Current HD standard is a FAIL [Archive]

simps

4th May 2009, 12:19

Sorry for my bad english. Hi there from Brazil!

Ok, so I spent all this money on a 52" 1080p TV, and a 2.0 BLU-RAY player.
Lets leave sound apart from this.

First of all, what was wrong with PAL / NTSC standards? Resolution was not good enough but that wasn't all.
Frame rates were an issue too. PAL with 25FPS and NTSC with 30FPS.

The current HD standard for movies is something about 1080p / 24. This means 24FPS only.
Looks like it is only solving the resolution issue, but it is not doing anything about the FPS issue.

With PAL and NTSC, the frames were, of course, smaller compared to 1080p, but they were also no where near as sharp as 1080p frames. Blur is the word for a PAL / NTSC frame when compared to a 1080p frame today.

With those "blur" frames (compared to 1080p) on PAL and NTSC, transitions from frame to frame felt more smooth even with 25 and 30FPS, because your eyes couldn't detect much difference from one frame to another, because of the blur patter of the frames. So the movie was still going on 25 or 30FPS, but in your head, you felt it smooth. Of course this breaks down on high speed scenes.

Now, the rule is, assuming you won't change the FPS, the sharpen the frame, the more "laggy" the film will look like. That is because on a very sharp picture like current 1080p, when one frame moves to another, your eyes can tell a LOT of difference between the frames, and this means you can detect on large scales the scene change, meaning you can really feel every frame that is changing.

The idea of frame rates, is that they will only look smooth, when you can't detect anymore the frames changing from one to another with you eyes / brain, so in your head, you will assume there is something continuous going on.

But what number of frame rate is enough to fool us arround? That will change from one to another. You need to forget this stupid idea that humans can't see more then 30 or 60FPS. I can easily see a big difference from 60 to 120FPS for example. If you have a CRT monitor, just change the refresh rate from 60 to 120Hz, and see if you can tell the difference. I am sure you can too.

When talking about small FPS numbers (20 - 60), the sharpen the picture, the more FPS you will need to make it feel continuous. Of course, after some 120FPS or 200FPS, your brain couldn't care less about the frame, since it is fast enough to fool you arround with pretty much any type of frame.

So my point is, the current HD standard of 1080p / 24FPS is a joke. Because now movies look more "laggy" then NTSC and PAL movies, because of two things:

1) 24FPS < 25 / 30FPS (I know there is some pulldown going on for NTSC movies, but forget about it now)
2) 1080p has much sharpen frames, and that makes it more "laggy" under slow 24FPS.

I know interlaced material can make it look more smooth, but movies are pretty much progressive, so forget about it too.

Now when I turn on my 1080p TV and bluray player, I can enjoy the much better picture quality (no doubt about that), but on the other hand, the movie just looks "laggy", because of the reasons I mentioned before.

This is a fault in current HD standards, because the hardware can't handle 1080p with 60FPS for example, because of processing power, but more important, because the hardware and the optical tech can't hanlde the bitrate needed for a 1080p / 60FPS progressive, if you were to keep every frame at the same quality as current 24FPS frames.

But the other part of the problem, is that cinema is still filming with their stupid 24FPS cameras.
24FPS for cinema is something that is going on since forever, and that should have been updated by now.
Cinema really needs to start filming with 60FPS progressive cameras.

Anyway, this is just my view of it.
Current HD movies looks "laggy" as hell with only 24FPS of progressive frames going on.
You can easily see that, on fast action scenes.

I wouldn't call it HD at all. HD would be some 1080p / 60, keeping the quality of every frame like the 24FPS frame. But for that, you would need 2.5 more bitrate, and current HD hardware can't handle it, so it is a fail.

Assuming cinema starts to film with 60FPS tomorrow, the current HD hardware wouldn't be able to handle its content, without decresing the quality of the frame to keep bitrate under 50Mbit/s or so.

This means, in this case, your $3000,00 setup is useless, and if this kinda update on frame rates happen, you will need to buy something else.

That is why, current HD is a fail.

[]'s
Simps

Manao

4th May 2009, 12:30

Movies are shot at 24 fps, so there's nothing you can do. Motion blur - not overall bluriness - is what removes the stuttering, and motion blur exists whatever the resolution, HD isn't worse than SD in that regard.

As for TV/sports, they are shot at 60 fps, interlaced, and that is also supported by the HD standards.

simps

4th May 2009, 12:51

I wrote that cinema is still filming with 24FPS cameras. Assume cinema would start using 60FPS cameras tomorrow. Now what happens? Your $3000,00 setup is useless, because the optical tech and processing power there, is no where near close to handle a 1080p / 60FPS movie because it would take about 2.5 more bitrate. The only way to do it, is to lower every frame quality, but that is not a solution.

Current HD movies are "laggy", this is a fact. And yes, it starts on the 24FPS cameras used in cinema. HD can't change that, true. But HD is also not prepared to handle a change there, if it is going to happen. If cinema starts using 60FPS cameras, then your $3000,00 HD setup is useless, and you will need to buy something else, that would probably not be related to optical tech. Keeping optical storage is so bad that I can't believe blu-ray wasn't born with solid states storage.

My point is, FPS is a BIG issue with cinema. 24 is just not enough, we all agree on that. So in the future, isn't it obvious that there is a good chance that FPS will change? 48FPS? something like that? It is reasonable to think of that. But current HD standards don't take that into account. If there is a change in the FPS in cinema, your HD setup becomes a door-stop, and they will sell something else to you, that will cost another $3000,00.

If HD standards were compliant with some progressive frames up to 60FPS (meaning compliant with 2.5 more of the bitrate it is capable now), then you would be fine with it. Just some firmware update and you are ready for the future. But it is not the case, and that is where it fails. It is obvious that 24FPS will change in future, and current HD just fail to keep track of that.

Just do the math, current HD can't handle more then 50Mbits/s, and current 1080p movies are already reaching 40Mbits/s or so. Now if you change 24FPS to 48FPS for example, you would need 80Mbits/s and current HD is just not compliant with that. If you think about 60FPS then things are even worst.

If the current HD hardware were compliant to some 120Mbits/s, then a simple firmware update would get you ready for the future. And the limitations are more into the optical tech then the processing power. In the end, the optical media was just a bad choice, and this is one of the reasons you won't be able to fix the problem with current HD standards. More processing power is easier to solve, just set some 3.0 blue-ray players with more processing power in it (your old generation blue-ray player would still become a door-stop LOL). But the optical tech is what slows current HD standards down.

Manao

4th May 2009, 13:04

Indeed, IF cinema starts using 60 fps cameras...

Of course, if it did, you would have to change each projector of each cinemas in order to show them. Cinemas that, just recently, undertook to switch to numeric.

BTW, you don't complain about your 3000$ setup not being able to show 3D, while 3D is one short term future of cinema (and already exists, while 48p doesn't).

Finally, if the cinema did go to 48p or 60p, you could still show it on your setup, as interlaced, so there's nothing to complain about.

simps

4th May 2009, 13:51

Good point. I do agree with you, but interlaced material can't compete with a true full frame progressive 60FPS. A true 60P is what I would call the really good stuff. You would lose a lot by doing it interlaced, and when talking about HQ, I don't think I would be happy with interlaced movies.

Dark Shikari

4th May 2009, 14:11

simps

4th May 2009, 14:44

On a PC you can do anything. I am talking about standalone HD standards. PC's have no standards for this matter, it is just about what codec or how it is decoding the information vs some processor power. PC's are too flexible, standalone players are not, just up to some point.

No it doesn't.
Blue-ray can only support up to 40 - 50mbit/s or so.
The latest copies, like The Dark Knight, are already using some 40mbits/s (that is video + audio), think about some DTS audio there.
So blu-ray does not provide 3x more bitrate. Current HD movies are already using its full potential. So if you double the FPS, then you double the bitrate and blu-ray can't handle it, unless you lower the picture quality.
But that is not a solution, that is like lowering the frame quality of a 3h movies to fit a sinlge DVD9 LOL!
In other words, to have a 1080p / 60 going on a blu-ray player, each frame would look worst than the frame on a 1080p / 24. So that is not keeping the same quality, so that is not a solution.

Dark Shikari

4th May 2009, 14:45

No it doesn't.
blue-ray can only support up to 40 - 50mbit/s or so.
The latest copies, like The Dark Knight, are already using some 40mbits/s (that is video + audio), think about some DTS audio there.
So blu-ray does not provide 3x more bitrate. Current HD movies are already using its full potential. So if you double the FPS, then you double the bitrate and blu-ray can't handle it, unless you lower the picture quality.An average bitrate of 40-50 megabits per second is horrifically unnecessary for 1080p, at least with H.264. You can get away with 10-15 with absolutely no visible loss.

Brazil2

4th May 2009, 17:25

My point is, FPS is a BIG issue with cinema. 24 is just not enough, we all agree on that.
I'm sorry but I disagree with that.
Have you ever seen a well filmed movie (Once upon a time in the west or 2001: a space odyssey) on a large screen in a theater ? You don't notice any 'lag'. I'm taking these two films as an example because they are old enough not to contain any digital added effect, they are pure filmed movies only.

The problem is the hardware we are using at home nowadays. Computers were originally not thought and made for movies. The support of the movie itself, DVD or BD, is made of digital samples: conversion = loss. LCD screens are still slow, compared to CRT's, and far from perfect but we want to trust them because they are so expensive that they must be good. And we don't have much choice anyway. Etc etc...
Do you believe digital is better, superior to analog ? I don't. We just got used to digital.

The problem is not the movies themselves but all of the process which is done behind to bring us movies at home. And also consider that it is an industry, some companies are in a hurry to put DVD's or BD's on the market because all they want is you to buy stuff, they just don't care about quality but they do care about money.

In some cities there are still theaters (cine-clubs) which are showing original film copies of movies. If there is one near to you go there and watch at OUATIW or 2001 on a large screen. Pure analog. You'll be surprised.

simps

4th May 2009, 17:52

24FPS is just patetic for me. Period. Maybe my eyes can see more? I don't know. I can't stand the jerkyness on my 52" TV.

Anyway, a guy from videohelp helped me out, and I hope I will solve my problem. For me, the jerkyness of 24FPS on bluray is intolerable.

Looks like, I was not the only one complaining about it. A lot of people find the jerkness patetic, so the TV manufactors are introducing some features into their new TV's model, that compensate the jerkyness of 24FPS material.

I don't really know what it is, but it could be something about interpolating and creating a "virtual frame" (with information of the previous / next frame) that goes in between two real frames. So the motion of objects on the screen feels smoother.

They have different names for it.

Sony - MotionFlow
Samsung - Auto Motion Plus 120 Hz
LG - TruMotion 240Hz

And so on...

My TV is a SAMSUNG 52" LCD FULL HD MODEL: LN52A610A1R
This model DOES NOT have the Auto Motion Plus 120 Hz feature.

There is a model from SAMSUNG, the LN52A650, witch is the exact same TV as mine, but WITH the Auto Motion Plus 120 Hz feature.

I bought my TV this weekend, so I hope I can work something out on the store I bought it. I hope I can exchange it, will try to do it, and if everything turns out ok, I will post impressions on new TV.

If you are reading this and looking for a HD TV, don't repeat my mistake, go for the TV's with features to compensate the jerkyness of 24FPS, unless you don't mind the jerkyness.

Blue_MiSfit

5th May 2009, 00:15

What's wrong with 24p? The look of it is part of the film aesthetic to me.

True 30i or 60p always ends up looking too "real". It makes it almost impossible for me to break down the third wall. Perfectly fine for sports, documentaries, news, etc... But useless for cinema if you ask me.

Interpolation to 60 or 120p always ends up looking fake (even worse than true 30i / 60p content to me), and usually has artifacts of some kind.

Nope, I just want 24p. That's the standard for cinema. Give me more resolution and bit depth, and less chroma subsampling maybe - but keep it at 24 fps pls thx ;)

simps, it's possible your TV is displaying the BluRay incorrectly. Displaying 24p on a 60hz display without tearing or other artifacts can be a problem. This is one of the advantages of a 120hz screen, since every frame can simply be shown 5 times.

~MiSfit

CruNcher

5th May 2009, 03:11

Yep It would feel uncomfortable seeing a Movie in 60fps no one is used to that people would think they watch a TV show but no Film it's a total Artistically thing and most brains are trained for 24p unless you watch a TV show or Sport then your brain switches into Real Mode now being always in Real Mode would kill the Cinema Experience, never forget Cinema doesn't want to feel real it want's to be different :)
There are some directors who know that and change this also bringing in a more real life experience into movies to get a different style best examples are movies like Blair Witch Project,Cloverfield or next District 9 so im fine with 24p as being non real and trying to imitate Real Mode on 24p has become a Artistical form of his own :)

Blue_MiSfit

5th May 2009, 03:24

No offense intended CruNcher - but that's probably the single most coherent thing I've ever seen you write on doom9 ;) - one which I completely and wholeheartedly agree with!!!

