Current HD standard is a FAIL

[Manao]

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]

Hmm... an interesting point.

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

~MiSfit

[Sagekilla]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[simps]

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

[Guest]

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

[Sharktooth]

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

[2Bdecided]

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.

[Guest]

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

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

[2Bdecided]

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]

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

[Guest]

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]

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]

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]

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

As you say, there are far worse.

Cheers,
David.

[Guest]

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]

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.

[Astrophizz]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Tack]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.