1080p 24 Rant

[Dezoris]

You are not an enthusiast if you think 1080p/24 is not a big deal in the HD movie world.

And before you go off typing that I am elitist here is why.
First, its not because 1080p/24 is awesome and looks better.


3 Parts



Part 1
1080p/60
It seems many people are missing the point of 1080p.
BluRay(HDDVD) and gaming systems/computers.
If you don't have those devices then you don't need a 1080p native display.

Part 2
1080p/24

The reason the 24 is important is because when the movie is filmed almost always they shoot the movie in 24 frames per second using 1/48 shutter speeds. Its often what gives film that look and feel.

This is hard to understand even for AV people it seems unless you have worked with shooting video. I have had the chance to do many short films shooting in 24p 1/48. It requires great care to shoot this way, and alters the way most everything is filmed. And for some of these so called audiophiles and videophiles even on Audioholics to ignore it like it does not matter shows either lack of understanding or interest in it.

So bottom line is they have a way to include that frame rate into the BluRays you want a display to show it properly and most 1080p displays don't do it right.


Part 3

The List (Audioholics Staff get on this)
And its not easy to find a list of displays that show 24p properly.
I don't visit AVS but its the only list I could find for 1080p/24 displays.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...php?p=13167876

 

[MDS]

I wouldn't say your rant about 1080p/24 makes you elitist. Instead I'd say you've formed an opinion about things and convinced yourself that others just don't get it. But your points aren't entirely accurate.

Part 1: If you don't have a player capable of 1080p/24 output you don't need a 1080p display. This is entirely false. What happens when resolutions get even greater in the future? The more pixels you have the sharper the image if the video processing is done correctly. It's like saying you don't need 1600 x 1200 resolution on your computer monitor.

Part 2: 24 fps is historical and not some magic number that makes everything perfect. That's changing too with the advent of high resolution video cameras instead of film.

Part 3: More and more displays are starting to accept 24 Hz input simply because it is the prevalent format for film. But TVs operate at 60 Hz or more recently 120 Hz so no matter what a conversion from 24 Hz to 60 Hz (3:2 pulldown) or 120 Hz (5:5 pulldown or 3:2 followed by frame interpolation to double the frame rate) must be done. Why not change film to capture images at a higher frame rate rather than require displays to perform all kinds of convoluted tricks to convert a low frame rate of 24 Hz to 60 Hz or greater?

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
Part 2: 24 fps is historical and not some magic number that makes everything perfect. That's changing too with the advent of high resolution video cameras instead of film.

In fact, 24 frames today with fast motion movie content is totally insufficient. Too much motion in between frames is missed and you get a natural smear on film.
Video cameras record 60 frames at sport events. When film becomes a thing of the past, higher rates will dominate.

...Why not change film to capture images at a higher frame rate rather than require displays to perform all kinds of convoluted tricks to convert a low frame rate of 24 Hz to 60 Hz or greater?

Yes, that would be nice New technology to have variable frame rates so it can accommodate the old format, increased cost of film for sure, and all those existing film projectors would need replacing just at the dawn of digital conversion. Maybe when digital takes over, this will be a thing of the past.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...The reason the 24 is important is because when the movie is filmed almost always they shoot the movie in 24 frames per second using 1/48 shutter speeds. Its often what gives film that look and feel.

What feel would that be?
That rate is what we are stuck with since the dawn of motion pictures. Not because that is all the frame rate that is needed

 

[MDS]

In fact, 24 frames today with fast motion movie content is totally insufficient. Too much motion in between frames is missed and you get a natural smear on film.
Video cameras record 60 frames at sport events. When film becomes a thing of the past, higher rates will dominate.

I agree but you know when you read about things like 120 Hz 'Clear Frame' with 'Film Stabilization' (Toshiba terms but every other manufacturer offers something similar), a lot of people say they don't care for the effect because it looks too much 'like video'. The reality is that people have become accustomed to film because it dominates the field and when anything changes it somewhat their natural inclination is to say it doesn't look natural. How many people will take an honest approach to it and say that the original film presentation at too low a frame rate is what looks unnatural?

