VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 47
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Search Comp PM
    Will this totally silly ntsc/pal STUPIDITY (speeding up the movies, rofl) be a thing of the past when hdtv is worldwide standard (and the audio pitching gone with it), or is hdtv's also sold with the conflicting ntsc/pal standards?

    See me as a total ignorant.
    Quote Quote  
  2. The frame rates are still different. 29.97 and 59.94 vs 25 and 50.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Freedonia
    Search Comp PM
    It is gone on BluRay discs with 1080p and 24 fps video. BluRay in this format just lets the display device and player display the video at whatever frame rate makes sense for the display and player. Unfortunately we are still stuck with different frame rates for HD TV shows.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Well since this is the audio forum then yes all audio is the same worldwide.
    As for video I doubt there will ever be a worldwide standard because even Blu Ray has region coding,HD DVD was our last chance at having a worldwide standard with no region coding(sorry I couldn't resist).
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    The problem that prevents a unified standard is the need to handle legacy video.

    Bluray (and ATSC broadcasting in the USA) support 24p film rates (adjusted to 23.976p in the Americas for legacy reasons) but that only applies to movies and TV series exported in "24p". Very few TV series are edited at 24p yet but more will in the future. Most are shot on film or HD video at 24p but NTSC region material is still edited telecined to 29.97i and in the next room PAL region material is edited with accelerated 25i and processed audio.

    The Beijing Olympics points to the issue. This is the first 100% HD Olympics and is being done in "PAL" 25fps (50 field per second) format. 24p origination for sports would be unacceptable for all since it would result in jerky motion. 50 fields per second is fine for "PAL" areas but we in "NTSC" lands notice motion artifacts from frame rate conversion to 59.94 fields per second. In two years the situation will be reversed for the Vancouver BC Winter Olympics which will originate at 59.94 fields per second.

    Half the issues were solved with the conversion to HD. The world has standardized on color space and square pixel 1920x1080i and 1280x720p high def resolutions so vertical resizing and aspect ratio adjustments* are no longer necessary. We are left with frame rate differences.

    Those looking to produce movies and TV series for international distribution will in time move to 24p editing and 24p edit masters. 24p can easily be converted to 50i (sped up) or 59.94i (telecined), or released as 24p Bluray. For the near future, 50i and 59.94i will remain for news, sports and live broadcasting.


    * One still need to deal with common pixel aspect ratio issues for various recording formats such as 1440x1080 and 960x720.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Search Comp PM
    So in short frame sizes is (will be) at last standardised but the other big issues audio and motion is still unattended.

    [EDIT:] Or maby not..
    Unification sooner then expected? (Found at wiki):
    "NTSC broadcasts are mandated by the FCC to end in the United States on February 17, 2009. "
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by Tobberian
    So in short frame sizes is (will be) at last standardised but the other big issues audio and motion is still unattended.

    [EDIT:] Or maby not..
    Unification sooner then expected? (Found at wiki):
    "NTSC broadcasts are mandated by the FCC to end in the United States on February 17, 2009. "
    That means OTA analog broadcasts will end,the signal will still be 29.97fps for awhile.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Tobberian
    So in short frame sizes is (will be) at last standardised but the other big issues audio and motion is still unattended.

    [EDIT:] Or maby not..
    Unification sooner then expected? (Found at wiki):
    "NTSC broadcasts are mandated by the FCC to end in the United States on February 17, 2009. "
    Analog NTSC will live on with analog cable, VHS and composite/S-Video connections in the USA. Analog NTSC and PAL will live on for decades in the rest of world (ROW).

    Digital video (e.g. DVD, MPeg2, DV, ATSC, DVB) remains split into 25 fps and 29.97 fps world regions. SD digital video also has different frame sizes. "PAL" regions use 720x576, 704x576 and 352x288. "NTSC" regions use 720x480, 704x480 and 352x240.