Adub

5th May 2009, 08:17

The fact is that people are used to the "Cinematic Effect" of 24p. Anything more would seem "unreal" (as in too real) for movies. 60fps just doesn't provide the same cinematic experience.

The fact is that just because you may not like it, doesn't mean that the industry is going to change just because you want it too. Too many people like the old look.

Manao

5th May 2009, 09:35

60fps just doesn't provide the same cinematic experience.Because, of course, you have already seen a 60 fps movie in a theater... Come on, we're one step away from "it was better in my time". As it happens, a colleague of mine did see a 48p movie in a theater (for testing purposes), and he did say it looked great.

The sad truth is that everybody associates high framerates with TV shows and pre 90s series, and concludes it must necessarily look bad. Well, it doesn't have to.

burfadel

5th May 2009, 09:57

I hope people do realise that cheaper LCD's are inherently jaggy! I know a 52" LCD isn't cheap, what I meant was cheap considering the screen size, and cheap as in a cheaper model. If anyone goes in to an electronics store and looks at the LCD's long enough, particularly with motion scenes, you'll see soon enough (or should I say, you should see) some motion scenes which are terribly jaggy. This has nothing to do with the source material only being 25fps etc - well it does, but the reason why other tv's look nice in smooth comes down to processing. If you want a jaggy free image, good colours, nice contrast, you do have to spend a lot on the tv. For all those that think 100hz and Motion compensation (under various names) is a marketing ploy, you either have bad picture interpretation or are stubborn! Look at the tv's long enough and the 100hz are so much smoother. Some say its a placebo effect but that cannot make up some of the massive differences you can see. The 200hz tv is a bit of a gimmick though :)

I'm guessing those talking about jaggy images are using 50hz (probably 60hz for NTSC)? tv's?

SeeMoreDigital

5th May 2009, 10:08

... As it happens, a colleague of mine did see a 48p movie in a theater (for testing purposes), and he did say it looked great. I have seen this too and it does look good.

Besides, 48p would be a more natural transition than 60p - In my opinion the 30p and 60p frame rates being offered by some camcorder manufacturers is a waste of time :eek:

Manao

5th May 2009, 10:12

In my opinion the 30p and 60p frame rates being offered by some camcorder manufacturers is a waste of time It shouldn't be, at least not 60p (after all, 720p60 is standardize). 30p, however, will most probably be assumed to be actually interlaced by your TV, so it's useless imho.

SeeMoreDigital

5th May 2009, 10:43

It shouldn't be, at least not 60p (after all, 720p60 is standardize).Effectively, 60p is around because it's makes the practise of converting pure interlaced (NTSC) fields into frames more simple for broadcasting...

The 1280x720 resolution an intermediate broadcast standard that will eventually be phased out, so why bother to encourage its use?

movmasty

5th May 2009, 11:16

But the other part of the problem, is that cinema is still filming with their stupid 24FPS cameras.
24FPS for cinema is something that is going on since forever, and that should have been updated by now.
It has been, was 16fps before,
what about to turn back to that good old time? less fps less time to encode...:cool:

Current HD movies are "laggy", this is a fact. Want to know what i think?
that your 3000$ hardware just doesnt worth that money :p

movmasty

5th May 2009, 11:29

So blu-ray does not provide 3x more bitrate. tecnically it isnt 3x, 60/24 is 2.5, BUT similar frames need less to encode, an advanced codec like h264 could do the job i think with only 1.5-2 times the bitrate,

just we dont need all those frames, the resolution of hd also is too high for home users, 1920 with 3 R G B pixels are 5760 pixels to put on a tv set, 960/1152x1536 would have been more than enough,

just to rise prices and send 3000$ sets, so would be to use more fps....

simps

5th May 2009, 15:55

Guys, I have good news.
I will be able to exchange my TV. The store will receive it back, and I will be getting the new samsung 52" 1080p with the AMP (Auto Motion Plus 120Hz).

I will come back later to post if it solves or not the jarkyness problem of stupid low 24fps on bluerays. Hope so :)

For the ones saying 24fps is not that bad on bluerays, maybe you guys are looking into some smaller tv's? like 42" or so.
On my 52" the jerkyness was intolerable, and I am pretty sure all of you would agree, with you were looking at my TV with me.

I hope this AMP 120Hz feature can solve the problem on big screens. Lets see.

[]'s
Simps

2Bdecided

5th May 2009, 16:07

;)

I've always found 24fps intolerably stuttery, and yes: a larger screen (and a clearer screen) make this worse.

People are looking at the exact problem discussed in this thread. See this BBC R&D paper:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp169.shtml

...however, the trend in TV production seems to be to avoid even 50i (60i) where ever possible, and use 25p (24p) instead! Not much hope for higher frame rates :( .

Cheers,
David.

neuron2

5th May 2009, 16:29

Gents, I've deleted some posts that violated rules 4 and 11. This is not Comedy Central. Please trade jokes using PM. Thank you.

Manao

5th May 2009, 17:35

My bad. There was actually a reason for my [bad] joke. A lot of TVs out there don't handle 24p input well, and ask for 30i input instead, thus telecined content. The bluray player happily complies, and the TV then deinterlaces the content, or badly inverse telecines it. In both case, it stutters horribly. Now, I live in a PAL country, so that might explain it.

TinTime

5th May 2009, 17:44

I suspect this is a question of what you're used to. Those of us of a certain age and above will be completely used to 24fps and just tune out any jerkiness. In fact we can even demand it for that cinematic feel that we're used to. In the same way people who grew up with PAL by and large don't notice speeded up movies, and people who grew up with NTSC don't notice the stuttering from telecineing film to 60i.

With the advent of high quality home gear though people will increasingly demand higher framerates. Newer generations will notice that their high quality blu-rays don't look as smooth as their PS3 game running at 60fps.

Unfortunately for them I can't see movies increasing their framerates in the immediate future. Cinemas will have to go all digital before that happens, and there will be associated costs with filming at higher framerates. That ten second burst of digital effects in the middle of your film suddenly involves 600 frames, rather than 240. But in ten years time who knows? In the meantime they'll have to make do with frame interpolation, which may end up being good enough anyway.

Personally I like 24fps regardless of screen size - it looks like cinema to me.

simps, it's possible that your now old TV didn't display 24p natively. I've got an LCD telly that accepts 24p but displays it at 60Hz and that indeed is unwatchable. Fortunately my main TV and PJ do display 24p natively.

burfadel

5th May 2009, 19:45

CruNcher

5th May 2009, 20:18

Also they use different ICs and Processing algorithms Samsung for example likes to use MSUs research in their Products other do their own Algorithm research like Sony and LG :) but you can be sure Software or Software that became Hardware is working inside all is Digital you can even build your stuff these days yourselves which doesn't have to look much bad (most times even better) then their developments if you know how to implement it of course :) stuff like Realtime Superesolution, Realtime Framerate Conversion (Motion Based) all is possible these days for the avg consumer of course you need a solid Screen out to begin with but you should try to get something which doesn't force any Processing of the Vendor upon you, because you can't update it with newer Research results or better algorithms you have to buy a complete new product instead maybe just to get 1 feature sooner or later these times will be over :)

SeeMoreDigital

5th May 2009, 21:14

I hope this AMP 120Hz feature can solve the problem on big screens. Lets see.Seems we now have 600Hz TV's (http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/Technology/Overview/Products+%7C+VIERA+TV+%7C+NEOPDP+%7C+PLASMA+TVs+%7C+Panasonic/2241521/index.html)....

Alex-Kid

5th May 2009, 21:36

I think simps had some issues with his hardware. The few films @24p I've seen in my LCD TV looked even better than cinema (which I consider too blurry).

But my LCD TV is just 32".

simps

5th May 2009, 23:05

alex-kid,

It could be. My old TV didn't have this Auto Motion Plus 120Hz feature that the new Samsung series have. Looks like this feature can make it look more smooth.

My old TV did have (or at least was advertized with) the 1080 24p Real Movie feature. So it was suposed to play "real" 24P yes.

Maybe it was some hardware problem, or maybe on a big screen (52"), this features that can "smooth" the jerkness of 24P (like this AMP 120Hz) are something really needed, or the jerkness would be intolerable.

I don't know. My new TV with AMP 120Hz will be here the end of the week, and I will post impressions. It is basicaly the same TV as my old one, same 52" and everything, just with this AMP 120Hz feature added.

[]'s
Simps

simps

5th May 2009, 23:09

This is what Samsung states about it:

auto motion plus 120Hz

Your action-packed sports and movies have never looked this real. Auto Motion Plus 120Hz technology virtually eliminates any motion blur and creates smooth transitions between frames. What’s the secret? Auto Motion Plus calculates the image between frames and inserts it, creating a non-repetitive transition from one to the next. The result is a clearer picture you have to see to believe.

http://www.samsung.com/us/system/consumer/product/2009/04/25/ln52b750u1fxza/Feat_240hz.gif

Blue_MiSfit

6th May 2009, 02:13

Meh.... interpolation will never be perfect.

The best hope is for a panel that can natively display all popular formats without ever tearing or duplicating frames in an uneven manor.... like CRTs ;)

True 120hz panels that can display 24p at 5:5, 30i or 60p at 2:2, and so forth are all we really need. PAL is another story, but with a panel that works at either 120 or 100hz I think we'd be perfectly fine!

~MiSfit

Sagekilla

6th May 2009, 03:59

I'd like to see a display that just matches it's refresh rate to the source frame rate. I'm pretty sure we have the technology today to drive an arbitrary refresh rate on a display, but it's probably quite a bit more expensive.

CruNcher

6th May 2009, 05:19

As i said in my previous post ;) http://www.compression.ru/video/frame_rate_conversion/index_en.html there is Auto Motion Plus :D

Comatose

6th May 2009, 09:10

Because, of course, you have already seen a 60 fps movie in a theater... Come on, we're one step away from "it was better in my time". As it happens, a colleague of mine did see a 48p movie in a theater (for testing purposes), and he did say it looked great.

The sad truth is that everybody associates high framerates with TV shows and pre 90s series, and concludes it must necessarily look bad. Well, it doesn't have to.
But the thing is that yes, they associate these framerates with things that (used to) look horrible. There's also home video that looks like this.

Film has always looked better, so now most people can't help but feel blech when watching a high FPS real life movie (60 fps would be fine for CG/anime, IMO).

simps

6th May 2009, 09:39

http://forum.videohelp.com/images/guides/p1964709/pan.avi

Try this, and imagine it going on a 52" TV with crystal clear sharp 1080P/24 frames.
This is just sad, and this isn't even a high motion example. I might cut some high motion scenes from some film here, where you can see cars jumping from place to place on the screen. The jerkness of bluray and 1080p/24 is intolerable on a 52" HDTV. I really hope AMP 120Hz will solve this issue.

Mug Funky

6th May 2009, 14:47

couple of things:

- 24fps isn't set in stone. cameras will do whatever they're mechanically capable of doing, and whatever the DP considers will give a decent exposure on the film. often they're clocked at 30 to make people move more gracefully. most will do 120fps without a problem.

- film is expensive as hell. nobody would want to shoot 2.5x as much for the same running time. really, that would just be self-gratification, and would require 2.5x more light for the same aperture and stock. even with the re-uptake of 2-perf 35mm, you're still looking at shooting 1.25x more film, and you're also locked into the framing you shot with (most films are shot 4-perf, effectively 4x3 ratio. they're cropped and reframed in post. if you shoot 2perf you end up with 2.4:1 natively, but you're stuffed if you want heavy FX, or a boom lands in shot).

- another reason judder was never seen as a problem in SD land is because the average TV size was FAR smaller. think about it... if you're suddenly seeing judder on your favourite film, then your TV is too big, your room too small and you're way too close to the screen. you wouldn't sit in the front row of a cinema after all.

of course, you could shoot digitally with no problems (the RED camera goes up to 180fps in 2k, the Phantom camera goes up to ~6000fps in 1080), but digital removes a lot of options that cinematographers tend to rely on. hopefully soon digital acquisition will mature and it'll become easier to work with. right now it's a real wrestle to get good pictures out of it, when with film you only need to adjust printer-lights and it looks fantastic. the information's usually there in some form, but it's a chase to get it out of video without hurting something else.

now, my opinion on HDV is very different. HDV needs to be killed with fire, and forgotten about. it's a mistake the world doesn't need to make again (though we now have still cameras that shoot AVC, and clients are starting to use it. filthy. filthy. bad clients! bad bad!)