When you are used to a certain presentation, anything that differs is deemed unnatural when very little consideration is given to the fact that we are used to is what is unnatural and not necessarily the new and improved approach.

 

[Midcow2]

Times they is a chang'n

In fact, 24 frames today with fast motion movie content is totally insufficient. Too much motion in between frames is missed and you get a natural smear on film.
Video cameras record 60 frames at sport events. When film becomes a thing of the past, higher rates will dominate.

Does that mean I will have to get some new video drivers for my 48K Atari 800 PC ? Can I retire my 2 transister radio yet? Or my 8-track tapes?

 

[gliz]

the human eye can only detect so much

good article here, I think that it is all just bragging rights

http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/0807061080iv1080p/

 

[Dezoris]

Part 1: If you don't have a player capable of 1080p/24 output you don't need a 1080p display. This is entirely false. What happens when resolutions get even greater in the future? The more pixels you have the sharper the image if the video processing is done correctly. It's like saying you don't need 1600 x 1200 resolution on your computer monitor.

Part 2: 24 fps is historical and not some magic number that makes everything perfect. That's changing too with the advent of high resolution video cameras instead of film.

Part 3: More and more displays are starting to accept 24 Hz input simply because it is the prevalent format for film. But TVs operate at 60 Hz or more recently 120 Hz so no matter what a conversion from 24 Hz to 60 Hz (3:2 pulldown) or 120 Hz (5:5 pulldown or 3:2 followed by frame interpolation to double the frame rate) must be done. Why not change film to capture images at a higher frame rate rather than require displays to perform all kinds of convoluted tricks to convert a low frame rate of 24 Hz to 60 Hz or greater?

To clarify I stated if you don't have source material outputting 1080p like a PC, Game system or BluRay there is no point of having a 1080p set.

Secondly, the point of this was to say almost all TVs don't display the 1080p 24 signal without pulldown which negates the point of it 1080p/24.

And finding a display that does not do a conversion process is difficult.

And to address the digital HD cameras? All filmakers still shoot in 24fps and 1/48-1/60 regardless if it is digital or film and this will not change.
And the reason it is that way is because its the standard in film making and always has been. Shooting at 60 frames has a very different feel.

In fact, 24 frames today with fast motion movie content is totally insufficient. Too much motion in between frames is missed and you get a natural smear on film.
Video cameras record 60 frames at sport events. When film becomes a thing of the past, higher rates will dominate.


Yes, that would be nice New technology to have variable frame rates so it can accommodate the old format, increased cost of film for sure, and all those existing film projectors would need replacing just at the dawn of digital conversion. Maybe when digital takes over, this will be a thing of the past.

Regardless if it is digital or film shooting in 24frames is still done.
Fast motion sequences are filmed at higher frame rates by necessity but the end product remains in 24FPS.

Again this highlights a big misunderstanding AV people have about shooting movies whether it is digital or film, 24FPS is not something tied to "film" its tied to film making which is not going to change.

In fact this is one of the biggest concerns of film makers switching to digital, aside from optics is how the 24p modes function and how it captures the look of film.

 

[Dezoris]

the human eye can only detect so much

good article here, I think that it is all just bragging rights

http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/0807061080iv1080p/

Thats a good crash course.
But my thread is not about how 1080p is better than 1080i.

Its about the misconception of why 1080p/24 is important for watching movies.
And it seems like even enthusiasts barely understands the importance of it and why you need a player to output 1080p/24 and a TV to display it without molesting the signal.

 

[gliz]

Thats a good crash course.
But my thread is not about how 1080p is better than 1080i.

Its about the misconception of why 1080p/24 is important for watching movies.
And it seems like even enthusiasts barely understands the importance of it and why you need a player to output 1080p/24 and a TV to display it without molesting the signal.

it is always best to keep a signal in its native format but if you can truly tell the diffeence give the same display just 1080I vs 1080/24 then you have above avrage eyesight, way above avrage. while i agree with you I still don't think that it is that big of a deal.

 

[obscbyclouds]

IMO, it's ludicrous that film makers are still shooting in 24 fps.

