Forum Jump: 
 30Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 62 Old 10-13-2014, 07:18 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
mark haflich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Venice, Florida, USA
Posts: 21,464
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1418 Post(s)
Liked: 1013
Lots of questions here Scott, some of which you might possibly be able to answer and many than that only a film expert could answer. Sounds like a fine topic for a geek show. Question is, who would be the right expert?
Reddig likes this.
mark haflich is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 62 Old 10-13-2014, 08:12 PM
Member
 
hanshotfirst1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Hey, I'm weeping because I'm still hung up on the mystique of 24 FPS celluloid projection and the death of film . Some of us nostalgic folks resist progress .

In all seriousness. I think the issue with this is going to be distribution, particularly home viewing; look at the problems which occasionally happen with 25 FPS European productions. Can Blu handle anything above 24 FPS without using interlacing? Its easy to forget that the transition to digital crippled many cinemas and was still fairly recent. Lots of multiplex chains may be able to handle the shiny new tech, but it might be harder once you get farther down the food chain.

That said, this obviously an exciting development, and the big question is, "what next?" Jackson's experiments on the latest trilogy or the inevitability of Cameron doing it aside, who's going to use this to rise above gimmickry? I freely admit that I have no use at all for 3-D, and that's predominantly what this has been connected to so far. That said, I'm sure it'll happen soon, and I admit I'm curious to see who'll find a way to use it as an artistic tool rather than a box office conceit. All of this new technology, HFR, HDR, etc may be sad for film traditionalists, but it's pretty exciting for aspiring filmmakers, distributors, consumers, and many others. We live in an amazing time. And amazing to hear about Trumball, still an innovator and explorer after all these years. My hat is off to him. What a legend. And based on what I heard when he was interviewed on the BBC, he's the nicest guy too .
Reddig likes this.
hanshotfirst1138 is offline  
post #33 of 62 Old 10-13-2014, 10:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,945
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1026 Post(s)
Liked: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138 View Post
Can Blu handle anything above 24 FPS without using interlacing?
the blu spec can only do 1080i25. but this is no issue because 25p in 25i is PsF technical 2:2 cadence so it can be played progressive and with a not to totally bad deinterlacer it doesn't get any interlacing artefacts because it does a field matching and is just repeating the frames to 50 fps.
mightyhuhn is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 62 Old 10-14-2014, 07:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,198
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 743 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post
Even HBO and Netflix must consider international syndication value. Any content owner does. HBO in particular is highly quality conscious. And they often release their "made for HBO movies" on DVD and BluRay. They aren't going to want a 625/50i or 1080i/50 version full of conversion artifacts. Using 24P avoids this problem.
Of course they do, but they don't have to follow anyone else's rules for doing so. I think they are looking for a certain look more than anything, and it fits well with their content, given that they often make TV shows with movie-level production value. Silicon Valley last season blew me away by how it looked better than many movies I've seen.
BiggAW is online now  
post #35 of 62 Old 10-14-2014, 07:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Reddig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Central U.S.
Posts: 2,493
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Liked: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138 View Post
Hey, I'm weeping because I'm still hung up on the mystique of 24 FPS celluloid projection and the death of film . Some of us nostalgic folks resist progress .

In all seriousness. I think the issue with this is going to be distribution, particularly home viewing; look at the problems which occasionally happen with 25 FPS European productions. Can Blu handle anything above 24 FPS without using interlacing? Its easy to forget that the transition to digital crippled many cinemas and was still fairly recent. Lots of multiplex chains may be able to handle the shiny new tech, but it might be harder once you get farther down the food chain.

That said, this obviously an exciting development, and the big question is, "what next?" Jackson's experiments on the latest trilogy or the inevitability of Cameron doing it aside, who's going to use this to rise above gimmickry? I freely admit that I have no use at all for 3-D, and that's predominantly what this has been connected to so far. That said, I'm sure it'll happen soon, and I admit I'm curious to see who'll find a way to use it as an artistic tool rather than a box office conceit. All of this new technology, HFR, HDR, etc may be sad for film traditionalists, but it's pretty exciting for aspiring filmmakers, distributors, consumers, and many others. We live in an amazing time. And amazing to hear about Trumball, still an innovator and explorer after all these years. My hat is off to him. What a legend. And based on what I heard when he was interviewed on the BBC, he's the nicest guy too .
+ 1

Although I do enjoy 3D when it is done correctly and of sufficent brightness.

