View Full Version : Current HD standard is a FAIL
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
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.
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 $3000,00.
If HD standards were compliant with some progressive frames up to 60FPS (meaning compliant with 2.5 more of the bitrate it is capable now), then you would be fine with it. Just some firmware update and you are ready for the future. But it is not the case, and that is where it fails. It is obvious that 24FPS will change in future, and current HD just fail to keep track of that.
Just do the math, current HD can't handle more then 50Mbits/s, and current 1080p movies are already reaching 40Mbits/s or so. Now if you change 24FPS to 48FPS for example, you would need 80Mbits/s and current HD is just not compliant with that. If you think about 60FPS then things are even worst.
If the current HD hardware were compliant to some 120Mbits/s, then a simple firmware update would get you ready for the future. And the limitations are more into the optical tech then the processing power. In the end, the optical media was just a bad choice, and this is one of the reasons you won't be able to fix the problem with current HD standards. More processing power is easier to solve, just set some 3.0 blue-ray players with more processing power in it (your old generation blue-ray player would still become a door-stop LOL). But the optical tech is what slows current HD standards down.
Indeed, IF cinema starts using 60 fps cameras...
Of course, if it did, you would have to change each projector of each cinemas in order to show them. Cinemas that, just recently, undertook to switch to numeric.
BTW, you don't complain about your 3000$ 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.
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, 13:11
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.A Core 2 Quad can handle 1080p60 and costs far less than $3000.The only way to do it, is to lower every frame quality, but that is not a solution.Good thing Blu-ray discs provide 3-5x the bitrate necessary, leaving us plenty of extra room then, right?
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, 13:45
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, 16:25
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.
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
4th May 2009, 23:15
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, 02:11
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, 02:24
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!!!
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.
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, 08:57
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, 09:08
... 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:
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, 09:43
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, 10:16
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, 10:29
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....
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, 15:07
;)
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.
Gents, I've deleted some posts that violated rules 4 and 11. This is not Comedy Central. Please trade jokes using PM. Thank you.
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, 16:44
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, 18:45
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
It should help greatly! In my opinion, its a vital feature (different brands, different names) on the larger LCD screens.
CruNcher
5th May 2009, 19:18
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, 20:14
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, 20:36
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".
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
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, 01:13
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, 02:59
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, 04:19
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, 08:10
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).
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, 13:47
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, 14:18
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, 17:34
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, 19:59
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.
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...
CruNcher
6th May 2009, 22:53
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, 02:02
Would it be possible to make high-def CRT ??
Sagekilla
7th May 2009, 03:07
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.
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
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, 14:24
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.
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, 19:40
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, 19:56
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
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.