    Only frame sizes for digital HD video are being standardized. There will also be an increase in film rate 24p fps (e.g. BluRay) that will allow cross standard movie distribution.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  9. The Old One SatStorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Hellas (Greece), E.U.
    Search Comp PM
    edDV, you forgot Half D1: 352X576 (Pal) 352X480 (NTSC).
    Supported on DVD, CVD, DVB S/S2 and BD/HDDVD...
    La Linea by Osvaldo Cavandoli
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by SatStorm
    edDV, you forgot Half D1: 352X576 (Pal) 352X480 (NTSC).
    Supported on DVD, CVD, DVB S/S2 and BD/HDDVD...
    There are more examples but the world is still divided by frame rate. There is no economic compromise. The 25 fps world needs to change to 29.97 or the 29.97 fps world needs to change to 25 fps or both need to change to something better in the 72-120 fps range.

    I'd suggest either 72 fps (3x24p) or 96 fps (4x24p) as a new world standard. There is no reason to obsolete all current equipment unless we are moving to something better.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  11. Originally Posted by edDV

    I'd suggest either 72 fps (3x24p) or 96 fps (4x24p) as a new world standard. There is no reason to obsolete all current equipment unless we are moving to something better.
    I agree we need a new world standard for video and film but I think 30fps would work,film flicker would be eliminated and the film/video size would only increase 20-25%(NTSC would be virtually the same).30 divides into 24 and 25 so conversion would be easy,30fps would also work on 120Hz tv's.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by MOVIEGEEK
    Originally Posted by edDV

    I'd suggest either 72 fps (3x24p) or 96 fps (4x24p) as a new world standard. There is no reason to obsolete all current equipment unless we are moving to something better.
    I agree we need a new world standard for video and film but I think 30fps would work,film flicker would be eliminated and the film/video size would only increase 20-25%.30 divides into 24 and 25 so conversion would be easy,30fps would also work on 120Hz tv's.
    The PAL people probably wouldn't agree. The one current world "standard" is 24p film. 48p fps is too rough for live video, 72p fps is the minimum video frame rate that should be considered if we are going to start fresh.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    "I'd suggest either 72 fps (3x24p) or 96 fps (4x24p) as a new world standard. There is no reason to obsolete all current equipment unless we are moving to something better."

    That would be fine for video. But, while I can't recall the details anymore, I remember reading once upon a time about a test done in the 1960's by one of the big motion picture studios where they shot a short dramatic movie on either 65 or 70mm film at a very high frame rate, (I'm thinking this might have been shot on Showscan which used 70mm at 60fps) and people actually walked out on it. They hated the way it looked. It was too realistic and very much like video. It would be great for sports though.

    There comes a point where things just don't look any better with film just like with audio. We were already past the range of human hearing with 24 tracks on 2-inch tape in the old days. Putting 24 tracks on 4-inch tape wouldn't have sounded any better to anyone but dogs. I don't know where the point of diminishing returns is with video or film, but I wouldn't think that 72fps would look much better to anyone but Superman.

    Have you got a camera that will take 4:4:4 color photos? Try bringing a snapshot through Photoshop or whatever, and saving a copy as a 4:1:1 picture. I've never met anyone that could tell the difference.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by yahoobuckaroo
    "I'd suggest either 72 fps (3x24p) or 96 fps (4x24p) as a new world standard. There is no reason to obsolete all current equipment unless we are moving to something better."

    That would be fine for video. But, while I can't recall the details anymore, I remember reading once upon a time about a test done in the 1960's by one of the big motion picture studios where they shot a short dramatic movie on either 65 or 70mm film at a very high frame rate, (I'm thinking this might have been shot on Showscan which used 70mm at 60fps) and people actually walked out on it. They hated the way it looked. It was too realistic and very much like video. It would be great for sports though.

    There comes a point where things just don't look any better with film just like with audio. We were already past the range of human hearing with 24 tracks on 2-inch tape in the old days. Putting 24 tracks on 4-inch tape wouldn't have sounded any better to anyone but dogs. I don't know where the point of diminishing returns is with video or film, but I wouldn't think that 72fps would look much better to anyone but Superman.
    Then why all the rush to interpolated 120Hz (100Hz PAL) for home movie display?