[edit]

further to this, i think refresh rate is not what display manufacturers need to concentrate on. not when the colours still look like arse. we need more than 8 bits! we need a panel that can display what a CRT can!

2Bdecided

6th May 2009, 15:18

we need a panel that can display what a CRT can!Amen to that! Mind you, aren't you getting close in the professional world. IIRC There are some £8k panels that the BBC quite likes.

I don't rate the chances of affordable accurate colour flat panels in the home any time soon.

In fact, apart from the boost in resolution given by HD, it seems picture quality in-home has been declining over the last 10-15 years (colour = wrong, refresh rates = often mismatched, interlaced>progressive = bodged, banding or poor black levels or both, and MPEG used at lower and lower bitrates) with the only progress being that the displays look nice and sexy and slim when switched off!

Cheers,
David.

CruNcher

6th May 2009, 18:34

Though economical seen it's a very profitable market you can produce a heavy amount of units very fast and have a shitload of developments in your bottom drawer for years and be very profitable :) 10 bit is already in this drawer but why pulling it out before selling the old stuff that makes economically seen no sense :) so just wait it will come sooner or later or do what you can do best consume every new technology till then and be happy :D. Or if you can't wait develop such a device with some friends try to bring it to the market and be surprised how many of these stuff will pop out of the other companies bottom drawer "so unexpected" ;) of course you have to get some other consortias behind you and show them that they can make more money then they currently make again with moving from 8 bit and that investing into it is profitable for them in a big mass scenario more then keeping with the old stuff :P
Best would be get some Analysts behind your back (Mackenzie,Gartner whatever you like) prepare some Powerpoint Presentations and move into the big bosses office drink some champaign or a good old wine (if i say old i mean old try to get a 50 or 60 year old one) with them and don't forget to visit a strip club with them afterward's (very important,unless it's a women but even then it might be a good move depends how much you can read into the mind of the person in front of you) and here you go ;)

Best new lie ever 80+ Power Efficiency for PC PSUs every good Electrician is gonna tell you 95% Efficiency would be no problem these days and not much more expensive in manufactureing but manny will tell you in the industry hey slower my friend first we milk them with 80+ do you expect it's different in the other areas wake up ;)

DigitAl56K

6th May 2009, 20:59

CruNcher

6th May 2009, 23:53

P.S. Post-process digital film grain: I hate it...

Uh ahh finally the answer why you left out Mainconcepts AQ and Grain Processing out of the DivX 7 Encoder ehh ? ;)

Episodio1

7th May 2009, 03:02

Would it be possible to make high-def CRT ??

Sagekilla

7th May 2009, 04:07

There's nothing stopping them from doing it. The technology already exists, and it's been done (There's been 2560x1440 CRTs for well over a decade now, and it's trivial to create 16:9 panels). Just no one invests in CRTs because compared to an LCD, they take up more space and suck up more power.

I remember having a gigantic CRT a few years back, the thing was maybe over 60" diagonally, but it was absolutely massive. Not to mention running the thing ate up quite a bit of power.

simps

7th May 2009, 14:16

That's not the case. 60/24=2.5, yes, but because you increase the temporal resolution you have less information to code for each frame. Your motion compensation becomes extremely efficient, you won't have many intra blocks, and noise aside there won't be much residual to code.

I highly doubt anywhere near a 2.5x rate increase would happen unless the video was so noisy that it was unbearable to watch.

P.S. Post-process digital film grain: I hate it...

Look, I have an original bluray copy of The Dark Knight.
The movie is about 2:30h so no where close to a 3:10h LOTR movie for example. The movie itself (The Dark Knight) and the DTS sound, add up to 40GB. I am only adding the main movie and one audio track. That is the minimum you can do.

That itself is already equivalent to some 35Mbit/s playback. You do the math.
I doubt current bluray hardware (that are built respecting current HD standard), can handle more than 45Mbit/s. Maybe 40MBit/s would be the limit.

Lets take the limit to be 45Mbit/s, and take The Dark Knight as sample movie. If The Dark Knight had 48FPS (not even talking about 60FPS), than the 40GB of data would change to 80GB. Not true, because part of that is sound, so lets make it 70GB. I am being nice here, 70GB is less than it would be, and 45Mbit/s is probably more than the hardware can take, and I am not even talking 60FPS, just to show how impossible it is. Anyway.

The question now is, even with the increased temporal resolution you mentioned, and other factors that are to be considered too (because of H.264), you think you would be able to shrink 70GB to 50GB (because 50GB is where the 45Mbit/s limit is), keeping the same frame quality as the 24P version? I don't think so. And remember also, that if you forget about the audio (H.264 can't help that), than we are talking about shrinking some 60GB of video to 40GB. 66% compression, that is totally impossible without losing quality.

And also, this is a 2:30h movie. What about a 3h movie?
And what about 60FPS?

For that you would be talking about more than 50% compression. Impossible without hurting quality too.

What 66% and 50% compression mean? It mean the compression RELATED to what we have now on our homes. Like the copy of The Dark Knight I have.

And, lets not forget about decoding power. It is not just about respecting the 45Mbit/s limit. If decoding is more demanding, than the 45Mbit/s number will fall down. Would current HD standards processing power be able to do the job @ real 48fps or real 60fps progressive with more demanding decoding instructions, I DOUBT IT WOULD.

A smart standard, would consider a 3:30h movie, and more FPS. The way it is, our 3:30h movie will have lower picture quality compared to a 2h movie, just like old DVD time. They should have payed attention to that. It is the same mistake.

I don't see any way of doing it, unless you decrease at least a little bit, the frame quality. And this is no good solution. This is a BAD solution. Especialy for people with new 60" HDTVs.

This is my point, if the current HD standard were to be something about 100Mbit/s, than we would be pretty much ready for future changes. A simple firmware update would do it.

The reason why I say it is a fail, is because I doubt it would handle 3h movies with 48FPS or 60FPS without decreasing the frame quality (if you compare this frame with the frames we have now on 24p).

Anyway, this is just my view of it, the frame rate of 24 might never change for the next 20 years or so, we never know. But it also might change on 2012, we don't know about that too.

The point is, if it changes, than your expensive hardware is junk, they will try to sell you another thing. If the HD standard were a bit higher, like 100Mbit/s, than we would be ready forever. Never say forever :)

[]'s
Simps

simps

7th May 2009, 14:32

Anyway, this was a part of the point I was making.
Other part is how jerky 24fps was on my 52" tv that had no interpolation tech on it.

24fps is just to low. I really hope my new tv with AMP 120Hz will smooth things out. In my opinion, at least on my old 52" tv, playing real 24fps without any interpolation is very very very bad. You can see cars jumping from places to another, it is just plain stupid. I don't feel DVD to be that jerky. The crystal clear and sharp frames of 1080P and the pixel way of showing it of LCD TVs and real stupid low 24fps is what makes jerkness way to much on bluray movies and large screen LCD HDTV's.

Now, I don't know if AMP120Hz will solve it. My new tv will be here on saturday only.

2Bdecided

7th May 2009, 15:24

You can have 60fps today - 1290x720p60 or 1920x1080i60. ;)

You said (several times) "you would be talking about more than 50% compression. Impossible without hurting quality" - but could you see it? It seem that almost all BluRay titles are encoded at a level where artefacts are invisible - you don't know a) what the margin of error is, b) the improvement that different encoders could achieve, or c) the proportional savings from having frames that are closer together. So really, you can't know.

Of course BluRay will never have 1920x1080p60 as standard because it wasn't designed this way. But you could certainly put the content on a disc at sufficient quality to keep almost everyone happy - the only minor problem is that no players would play it back.

Cheers,
David.

simps

7th May 2009, 16:12

I undestand your point, the drop in quality could be just a little bit (I doubt when we talk about 50% compression, but anyway...), and we don't know much about that, but it will be there, this is what I mean. But we are talking about 50 - 60% compressions, I am sure this is bad. Depends on the movie too. You take a 300 movie as sample... That grain thingy would look worst I bet.

And also, our current hardware (hd standard standalone player) wouldn't be able to play it, at 1080p and 48 or 60fps, the word "impossible" that I use, serve well.

Anyway, I wouldn't be happy with any quality loss, no matter what, but this is too subjective.

I now just want to know if my new hdtv with AMP 120Hz will solve the jerkness issue.

If don't, then I don't know what I will do. Probably will keep it, since I can't get money back. But really, if it solves it, then I would say playing bluray on hdtv's without some kinda of interpolation tech, is very very bad. People spending a lot of money on this, and having jerky playback is crazy.

I really hope AMP120Hz it solves the issue. People are telling me that there are some presets on the AMP 120Hz os Samsungs. You can set it to: Off - Small - Med - High.

People say that even on Small the jerkyness is gone, but Mid is the best. On High, looks like you can see artifacts, and movies look like soap opera.

Looking good so far, can't wait to see it here. Will post impressions.

Sagekilla

7th May 2009, 20:40

You are correct that if you increase the frame rate, there is an increase in bitrate if you want to maintain the same quality. BUT, there's a few things you need to realize: There's nonlinear scaling between framerate. The higher the frame rate, the smaller the difference is between each frame. Video compression is based off calculating where something moved using motion vectors, and then coding any extra difference as residual. In most cases, the residual costs much more than the motion vector.

When you encode I-Frames, you're basically encoding residual for a frame. You have to use these when you have nothing to predict from. A B-Frame is usually your best case scenario where you have very few intra (not predicted) blocks and can be on the order of 1/30th to 1/100th h the size of an I-Frame. So let's think: If higher frame rate means smaller frame-to-frame differences, and differences mean residual, then this means we can probably code more our frames as P or B-Frames. More specifically, when it comes to block level of a P or B-Frame, you can encode more of those individual blocks as a predicted block rather than as a residual (Like an I-Frame) block.

Generally speaking, the increase in bitrate to maintain the same quality isn't perfectly linear. So while a 1080p24 (Ignoring audio here -- it's a constant) video stream requires 20 mbps to attain some level of quality, a 1080p48 version of it only need something like 30 or 35 mbps.

Secondly, the other thing to realize is that each frame is on the screen for a shorter period of time. So before, at 24 fps a frame was present for 0.042 seconds. At 48 fps, that same frame would be present for only 0.021 secnds. Because each frame is shown for a shorter period of time, we can get away with using a lower bitrate since the artifacts will only show up for half as much time as before.

But realize, noticeable artifacts will -not- be present at bitrates of 40 mbps, even for 1080p60! If you took a 1080p60 master from some camera, encoding it to 40 mbps will be practically indistinguishable from the source. Exceptions do exist, like when you film something with unrealistic amounts of movement that doesn't occur normally.

Blue_MiSfit

7th May 2009, 20:56

Also, let's not forget that 25-30mbps that we see on BluRay discs is kind of overkill :)

If they were using a good H.264 encoder (*ahem* x264 *ahem*) I'd bet money on being able to do 48p or 60p with those bitrates, and have no artifacts whatsoever, assuming a clean source.

~MiSfit

Manao

7th May 2009, 21:18

If they were using a good H.264 encoder (*ahem* x264 *ahem*) I'd bet money on being able to do 48p or 60p with those bitrates, and have no artifacts whatsoever,Bluray allows for an average bitrate high enough for long and complicated film in 48p. But max bitrate constraints, imho, would be a tad too low for it. Of course, since bluray doesn't allow for 48p either, if the standard was made to evolve to higher framerate, higher max bitrate could also be supported.

Blue_MiSfit

7th May 2009, 22:08

Hmm... an interesting point.

I assume higher max bitrates would require not only a new standard, but also new decoder chips?

~MiSfit

Sagekilla

7th May 2009, 22:22

Alternatively, they could add a new blu-ray profile. That's one way to sidestep the need to create a new standard.

Just update it so you require compliance for a higher level (e.g. 5.1) and correspondingly, a larger buffer, and maybe higher clocked decoding engine.

'Course, you'd also need to require the Blu-ray drives to spin faster so they can retrieve that much data.

DigitAl56K

8th May 2009, 02:56

Why not put the theory to the test?

Find some content and use ChangeFPS() to halve the frame rate, encode it, then encode at the regular frame rate.

It will probably matter if you start out with content that already has a high rate vs lower rate, since the inter-frame differences will be larger for the latter after rate halving (you will naturally end up with more I blocks).

2Bdecided

8th May 2009, 11:10

You can't just call it a different "profile" - it's a different format. It doesn't matter if most of the new format is the same as current BluRay - none of the new discs would ever play on current players. So by definition, in a consumer's eyes, its a new format.

Cheers,
David.

Manao

8th May 2009, 11:25

There are already different "profile" for bluray, if I remember correctly. Different sort of protections (BD+) which support wasn't mandatory ?