JBL Pro Cinema/JTR/Sony/Denon/Oppo/Elite Screens/Furman/Seatcraft/Acoustimac/AudioQuest
Reddig is offline  
post #36 of 62 Old 10-15-2014, 02:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
RSF_LA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post
The use of 24 frame video actually goes back to the early 1990s for home video mastering.
Randy Blim's LA based Pacific Video truck in the 1970s was capable of 24 fps video at 655 lines. The truck was equipped with RCA TK44s and TR70 quad tape machines. He was instrumental in helping develop 24p video at Laser Pacific.
RSF_LA is offline  
post #37 of 62 Old 10-15-2014, 07:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 9,004
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 962 Post(s)
Liked: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by RSF_LA View Post
Randy Blim's LA based Pacific Video truck in the 1970s was capable of 24 fps video at 655 lines. The truck was equipped with RCA TK44s and TR70 quad tape machines. He was instrumental in helping develop 24p video at Laser Pacific.
Absolutely!

I worked for Randy for some years as was privileged to be part of that 24P team back in 1999.
Glimmie is offline  
post #38 of 62 Old 10-17-2014, 03:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 445 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyhuhn View Post
the blu spec can only do 1080i25. but this is no issue because 25p in 25i is PsF technical 2:2 cadence so it can be played progressive and with a not to totally bad deinterlacer it doesn't get any interlacing artefacts because it does a field matching and is just repeating the frames to 50 fps.
and 1080i30, 720p50, 720p60 and next year probably up to 2160p60.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #39 of 62 Old 10-17-2014, 07:06 PM
Member
 
rf75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WNY
Posts: 164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Not all eyes are the same

Some of us are far more sensitive to flicker than others. Classic ballast fluorescents almost always have flicker that annoys me. 25Hz TV in Europe I find hard to watch (classic CRT, not current scan doubled LCDs etc). Film judder is very annoying, detracting from the feeling of watching something lifelike and reminding me of the limitations of the medium. I think this is what the 24 frame fans like, the knowledge that they are watching film is reinforced by the judder. Certainly, to each his own. My Sammy LCD is set to 120hz with medium interpolation and I love it. Seeing old filmed shows with smoothed motion brings them more to life. I loved the HFR 70mm (and bigger) IMAX of the olden days, though not too many venues were around to show it. The IMAX of today is a pale imitation.
rf75 is offline  
post #40 of 62 Old 10-18-2014, 10:06 PM
Member
 
BlackoutsBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I did my thesis paper on this and have spoken and written about it many times.

There is indeed something magic about 24fps and I think it was proven by the absolute failure of HFR of the Hobbit. The audience hated it.

Now I'm not going to write my entire thesis here but it basically boils down to what many others have mentions. 24fps (and it doesn't have to be exactly 24fps but around there... 18 to 30 max.... at 30 it starts to have issues.)

24fps with a 180 shutter gives just the right amount of the continuity of movement and motion blur to make films look more realistic by looking less like real life. When you watch a film at 60fps it looks like you are watching the "making of the film" You can see too much detail and the costumes look fake, the sets look like sets, the actors like actors, and it just does have that look of news and sports that kills
suspension of disbelief.

The Hobbit looked terrible at just 48 fps you could detect makeup flaws and cheapness of certain set pieces and costumes and props from their movement - where as 24p seems to mask this. Yes yes of course this could be dealt with and I can imagine some massive 3D animation making use of the ultra 'real' look of 60p but for dramtic movies I don't see it. I hate those TVs that are set to truevision and add frames to bring movies up to 60p. Pirates of the Caribbean looks fantastic at 24p but looks like a badly done student film at 60p

Blackout

Michael Biggins AKA Blackout
actor/writer/director/editor/comedian/ferret wrangler
Blackout's Box Studios - NYC -FLORIDA - LA
877-9-BLACKOUT
http://facebook.com/blackout
http://blackout.com
http://youtube.com/BlackoutsBox
http://youtube.com/TrumpetDinopup
http://blackoutsblog.com
http://vimeo.com/micha...
BlackoutsBox is offline  
post #41 of 62 Old 10-19-2014, 08:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 445 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackoutsBox View Post
I did my thesis paper on this and have spoken and written about it many times.

There is indeed something magic about 24fps and I think it was proven by the absolute failure of HFR of the Hobbit. The audience hated it.
If it was an absolute failure, why did he release the 2nd Hobbit in HFR? If HFR was an absolute failure why is James Cameron using it for Avatar 2? Where is your evidence that the audience as a whole hated it? any poll results? Do you have any evidence that the HFR version of either film failed in terms of box office?

Here's one poll result (showing people who like HFR outnumber those who don't like it):
http://01966633.com/forum/92-com...ok-hfr-11.html

Here's another poll result:
http://01966633.com/forum/150-bl...on-hobbit.html
If the HFR version of the Hobbit was a failure, why do over twice as many people say they would buy the 48 fps version on Blu-ray (if available) than say they would buy just the 24 fps version?
Almost 49% said they'd buy (if/when available) the 48 fps version and only 23.47% said they'd buy just the 24 fps version.

