Like it or not, 24 fps has become part of the "film look" that differentiates it from TV in the minds of many cinematographers.Originally Posted by simps
Another part of the "film look" chosen intentionally by the director for that film.Originally Posted by simps
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 60 of 79
Thread
-
-
Originally Posted by simps
I think your complaint is with the current display technology, not 24fps. Are you equally unhappy watching a movie in a large screen theater? I have to say I've always wished for higher film frame rates but the industry is too entrenched.
The one hope for change would be a new revenue generating technology such as 3D that could force the issue on frame rates. The picture quality argument is exhausted.
If you were a producer and wanted to invest in higher frame rates, you would need to match the Sony 4kx2k projectors being installed in theaters world wide. Those won't be replaced in the next decade or two.
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/mkt/digicinema/brochures/SRXR220R210ProdBroch.pdf
Blu-Ray currently tops out at 1080i/29.97 (60 fields per sec). There is also 1280x720p/59.94fps which is an option. An expanded Blu-Ray spec could extend 1920x1080p to 59.94fps but that would not work with any existing Blu-Ray players or HDTV sets.Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
http://www.kiva.org/about -
Here's what I think is the timeline for framerate change...
1. DCI spec (2003-4) created. Unifies projection requirements for electronic/digital cinema (upon which just about everything else is built)
2. DCI-enabled theatres reach critical mass.
3. Stereo3D (like RealD)-enabled theatres and films reach critical mass. This is important because it expects projection equipment to have 2x standard rate capability (to accommodate L+R views).
4. Somebody gets the bright idea! (from here most likely) of shooting at 2x frame rate = 48fps, and FOOLING the projection equipment to show alternating frames AS if they were coming from L+R pictures (but aren't), and NOT requiring any glasses to view. This gets 48fps to be common.
5. 48fps usage reaches critical mass and the DCI spec is updated, and the HD ATSC and other specs are also updated to accommodate this higher framerate material.
6. CE equipment gets updated to the new specs and becomes common.
That's about right. And that's just to 48fps. Good luck making it go higher (I personnally would like to see it in the 72-120 range for base, with up to quadruple that for flashed playback), as this goes against the BOTTOM LINE for so many big electronics & media businesses.
Scott -
Originally Posted by simps
35mm film at 24 FPS is the standard by which all video formats are judged
Film is analog so there are no real "pixels" and it is a progressive scan
Industry just takes 24 FPS and convert it to 23.976 FPS, so any movie in your country ( Brasil ) plays internally at 23.976 speed....which is less than 24 FPS, 24 x 1/100.1%
Buy a Plasma Pioneer Kuro and all your problems will be gone -
AFA the "grain" of 300,
didn't you know that's what real life looked like back then?
It's a look that the producers of the picture chose, just like any other artistic decision in film. Enjoy it or don't.
Scott -
Originally Posted by Delta2
-
"Unbearable" is in the eye of the beholder. People's sensitivity to fps vary a good deal.
Scott -
What can I say, you people like to see a car motion scene, where you see the car poping from one place to another, instead of seeing it going continuously? This is ridiculous for me.
When I go to cinema, I don't find it to be so jerky as on my HDTV. The reason is that the image IS BAD in cinema (of course a lot bigger)compared to the blueray picture on your 1080p. Cinema is SO BLUR compared to a 1080P blueray. And I don't wanna say this again, the sharpen the frame, the more jerky it will look under 24fps. This is the reason why 1080p / 24 look so jerky on our TV.
Anyway, my new TV with AMP 120Hz will be here on the weekend, and I will post if it solve the problem or not.
The fact is, FPS will go up for sure. It is the obvious way of thinking. And when it happens, I would like to see what this people defending 24FPS will say about it. Once people get used to 48fps for example, there is absolute no way they will look back to 24fps. This is the logical way of thinking. It would be funny to see what people telling 24fps is better now, will say in the future if it changes. Same people defending 24FPS now, will probably be the ones saying: WOW 48FPS IS SO SMOOTH in the future. Funny thingy. Hope I am alive to see it
[]'s
Simps -
Originally Posted by jagabo
Is there any jerkiness watching a SD-DVD in a CRT ? what the main source of that DVDs ?