But yeah, I agree with you that from the consumer's eyes, it would be a new format. From a technical viewpoint however, the difference would be quite small : 1080p60 TV are starting to come out, HDMI already handles it, and it's fairly easy to make a decoder that could decode that. However, since there is no content, it would be useless.

In the end, it's not TV technology that will drive the change, it's cinema's. In that regard, "HD" (whether it is bluray or HDTVs) isn't a failure, it was the only sane choice that could be made at the time.

simps

8th May 2009, 12:01

Manao, I agree with you. My point is, since 24fps is very slow, and play jerky on 1080p hdtv's, at least on a big screen one without any interpolation tech, my point is that it is reasonable to think about 48fps or 60fps for the future.

And current HD standard kinda fail to predict that. This was my point. Sure there is no content for 1080p/60 yet, but it is reasonable to think about it, since 24fps is VERY jerky on large screen HDTV's, at least the ones without interpolation tech.

For what he have available now, HD standand do the job. But like I said, it is very reasonable to think about 48fps at least, for 1080P.

The reason I say HD standard failed, is because of the 45Mbit/s limit, and probably because of the use of optical tech for storage too, but that is another thing.

If bluray was up to some 100MBit/s, than our current hardware (standalone players), would be ready for the future. Just a simple firmware update would do it.

My point is, that if some 1080P/48 or 1080P/60 comes out, I bet we will have to buy a new standalone player to do that, therefore our expensive hardware becomes junk. This was my point, I really don't think 45MBit/s was enough to predict a 48 or 60fps in the future.

If bluray was up to 100Mbit/s, than current hardware would be a little more expensive than it is. TRUE, but this would also save us a big step in the future. For me, 48fps or 60fps is really the future, cinema will have to change, and bluray could have predicted that. It is obvious for me.

Manao

8th May 2009, 12:42

I bet we will have to buy a new standalone player to do that, therefore our expensive hardware becomes junkBut the player isn't worth 3000$ either...
If bluray was up to 100Mbit/s, than current hardware would be a little more expensive than it is. TRUE, but this would also save us a big step in the futureIf it was, bluray wouldn't even exist right now.
For me, 48fps or 60fps is really the future, cinema will have to change, and bluray could have predicted that. It is obvious for me.You work in the industry ? Because, sadly, they choose the trend, the customers don't.

2Bdecided

8th May 2009, 12:45

If they were using a good H.264 encoder (*ahem* x264 *ahem*) I'd bet money on being able to do 48p or 60p with those bitrates, and have no artifacts whatsoever, assuming a clean source.I've just tried encoding the 1920x1080p50 SVT HD tests - challenging content from (sometimes grainy) 70mm film. ABR 30Mbps using x264.

I can't play back the results in real time(!). Playing it slowly, it's not faultless, but it's pretty close. I'm not sure you'd spot anything wrong at normal speed.

FWIW I tried Q18 (overkill!), and it gave average 83Mbps, peak 131Mbps.
I tried dropping every other frame (making it 25p), and it gave average 45Mbps, peak 67Mbps.

So for grainy content at an overkill setting, it's an almost linear increase in bitrate with frame rate.

Obviously you'd want less grain, and use a more realistic setting, which may make the bitrate increase less proportion to frame rate - but real 25p (rather than 25p decimated from 50p) would have a slower shutter speed, hence blurier movement, hence easier to encode.

So maybe the bitrate would nearly double if you kept the same quality (with grain) - but would still be usable for "good enough" encoding - and probably faultless on a less challenging, and grain-free, source.

Cheers,
David.

Manao

8th May 2009, 12:59

So for grainy content at an overkill setting, it's an almost linear increase in bitrate with frame rate.But x264's bframe decision is far from perfect. Can you give us the I/P/B statistics when going from 25p to 50p ?
Obviously you'd want less grainWhy ?
and use a more realistic settingI'm curious, what were your settings ? And if you did a 2 pass ABR, what was the max bitrate ? And how do you compute it ?
real 25p (rather than 25p decimated from 50p) would have a slower shutter speed, hence blurier movement, hence easier to encode.True. However, I wonder how much motion blur hurts compression, and if that doesn't balance a bit the increased details.

simps

8th May 2009, 13:13

I've just tried encoding the 1920x1080p50 SVT HD tests - challenging content from (sometimes grainy) 70mm film. ABR 30Mbps using x264.

I can't play back the results in real time(!). Playing it slowly, it's not faultless, but it's pretty close. I'm not sure you'd spot anything wrong at normal speed.

FWIW I tried Q18 (overkill!), and it gave average 83Mbps, peak 131Mbps.
I tried dropping every other frame (making it 25p), and it gave average 45Mbps, peak 67Mbps.

So for grainy content at an overkill setting, it's an almost linear increase in bitrate with frame rate.

Obviously you'd want less grain, and use a more realistic setting, which may make the bitrate increase less proportion to frame rate - but real 25p (rather than 25p decimated from 50p) would have a slower shutter speed, hence blurier movement, hence easier to encode.

So maybe the bitrate would nearly double if you kept the same quality (with grain) - but would still be usable for "good enough" encoding - and probably faultless on a less challenging, and grain-free, source.

Cheers,
David.

Thanks for doing that.
It is reasonable to say, that with some more optimization of H.264, you can do that without doubling the bitrate (average and max). It is very possible to say that you can do what you did with upping the bitrate by a 1.8 factor for example, and not by a 2 factor, without hurting the frame quality. I believe that is reasonable, but 1.8 is still bad, it will still be too much for current hd standard. We would need to do it with some 1.3 factor (do the math) of bitrate increase, and that is why I am saying is pretty much impossible to do without hurting the frame quality (compared to current frame quality of 1080/24).
45Mbit/s is just not enough for 1080p/48 and 1080p/60. And, as manao already pointed out, there is also the max bitrate problem.

Thanks for doing this test, good info there.
Can you post 2 B-frames for comparison? One frame from the 50fps encode, and the other from 24fps? I believe they won't exactly match, but can you post it for some comparison?

simps

8th May 2009, 13:27

Because, sadly, they choose the trend, the customers don't.

I know. Look, all of this come after my first experience with HDTV. Like I said on the first post, I spent a lot of money on a BR 2.0 and 52" 1080p TV.

My TV didn't have any interpolation feature. Man, seriously, IT WAS TOO BAD. I seriously prefer to watch a PAL DVD, than that crap.

The jerkness of blueray player 1080p/24 on a 52" tv (without interp tech) is just insane, I just can't believe they are still selling big TV's without any interp.

You can see cars jumping from place to another, it is VERY BAD. This just means that 24FPS is a joke, it will have to change, there is no way arround it. When cinema goes digital, fps will go up, it is impossible to think about another solution. I don't know when it will happen. Could take another 20 years, or 5 years I don't know.

My point was, blueray could have taken that into account. It is very reasonable to think about it happening.

And seriously, if you people have 1080P tvs, without the new interp features (AMP 120Hz, and others), I feel sorry for you, and have to say your equipment is a piece of junk. Good luck watching 1080p movies with that much of jerkness, it is just insane.

I returned by 52" the next day. And now I am waiting for my new TV, which is the same as old, but with the AMP 120Hz. I have seen it running on the store, and it is MUCH better. Jerkness is gone. Is it the perfect solution? Of course not, perfect solution would be MORE FPS. But this is what we have now.

24fps is so bad and low, that tv manufactors all arround are creating this interp solutions. They aren't doing this for free or out of nothing, they are doing this because 24fps is a JOKE, and jerkness of blueray playing true 1080/24 is a JOKE.

FPS will have to go up, I don't see we living in 2020 and still watching 24fps movies. I needs to be upgraded. HD could have predict that, this is all I am saying.

2Bdecided

8th May 2009, 13:28

@Manao,

Encoding settings: MeGUI "x264 .... balanced".
Bitrate checked via Bitrate viewer.

What software lists frame types for mp4?

If bitrate per rame is I > P > B, then bitrate viewer shows an I frame at each scene change, and a P/B/P/B sequence elsewhere. Same for Q18 50p, Q18 25p, and 30Mbps ABR 50p. If that's really what's in the file, that's probably not very good, is it?

That's why I said less grain = better. And, of course, if we had 48p movies, they'd be more likely to be shot on digital, so wouldn't have "film" grain (but maybe other noise).

It's all a bit hypothetical! ;)

Cheers,
David.

2Bdecided

8th May 2009, 13:33

@simps,

No, the point is that bitrate-wise, it would probably work more than well enough. It wouldn't be as overcoded as many 24p discs are today, but that wouldn't matter at all.

Unlike smooth interlaced footage, which falls apart as bitrates fall, smooth (i.e. high framerate) progressive footage doesn't go bad in the same way. IME! For SD, you can take 50p content down to 1/4 of the bitrate that a Q18 encode demands, and it still looks amazingly good. I've encoded this same challenging footage at 2Mbps 704x576 50p, and it's fine. The only difference is that in SD, there's not much grain left, so the encoder has a far easier time.

Cheers,
David.

simps

8th May 2009, 13:38

2Bdecided,

You are saying it is doable bitrate wise. I never said it wasn't, where did I say that? I said it was IMPOSSIBLE to do it respecting current hd standards of 40Mbit/s and max bitrate (so it would play on your player), without hurting frame quality (compared to the frame we have now from 1080/24p bluray).
Are you saying it is doable, respecticing current hd standards, without hurting frame quality?

MfA

8th May 2009, 14:01

Steroscopic movies would be a great place to start with higher refresh rates, a viewing sensation already so inherently different from the norm would allow the transition without the usual "it's not really film" bias from some movie goers. As for the people making the movies, I doubt the kind doing stereoscopic movies now would not embrace the potential to free themselves from some of the restrictions on motion in scenes they have now.

A greater palette is always better, even if it's not wise to always use it to it's fullest extent.

2Bdecided

8th May 2009, 15:31

Are you saying it is doable, respecticing current hd standards, without hurting frame quality?You clearly have fewer bits per pixel, so objectively you have to throw more away - but the question is whether you can see the difference. I doubt you can, if grain is kept under control.

It's all about the percentage of content that will cause problems. I'm sure you can make a test signal (at least) which can't be encoded at 24p within the current parameters without introducing a visible change. It doesn't mean the present system can't cope with most content. I believe the same would be true with 48p.

Remember that the BluRay data rate and peak bitrate were defined to let MPEG-2 deliver good quality. Using H.264 gives potentially better quality than was originally intended - though you can argue forever about whether this is visible in practice with 24p.

Cheers,
David.

foxyshadis

14th May 2009, 03:39

simps

14th May 2009, 07:27

simps, I have to warn you, the level of rhetoric you're spouting is almost grounds for a trolling strike (I know, that was last week, but this is for if/when the discussion picks up), condemning an entire collection of technologies and standards based on nothing more than your first set of viewings on one TV, and showing quite a bit of ignorance by favoring numbers you made up from thin air with an elementary mathematical formula, rather than those seen by actual developers in actual testing of the technologies you're discussing. Things are far more complicated than you surmise, so intuition and anecdote are not data. Come back with real research and data if you want to be taken seriously here.

I wasn't trolling, and I didn't mean to sound bad. I try to be direct, but my english doesn't help me, and maybe I might be sounding bad. But here it is:

I spent money on this TV (Samsung LN52A610A1R)
This is a 52" 1080p tv.
I played my bluray of The Dark Knight on it, and I found the jerkness of it, to be untolerable. Really bad. Later, I found this tv had no interpolation feature, meaning, I was watching 24frames refreshing at me every second. This tv can handle 1080p/24 real true 24fps, but this is just too bad.

Ok, later, I found that Samsung had a new version of my tv, with a feature called "AMP120hz". Auto Motion Plus 120Hz.
This is supposed to make the jerkness go away.
I did exchange my tv, for this new one (the store accepted it), payed difference.

Result is, now I am happy. I can watch blueray movies, without the very bad jerkness of true 24fps only (don't get me wrong, this new tv is true 24fps, but + interpolation). You have 4 options on AMP120Hz. off-little-mid-high. I am at mid right now, and no jerkness, no soapoera effect, nothing, just good.

Now, look at the market and you will understand will 1080p tvs without interpolation feature is a mistake. All the tv manufactores are releasing new versions of their tvs, with some interp tech. Sony call it TrueMotion I think, LG has another name for it, Samsung call it AMP, etc... Why do you think they are doing this? Because this is necessary. The jarkness is untolerable of true 24fps.
Look at the software players, like powerdvd for example. They also have a feature called "smooth" and "smoothest" or something, that will make the jerkness go away.

So, why is it that everybody is realeasing stuff with features to deal with jerkness? It is because it is bad.