Yes, some people don't like higher frame rates, more people like it than don't (according to first poll above). The answer is to film, where possible most things in higher frame rates and give the viewer the option of which to watch (assuming the conversion can be done well enough).
Vism likes this.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 10-22-2014 at 03:10 AM. Reason: fixed spelling
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #42 of 62 Old 10-20-2014, 03:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,198
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 743 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
If the HFR version of the Hobbit was a failure, why do over twice as many people say they would buy the 48 fps version on Blu-ray (if available) than say they would buy just the 24 fps version?
Almost 49% said they'd buy (if/when available) the 48 fps version and only 23.47% said they'd buy just the 24 fps version.

Yes, some people don't like higher frame rates, more people like it than don't (according to first poll above). The answer it to film, where possible most things in higher frame rates and give the viewer the option of which to watch (assuming the conversion can be done well enough).
Novelty. I'm not saying HFR will be an abject failure, but the first movie shot in it, just like the first ones to be released on whatever 4K disc format comes out, the first few on Netflix in 4K, and the first few with Dolby Atmos will have a lot of AVS'ers buying them just for the novelty. I predict HFR will be a niche forever for certain types of movies, while Atmos and 4K go mainstream, Atmos more so since they can still put it on a Blu-Ray alongside non-Atmos audio tracks.
BiggAW is online now  
post #43 of 62 Old 10-20-2014, 05:13 PM
Member
 
BlackoutsBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
If it was an absolute failure, why did he release the 2nd Hobbit in HFR? If HFR was an absolute failure why is James Cameron using it for Avatar 2? Where is your evidence that the audience as a whole hated it? any poll results? Do you have any evidence that the HFR version of either film failed in terms of box office?

Here's one poll result (showing people who like HFR outnumber those who don't like it):
http://01966633.com/forum/92-com...ok-hfr-11.html

Here's another poll result:
http://01966633.com/forum/150-bl...on-hobbit.html
If the HFR version of the Hobbit was a failure, why do over twice as many people say they would buy the 48 fps version on Blu-ray (if available) than say they would buy just the 24 fps version?
Almost 49% said they'd buy (if/when available) the 48 fps version and only 23.47% said they'd buy just the 24 fps version.

Yes, some people don't like higher frame rates, more people like it than don't (according to first poll above). The answer it to film, where possible most things in higher frame rates and give the viewer the option of which to watch (assuming the conversion can be done well enough).
You are on AVS a super geeked out tech forum. The views of people here don't represent the public. Half of regular people can't see the difference from dvd to blu-ray. Theaters are just glorified blu-ray players now. Still alot with only 2k projectors.

The box office receipts from HFR were horrible and people were complaining it looked like a "play" so they had to release a "pamphlet" explaining it and that didn't work. Then they pulled it from most theaters. Last time they did something like that (a pamphlet coming with the movie) was for Dune and that is considered though while interesting in parts a universal disaster of a movie.

Now personally, I loved the look of the CGI characters in the HFR version (I watched HFR 3D imax)
in New York City a major market. We know what a person in a costume looks like and what 'sets' look like so it breaks the illusion that they are really in middle earth. The plastic pots looked plastic. We don't know We've all been to Disney and Universal and we see real life all the time. Most people's visual acuity can't pick up more changes than 60fps.. some people can up to 70 or 90m but most don't. The issue was that the 48fps CGI and 48fps people just did not match up. It was like a level of glass between them because of the sets.

If you want proof, here is a video of HFR 2nd night opening:


As for Avatar.... that will be at 60p (supposedly) and I think everything will be virtual so it may look like a high end video game does now. We'll have to see. I can see it working for a horror genera. I have a 60p 3D sony and played projected it's pretty insane. I can see a blair witch / paranormal activity type thing working with that, but a dramatic movie.... not so much.

As for a 48p blu-ray. Not possible. It's not in the blu-ray spec. They would have to have a whole consortium agree and somehow release new firmware.

I have made a 60p 3D sony blu-ray but it only plays in a few modern players.



Will work side by side on 3D projectors (make sure to choose 1080p) or good old red blue glasses

Michael Biggins AKA Blackout
actor/writer/director/editor/comedian/ferret wrangler
Blackout's Box Studios - NYC -FLORIDA - LA
877-9-BLACKOUT
http://facebook.com/blackout
http://blackout.com
http://youtube.com/BlackoutsBox
http://youtube.com/TrumpetDinopup
http://blackoutsblog.com
http://vimeo.com/micha...