    I'm not suggesting pro film will be shot at other than 24p although the option would be there for 48p or 72p. A new unified video standard should be an integer multiple of 24p is what I'm suggesting. Live big screen video using hand held cameras would be inadequate at 48p. 59.94p is good but still benefits from frame interpolation to 120p. Today 72p video would take excessive bitrate but 72i could be used as an interim step. In another 10 years, compression advances will probably offer a solution.

    The OP question was suggesting a single world standard for video.

    Originally Posted by yahoobuckaroo
    Have you got a camera that will take 4:4:4 color photos? Try bringing a snapshot through Photoshop or whatever, and saving a copy as a 4:1:1 picture. I've never met anyone that could tell the difference.
    You would notice a big difference if you filtered or resized that 4:1:1. You want your source archive at 4:4:4 for high resolution still photos. 4:2:2 or 4:1:1 are adequate for display I agree.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    "Then why all the rush to interpolated 120Hz (100Hz PAL) for home movie display?"

    So they can sell us more stuff I suppose.

    "Live big screen video using hand held cameras would be inadequate at 48p."

    I can't imagine why. Man that's a very fast frame rate. Nearly everything we see is shot at either 24p or 60i/30p in the USA, handheld or otherwise. It looks great. Maybe I'm just not thinking straight today, but I can't think of a reason that a faster frame rate would make handheld footage look better unless you were panning the shot and from very close range. Like if you were watching a car come flying by ten feet in front of you. But how often do we see something like that? Generally, if we're watching race cars, the cam is gonna be pretty far back. About the only time we get in close is with humans like in a football game, and then only with slow-mo close-ups for a catch or something. Humans move so slow that I can't see why anything faster than 30p would help. But like I say, maybe I'm just not thinking of something obvious.

    "Today 72p video would take excessive bitrate..."

    A Thompson Viper could handle the kind of datarate you're talking about. It can create about 2 or 3 times higher datarates than even film, but good luck finding a storage device capable of keeping up.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member olyteddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Even as I read this thread I'm watching Jeopardy 'upsized' from composite NTSC to 1024 X 768 at 85 Hz on my Sony VGA monitor. 85 Hz is a lot easier on the eye and there are no apparent scan lines, although the typical NTSC artifacts are still there (Moire, ringing, etc.). Close up like this it definately looks better than it would on a 720 X 480 60 Hz screen.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Originally Posted by yahoobuckaroo
    I remember reading once upon a time about a test done in the 1960's by one of the big motion picture studios where they shot a short dramatic movie on either 65 or 70mm film at a very high frame rate, (I'm thinking this might have been shot on Showscan which used 70mm at 60fps) and people actually walked out on it. They hated the way it looked. It was too realistic and very much like video.
    Is that why they all walk out on 60 Hz HDTV? Oh wait, they don't.

    Originally Posted by yahoobuckaroo
    There comes a point where things just don't look any better with film... I wouldn't think that 72fps would look much better to anyone but Superman.
    I thought the audience walked out on the high film frame rate because it was too realistic. Now you're saying they can't tell the difference? Must have been an audience of Supermen, eh?

    Personally, I hate the jerky 24 fps film look. I'd take 60 or 72 fps any day. The point where you can't tell the difference anymore is somewhere over 72 fps. But I'd accept 60 has a compromise.

    24v30v60.avi
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    "Is that why they all walk out on 60 Hz HDTV? Oh wait, they don't."

    What's the 60hz playback refresh have to do with the recorded frame rate? which could be anything. And what dramatic movie did you ever see that was recorded at over 30fps?

    "I thought the audience walked out on the high film frame rate because it was too realistic. Now you're saying they can't tell the difference? Must have been an audience of Supermen, eh?"

    A little common sense please. Going from 24fps to 30 is going to make film look a lot like video. Going beyond 30fps isn't going to make it look any better or worse. If you had actually ever seen anything recorded over 30fps then you would know it doesn't look very different from 30fps. Again, it's called diminishing returns....

    "The point where you can't tell the difference anymore is somewhere over 72 fps."