Of course that cinema standards are quite old, they are analog signals, there is no resolution meaning or pixels
It is worth to read the following experts presentation
"Image Resolution of 35mm Film in Theatrical Presentation"
By Mattieu Sintas, Hank Mahler
http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf -
Originally Posted by Cornucopia
I wish I could find the article online. -
I'd like to know a little more about that test (methodology, equipment used, # and makeup of audience, how close they were to screen, etc) before making a comment...
Scott -
Originally Posted by Cornucopia
Basically it was a theater where everybody had a "Worse-Better" device and they showed them different framerates. -
Originally Posted by Delta2
Originally Posted by Delta2 -
Originally Posted by Delta2Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
http://www.kiva.org/about -
[quote="jagabo"]
Originally Posted by Delta2
But we are talking about Full-HD, High Definition Panels, and film sources are not telecined
they are progressive panels by nature, and have full native support for 1080/24 original sources
I don't notice any judder, hiccups, or anything else in the latest LCD or Plasma panels, manly with high end Plasmas as like KURU ( unfortunately discontinued by Pioneer due to this worldwide crisis, and the surprising LCD developing and performance )
But as I said, I must agree, cinema standards are very old, as I pointed out with that article / study
The main problem of the author of this thread was his old, or bad LCD panel, in my opinion of course -
[quote="Delta2"]
Originally Posted by jagabo
The NTSC 1080i/29.97 telecined source is inverse telecined in the TV to 1080p/24 and then frame repeated 2 then 3 to 59.94fps. The 2-3-2-3 frame repeats produce the motion judder. Newer 120Hz TV's frame repeat 5-5-5-5 so don't have the judder. More advanced models interpolate the inbetween frames rather than just repeat.
The PAL 1080i/25 sets do 2-2-2-2 frame repeats to 50Hz or 4-4-4-4 to 100Hz.Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
http://www.kiva.org/about -
Originally Posted by Delta2
pan.avi
It's not obvious on every shot but this one is pretty bad because it's bright, high contrast, smooth medium speed motion, and there's not too much motion blur in the frames.
If you're watching on a 60 Hz monitor (or TV) you will get 3:2 frame repeat judder in addition to the jerkiness of 24 fps. If you watch on a 50 Hz display you will get 24 hz jerkiness plus a duplicate frame jerk every second. -
None of this is new. It was there with DVD, and it is there in the cinemas. But is is certainly not as bad as Simps is making out. I certainly do not see cars jumping from place to place in car chases, or space ships skipping across the screen in Star Wars. There is an occasional judder in pans or slow tracking shots, just like the cinema - it is just part of the experience of bringing cinema home
If you do have cars jumping from point to point during chases then you have something seriously wrong with your set up somewhere.Read my blog here.
-
Originally Posted by guns1inger
I won't try to explain this anymore. People keeping saying cinema and NTSC is as jerky as 1080p / 24, and IT IS NOT. The sharpness and crystal clear frames of 1080P make it look worst, at least on a 52" TV. I am pretty sure that if you were sitting here next to me, watching my TV with me, you would all agree that there is some serious jerkyness on this thing. And there is nothing wrong about the hardware here. Like I said before, I hope my new TV with this AMP 120Hz feature will solve this for me. I will have it here by the weekend and will post results, maybe some pics too.
Seriously, if you find the jerkness of 1080p / 24 the same as cinema or DVD, than what can I say, I think my eyes are more sensitive than yours. For me there is a HUGE difference there. Don't get me wrong, they are all 24FPS based, we all know that, but because of the sharpness of 1080P, the jerkness effect is intolerable at least on large screens.
For you people saying it is the same as DVD os cinema, than I have no other explanation for it, as of saying that your eyes are not as sensitive as mine. For me (and others here) it is CLEAR that 1080P too jerky.