Last edited by BlackoutsBox; 10-20-2014 at 06:06 PM. Reason: fixed some minor errors
BlackoutsBox is offline  
post #44 of 62 Old 10-20-2014, 05:18 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Thanks Scott for your kind words about the project.

If any of you are interested there is more information on the Creative Frame Rate project on the new Pickfair website. Of course we can't show the HFR material online (although there's a possibility we might be able to in the near future) there is a wealth of information on the subject to read.

As to Blackout's point:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackoutsBox View Post
24fps with a 180 shutter gives just the right amount of the continuity of movement and motion blur to make films look more realistic by looking less like real life.
Something you might be interested in is our rolling integration technique. It allows for the exact same amount of motion blur as 24fps 180 camera shutter, while updating the image at 120 fps. Perhaps this method could be used to retain cinematic ambiance while gaining the advantages of HFR projection.

Our HFR research aims to expand the artistic palette of the cinematographer, allowing filmmakers to choose appropriate frame rates for their particular vision. We make no claims as to what frame rates are "superior" to others. We are just here to expand the toolkit.

Last edited by PickfairInstitute; 10-20-2014 at 05:47 PM.
PickfairInstitute is offline  
post #45 of 62 Old 10-20-2014, 07:19 PM
Member
 
BlackoutsBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 22
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'll take a look at it.

I can see 60fps 3D maybe being used for a ride to make a hologram real looking person be there..... or something like that....
Or all digital animation films in certain situations. Try and watch Beauty & The Beast or Aladdin at 60p, and you'll feel wrong.

Michael Biggins AKA Blackout
actor/writer/director/editor/comedian/ferret wrangler
Blackout's Box Studios - NYC -FLORIDA - LA
877-9-BLACKOUT
http://facebook.com/blackout
http://blackout.com
http://youtube.com/BlackoutsBox
http://youtube.com/TrumpetDinopup
http://blackoutsblog.com
http://vimeo.com/micha...
BlackoutsBox is offline  
post #46 of 62 Old 10-20-2014, 10:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 445 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackoutsBox View Post
You are on AVS a super geeked out tech forum. The views of people here don't represent the public. Half of regular people can't see the difference from dvd to blu-ray. Theaters are just glorified blu-ray players now. Still alot with only 2k projectors.
I disagree. The views are pretty similar to the public in terms of sci-fi/action/big budget films. eg. people saying they would buy the 48 fps verison of the Hobbit - on Amazon I'm quite sure the Hobbit films on Blu-ray have been some of the top sellers. The first Hobbit film grossed a billion dollars so it's obviously a successful film. edit: Yes I agree the forum is more into Blu-ray than the general public or eg. Amazon (I guess it's more like 50/50 DVD/Blu-ray there for top sellers). But I disagree that half of regular people wouldn't see the difference between a dvd and Blu-ray - especially if they were watching a quality Blu-ray (assuming good TV able to display the HD well) with a high effective resolution (not just that it's encoded at 1920x1080) - and not blurry/low quality HD - particularly on more static scenes.
Quote:
The box office receipts from HFR were horrible
But again you're not giving any evidence. If they really were horrible, what were they?
Here's one site:
http://soundworkscollection.com/news...record-sort-of
Quote:
According to Warner Bros. and IMAX, the HFR screenings did well, with IMAX HFR 3D screenings pulling in a huge $44,000 per screen over the weekend, compared to $31,000 for standard-rate IMAX and an average of $21,000 for all six formats.
So a site with some actual figures says that the HFR screenings did well. If you have actual figures proving the HFR screenings did not do well please link to them/quote the figures.
Quote:
Then they pulled it from most theaters.
I thought they were only having it at a certain number of theatres because it was a new thing and they didn't want to have too much risk. Also, the cinemas had to do tests to make sure they could do 2K/3D/48 fps and switch to different fps too. So it was a risk.
Quote:
If you want proof, here is a video of HFR 2nd night opening:
..
It's not actual numbers. Actual box office receipts eg. showing average receipts of HFR showing them to be bad compared to other films would be proof.
Quote:
As for Avatar.... that will be at 60p (supposedly)
He still hasn't decided or stated what it will be only that he said he may do 48 or 60 and would prefer 60 (edit: Doug Trumbull I think has been suggesting/wanting him to do 120 fps - I suppose that it could be possible that he would - it's probably an easier conversion to 24 fps than from 60 fps (even if not exactly the same as if it was shot at 24 fps).
Quote:
As for a 48p blu-ray. Not possible. It's not in the blu-ray spec. They would have to have a whole consortium agree and somehow release new firmware.
There was no Blu-ray 3d format when Blu-ray started (other than anaglyph) but there was later when it was added to the specs. The BDA task force has been working on updating the Blu-ray format for a while now for things like UHD, HFR etc. The spec should be finalised next year and the players/discs may be out next year too. While we don't know all the specific specs, we've heard it is supposed to include UHD ("4K") at up to 60 fps. Whether that includes 48 fps or 3D at that res they haven't said but it's still HFR (up to 60 fps) at 4x the current BD pixel res, and they might well add HFR 1080p 3D too. So we should find out for sure next year when the specs are released.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 10-22-2014 at 05:02 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #47 of 62 Old 10-22-2014, 03:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 445 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by PickfairInstitute View Post
Thanks Scott for your kind words about the project.