    No, it's 30fps. Not that you've ever seen anything over that anyway unless it was a sporting event, and even then it was probably just the slo-mo cams.

    "Personally, I hate the jerky 24 fps film look. I'd take 60 or 72 fps any day."

    Oh please... anything over 24fps simply doesn't look like film anymore. It looks like video. It's like saying you think Masterpiece Theatre is better looking than How Green Was My Valley. The slower speed of film is the biggest part of what puts you in another world. Only at 24fps can you believe in fantasy or the old romances. 24 fps makes you believe those other worlds exist. Anything 30fps and over eliminates that and turns your movie into the David Letterman Show.

    Some of you are about two steps away from believing in Space Aliens secretly ruling the Earth.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by olyteddy
    Even as I read this thread I'm watching Jeopardy 'upsized' from composite NTSC to 1024 X 768 at 85 Hz on my Sony VGA monitor. 85 Hz is a lot easier on the eye and there are no apparent scan lines, although the typical NTSC artifacts are still there (Moire, ringing, etc.). Close up like this it definately looks better than it would on a 720 X 480 60 Hz screen.
    I think you're fooling yourself. People do it all the time. I'm an old audio guy and a computer repair tech, and it's amazing the claims I've heard people make that I knew didn't have a word of truth in them. A great example: Several years ago when we first started using computers for DAW units, I belonged to a few DAW user groups. I bet I read a hundred messages during a 2 or 3 year period where people (and often so-called audio pros who owned large recording studios) talked up a particular recording app because they claimed it had a better "wave engine". It was all I could do not to laugh out loud. A wave file is a wave file. They are all recorded the exact same no matter what app you're using. Now some may do some things differently in manipulating that audio afterwards, as in dithering with slightly different algorithms, but in general even the post manipulation isn't different enough to be audible.

    MOST people are absolutely convinced they can see and hear things they absolutely cannot.

    Another example is 24-bit audio. I used to hear people claim all the time that they could hear a difference between 16 and 24-bit audio. But there's simply no difference to be heard between 16-bit w/ oversampling and 24 bit. Both will record to the extremes of human hearing and beyond. 24-bit offers a slightly lower noise floor, but we were already so close to being dead quiet at 16-bit that the difference is generally not enough to hear most of the time. You get more headroom at 24-bit, but unless you're one of the few people that's recording a symphony orchestra with extremely dynamic passages, you won't benefit from it, and I'm not even sure that they do given that I've got some old 16-bit Tellarc recordings from the 80's that have extreme volume dynamics that would compare with anything recorded at 24-bit today. The only thing 24-bit has going for it is that you can make several more destructive changes to the file before there's any noticable degradation; however, I can generally make at least 6 changes to a 16-bit file without any degradation already. How many more do I really need? People are starting to wise up to the fact that we recorded with 16-bit ADAT workstations just fine for over a decade before people at the manufacturing companies realized they weren't able to sell many more of these units after everybody already had them. Then suddenly they decided we needed more bits, and they could sell new workstations/recorders/software to the same old customers if they just told them it was something new and better....

    BTW, we all know that humans can hear roughly from 20 to 20k hz. What you probably don't know is that this is true only of children. By the time you're 18 you can't hear much of anything past 16k and it only gets worse from there. But people have great imaginations as to what they think they can hear...and see.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    There is much audience research that supported decisions by ATSC (Grand Alliance) and DVB to offer 1280x720p at 59.94 fps (1280x720p at 50 fps for DVB) as an alternative for motion realism. 1920x1080i at 29.97/25 offers superior resolution for low motion but has interlace issues during motion. Improvement in TV set deinterlacers has narrowed the gap but sports oriented networks (ABC and FOX in the USA) chose 720p for picture quality during live broadcasting.

    There are two issues at work here: motion precession and display refresh. Poor motion precision causes jerky motion. When you swing your head, your brain rejects resolution and looks for motion cues. Jerky motion isn't natural. Screen refresh is about flicker. The human eye sees heavy flicker below 50Hz refresh and low flicker above 72-90 fps. Individuals differ. Flicker is noticed more with computer displays due to the white sheet of paper model. Flat white areas appear to flicker more than dark.