Other way to think about it is this. All the HDTV manufactors are including interpolation techs to smooth out this jerkyness effect on their produts now. LG with 240Hz, Sony with 120Hz and Samsung too. They have different names for it. Why do you think that is happening? You think they are doing that out of nothing? For sure a lot of people has complained about this, and they are seeing it as an ISSUE too.
This is a fact for me, there is nothing to discuss about it. 1080P /24 is very bad and jerky at least on TV's without interpolation tech like the AMP 120Hz. Will the interpolation solve it? I don't know, I will find out saturday, and post results. -
Originally Posted by jagabo
24FPS is so bad that even on this slow moving example you can see the large jerkness, this is just sad. Imagine this going on a 52" TV, and you will understand why it is sad. Maybe on smaller screens, the effect isn't so bad I don't know about smaller TV's, but on 52" is INTOLERABLE. -
Yes, there is judder in the background. Having seen 2001 at the cinema several times, I can tell you that it is present there as well. At that was a damn site bigger than 52". If you find that intolerable then you should stop watching movies. That is how they have looked for 100 years, and will look for many more to come. At least they are no longer 16 - 18 fps, or worse, hand-cranked and variable (of course, if you are watching a Tony Scott film, it may well still be hand-cranked and variable).
You are carrying on as if the whole image shifts location by 50% in a frame. It clearly doesn't. I suspect that this is more about your expectations being way out of place before you purchased, than inherent flaws in the technology. What you see is what was shot.Read my blog here.
-
guns1inger,
You just don't get it. The effect is larger on a 52"tv 1080P/24 because of the cystal clear and sharp frames. Cinema don't have crystal clear frames, therefore the jerkness effect is smaller. If you can't realize this, than I can't help you. Like I said, if you find the jerkness of 1080p/24 blueray to be the same as DVD, than your eyes are bad.
I never complained about DVD's. Their jerkness was tolerable. It was there, but tolerable alright.
Maybe your HDTV has this interpolation feature, and this is why you don't see it? My old TV didn't have that feature and it was BAD. I hope my new TV with AMP 120Hz will solve this. I don't know man, but if you can't see it, than the only explanation is that your eyes are not sensitive enough. -
No, I get it. I can see it. I can see it at the cinema just as clearly as I can on Bluray or DVD. Perhaps because I have always seen it, it no longer worries me. It is not something I concentrate on. Like the black bars on wide movies, it is incidental to the film itself. It is unfortunate that you can't see past it, and that it spoils your experience.
And for the record, my HD TV doesn't have motion flow or motion interpolation. I watch my movies at 24 fps (25 for PAL)Read my blog here.
-
Originally Posted by AlanHK
I had to study frames-per-second back in college, and this was some number of years ago. People truly cannot see faster than 30fps, with most seeing in the 15-20fps range. This was related especially to subliminal advertising, media ethics, and the media law. At most, the few people who think they see more than they do are just psychologically fooling themselves. The only time you can really "see" fps errors are when the frames themselves are fubar, it has nothing to do with the speed of the frame, but rather the errors present that cause a person to think "WTF was that?"
The complaint here tends to lie more with equipment, starting with the camera, then the editors/editing, and finally the viewing devices (players, televisions, etc) --- it has little to do with fps.Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
Ok, lets work some stuff here. Supose I encode a movie where every frame would look like this: (can someone actually encode and upload a file like this in 24 and 60fps please?)
Frame 1 is a frame with a big number 1 all over it.
Frame 2 is a frame with a big number 2 all over it.
Frame 3 is a frame with a big number 3 all over it.
and so on.
Ok, now I will run it with 24FPS. If you show me a movie like that, I would easily be able to tell you a lot of the numbers going on from 1 - 9 and from 10 - 19. Keep in mind then when moving from 10 - 19 fro example, the second digit 1 will be fixed, while the first digit would move from 1 to 9 rapidly. But 24fps is slow, so I would actually by able to tell you, probably not all, but a lot of the first digits going on.