And what I tried to say, is that it is bad on blueray, because of the low true 24fps AND because blueray frames are so crystal clear and sharp too.

Because of that, the jerkness on blueray true 24 is much worst than pal / ntsc.

Also, what I tried to say, is that this is no quantum mechanics. I don't need to come here with math formulas or anything. This is just that simple. All you have to do, is to look at 2 tvs, running 1080p blueray movie, one with and the other without interpolation feature. You will see the difference, no math needed.

Also, what I tried to say here, is, if you are going to buy a full hd tv these days, IT HAS TO HAVE SOME INTERP FEATURE. It is a BIG mistake to buy one tv without this.

Of course, if you already has an old 1080ptv, than this things are expensive, and you might stick with your tv, but know that there is something much better out there.

From my experience, 1080p tvs, without interp features ARE PURE CRAP. Jerkness was intolerable for me. Even my neighbors talked about how bad my tv was. And no, nothing wrong with the hardware. My tv just looked as bad as all 1080p tvs without interp.

So this is a warning for someone reading this, that wants to buy a new 1080p tv. Don't do my mistake, buy the tv with interp feature.

This is what I wanted to say. Now if I sound like a troll, or if you want some math proof of this, or if you want to make some quantum mechanics out of this, than you are free to do, for me, this is enough.

HDTV's without interp ARE BAD. Jerkness is just too much on some movies.

Of course, the thread went the other way, we started to focus on other stuff, but this is what I wanted to say. If you don't believe? Just go to a big store, and put a tv with intep next to a tv without it, and put the same movie on both. If you don't see the difference, than your eyes are broken.

[]'s
Simps

neuron2

14th May 2009, 14:59

My TVs without "interp" look fine. I do not see any jerkiness.

Sharktooth

14th May 2009, 15:02

ah! your eyes are broken then! :D
seriously, it may also depend on the pixel persistency (higher persistency may smooth things out).

2Bdecided

14th May 2009, 15:38

My TVs without "interp" look fine. I do not see any jerkiness.24p clearly has "jerkiness" - the image stutters.

This is more visible on some content than others - and some people seem to actually like it. ;)

But it's there. And if you don't like it, you find it's more objectionable with larger screens, and more objectionable with HD.

(I find rainbows on DLP really obvious and objectionable too, FWIW. Unrelated, except that my eyes are apparently good at letting me see things many other people never notice.)

Cheers,
David.

neuron2

14th May 2009, 15:50

24p clearly has "jerkiness" - the image stutters. No it doesn't.

But it's there. No, it's not.

2Bdecided

14th May 2009, 16:52

Well obviously someone must be able to see it, otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell motion interpolation, would they?

"Hello Sir, would you like to buy this TV instead, it has motion interpolation to smooth out the stuttery film-motion of 24p material".

"Switch it on and off so I can see the difference please"

"There you are Sir, this is motion interpolation on... and this is motion interpolation off..."

"No, it looks exactly the same to me"

The customer was then led away by his white dog.

Cheers,
David.

simps

14th May 2009, 18:06

Everytime I post, I seen to make people angry, and start bad things. This is not what I want to do. Title of the thread is a bit missleading too, I was so pissed off with my expensive jerky tv when I wrote that...
Anyway, I did manage to exchange my Tv last weekend for the new one with AMP120Hz, and I liked it now, everything is fine for me.
What I wanted to register here was my experience.

Looks like some people don't agree that 24fps is bad, or that the jerkness is bad, so lets just leave it like that.

Sorry if I cause any trouble, not my intention.

[]'s
Simps

neuron2

14th May 2009, 18:16

Well obviously someone must be able to see it, otherwise they wouldn't be able to sell motion interpolation, would they? I didn't say that interpolation doesn't do anything. I saw it at the store. Scrolling banners were clearer without motion blur.

But I do not perceive jerkiness without it. And you can't tell me I do or I'm blind.

simps

14th May 2009, 18:40

I didn't say that interpolation doesn't do anything. I saw it at the store. Scrolling banners were clearer without motion blur.

But I do not perceive jerkiness without it. And you can't tell me I do or I'm blind.

Man, I feel hard to believe that you don't notice a difference between tv's with interp and tv's without it, running 1080p movies. I am not calling you a liar, or anything, it is just that for me the difference is so huge, that I find hard to believe others can't see it too.

Look at this.
http://forum.videohelp.com/images/guides/p1964709/pan.avi

Are you saying you don't find this jerk? And this is no where close to what it feels on a 52" tv, running crystal clear 1080p @ 24fps. There is absolute no way that I would see a 2h movie looking like that. This is ridiculous.

The jerkyness is much worst on 1080p tvs without interp, than in cinema. Don't get me wrong, they are all running 24fps content, but the bluray 1080p frame is so sharp and crystal clear, and the pixel way of showing it by lcd tvs, and their big contrast, etc, makes it MUCH worst than cinema.

Man is so hard to believe that you don't find this jerky. And this is not the best example. There are fast actions scenes, where you can see cars jumping from places to places, it is just bad.

I can only say for people that are buying new TV's. Look for the ones with some interpolation feature on it. they are good, there will be no soapopera effect, they will just make the jerkyness go away.

2Bdecided

14th May 2009, 20:35

And you can't tell me I do or I'm blind.Perceiving something differently doesn't make you "blind".

People with perfectly working ears and eyes will all perceive things in different ways - and have measurably different acuity in various audio and visual psychometric tests, even though standard measures of sight and hearing are all the same.

I mention audio because that's my field, but I assume vision is the same.

(Well, it clearly is from the (in)visibility of the DLP phenomenon - the difference is in the brain/processing, not the eyes).

Cheers,
David.

2Bdecided

14th May 2009, 20:37

Look at this.
http://forum.videohelp.com/images/guides/p1964709/pan.aviGood example.

As you say, there are far worse.

Cheers,
David.

neuron2

14th May 2009, 20:44

I never see cars jumping from place to place and I'm not interested in your AVI, which is irrelevant to what I see when playing BluRay disks on my TVs.

Dark Eiri

14th May 2009, 21:47

Astrophizz

15th May 2009, 00:52

Yeah, I think Dark Eiri is right. I notice that when I, say, play fast-pace computer games and then watch TV I can see that it's not fluid but after a relatively short amount of time my eyes get adjusted and I don't notice any more.

SeeMoreDigital

15th May 2009, 01:07

I'm of the opinion that if people in Euro-land are experiencing "jerky" looking 24p moving images, it's most probably because their TV's have 100/200Hz processing enabled :scared:

EDIT: Anyway, from a purely technical stand point. How do Blu-ray player puke-out "true" 24p moving images when the (MPEG-2, AVC, VC-1) source video streams are 23.976fps?

Sharktooth

15th May 2009, 03:11

I think there's something wrong with your TV. I don't see any bad jerkiness for 24fps 1080p content at all, even in TVs without interpolation, and believe me, I've seen a lot of them. You've probably watched too much 60fps content and now the not-so-fluid motion is playing with your eyes a bit.
Yeah, I think Dark Eiri is right. I notice that when I, say, play fast-pace computer games and then watch TV I can see that it's not fluid but after a relatively short amount of time my eyes get adjusted and I don't notice any more.
The sad reality is... if you watch something at more than 24fps for more than a minute your eyes will "broke"! :D
ok, i used funny words, but the human eye adapts quite fast to every situation but the visual perception is something that depends also on the brain.
i whish to stress the fact everyone has his own eyes and his own brain. so, if someone finds 24p "jerky", maybe it's really jerky for him...
there is even ppl that are annoyed by 72Hz CRT "flickering" (that's 3 times 24...)! I cant even distinguish 60Hz from 72...

juGGaKNot

15th May 2009, 16:49

"you're just missing the definition of "the true hi-def experience". it really means "requiring a bigger hdd""

Tack

15th May 2009, 18:05

This is a 52" 1080p tv.
I played my bluray of The Dark Knight on it, and I found the jerkness of it, to be untolerable
You may be conflating two separate phenomena: inherent 24p flicker, and pulldown judder.

Yes, low framerates exhibit a certain kind of flicker. But, at least to my eyes, the far more annoying cause of jerky video is caused by cadence judder which happens when the display's refresh isn't an integer-multiple of the source framerate.

Many (still most?) TVs accept 24p sources but keep the display refresh at 60Hz, resulting in uneven frame timing. My Pioneer Elite switches the display rate to 72Hz when it receives a 24p input, and the cadence is silky smooth.

During slow pans of high contrast images (e.g. a moving dark-colored foreground against a fixed light-colored background), I do see 24p flicker. It's sometimes quite visible, but my eyes choose this over 3:2 judder any day.

The quality of the display makes a huge difference.

MfA

15th May 2009, 19:42

You are hijacking the term judder there Tack ... the stop motion effect from your eyes locking onto still frames at low refresh rates is what has historically been called judder.

Tack

16th May 2009, 22:43

You are hijacking the term judder there Tack ... the stop motion effect from your eyes locking onto still frames at low refresh rates is what has historically been called judder.
It's not me that's hijacking it. :)

I think the "judder" label can be applied to a few different types of phenomena. The artifact caused by displaying 24p content at 60Hz (undergoing 3:2 pulldown) is almost always called cadence judder, or pulldown judder, in my experience. (See this (http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/solutions-judder-problem/), for example. On avsforum, "cadence judder" is used quite regularly.)

I tend to use the term flicker to describe the inherent low framerate judder problem, another thing I picked up from avsforum. But perhaps it's better to more explicitly use the terms "motion judder" and "cadence judder."

So, since you object to using the term judder in the 24p at 60Hz situation, what term are you familiar with? And [citation needed] :)

CruNcher

17th May 2009, 00:29

I find this a very interesting read i guess what Simps talks about is actually background strobing ?
http://www.poynton.com/papers/Motion_portrayal/index.html

2Bdecided

18th May 2009, 13:12

I think there's something wrong with your TV. I don't see any bad jerkiness for 24fps 1080p content at all, even in TVs without interpolation, and believe me, I've seen a lot of them. You've probably watched too much 60fps content and now the not-so-fluid motion is playing with your eyes a bit.
Yeah, I think Dark Eiri is right. I notice that when I, say, play fast-pace computer games and then watch TV I can see that it's not fluid but after a relatively short amount of time my eyes get adjusted and I don't notice any more.

This is hilarious.

You know the 24p look - the one where there are too few frames per second to fool your brain into thing it's smooth - that's the faulty one!

Maybe if you watch enough 24p you can train your eye to ignore the faults. Just like people listen to vinyl and train themselves to ignore the pops and crackles. Or live in small houses and get used to having no space!

But if you don't listen to vinyl for a month, or don't watch 24p content for a month, guess what? Your brain adapts to "real life" and notices the artifice and faults of the recorded media.

Of course film and video (or 24p and 60p, if you like) are both artificial - but 24p has a very specific fault that you have to train yourself to ignore.

Cheers,
David.

2Bdecided

18th May 2009, 13:26

I find this a very interesting read i guess what Simps talks about is actually background strobing ?
http://www.poynton.com/papers/Motion_portrayal/index.htmlIt's a similar effect, but in simp's example it's not that mechanism. In that background stobing example, your eye doesn't move but the background does. However, in simp's example, the foreground moves, your eye tracks it, but this doesn't produce a single image of the foreground on your retina (where in real life of course, it would).

He discusses the mechanism which makes this look so bad...
http://forum.videohelp.com/images/guides/p1964709/pan.avi
...around figures 19-21 (depending on the display device).

With film, unless you show it with 1 film frame = 1 short display frame (which you never do, because 24 single short images per second would flicker like mad), you get multiple images from each single source image, and a jump when the source frame updates.

The problem with 25p>50p or 24p>60p or 24p>72p (three-bladed projector) is that it's still slow enough to see those individual images - and the underlying problem with 24p is that it's slow enough to see that inter-frame jump, unless you add a horrible amount of motion blur using a very slow shutter. Even then...

Cheers,
David.

MfA

18th May 2009, 14:04

Or you can do like Saving Private Ryan ... high motion, high detail, smooth motion ... pick 2. Picking only the first 2 worked for the movie as an artistic effect, but it would be nice for it to be a choice instead of a mandate from the technology.

2Bdecided

18th May 2009, 17:47

I'm of the opinion that if people in Euro-land are experiencing "jerky" looking 24p moving images, it's most probably because their TV's have 100/200Hz processing enabled :scared:A lot of it is people seeing 3-2 pulldown for the first time - that comes as a shock, especially when you think you've "upgraded" from DVD to BluRay, and everything starts juddering like mad! It's an expensive mistake to buy a TV that won't do 24p - given that 25p/50i have worked together just fine for the best part of a century, it's a shock to realise you need a "special" feature (not available on many earlier HDTVs) to avoid 3-2 judder.