If any of you are interested there is more information on the Creative Frame Rate project on the new Pickfair website. Of course we can't show the HFR material online (although there's a possibility we might be able to in the near future) there is a wealth of information on the subject to read.
Could it be done as a download (ie. a link to a HFR encoded video file) if it isn't possible currently with browsers online?
Quote:
As to Blackout's point:

Something you might be interested in is our rolling integration technique. It allows for the exact same amount of motion blur as 24fps 180 camera shutter, while updating the image at 120 fps. Perhaps this method could be used to retain cinematic ambiance while gaining the advantages of HFR projection.
Could you say in simple terms how this works? How it gets the "exact same amount of motion blur as 24fps 180 camera shutter"?

For the example below I'm talking about converting 120 fps to 24 fps - not keeping the motion at 120 fps (like I think you are above) because the principle I think, in terms of getting the exact same amount of blur as 24 fps 180 degree shutter footage should be the same:

Lets say you had 120 fps footage shot with an open (360 degree) shutter (ignoring rolling shutter or time taken for it to get the data off the chip). 120 divided by 24=5. So we could take every 5 frames from the 120 fps (360 degree) footage and blend (average) them together to get 24 fps (360 degree) footage. Now if we wanted 180 degree 24 fps footage, wouldn't you need to take those 5 source frames (shot with an open shutter) divided by 2 to get half the amount of motion blur? But 5/2=2.5 (not an even number of frames). Can you explain how you get from 120 fps (open shutter) to 24 fps 180 degree by using a whole number of source frames (I assume this is needed) and not sometimes using 2 source frames and other times using 3 source frames to get the exact same blur as 24 fps 180 degree footage (surely using 2 source frames would be not enough blur and using 3 source frames would be too much blur)?

What I'm saying is - isn't 120 fps open (360 degree) shutter content not enough to provide the exact same amount of blur as 24 fps 180 degree footage - because you can't combine (blend/average) a whole number of source frames?

Your video example on your website (http://www.pickfairinstitute.org/pickfair-cfr-research) shows it using 5 (120 fps) source frames to emulate 1/24th of a second exposure. So to emulate 1/48th of a second exposure (which is what 24 fps 180 degree footage has) with 120 fps 360 degree footage you'd need half the amount (5/2=2.5) which wouldn't be possible exactly, since it's not a whole number of source frames.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 10-22-2014 at 05:19 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #48 of 62 Old 10-22-2014, 11:47 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
What I'm saying is - isn't 120 fps open (360 degree) shutter content not enough to provide the exact same amount of blur as 24 fps 180 degree footage - because you can't combine (blend/average) a whole number of source frames?
You're absolutely right, 120fps source material is not adequate to emulate 24fps 180 camera shutter. We work with 240 fps source material in order to reach the proper harmonics. We take five frames to emulate 24fps 180cs, and 10 frames to emulate 24fps 360cs.
PickfairInstitute is offline  
post #49 of 62 Old 05-04-2015, 04:31 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,191
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 784 Post(s)
Liked: 336
Sorry for being late to this party, some posters had good memories which may be owed to the historic article in the fourth issue in The Perfect Vision from 1988 by Roy Trumbull (not related to Douglas Trumbull!).

The article focused on how to lure VHS home video audiences back into theatres, i.e. IMAX and Showscan.

For Showscan, the test subjects had been wired to measure various physical reactions. They were then shown the same film materials shot at 24fps, 48fps, 60fps and beyond.

The test concluded that beyond 60fps the physical reactions became negligible, thus 60fps became the Showscan recording speed. Trumbull's idea, already then, was to motivate directors and theaters to adopt Showscan, but given the technical and budget restrictions of the time, this didn't happen.

Fast forward 25 years with a wide base of installed digital theater projectors and that cost factor is no longer a major issue, enabling filmmakers like Peter Jackson and James Cameron to provide the corresponding program content.

Should be interesting to see, whether the original Showscan short programs will arrive as a compilation edition on UHD Blu-ray, showcasing the potential of HFR.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is offline  
post #50 of 62 Old 05-04-2015, 05:17 AM
Member
 
Vism's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Royal Leamington Spa, UK.
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Not a cinema expert so this post is a question and statement at the same time, could someone please tell me if I'm thinking correctly.