This means, I am actually been able to see an idividual frame (the number is the only informatin on this frame). THIS IS BAD and this is why there is jerkness.
Now, if you do the same experiment, with 60FPS, I would only be able to see the SECOND digit changing, because the first digit would be changing from 1 - 9 faster enough for me to be able to detect its individual value. If not, raise it to some 100FPS and I am sure it will.
This means I CAN'T DETECT A SINGLE FRAME. And in this case, much little jerkness.
I have my degree in engineer, but this is something so stupid that you don't need to study it, to understand it. This is obvious, it is so obvious that it is hard to explain.
So please stop mentioning "experts" comments on the subject, or that you studied this subject in college or something, you don't need to study anything about this to understand it. This is not quantum mechanics.
Can someone please encode two videos, like I mentioned, one at 23.976FPS and the other at 60FPS for example?
If no one do this, I will take some time and encode the files myself.
Don't come here and say I can't see more than 24FPS. I can see much more than that, and I am sure you can too. I don't mean I can detect EVERY SINGLE detail on a single frame at 24FPS. This is not what I mean by "seeing more than 24fps". No one would assume that because this is the obvious WRONG assumption. If someone could do that (detect every detail on a frame at 24fps), than the jerkness of 24FPS for this person, would be comparable for the jerkness of showing us a 8FPS movie or so.
What I mean is that I can detect SOME GOOD information of single HQ 1080p frames, when it moves at 24FPS. In the case of my video example here, detecting the number on the screen would mean detect the entire frame, because the number is the only information on the frame.
Like I said, if anyone will do the 2 videos, I will do it myself, and than, against this kinda proof I doubt someone would disagree again.
This is too obvious for me, it is kinda sad that I have to keep explaining over and over again, and people still don't get it.
Stop this "you don't see more than 24fps". This is absolutly WRONG, stop defending this. The number will change from one to another yes, but 24 is below average. It is the concept of what is defined by seeing more than 24fps that is wrong. If you want to say that you can't detect every sinlge detail on a frame moving at 24FPS, than I would agree with that. But that just mean I can't see every detail. So the right statement is: "YOU CAN'T DETECT EVERY DETAIL ON A FRAME RUNNING AT 24FPS". This is completly different from saying you can't see more than 24fps. Can I proof this? YES. If the movie running at 60fps feels smoother to you, compared to the 24fps one, THAN THIS MEANS YOU CAN DETECT MORE THAN 24FPS. Enough said, I can't explain the obvious anymore. -
You can repeat yourself over and over again -- but it doesn't mean what you're saying it correct or factual. I'm sorry, but it just isn't so, and people smarter than both of us put together (in the topic of video) proved this long ago.
As stated, most errors you observe are not related to frame rate at all, but poor viewing/filming conditions. It's rare that you only have 1 bad frame in a series, generally the errors you observe are multiples of frames, as caused by the device or the method of distribution (pulldown, for example -- sometimes even poorly-done pulldown).
I remember the old counters at gas stations, the early digital ones, where the decimals moved so fast that you could not see 0-9, but rather a single digit that looked like a flickering 8. That is more accurate of 24-30fps, having zero flaws that cascades to other frames. You simply cannot see the 0-9.Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
Originally Posted by simps
Similar Threads
-
.NET Security Updates Fail
By bevills1 in forum ComputerReplies: 3Last Post: 26th Jul 2010, 23:53 -
2nd pass encode fail
By john920 in forum Blu-ray RippingReplies: 19Last Post: 18th Mar 2010, 07:58 -
DV50 to WMV3/9 encoding = fail
By Hazarath in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 0Last Post: 20th Jan 2010, 17:03 -
percentage of hard drives fail
By MJA in forum ComputerReplies: 29Last Post: 4th May 2009, 12:44 -
Writing fail with Img Burn
By anfield7 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 7Last Post: 7th Feb 2009, 05:02