    An ideal video scenario allows motion update in the 72-96 range which also solves the flicker issue. Transmission bandwidth and file size limitations cause compromise in motion update with frame or field repeat tricks to keep refresh up.

    All this was know during development of DVD standards. In spec DVD updates motion at 59.94 or 50 field rate or 24 fps film is frame repeated 3:2 to 59.94 fps for progressive output (NTSC) or 2:2 50 fps (PAL).
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by yahoobuckaroo
    "The point where you can't tell the difference anymore is somewhere over 72 fps."

    No, it's 30fps. Not that you've ever seen anything over that anyway unless it was a sporting event, and even then it was probably just the slo-mo cams.
    Ever hear of 720p HDTV? Yes, sporting events at 60 Hz. Even 1080i bob'd to 60 fps (non film sources obviously) is smoother than 24 or 30 fps. Look at the sample video I uploaded. 24 and 30 fps are noticeably jerky. 60 fps is much smoother. (Note that the video should be viewed on a 60 Hz display. And that the 24 Hz circles are extra jerky because they have a 3:2 cadence.)
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    "Flicker is noticed more with computer displays due to the white sheet of paper model. Flat white areas appear to flicker more than dark."

    I don't see it so much, but I can feel it sort of. That is, since I've gone to an 85 refresh rate on my box, I have less headaches.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    "Ever hear of 720p HDTV?"

    And that has what to do with the frame rate?

    And what does a 60 "hertz" refresh have to do with 60 frames per second? It has nothing to do with the frame rate something was recorded at.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Live sporting events on 720p HDTV run at 60 frames per second, every one of them different, moron. It's the same when watching lots of 480i or 1080i content bob'b to 60 different frames per second. I see 60 fps material all the time. So do you.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    "Live sporting events on 720p HDTV run at 60 frames per second, every one of them different, moron."

    That's what they broadcast at--not what they run their cams at except for slo-mo. Moron....
    Quote Quote  
  26. Originally Posted by yahoobuckaroo
    "Live sporting events on 720p HDTV run at 60 frames per second, every one of them different, moron."

    That's what they broadcast at--not what they run their cams at except for slo-mo. Moron....
    You are wrong. Although some of it is recorded at 30p and broadcast at 60p -- and obviously more jerky than real 60p material.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    You can think that if you want to, but you're generally watching 60i not 60p, and if it is progressive frames in a sporting event then it's generally gonna be 30p--not 60p except for slow-mo. Maybe 60p for every sporting event will happen eventually. You won't know the difference except during slow-mo playback unless you're Superman. I'm only Batman.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    You know, as long as the slow-mo cams are shooting 60p, then you can claim to broadcast 60p and no one will think anything of it. Quite a slight of hand.
    Quote Quote  
  29. A short X Games clip recorded (with a Hauppauge HD PVR) a few minutes ago off ESPN HD. 1280x720p60 downsized to 640x368p60 Xvid. Single step through it and you'll see every frame is different:

    p60.avi

    Even when watching 1080i sports on a decent 720p or 1080p HDTV you see 60 different frames per second -- the interlaced frames are bob's to 60p.

    A little while ago they were showing World Series of Poker. It was shot at 30p and each frame was displayed twice to make 60p. When the camera panned it was obviously jerky.
    Quote Quote  
  30. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Search Comp PM
    Waow... this thread took off.

    Anyway I guess I'll just have to look for the 24p or stick to non jap/us productions to be somewhat sure to get the non chipmunk version of the actor. Yes there's some RARE pitch-mends, but they still talk and walk too fast. Maby that Jacky isn't so impressive after all.

    I did some audio editing and it's quite noticeable.. the girl I listen to suddenly sounded annoying (some words anyway), OK! low/regular talk isn't very affected but I sure wouldn't mind Clint in a lower voice.

    Maby this girlification in some small part is the culprit in why the world dislikes Americans, or maby that's just poppycock.

    [edit: some typos]
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!