It's nice having audio at the correct speed though.

Cheers,
David.

SeeMoreDigital

18th May 2009, 18:25

A lot of it is people seeing 3-2 pulldown for the first time - that comes as a shock, especially when you think you've "upgraded" from DVD to BluRay, and everything starts juddering like mad! I'm baffled as to why 3:2 pull-down (ie: 29.970-23.976fps) is being accommodated on Blu-ray at-all. Why aren't pure progressive movies authored to disc at 23.976, without pull-down?

2Bdecided

18th May 2009, 18:47

Almost all movies etc are.

But TVs which don't have a 24p mode get sent 60i, even in Europe, hence 3-2.

There's no conversion of 24p to 25p / 50i. There are a few 25p-wrapped-in-50i discs, but these are a minority, even in Europe. They don't play on American players, and most releases use the same encoding (often the same disc) worldwide.

Cheers,
David.

Brazil2

18th May 2009, 20:03

But if you don't listen to vinyl for a month, or don't watch 24p content for a month, guess what? Your brain adapts to "real life" and notices the artifice and faults of the recorded media.
So do you really believe that digital is real life ?
It's not, analog IS real life. Digital always means samples and samples are just a way to cut real life into small pieces with the hope to give back the illusion of real life.

And if you do believe that a CD is more accurate than a vinyl then the marketing has done his job well and you fell into the trap. I'm talking about dynamics and phasis and maybe with 24 bits at 100 kHz we may get close to the original. Maybe.

This is hilarious.
Indeed, it is.
What you want is music and cinema to change because they don't match with the hardware you have bought so music and cinema must be wrong because you have paid so much for that hardware!
Computers and other digital stuff have used us to digital but they are still far from being perfect, at least for a home usage which doesn't use huge amounts of bandwidth and disc space.

SeeMoreDigital

18th May 2009, 20:12

Almost all movies etc are.Hmmm...

If movies on Blu-ray run at 23.976fps, why are people here talking about 3:2 pull-down? There's nothing to pull-down!

TinTime

18th May 2009, 21:29

24p material is flagged for 3:2 pulldown so it can be played back on equipment that only supports 60i. I guess this is probably a blu-ray requirement.

There are always fields to pulldown.

SeeMoreDigital

18th May 2009, 23:59

24p material is flagged for 3:2 pulldown so it can be played back on equipment that only supports 60i. I guess this is probably a blu-ray requirement.

There are always fields to pulldown.So in essence, the Blu-ray disc's are authored to "factor-in" the lowest quality display equipment... rather than designing the players to perform this task!

Jeez... even the (16 year) old VCD disc format was able to puke out progressive frames at 23.976fps, ie: without the need to incorporate pull-down fields. And this was before we had progressive capable TV's!

For sure the displayed image looked crap. But the technology was there!

TinTime

19th May 2009, 00:24

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The video should be 24p but will include pulldown flags so that it can be output from the player at either 24p or 60i.

2Bdecided

19th May 2009, 11:53

So do you really believe that digital is real life ?
It's not, analog IS real life. Digital always means samples and samples are just a way to cut real life into small pieces with the hope to give back the illusion of real life.

And if you do believe that a CD is more accurate than a vinyl then the marketing has done his job well and you fell into the trap. I'm talking about dynamics and phasis and maybe with 24 bits at 100 kHz we may get close to the original. Maybe.
Visit http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/
Vinyl is equivalent to about 14bits 50kHz with huge amounts of distortion and inter-channel break-through.

No one has ever proven they can hear the difference between vinyl, and a CD quality (16-bits 44.1kHz stereo) digital recording of the vinyl.

Some very high profile vinyl fans tried and failed, even when CD was in its infancy...

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

...if you can pass the test with modern equipment, feel free to drop by hydrogen audio and post your results - you'll be the first person to manage it.

What you want is music and cinema to change because they don't match with the hardware you have bought so music and cinema must be wrong because you have paid so much for that hardware!?!

I want more frames per second because 24 isn't enough to adequately represent motion.

I'm in good company...

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=2868&cs=1

(that's James Cameron, the director or "Titanic", championing 48fps).

And don't you find it ironic that you're dismissing digital because it is "just a way to cut real life into small pieces with the hope to give back the illusion of real life" - and yet that's the very problem with film that I'm objecting to - not enough "pieces" (frames!) per second to give the illusion of real life.

btw, if you read and understood sampling theory (Nyquist / Shannon), you'd understand that for a continuous signal like audio, "cut .. into small pieces" means the pieces can be transported perfectly, and put back together perfectly (or as "perfectly" as you want to make the system). There are no gaps!

With film/video and frames per second, sadly there isn't an achievable magic number where the temporal sampling process has no effect - but 24fps has a huge detrimental effect.

Cheers,
David.

P.S. I've paid very little for my video hardware - I'm not a videophile. But I've got a great record player, and thousands of records. CDs are still better. ;)

TinTime

19th May 2009, 15:29

I want more frames per second because 24 isn't enough to adequately represent motion.

At least we're not pigeons (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3634153/Gorillas-can-talk...-and-24-other-QI-facts.html). See fact 17.

And the clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51njbgcr_NU) from Qi :)

MfA

19th May 2009, 17:04

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=2868&cs=1

(that's James Cameron, the director or "Titanic", championing 48fps).
Action movies really suffer most, especially with shaky cam ... take a movie like Transformers, millions of CGI for what? A screen filled with blurry pixels.

reepa

19th May 2009, 19:15

"Sorry, I wasn't clear. The video should be 24p but will include pulldown flags so that it can be output from the player at either 24p or 60i."

I don't think Blu-Ray movies use pull-down flags (rff, tff). See http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=867283 for example.

Inventive Software

19th May 2009, 20:36

A lot of it is people seeing 3-2 pulldown for the first time - that comes as a shock, especially when you think you've "upgraded" from DVD to BluRay, and everything starts juddering like mad! It's an expensive mistake to buy a TV that won't do 24p - given that 25p/50i have worked together just fine for the best part of a century, it's a shock to realise you need a "special" feature (not available on many earlier HDTVs) to avoid 3-2 judder.

It's nice having audio at the correct speed though.

Cheers,
David.

It's why I love living in a PAL land - everything with numbers rounds so much nicer! No pull-down either! :D

Brazil2

19th May 2009, 21:16

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm
...if you can pass the test with modern equipment, feel free to drop by hydrogen audio and post your results - you'll be the first person to manage it.
14 bits is a joke for accurate dynamics, the actual 16 bits srandard is not enough.
I take the challenge but not with a vocalist solo voice only, I want something with dynamics from people who are well known to take a lot of care about audio quality. For instance I would like to do the test with this material:
Pink Floyd - Atom Heart Mother album
Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here album
Frankie Goes to Hollywood - Welcome to the Pleasuredome album
Yes - 90125 album
The Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra - Ludwig van Beethoven Symphony N°5 or N°9 directed by Herbert von Karajan (Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft recording)

Trained ears will definitely detect a difference in dynamics between analog and digital. Non trained ears will 'feel' something different even though they might not be able to tell about what it is. This is inherent to the digital standard as it is nowadays. That's even the reason why CD's sound so 'compressed' compared to the orginal source or are even compressed more on purpose to avoid problems due to digital mastering. Digital does NOT handle clipping at all.

I want more frames per second because 24 isn't enough to adequately represent motion.

I'm in good company...
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=2868&cs=1
(that's James Cameron, the director or "Titanic", championing 48fps).
Guess what, when you're watching a movie in a theater you are in fact seeing 48 FPS, 24 of them being black frames when the shutter of the projector closes down for the film to move. Do you ever notice these black frames ? No you don't which simply proves that 24 FPS are enough.

What Cameron is talking about is Digital 3D. This is not cinema but video. Although I got the idea, for instance Spielberg has done something special in "Saving Private Ryan" with a shorter exposure time than usual to create sharper images on purpose so we can keep them in mind better. At least that was his goal. But this is having side effects during the beach landing of the allied invasion of Normandy scene where the impression of movement is sometimes missing. But this is a director's choice! Other directors may prefer normal exposure time even for films with a lot of action so if you watching at the movie frame by frame you will see that most of them are kind of blurry but you don't notice that blurriness at all at the normal speed.

That's why cinema is still magic, there are no locked rules, you can play with many things like exposure time, lens, aperture, lights etc because films are made and meant to be seen on large screens in theaters whilst in comparison video is much more closed because no film support is used and it's made to be seen on small screens like TV's or monitors, CRT or LCD.
The cinema itself is not to blame, as seen above 24 FPS are enough, again the problem is the port to digital for the screens we are using at home.

And finally video is quite young compared to cinema, and home video even younger. We are able to watch movies on our computers since the mid 90's when 3DFX invented the 3D acceleration and 15 years is still a very young technology. The main problem is stil and ever the port from cinema to digital since the main home usage is based on TV's and it's going to take a loooong time before all TV sets will change from their original standard of 525/625 lines at 59.94 Hz/50 Hz to anything else higher.

So big question: should we kill cinema because a lot of users prefer to watch a DVD/BD at home rather than going to a theater for watching at a real film ? Not to mention that most users of these forums are experienced users with top end hardware but I'm not sure that they really are a representation of the masses of users all over the world.

Audionut

19th May 2009, 21:53

What Cameron is talking about is Digital 3D.

I didn't want to get involved in this conversation, but.

For three-fourths of a century of 2-D cinema, we have grown accustomed to the strobing effect produced by the 24 frame per second display rate.

But 4K doesn't solve the curse of 24 frames per second. In fact it tends to stand in the way of the solutions to that more fundamental problem.

MfA

20th May 2009, 01:21

What Cameron is talking about is Digital 3D. This is not cinema but video.
Haha, a luddite and an elitist ...

By that reasoning hand cranked non-talky black and white movies are real cinema ;) Digital is the future in general and stereoscopic is the future of action movies ... the rest of the world will keep calling it cinema.
But this is a director's choice!
So you are all for choices as long as the choice of 48 fps is denied? :)

TinTime

20th May 2009, 01:27

That's why cinema is still magic, there are no locked rules, you can play with many things like exposure time, lens, aperture, lights etc because films are made and meant to be seen on large screens in theaters whilst in comparison video is much more closed because no film support is used and it's made to be seen on small screens like TV's or monitors, CRT or LCD.

24fps is a locked rule, and one that film-makers routinely have to consider and work around when framing shots.

Now, I sort of agree with you - I'm happy enough with 24fps, although that might be because it's what I'm used to. However I don't think it's reasonable to argue that an improvement to the current standard is a bad thing. That's especially true if the improvement in question is 48fps film and so, by default, contains the 24fps status quo as a sub-set for compatibility. Higher frame rates wouldn't prevent films looking like Saving Private Ryan from being made, but would open up other options.

Higher frame rates wouldn't kill cinema. The absolute worst case scenario is that it would make no difference! The best case scenario is that it presents artists with new possibilities. Where's the harm in that?

Brazil2

20th May 2009, 02:27

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that things shouldn't evolve.
The whole point of this thread is that 24 FPS are not enough, which is clearly not true.

So my point is that 24 FPS are enough for cinema and that the problem is in the hardware we are using at home. The standards we have today like DVD and BD were made thinking of the current existing PAL/SECAM/NTSC TV sets park which is about 1.5 billion all over the world. Big companies are making things for the masses and not for a small elite. And it's going to take ages before this whole TV park will be renewed to something with higher specs.

Maybe a new standard for home video should be created. Why not ? I'm not against that at all. I guess it will happen sooner or later anyway.
But what I still enjoy the most is to go to a theater and watch at a good movie on a 10m wide screen. Nothing at home can replace that. And for some reason, I've never noticed any stuttering in a theater :)

Tack

20th May 2009, 02:33

Guess what, when you're watching a movie in a theater you are in fact seeing 48 FPS, 24 of them being black frames when the shutter of the projector closes down for the film to move.
Actually, theater film projectors flash each frame twice.

(I also wouldn't make any assumptions about the shutter speed being equivalent in duration to when aperture is open.)

MfA

20th May 2009, 02:42

simps

20th May 2009, 02:50

24fps is bad, and not enough for me.
It is the obvious thing to think about it going up in the future.
And when it goes up, people will look back and rate the fact that old movies were 24fps. The same people defending 24fps now, will probably be the ones saying how bad old movies in 24fps look, once fps goes up. And current HD standard bluray is not compliant to some 1080p / 48fps for example. In my opinion they could have predicted it. Anyway...

When you go to cinema, there is a bit of jerkyness there too, but it is not so bad as the jerkness in 1080p bluray @ 24fps at your home.
That is because the cinema image is blurrier compared to 1080p on your HDTV, and also, because of the pixel way of showing the frame, of lcd tvs, with huge contrasts, etc. Cinema is projection, it is not a big lcd tv showing the image.