Is shutter angle akin to shutter speed on a still camera?
Ie. a 180 degree angle on a 120 fps shoot would be 1/240 second?

If so, I have a theory that using a 270 degree angle during filming then projecting at 120 fps but only displaying each frame for 3/4 of the frame time would be the perfect compromise between flicker and blur.

Make sense?
Vism is offline  
post #51 of 62 Old 05-04-2015, 05:29 AM
Member
 
Vism's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Royal Leamington Spa, UK.
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 93
I really hope James Cameron goes for 120 fps on avatar as I believe it will put to bed the soap opera effect/ultra realism issue that the industry has with The Hobbit. And I agree that most normal folk didn't have an issue with HFR, I asked 7 people around me at the 3D HFR IMAX showing I went to if they had an issue and none of them did. I think the surveys show that too.

I think most of the issues with that movie were to do with the effects been rather poor than the framerate. There were several scenes with no effects that looked great in HFR, it was only when effects were present that things looked a bit rubbish (most of the film sadly).

120 makes a lot of sense going forward as it downconverts to p24 and p60 really easily. Europe would still need 2:2 pulldown and the 4% speedup but it wouldn't be worse than now. The Holy grail has to be p600 though, the BBC are currently doing a lot of research on this. p600 as an aquisition format can be downconverted to p24, p50, p60, p100 and p120 so could give a flawless copy for any market. The data requirements are huge but Moores law should sort that in a few years. I think I read the raw data stream in 40 Gb/sec which we are getting closer to.
Vism is offline  
post #52 of 62 Old 05-04-2015, 08:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 445 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vism View Post
I really hope James Cameron goes for 120 fps on avatar as I believe it will put to bed the soap opera effect/ultra realism issue that the industry has with The Hobbit. And I agree that most normal folk didn't have an issue with HFR, I asked 7 people around me at the 3D HFR IMAX showing I went to if they had an issue and none of them did. I think the surveys show that too.
I agree, and Ang Lee already is with Billy Lynn's Half Time Walk (2006). And Mr Trumbull has already shot his short in it. Though I hope that doesn't cost more patent-wise, with Mr Trumbull trying to patent 120 fps films speeds/conversion.
Quote:
120 makes a lot of sense going forward as it downconverts to p24 and p60 really easily.
Yes, but as was noted above, 120 fps wouldn't give you precisely the same look (same amount of blur) as a normal 24 fps (with 180 degree shutter) film. Whereas shooting open shutter with 240 fps would (since it's divisible by 48). Ignoring whateever time it takes to read the data of the chip (eg. CMOS) - ie. assuming that's negligible.
Quote:
Europe would still need 2:2 pulldown and the 4% speedup but it wouldn't be worse than now. The Holy grail has to be p600 though, the BBC are currently doing a lot of research on this. p600 as an aquisition format can be downconverted to p24, p50, p60, p100 and p120 so could give a flawless copy for any market. The data requirements are huge but Moores law should sort that in a few years. I think I read the raw data stream in 40 Gb/sec which we are getting closer to.
I agree something like 600 fps would be ideal (though I think in one of the more recent BBC papers someone's research suggested you'd really need at least 700 fps to practically eliminate strobing/resolution loss or something). But I'm not sure they'd need 40 Gb/sec since they should be able to use losless (or practically lossless) compression - assuming there isn't too much noise. But also is that only for 600 fps 1080p? Surely for 3840x2160 or 7680x4320 at anything like 600 fps it would probably need more than 40 Gb/sec so would need compression (eg. for TV).

Though really from what I read I think the BBC though they in theory want frame rates in the range of 300 or 600 etc., I think they've mostly given up. I think they've more or less accepted that Europe will get no more than 100 fps for UHD-1 Phase 2 and UHD-2 (7680x4320). The EBU did there tests and showed that 240 fps gave a lot higher subjective quality than other parameters, but so far the EBU/SMPTE/ITU proposals/recommendations don't seem to list any higher than 100/120 (with 120 most likely for US). So while the EBU and BBC have the academic papers, and camera tests, subjective tests, showing how good >120 fps could be/is, they haven't put it in any of the standards/recommendations as far as I know, so we may be stuck for quite a while with no higher than 100-120.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #53 of 62 Old 05-04-2015, 08:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 445 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vism View Post
Not a cinema expert so this post is a question and statement at the same time, could someone please tell me if I'm thinking correctly.

Is shutter angle akin to shutter speed on a still camera?
Ie. a 180 degree angle on a 120 fps shoot would be 1/240 second?
Yes it would be 1/240th of a second. 180 degree shutter=shutter "open" for half the time.

