many speakers do you know that can handle above 20khz, if even that high? Only ones I know of are supertweeters, which no one besides the most anal audiophile or recording engineer have. So if most of our speakers can't reproduce the higher frequency response of vinyl, then that really isn't an advantage.


Higher sample rate is better for creating more true and realistic recording that is closer to the source that was actually recorded. That being said, with the same reasoning, you would think that movie studios would use higher frame rates for their movies, which would produce a much more realistic image that was closer to what it is like to actually be there. Of course though, they don't because I guess traditionally movies were made at 24fps. I guess what I'm getting at is I don't think there is better or worse mediums, just different. Except for cassette tapes, they sucked lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,056 Posts
surpassed.
- I really need to user a browser with a spell checker.


192khz reproduces 96khz audio. I'd say that's well above what any kind of consumer analog gear could ever reproduce.


I think these days they skip the analog reel to reel and just go straight to digital becaue 24b/192khz is good enough to be a master.


Don't get me wrong I love digital technology, it enables so many good things. I just don't think 120hz post processing is one of them.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top