Why don't they go back to black and white, cause it's got that "film feel"?

Ridiculous.

 

[gliz]

just read this article it is pretty good. Our ears and eyes have limits to what they can and cannot distinguish and at some point as home theater buffs we must coside this point and relies that, once we get to a certain point, it is just numbers and has surpassed our body's ability to really be that differenthttp://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

 

[satish536]

the human eye can only detect so much

good article here, I think that it is all just bragging rights

http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/0807061080iv1080p/

Great read, very informative..

After a read i figured out the Panasonic AE2000 im considering buying has 96hz refresh rate that means it would use 4:4 conversion of 24fps sources.

 

[Dezoris]

IMO, it's ludicrous that film makers are still shooting in 24 fps.

Why don't they go back to black and white, cause it's got that "film feel"?

Ridiculous.

Its not ridiculous. If you actually sat behind a camera to film something in 24p vs. 60i the differences are VERY obvious.

Its not about picture quality it is about smoothness. 24 frames at 1/48 has a special feel and atmosphere that is just not there when shooting at 60i.

You have to work with the equipment to understand why.
If you would like I can post up a sequence in 60i and then the same sequence shot in 24p?

 

[obscbyclouds]

You have to work with the equipment to understand why.
If you would like I can post up a sequence in 60i and then the same sequence shot in 24p?

please do, i'd be interested to see.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I agree but you know when you read about things like 120 Hz 'Clear Frame' with 'Film Stabilization' (Toshiba terms but every other manufacturer offers something similar), a lot of people say they don't care for the effect because it looks too much 'like video'. The reality is that people have become accustomed to film because it dominates the field and when anything changes it somewhat their natural inclination is to say it doesn't look natural. How many people will take an honest approach to it and say that the original film presentation at too low a frame rate is what looks unnatural?

When you are used to a certain presentation, anything that differs is deemed unnatural when very little consideration is given to the fact that we are used to is what is unnatural and not necessarily the new and improved approach.

Yep, could not have said it better

 

[mtrycrafts]

Does that mean I will have to get some new video drivers for my 48K Atari 800 PC ? Can I retire my 2 transister radio yet? Or my 8-track tapes?

No, not at all. Retire them when it cannot be fixed LOL

 

[mtrycrafts]

the human eye can only detect so much

good article here, I think that it is all just bragging rights

http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymorrison/0807061080iv1080p/

Yes, but TVs use the 60 rate because they are married to that 60Hz synchronization of the line frequency. Places with 50Hz, that is their refresh rate.
Once digital dominates, I believe they can do away and use what is needed.

 

[mtrycrafts]

To clarify I stated if you don't have source material outputting 1080p like a PC, Game system or BluRay there is no point of having a 1080p set.

Secondly, the point of this was to say almost all TVs don't display the 1080p 24 signal without pulldown which negates the point of it 1080p/24.

And finding a display that does not do a conversion process is difficult.

And to address the digital HD cameras? All filmakers still shoot in 24fps and 1/48-1/60 regardless if it is digital or film and this will not change.
And the reason it is that way is because its the standard in film making and always has been. Shooting at 60 frames has a very different feel.




Regardless if it is digital or film shooting in 24frames is still done.
Fast motion sequences are filmed at higher frame rates by necessity but the end product remains in 24FPS.

Again this highlights a big misunderstanding AV people have about shooting movies whether it is digital or film, 24FPS is not something tied to "film" its tied to film making which is not going to change.

In fact this is one of the biggest concerns of film makers switching to digital, aside from optics is how the 24p modes function and how it captures the look of film.

24 frames is standard because that is what was available or for whatever reason decided on in the beginning. Does that mean that they cannot change? And how is the higher frame rate differ from the 24 frames? How is that not 'film' like? Looks more real life? Something we are not used to see in theaters? Things change. After all, we now have music on flash cards and in digital format, got away from the vinyl and we got used to it

 

[mtrycrafts]

... once we get to a certain point, it is just numbers and has surpassed our body's ability to really be that different...

Yes, and that number is?