Quote:
If so, I have a theory that using a 270 degree angle during filming then projecting at 120 fps but only displaying each frame for 3/4 of the frame time would be the perfect compromise between flicker and blur.

Make sense?
It may be. I'd like to see the various differences for myself. It might also differ for film content vs say live content (TV).

But see this link:
http://01966633.com/forum/286-la...-hd-uhdtv.html

This image from the link above (I hope Scott doesn't mind me reposting a link to the picture he put up in the link above - Scott sourced this):


From the graph on that link, in the subjective test, (if I'm not mistaken), it seems like in the tests the views thought 120 fps with 50% shutter was slightly better than 120 fps with 100% (open) shutter, but that 240 fps with 100% (open) shutter was a lot better. They don't have a figure for a 75% shutter but it may be that it would have been between the 50% and 100% in that EBU graph in the link above had they tested it - so from that test it could be that 50% shutter at 120 fps would have been even better (at least for the viewers involved in that test) than a 75% (270 degree) one. But the 50% (and probably 75% too if tested) shutter doesn't seem to have made that much of a difference to the subjective quality (seems only quite a slight difference really)- it was the increase to 240 fps open shutter that made a much bigger difference to quality.

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 05-04-2015 at 08:49 AM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #54 of 62 Old 05-04-2015, 09:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 445 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
Sorry for being late to this party, some posters had good memories which may be owed to the historic article in the fourth issue in The Perfect Vision from 1988 by Roy Trumbull (not related to Douglas Trumbull!).

The article focused on how to lure VHS home video audiences back into theatres, i.e. IMAX and Showscan.

For Showscan, the test subjects had been wired to measure various physical reactions. They were then shown the same film materials shot at 24fps, 48fps, 60fps and beyond.

The test concluded that beyond 60fps the physical reactions became negligible, thus 60fps became the Showscan recording speed. Trumbull's idea, already then, was to motivate directors and theaters to adopt Showscan, but given the technical and budget restrictions of the time, this didn't happen.

Fast forward 25 years with a wide base of installed digital theater projectors and that cost factor is no longer a major issue, enabling filmmakers like Peter Jackson and James Cameron to provide the corresponding program content.

Should be interesting to see, whether the original Showscan short programs will arrive as a compilation edition on UHD Blu-ray, showcasing the potential of HFR.
Though that was with the limitation of film, and mechanical shutters of the time, in the days before there was digital cinema (and also when costs of film would have been very high at >60 fps - unlike with digital). Now there's digital, and increases above 60 fps are no longer seen as negligible, which is why Mr. Trumbull for Showscan Digital he now is promoting 120 fps (though he now seems to be calling it the "Magi" process - instead of showscan digital), and he and Ang Lee have shot at 120 fps (3D). And EBU tests shown/posted above are also showing a big improvement with (digital) frame rates with tests up to 240 fps. Which makes it a shame UHD BD will only be up to 60. So it's possible we may get some of them, but not any "showscan digital" (Magi) films at the correct speed (including Ang Lee's) and we won't be able to watch any UHD 1 Phase 2 or later stuff at the original speed with UHD BD.
Frank714 likes this.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #55 of 62 Old 05-04-2015, 03:23 PM
Member
 
Vism's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Royal Leamington Spa, UK.
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Yes it would be 1/240th of a second. 180 degree shutter=shutter "open" for half the time.

It may be. I'd like to see the various differences for myself. It might also differ for film content vs say live content (TV).

But see this link:
http://01966633.com/forum/286-la...-hd-uhdtv.html

This image from the link above (I hope Scott doesn't mind me reposting a link to the picture he put up in the link above - Scott sourced this):


From the graph on that link, in the subjective test, (if I'm not mistaken), it seems like in the tests the views thought 120 fps with 50% shutter was slightly better than 120 fps with 100% (open) shutter, but that 240 fps with 100% (open) shutter was a lot better. They don't have a figure for a 75% shutter but it may be that it would have been between the 50% and 100% in that EBU graph in the link above had they tested it - so from that test it could be that 50% shutter at 120 fps would have been even better (at least for the viewers involved in that test) than a 75% (270 degree) one. But the 50% (and probably 75% too if tested) shutter doesn't seem to have made that much of a difference to the subjective quality (seems only quite a slight difference really)- it was the increase to 240 fps open shutter that made a much bigger difference to quality.
Interesting stuff. The doc says the display device was a 56" 4K monitor, I wonder if it was OLED or LCD.
If LCD, you wonder how altered the content would be by the slow response of the tech.
Vism is offline  
post #56 of 62 Old 05-04-2015, 04:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,945
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1026 Post(s)
Liked: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vism View Post
Interesting stuff. The doc says the display device was a 56" 4K monitor, I wonder if it was OLED or LCD.
If LCD, you wonder how altered the content would be by the slow response of the tech.
both techs need BFI to display motion in a watchable way so that's not that important just a bonus.
mightyhuhn is online now  
post #57 of 62 Old 05-04-2015, 06:06 PM
Member
 