I had a 1080p HDTV capable of playing true 24fps. TV was 52", and it was a JOKE.
1080p BluRay playing at 24fps on my 52" tv was INSANELY JERKY.

I had to buy a new TV, with interpolation feature, called AMP 120Hz, to make the jerkness go away, of my BluRay.
1080p frames of BluRay are crystal clear and sharp. Add that to the LCD pixel way of showing the frame, and you have a completly different story from what you see on cinema.

Jerkness of 1080p bluray on lcd TV's playing 24fps without any interpolation feature is VERY BAD.
Again, if you are buying a HD TV these days, please, only go for the ones capable of 24fps AND have some interplation tech.
Don't buy 1080p TV's, that can only play real 24fps, but don't have any interpolation feature in it. <--- This is GARBAGE and outdated technology already.

[]'s
Simps

Tack

20th May 2009, 03:09

When you go to cinema, there is a bit of jerkyness there too, but it is not so bad as the jerkness in 1080p bluray @ 24fps at your home.
I emphatically disagree. Obviously this statement is highly subjective, and likely depends significantly on the quality of the display and personal traits.

Although I occasionally observe judder from the low framerate of 24p, by and large it's quite smooth at when viewed at 72Hz. In contrast, I can no longer stand the flicker at movie theaters, and only go for films that I'm too impatient to wait for Bluray.

So, you seem to be predisposed to a sensitivity to low framerate judder, while -- I suspect -- simultaneously viewing 1080p24 content on a low or questionable quality display, and then proceed to espouse such an absolute conviction that 24p content without frame interpolation is garbage, even after several pages on this thread of people who have differing opinions.

You might, perhaps, consider that this topic is highly subjective and stop being so certain about yourself.

simps

20th May 2009, 04:30

My 52" TV was actually high end.
Also, on the store, I compared it to some other more high end stuff, some big tv's from Sony (cost about $5000,00), some badass samsungs at $4000,00 and those were bad too.

Just go to a store and see for yourself. Either the big screen tv has some interpolation feature to make jerkyness go away, or it is just bad.

Just put side by side, a big screen 1080p tv, with and without interpolation playing the same movie (with fast action scenes). You will understand what I am saying.

Been capable of playing true 24fps IS NOT ENOUGH. You want it to play real 24fps AND interpolate to make the jerkness go away. That is the good deal.

There is absolute no way I would recommend a 1080p tv without interpolation to anyone. I won't recommend that, when you have on the market, better TV's with interpolation, and the price is just about the same.

I don't want to watch movies with some crazy jerkyness going on. I just recommend 1080p TV's with interpolation feature, and I won't take my word back on this. I experienced this, and it was a pain for me. Like I said, go to a store and see for yourself. If you don't see a difference, then either your eyes are broken, or my eyes are far too sensitive.

[]'s
Simps

Everyone can have your opinion. I respect it, but respect mine. Just go to a store and see the difference yourself. Big 1080p TV's without interpolation are old technology, and you should avoid it. The difference is HUGE.

SeeMoreDigital

20th May 2009, 09:45

Been capable of playing true 24fps IS NOT ENOUGH. You want it to play real 24fps AND interpolate to make the jerkness go away. That is the good deal.First things first though... As I mentioned earlier:

"How do Blu-ray players puke-out "true" 24p moving images when the (MPEG-2, AVC, VC-1) source video streams are 23.976fps?"

2Bdecided

20th May 2009, 13:15

"How do Blu-ray players puke-out "true" 24p moving images when the (MPEG-2, AVC, VC-1) source video streams are 23.976fps?""Everyone knows" that when they say 24p, they mean 24/1.001.

There are standards with actual true 24p in them, but AFAIK know one is using them.

Cheers,
David.

2Bdecided

20th May 2009, 13:21

Guess what, when you're watching a movie in a theater you are in fact seeing 48 FPS, 24 of them being black frames when the shutter of the projector closes down for the film to move. Do you ever notice these black frames ? No you don't which simply proves that 24 FPS are enough.I'm glad other people stepped in to point out how wrong this is - i.e. double and triple bladed projectors actually giving double and triple images on reasonably fast pans - a very obvious fault.

Oh, and audio bit depth defines the noise floor. Nothing else. It won't squash any dynamics, though ridiculously quiet signals might get lost in the noise. 16-bits put the noise floor ~90dB below peak signal. Vinyl puts it ~70dB at absolute best (and it varies greatly with frequency).

I would like to do the test with this material:
Pink Floyd - Atom Heart Mother album
Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here album
Frankie Goes to Hollywood - Welcome to the Pleasuredome album
Yes - 90125 album
The Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra - Ludwig van Beethoven Symphony N°5 or N°9 directed by Herbert von Karajan (Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft recording)Go ahead - they're all analogue masters that have noise far far higher than the 16-bit noise floor.

Cheers,
David.

foxyshadis

25th May 2009, 01:06

14 bits is a joke for accurate dynamics, the actual 16 bits srandard is not enough.
I take the challenge but not with a vocalist solo voice only, I want something with dynamics from people who are well known to take a lot of care about audio quality. For instance I would like to do the test with this material:
Pink Floyd - Atom Heart Mother album
Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here album
Frankie Goes to Hollywood - Welcome to the Pleasuredome album
Yes - 90125 album
The Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra - Ludwig van Beethoven Symphony N°5 or N°9 directed by Herbert von Karajan (Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft recording)

Trained ears will definitely detect a difference in dynamics between analog and digital. Non trained ears will 'feel' something different even though they might not be able to tell about what it is. This is inherent to the digital standard as it is nowadays. That's even the reason why CD's sound so 'compressed' compared to the orginal source or are even compressed more on purpose to avoid problems due to digital mastering. Digital does NOT handle clipping at all.[/QUOTE]

Analogue doesn't handle clipping either. Ever seen what happens when the signal actually goes off the tape? Horrible distortion, time to recalibrate. Haven't you ever heard a PA system, old amps pushed too hard, or a bad garage band tape recording clipping? None of those are digital. CDs were originally intended to use ~80% of the available range, which is still a nearly equal dynamic range, with the outside being a clipping capture zone, that's why old CDs are quieter. Compression and clipping are inventions of unscrupulous studios who care more about loudness than quality, nothing more, and started even before CDs. What makes you think it's inherent in digital media?

Compressed digital formats are a whole different world, though. You have a great point if you talk about those.

Analogue is just as poor a way to record real life - it doesn't have the true fidelity of the world, it doesn't last (warping, fading, coloration), recording and playing devices are mostly rubbish. The only difference is you trade the artifacts you're used to with for the ones you're not. Fighting digital is quaint; instead, enjoy the best that both have to offer.

Go to hydrogen audio if you honestly believe CDs are incapable of holding a vinyl in full fidelity, they can educate you on ways to proove it to yourself and what equipment to rent that you'll need to perform the test.

buletti

26th May 2009, 23:47

of course, you could shoot digitally with no problems (the RED camera goes up to 180fps in 2k, the Phantom camera goes up to ~6000fps in 1080), but digital removes a lot of options that cinematographers tend to rely on. hopefully soon digital acquisition will mature and it'll become easier to work with. right now it's a real wrestle to get good pictures out of it

http://vimeo.com/4167288 is showing off the incredible temporal and spatial resolution of the SprintCam, but I cannot imagine how to get a film look from such digital high speed cams. Will cinematographers then tend to shoot at max. temporal resolution (coz hard discs are cheap) and try to add the film look later via post processing?

SeeMoreDigital

27th May 2009, 01:49

"Everyone knows" that when they say 24p, they mean 24/1.001.

There are standards with actual true 24p in them, but AFAIK know one is using them.Hmmm....

So if nobody's puking out Blu-ray titles at true film speeds, ie: 24p, what's all the fuss about TV's supporting 24p? Especially when current TV's are perfectly capable at supporting 23.976p.

Further-more, if we're all being encouraged to set our TV's to support 24p when the Blu-ray source is only 23.976, then surely there's going to be a timing conflict...

Plus... Who here likes the idea of having to re-purchase our Blu-rays disc when the genuine "24p" versions are released... Not me... What a con!

scharfis_brain

27th May 2009, 07:56

To be honest, will you ever notice a 0.1% slowdown?
Most people even don't rekognise the 5% speedup of PAL-movies.

Also as I read it from the other thread discussing the video renderer that supports 100% smooth video output without lags,
I understood, that nearly all displays will sync theirselves to the input signal within a certain range.
And 24.000 vs. 23.976 is well within this range.
so 23.976 vs 24.000 is no issue at all. You won't find a display that only supports one of them.

2Bdecided

27th May 2009, 12:32

Hmmm....

So if nobody's puking out Blu-ray titles at true film speeds, ie: 24p, what's all the fuss about TV's supporting 24p? Especially when current TV's are perfectly capable at supporting 23.976p.?!

First generation HDTVs can't support 23.976p. That's the whole point. When they say new TVs support 24p, they mean 23.976p.

The label "24p" isn't there to draw a distinction between 23.976p and 24p.

Cheers,
David.

nuhi

27th May 2009, 21:41

Hi guys,
I made a demo of 60fps clip to a friend of mine so here is the pan video interpolated up to 60fps for those interested to see the difference.

Original (http://forum.videohelp.com/images/guides/p1964709/pan.avi) (link by simps)

60fps convert (http://www.2shared.com/file/5981469/fe9cda12/pan60.html).
It's a free file upload host so it is kinda annoying. It will come up with a link shortly on lower-right labeled:
Save file to your PC: click here

I used one-pass compression just to demonstrate the fluidity so don't focus on compression artifacts. Also you need a reasonably fast computer to have this 60fps playback smoothly otherwise check the statistics for dropped frames if you see it behaving weird.
Codec is x264, interpolator used is MVTools2 through AviSynth.

SeeMoreDigital

28th May 2009, 00:47

First generation HDTVs can't support 23.976p. That's the whole point. When they say new TVs support 24p, they mean 23.976p.

The label "24p" isn't there to draw a distinction between 23.976p and 24p.Eh...

My six year old flat-screen (component/DVI capable) HDTV's is able support 23.976p... With or without pull-down flags. Even my Toshiba CRT TV (from 2001) could support progressive NTSC and PAL DVD sources.

Shinigami-Sama

28th May 2009, 01:18

Toshiba CRT TV (from 2001) could support progressive NTSC and PAL DVD sources.
+1
I've got a toshiba 1080i CRT and it supports 23.967 just fine...
theres even an option to treat as video or film...

pie1394

28th May 2009, 08:03

For the Impulse-type display device like CRT / PDP, it is impossible to do flicking-free display with just 24 Hz scaning / driving rate. 60 / 72 Hz are the most popular options.

Some old CRT HDTVs support the progressive-scan mode especially for FILM type 24 fps contents. To prevent the flicking issue, it often uses 72 Hz frame scanning rate. It is heard that 72 Hz panel driving speed for 24 fps input signals is used by Pioneer Kuro PDP as well. (Regardless 72fps motion frame interpolation on/off for the US models. It is heard that the visual effect is better to turn it off.)

Recently some new PDP TVs can do up to 600 Hz driving. Basically I don't think it is to deal with motion blur issue, but still to get better flicking-free and higher contrast visual effects.

For the recent LCD TV's 200 / 240 Hz products, it is often the 100 / 120 frames with extra 100 / 120 interpolated black or contrast color frames. Never heard there is such powerful video processor which can do 200 / 240 Hz motion estimation in real-time, especially for FullHD resolutioned contents.

Several years agao, some Japanese LCD vendors used the flashing CCFL back-light system to simulate the Impulse-type display for LCD TV. The motion object's visual effect is indeed improved. Yet such display system is diffcult to design, and cost is not cheap to maintain the reasonable reliability.

MfA

28th May 2009, 08:24

As I said in the other thread the 600 Hz for plasmas is not the same as framerate, to get equivalent framerates to a 200 Hz LCD a plasma would need >1600 Hz subfields per second. Also the computation cost for MC framerate conversion does not scale linearly with the output framerate, whether you do conversion to 100/120 Hz or 200/240 Hz framerate you only ever have to do motion estimation for each input frame once.

Anyway the display technology doesn't matter, 24 Hz without interpolation is jerky regardless.

2Bdecided

28th May 2009, 11:05

My six year old flat-screen (component/DVI capable) HDTV's is able support 23.976p... With or without pull-down flags. Even my Toshiba CRT TV (from 2001) could support progressive NTSC and PAL DVD sources.You may have a rare beast, or else you may be mistaken.

e.g. you talk about progressive DVD sources. We all know how to encode that content onto a disc - but I'm not aware of an SD 24p analogue connection. Of course 25p-in-50i is ubiquitous, and most flat screen TVs will recover the 25p; 24p-in-60i is common, and many flat screen TVs (also some CRTs) will recover the 24p - but that's different to supporting native 24p.

