[Joe Bloggs]

James Cameron has said "Of course, the ideal format is 3-D/2K/48 fps projection. I'd love to have done "Avatar" at 48 frames. But I have to fight these battles one at a time. I'm just happy people are waking up to 3-D. Maybe on "Avatar 2."
http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...categoryid=286


What frame rate do you think Avatar 2 should be filmed at?


Also, do you think the Blu-ray format will be compatible with the full HD progressive frame rates directors are going to be shooting on for 2D and 3D, and if not don't you think they should be added to the Blu-ray specs?

 

[Gary McCoy]

I think the ideal frame rate would be 3D/4K/48fps. This would be compatible with film projection, 2K digital, and 4K digital projector venues. SO WHAT if the digital storage goes up 4X over the 3D/2K/48fps Cameron thinks is ideal or 8X over the 3D/2K/24fps Cameron actually used for Avatar. Hard drive storage is cheap. Post-production costs would increase but I thing the actual effort involved would be about 50% more than current technology and probably all of that in the extra time required by CGI artists for 4K resolutions.


I like to sit just short of the halfway point in most theaters, closer than most. I can SEE pixels in a large theater with a 2K movie - it's just not enough resolution for the big screen.


I will be interested in seeing how the dark scenes (presumably many scenes set in a jungle planet will be dark) translate into 3D which is inherently dimmer than 2D.

 

[IAM4UK]

3D/4k/60fps


Master the bD at 60P also. I'm tired of the hype over "1080P" when they're talking 1920x1080x24p versus 1920x1080x60i. More info in the latter, and if the de-interlacing is done well for progressive displays, it can look great. 1920x1080x60p would actually be the pinnacle for current common HDTVs.

 

[Josh Z]

The Blu-ray format only supports 1080p24. It does not support 1080p48 or 1080p60, and there is no chance of that being changed now. This poll is just wishful thinking, and I really don't see the purpose in it.

 

[Joe Bloggs]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z /forum/post/16942018


The Blu-ray format only supports 1080p24. . It does not support 1080p48 or 1080p60, and there is no chance of that being changed now. This poll is just wishful thinking, and I really don't see the purpose in it.

The Blu-ray format supports more resolutions and frame and field rates than 1080p24. It supports 1080p24, 1080i50, 1080i60, 720p50, 720p60 and more. They are also changing the Blu-ray format for stereoscopic 3D, and they haven't yet told us how the specification will be changed, though the Panasonic 3D system is supposed to be able to do 1080p24 and 1080i60 stereoscopic. What we do know is that the director of the biggest budget film to date (James Cameron's Avatar) which is also 3D, also wants higher frame rates. See the article linked to on the first post.


Though you're right it doesn't support 1080p48 stereoscopic, and 1080p48 isn't a standard HDTV format, which is why I think a more HDTV standard format would be better, since there haven't been any 1080p48 movies yet.

But if the new 3D Blu-ray system supports 1080p24 stereoscopic, it should also support 1080p48 in 2D if the 2D video is encoded into the 3D format and you watch without the LCD shutter glasses. Same should apply for other rates in the 3D spec, assuming your TV can accept and play back the video. But I'm sure the BDA will be taking into account what the director of the biggest budget 3D film to date is asking for when they create the new Blu-ray 3D spec.

 

[IAM4UK]

Whatever the blu-ray "standard" currently supports, it is certainly not incapable of change. TCFHE proves that repeatedly, as they deliberately and repeatedly change their mastering and encoding processes to break HTPC playback.

 

[Gary McCoy]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z /forum/post/16942018


The Blu-ray format only supports 1080p24. It does not support 1080p48 or 1080p60, and there is no chance of that being changed now. This poll is just wishful thinking, and I really don't see the purpose in it.

The reason we have a standard is so that it can be changed. You just make a change and track it with the version code of the documents.


The real compatibility issues have nothing to do with the standards anyway. For example the ATSC video standard allows for 18 different video modes. The only three that are in use are 1080i60, 720p60, and 481i60 (for subchannels). If you wanted to use any of the other 15 video modes allowed by the standard itself, you would not be compatible with the installed base of analog CRT RPTVs. It might be nice to broadcast a film in 1080p24, and that is one of the defined ATSC video modes, but it's not gonna happen, because a significant number of existing sets would not be able to receive and display such a broadcast.


The only thing impeding the release of 3D material on Blu-Ray is a squabble over patents. There exist more than one 3D scheme not yet added to the standard. For example it would be possible to simultaneously read the bottom and top layers of a double-layer Blu-Ray and use these seperate layers for the L and R 3D stereo images. Existing Blu-Ray players would just see two copies of the movie, one recorded before and one after the layer change. What makes it interesting is when there is no space for two complete 1080p24 copies of the film, you have to make a double-sided "flipper" disk, or put the second part of the video on a seperate disk (the less popular scheme with movie studios). Blu-Ray 3D players are likely to have either a flipper mechanism, or FOUR laser pickups so that both layers of both sides can be played - but existing 2D Blu-Ray players will require users to "flip" the movie in the middle - and give Blu-Ray owners a valid reason to buy a new player whether they have a 3D display or not.

 

[DaveFi]

I hate British studios that use 1080i50 on some discs because the PS3 (and probably most other Western players) can't play that format.

 

[Art Sonneborn]

What do you guys see as the time line on this coming to the store shelves ?


Art

 

[Joe Bloggs]



Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi /forum/post/16943048


I hate British studios that use 1080i50 on some discs because the PS3 (and probably most other Western players) can't play that format.

Most Western players can. Including the PS3. In Europe.

 

[DaveFi]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs /forum/post/16943141


Most Western players can. Including the PS3. In Europe.

Well, the US PS3 can't, at least with some discs anyways.

 

[Gary McCoy]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn /forum/post/16943112


What do you guys see as the time line on this coming to the store shelves ?


Art

Well, first the standards have to be sorted out, then the patents and the licensing deals for the technology worked out for those whose 3D scheme was not selected by the studios.


Then distribution of 3D works would have to begin.


Even the assumption that there will ever be 3D home media on Blu-Ray depends upon the success of the 3D format in commercial theaters.


Don't forget that everyone is enamored of flat panels nowadays, and the only current video technology compatible with 3D schemes based on polarized light is projection technology (RPTV and Front Projection).


Lots of hurdles. I would say that home 3D movies are 5+ years away. But 3D displays will be popular with gamers before then. 3D games exist now.


If you are thinking you might wait for 3D tech availability before your next technology refresh in your Home Theater, I'd say don't. 3D may never make it for Home Theater at all. If you want to hedge your bets with a new front projector purchase, then buy more brightness than you need, and simply use the projector lamp in Economy mode until you can add a RealD 3D polarizer (or whatever) to the projector. But you would definately still be using 1080p IMHO.

 

[DaveFi]

If we are turning this into a 3D at home discussion, I'd say it will never truly gain popularity until the wide distribution of 3D displays that need no glasses of any kind. The 3D Emitter ready displays are a first step, but there aren't any movies out that even support them yet. Just a handful of PC games, and that's all.


To be honest even to go to an IMAX theater and watch movies using the damn polarized glasses for more than 30mins gives me a headache.

 

[Matt_Stevens]

48fps in theaters would be mind blowing, so why the hell are most of you not all for that? Good grief. Who cares if it wouldn't translate to home viewing. At least the theater viewing would be something special.

 

[Franin]

I saw the pics in the latest empire magazine over here in Australia it looks impressive.