Vism's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Royal Leamington Spa, UK.
Posts: 187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
Liked: 93
OLED doesn't. The tech is, in theory, quite capable of doing p240 sample and hold as the OLEDs change state so quickly.
Not heard of a pro monitor that can do those refresh rates though (or p120 for that matter)
On a domestic set, there is no way to do that as you can't get that framerate into the TV.

I very much doubt LCD could work at p240 without creating problems of it's own hence my question on what type of display are they using.
Can someone point me towards a p240 LCD monitor?
EDIT: That's a pro LCD monitor that accepts p240 input as opposed to a LCD just refreshing internally at that rate.

Last edited by Vism; 05-04-2015 at 06:12 PM.
Vism is offline  
post #58 of 62 Old 05-04-2015, 09:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,945
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1026 Post(s)
Liked: 346
[quote=Vism;33985474]OLED doesn't. The tech is, in theory, quite capable of doing p240 sample and hold as the OLEDs change state so quickly.
Not heard of a pro monitor that can do those refresh rates though (or p120 for that matter)
On a domestic set, there is no way to do that as you can't get that framerate into the TV.[quote]
doesn't matter it's still not really good without BFI doing 240 hz is not the problem.
120 hz or even 144 hz is pretty commen for LCD monitors. they still have terrible bad motion without BFI.

Quote:
I very much doubt LCD could work at p240 without creating problems of it's own hence my question on what type of display are they using.
Can someone point me towards a p240 LCD monitor?
EDIT: That's a pro LCD monitor that accepts p240 input as opposed to a LCD just refreshing internally at that rate.
and yes maybe LCD have problems at 240 HZ but even with 240 fps they still can't beat a 60 hz CRT in term of motion same for OLED.
mightyhuhn is online now  
post #59 of 62 Old 05-04-2015, 10:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 3,112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 445 Post(s)
Liked: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vism View Post
OLED doesn't. The tech is, in theory, quite capable of doing p240 sample and hold as the OLEDs change state so quickly.
Not heard of a pro monitor that can do those refresh rates though (or p120 for that matter)
On a domestic set, there is no way to do that as you can't get that framerate into the TV.

I very much doubt LCD could work at p240 without creating problems of it's own hence my question on what type of display are they using.
Can someone point me towards a p240 LCD monitor?
EDIT: That's a pro LCD monitor that accepts p240 input as opposed to a LCD just refreshing internally at that rate.
For a 2013 test, it seems in HD not "4K", they used a display from/modified by NHK to display 240 fps
http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech-i/ebu_tech-i_018.pdf (see page 16). Maybe a similar thing was done for other tests - ie. for the tests they may be using specially modified displays rather than Pro ones actually on sale with specs saying they can display 240 fps. Or perhaps using consumer stuff \/.

Quote:
Not heard of a pro monitor that can do those refresh rates though (or p120 for that matter)
Consumer monitors (ie. monitors for PC) can do 120 Hz though. Mine can . There's also a "FORIS FG2421" gaming monitor that they say can do 240Hz with a response time of 1ms (though it says it just converts 120 to 240 so it can't display native 240 fps). I think for consumer TVs Vizio have ones capable of showing 120 fps content (from what I read). For earlier tests the BBC used projectors designed for 3D for high frame rate tests (and were able to get double the rate in 2D).

Last edited by Joe Bloggs; 05-04-2015 at 10:33 PM.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #60 of 62 Old 05-05-2015, 04:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
mightyhuhn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,945
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1026 Post(s)
Liked: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
Consumer monitors (ie. monitors for PC) can do 120 Hz though. Mine can . There's also a "FORIS FG2421" gaming monitor that they say can do 240Hz with a response time of 1ms (though it says it just converts 120 to 240 so it can't display native 240 fps). I think for consumer TVs Vizio have ones capable of showing 120 fps content (from what I read). For earlier tests the BBC used projectors designed for 3D for high frame rate tests (and were able to get double the rate in 2D).
this is marketing like all other TV producer do this days.
the foris 2421 is a native 120 HZ screen the "turbo" 240 hz mode is just the BFI from the screen.

120 hz at 1080p is only possible with DVI, HDMI 2.0 or the very common DP 1.2 which every modern GPU has at least 1.
mightyhuhn is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Latest Industry News

Tags
frontpage



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off