Cheers,
David.

SeeMoreDigital

28th May 2009, 15:25

You may have a rare beast, or else you may be mistaken.

e.g. you talk about progressive DVD sources. We all know how to encode that content onto a disc - but I'm not aware of an SD 24p analogue connection. Of course 25p-in-50i is ubiquitous, and most flat screen TVs will recover the 25p; 24p-in-60i is common, and many flat screen TVs (also some CRTs) will recover the 24p - but that's different to supporting native 24p.To confirm, I'm referring to the playback of 23.976fps progressive sources, not 24.000fps.

In the days when I had a Sigma Xcard hooked up to my Toshiba TV via (analogue Y-Pb-Pr) component, I would remove the pull-down from NTSC (movie) DVD's, amend the MPEG-2 streams "Picture Coding" and "Sequence" extensions. Then mux the 6Ch AC3 audio and 23.976p MPEG-2 video streams into the .MPG container.

Playback via the Xcard was perfect. The Toshiba was even able to confirm it was receiving a "progressive" signal. DVD players that supported .MPG files burned to disc could also pump out progressive signals at 23.976p via component.

TinTime

28th May 2009, 17:56

There are plenty of displays out there that won't accept a 24p signal at all, and plenty more that will accept 24p and then convert it to 60p prior to display. This was particularly true of LCD, Plasma, DLP and so on. Perhaps CRT is a bit more flexible.

So it's good that manufacturers are finally realising that accepting a 24p signal and displaying it at a multiple of 24 refresh rate is desirable.

thewebchat

9th June 2009, 07:11

You know, I find it odd that everyone here is talking about high framerates like 120fps and "6000fps red1" from back in page 2 when cartoons are drawn at about 8fps and don't look particularly jerky.

bob0r

9th June 2009, 09:57

@simps

I have
http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/detail/spec.do?group=television&type=television&subtype=tftlcd&model_cd=LE52A656A1FXXU&fullspec=F
and i turned OFF all useless noise and motion features.
That way the video is nice and clean.

Using MPC-HC to play x264 hdtv encodes... and totalmedia theatre to play blu-ray discs, all via a computer.

I am not using any reclock or other filters, just DVI>HDMI works perfect, no tearing or other weirdness.

2Bdecided

11th June 2009, 13:52

To confirm, I'm referring to the playback of 23.976fps progressive sources, not 24.000fps.

In the days when I had a Sigma Xcard hooked up to my Toshiba TV via (analogue Y-Pb-Pr) component, I would remove the pull-down from NTSC (movie) DVD's, amend the MPEG-2 streams "Picture Coding" and "Sequence" extensions. Then mux the 6Ch AC3 audio and 23.976p MPEG-2 video streams into the .MPG container.

Playback via the Xcard was perfect. The Toshiba was even able to confirm it was receiving a "progressive" signal. DVD players that supported .MPG files burned to disc could also pump out progressive signals at 23.976p via component.
That doesn't prove it was sent as SD (ED) 24p via analogue (Y Pr Pb) component - mainly because no such standard exists. 50p and 60p are your choices. Standard "Progressive" SD DVD players are outputting one of these.

AFAIK!

You can prove me wrong by pointing to the ITU, SMPTE, or CEA standard that defines an SD 24p analogue component interface.

Cheers,
David.

SeeMoreDigital

11th June 2009, 20:12

You can prove me wrong by pointing to the ITU, SMPTE, or CEA standard that defines an SD 24p analogue component interface.I'm confused...

Why do you keep referring to 24p, when I'm talking about playback of 23.976p?

2Bdecided

11th June 2009, 22:01

I'm confused why you think it matters which I'm talking about! ;)

Neither exists as an analogue SD standard.

Cheers,
David.

BassPig

26th June 2009, 21:45

I shoot exclusively in 24P on CineAlta iron these days, because of Blu-ray. If on a contract to shoot for television, I may shoot 30P or 60P, but never 60i.

My observations about frame judder: It's most noticeable on slow pans, when the shutter angle is 90º or narrower and the frame is brightly-lit. Sharp detail in the frame makes it more prevalent.
Minimizing frame judder is the responsibility of skilled cinematographers. Slowing the shutter speed is one way, by blurring the motion, we have a form of interpolation. Slowing the pan rate is considered the correct way. Pans of 160º should take at least 20 seconds. Faster panning results in too much position change interframe, and is seen as judder.
With high action and a static camera position, perpendicular shooting is a poor choice. Shooting at an oblique angle reduces relative speed of the subject vs. the camera position (geometry and algebra at work) and hence the judder is less perceived.

So we have sharpness or acuity of the image, brightness, shutter speed (affects acuity) as three major factors that affect how severely we perceive judder. I should add that the larger an area of vision your screen subtends, the more that judder is going to bother you. Sitting close to a large screen with judder motion can actually give one a headache!

On films of late, I am observing a lot more rule-breaking with regard to pans. Plus there is this new phenomena of hand-held, very shaky camera handling. The best directors are careful to use static shots most of the time, avoid zooms, and pan only judiciously and when it's essential for story-telling.

I find that 'soft' footage is less objectionable with judder, because it's got less of the hard edges to attract the eye with motion. When shooting very high resolution formats, and where a large amount of unsharp masking is done to the final process, the resulting footage will be unforgiving to improper panning/zooming/position relative to moving objects (such as trains).

24fps can look good, if you shoot it right. It's not easy to shoot correctly for 24P. It was even harder back in the 16fps days.
Back in the '60s when I had my Bolex H8, I had the ability to shoot in 12,16,18,24,32,48 & 64 fps. 16 was the usual rate, as film was expensive and for most uses, it seemed adequate. The next model up, the Bolex H16, could shoot as low as 8fps. Think of the judder there! So for me, 24fps seems quite enough if you shoot with the proper techniques.

The unfortunate thing is that Hollywood and many 'indie' filmmakers are forgetting/do not understand the physical rules of working with 24fps photography, so they shoot fast & wrecklessly and the result is a lot of film that looks bad, necessitating the need for set makers to come up with bandaids for the problem that consumers well notice, such as these 120Hz TVs.

MfA

26th June 2009, 22:32

You say shooting right, I say limiting your expressive options.

I see Sony's new projectors can do 60P (at 2x2K simultaneous stereo at that). They should see if they can sweet talk Cameron into doing parts of Battle Angel in 60P, would be perfect for it.

BassPig

27th June 2009, 04:06

While I think it's great to have technology that can do higher frame rates, I also realize that bad camera work can drive an audience right out of the Theater. I remember back some 35 years ago, I went to see a screening of "The French Connection"... the cinematography was so jerky and frenetic (spastic might be a more accurate word here) that I walked out halfway through the movie. Shaking the camera around like that is like taking the viewer's head and shaking it around. I don't know anyone who likes that sort of experience in a theater or at home on Blu-ray.

Mug Funky

8th July 2009, 05:31

michael bay anyone? (btw, "spastic" typically means very limited movement, rather than too much of it)

i think it's important to at least know the rules, but i haven't got a problem with them being broken. otherwise cinematography becomes very dry, austere and boring (i remember a feature a couple of years ago where i'm not sure if the camera moved at all within a shot for the entire film... let's just say i wont be re-watching it).

costs are faaaaar too prohibitive to get into higher framerates in cinemas, but as film is slowly abandoned as an acquisition media, and more importantly as a release media, we'll probably see the framerates increase. imagine making release prints for a worldwide release at 60fps! why do you think nobody shoots 70mm anymore except for imax? it's just tooo much celluloid and each print costs more than the best of all domestic TVs.

all we need now is for digital acquisition to suck a little less. i had an idea for "re-usable" film that was photoelectric rather than photochemical, but i'm not sure it's physically possible in colour, and don't have the maths, time or resources to develop the idea...

BassPig

8th July 2009, 07:34

There are commonly-understood (almost common sense) ground rules for cinematography, and I do realize creativity when I see it, but a lot of the movies of late are just badly-shot. I think if you have a good story to tell, and the screenplay is written well, with careful and meaningful camera moves, not just movement for movement's sake, but to draw attention to a shift in the subject, etc., then it will be successful.

Today's audience is about special FX, rather than content. Even in TV, you see interview/talk shows shot with cameras that are moving slowly on tracks the whole time. Somehow the networks feel that the content is too boring to watch, so generate some artificial motion to make up for the lack of real content.

Almost fifty years ago, I remember watching Mike Wallace and David Susskind and other interview shows. They were interesting because of the quality of ideas being discussed. The cinematography was simple. A static camera. Blackout background. Two chairs illuminated by a spotlight. Most of the frame was dark, but for the faces of the interviewer/ee. And we watched because it was CONTENT that kepts us focused, not jerky camera motion.

I miss the wide vistas and gentle, sweeping pans of the old films like Gone with the Wind. Dialog shots where camera movement was not obvious, but effective. Back in the late 1930s, we broadcast engineers had a maxim: "Are mechanical operations apparent?" The point was, we, as broadcasters, had to operate our facilities smoothly, with no dead air, no clicks, pops or buzzes, and present programming seamlessly, so that the audience never thought about the mechanics of radio, but about the content we were broadcasting. Back then it was radio plays during most of the day. NBC had a full orchestra in the studio for background music, as needed, during each radio drama. Everyone knew their job and exactly when to do it. And the show went smoothly.

Today, there seems to be a carelessness to the presentation. Radio is no more than music on hard drive. Gone is the art of presentation. Film alike, has gone south. Very few directors have the vision to enhance story telling via camera angles, editing, use of track and dolly and zoom effects. It seems like all the good ideas in cinema techniques have already been discovered in the days of Alfred Hitchcock.

I'm inclined to believe the antithesis of your tagline: noise is the new signal.

JohannesL

24th July 2009, 18:04

I agree about the FPS issue. I play a lot of 60 fps video games, and the transition to watching 24 fps movies is really horrible, even on DVDs. I've seen these interpolation TVs in hardware stores, and the difference in smoothness is really huge. My next TV will without a single doubt have interpolation.

MfA

25th July 2009, 03:17

all we need now is for digital acquisition to suck a little less. i had an idea for "re-usable" film that was photoelectric rather than photochemical, but i'm not sure it's physically possible in colour, and don't have the maths, time or resources to develop the idea...
If it's panchromatic you can just put a CFA in front. Although I must say I have my doubts about stability, dark currents will eat away the image if you leave such a film alone for too long. Digital goes too fast anyway ... in 2 more process shrink cycles I doubt either sensors, storage or wireless transfer be too much of a problem anymore for 60 Hz 4K, and I doubt a new film format could be commercialized any faster than that.

Unless patents grind everything down to a halt.

adam.fred

7th August 2009, 06:52

Ghitulescu

7th August 2009, 08:37

The argument that a cinematographer should just use "tricks" for the next 50 years instead of taking advantage of new technology is just backwards thinking. There is no reasonable argument against improving framerates. Even when we have 60P/100P/120P cinema the film maker can emulate 24P (or 1P if they like for the ultimate in the dreamiest of dreamlike stories) whenever they feel the need to do so.

Guess what oldies ... young people don't like 24P.

Improving (raising?) the fps from 24 to 60p will not make the original cinematographic records look better (you can however employ some tricks, like intelligent frame creation), it was a nonsense promulgated some years ago by some LCD manufacturers, since their technology was back then not capable of displaying 24p.

Definitively, a native 60p (or 50p) is far more realistic than 24p, but if I'm recollecting well this issue, the BD standard does not allow FullHD 1080 at 50p or 60p, just interlaced.

On the other hand, video was and still is a matter of trade off. I do not mind to see PAL 50i, but I hate to see "green" people because of tint problems of NTSC. I know Americans that are disappointed about the lack of fluidity of the action (sports mainly) but they don't care about the colors. Some people are concerned about the video artefacts the MPEG-2 compression has (on eg a commercial movie) - this doesn't prevent some of them to sweet the pill by converting it to divx/xdiv, at least it has 1/5th of the size.

I went yesteday in a very big audio/video store to find a BD movie, as a gift. All new movies are nothing else than a collage of violence and FXs (and falsificated history and other facts, like the Italian Cinema Collosal of the '60ies), the good old ones are still high-priced (like 30€ apiece, which is a lot considering the fact that they have been sold 3x by now: as 16mm, VHS and DVD) and most of them I already have. It will bring nothing important to me at higher resolution (the resolution is linked to the display size), at least not at 30€.

We came back to the philosophy of the early pioneers, shot the movie, then forget it and shot another story.