33 posts / 0 new
Last post
David@FrankHarvey's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 27/06/2008 - 11:03
Posts: 11385
RE: 24fps ....un-natural.

I watched Forbidden Planet last night, 1956. Wizard Of Oz, 1939 - Lawrence Of Arabia, 1962 - Robin Hood, 1938 (I'm told, I haven't seen it on Blu yet) - North By Northwest, 1959 (in fact, most of Hitchcock's films look great) - I could go on, and my colleague could reel these off for hours with even better examples as he is a big fan of earlier films. 

The resolution of all films will far exceed Bluray's 1080 lines and it is still a compressed format (just nowhere near as compressed as DVD) - this is where 4K formats will come in. Many films are now being filmed in the 4K format, and there are many that have previously been filmed in 2K. Older films that are pre digital, are being converted to digital into whatever resolution is required - usually 4K - and my guess would be that the very best may well exceed the capabilities of 4K.

DavidF @FrankHarveyHiFi, Coventry.

"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light"

Paul.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 50 min ago
Joined: 26/11/2010 - 21:44
Posts: 3024
RE: 24fps ....un-natural.

I was shocked how good the recent (ish, 2007) remaster of Life of Brian was, I bought this one, only £7.22

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000X4ZGL6/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

The 2012 version of Holy Grail is supposed to be even better, but not had a chance to watch it yet

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0015GQ3EA/ref=oh_details_o01_s01_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

professorhat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 4 hours ago
Joined: 28/12/2007 - 11:34
Posts: 11029
RE: 24fps ....un-natural.

David@FrankHarvey wrote:

Thompsonuxb wrote:
I'll not be getting John Carpenters  'Thing'  on BluRay thats for sure....

This is my all time favourite horror movie, and is a must buy for horror fans, particularly on Bluray. Amazing picture quality - there are things on the Bluray I never noticed on the DVD. It would be a sin not to buy it on Blu...

Agreed - great film, updated briliiantly for Blu-ray (both picture and sound) - well worth purchasing.

 

The owls are not what they seem...

hammill's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 22 hours ago
Joined: 20/03/2008 - 11:46
Posts: 2461
RE: 24fps ....un-natural.

Paul. wrote:

I was shocked how good the recent (ish, 2007) remaster of Life of Brian was, I bought this one, only £7.22

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000X4ZGL6/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

The 2012 version of Holy Grail is supposed to be even better, but not had a chance to watch it yet

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0015GQ3EA/ref=oh_details_o01_s01_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Interesting. I had not considered Holy Grail as I already have it on DVD and it was made on a shoestring. I might treat myself at those prices

robjcooper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 29/09/2008 - 23:02
Posts: 517
RE: 24fps ....un-natural.

hammill wrote:

Paul. wrote:

I was shocked how good the recent (ish, 2007) remaster of Life of Brian was, I bought this one, only £7.22

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B000X4ZGL6/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

The 2012 version of Holy Grail is supposed to be even better, but not had a chance to watch it yet

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0015GQ3EA/ref=oh_details_o01_s01_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Interesting. I had not considered Holy Grail as I already have it on DVD and it was made on a shoestring. I might treat myself at those prices

Both of them were shot on 35mm film, so if they managed to get hold of the original neg or a early struck print to scan, then in the hands of a good restoration company the quality ought to be excellent.

 

 

robjcooper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 29/09/2008 - 23:02
Posts: 517
RE: 24fps ....un-natural.

double post

Paul.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 50 min ago
Joined: 26/11/2010 - 21:44
Posts: 3024
RE: 24fps ....un-natural.

Ive got a feeling Life of Brian may look superior, just because Holy Grail has a deliverately muted colour palate.  

Here is the review...

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Monty-Python-and-the-Holy-Grail-Blu-ray/23375/

 

On my old Life of Brian dvd (it was a poor transfer) I had never noticed that one of the tree wise men was blacked up!

MajorFubar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 03/03/2010 - 00:01
Posts: 3556
RE: 24fps ....un-natural.

Many people thinks hi-res movie photography only began with 4K and 8K digital cameras.  It's the same (sometimes innocent) ignorance that thinks hi-fi music only began with digital recording. Many people believe that analogue storage of audio and video was inherrently poor, based on the fact they had a rubbish £50 Matsui midi system and a fixed-focus plastic 35mm camera.

Thompsonuxb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 2 hours ago
Joined: 19/02/2012 - 14:24
Posts: 1003
RE: 24fps ....un-natural.

David@FrankHarvey wrote:

Thompsonuxb wrote:
I'll not be getting John Carpenters  'Thing'  on BluRay thats for sure....

This is my all time favourite horror movie, and is a must buy for horror fans, particularly on Bluray. Amazing picture quality - there are things on the Bluray I never noticed on the DVD. It would be a sin not to buy it on Blu...

It just happens to be my all time fav too..... it really looks good?

This was the trap I was hoping not to fall into, re-buying my DVD collection.....

Well, I'll definately not buy Blade Runner - John Carpenter and Ridgly Scott are like my movie Kryptonite.

may go check out the BD Aliens tonight, the transfer in the 20th anniversary boxset was truely woefull.

David@FrankHarvey's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 27/06/2008 - 11:03
Posts: 11385
RE: 24fps ....un-natural.

Thompsonuxb wrote:
It just happens to be my all time fav too..... it really looks good?
Definitely. The same goes for the new Halloween release, and the US release of The Fog (region locked though). 

Quote:
This was the trap I was hoping not to fall into, re-buying my DVD collection.....
It is quite easy to get carried away. Just replace the movies you rewatch the most, or those that are more important to you.

Quote:
Well, I'll definately not buy Blade Runner - John Carpenter and Ridgly Scott are like my movie Kryptonite.
?

DavidF @FrankHarveyHiFi, Coventry.

"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light"

Thompsonuxb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 2 hours ago
Joined: 19/02/2012 - 14:24
Posts: 1003
RE: 24fps ....un-natural.

O.k a few weeks have passed by and I have invested in a few 'new' movies - Star Trek into darkness being my xmas present.

This film has a very very good picture, seriously impressive (the opening scene justifys the cost of the disc although the DVD I suspect will be not too far off the bd, the 1st film was pretty impressive ) but again the 24fps is unnatural looking and inconsistant in terms of smoothness of motion. it works better at 60hz/60fps  (don't we see the real world at 60fps).

I really want to know if this 24fps thing is like the 'emperors new cloths'  - I have tinkered till I no longer feel to tinker and have the picture just so, its just this one issue & yes I have turned it off.

While they are a different medium I do know games look alot smoother at 50/60fps against 25/30fps ( and why 24fps anyway?)

anybody else see this? 

bigboss's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 25/03/2009 - 21:40
Posts: 13237
RE: 24fps ....un-natural.

I think what you're noticing is what's described in AV forums review of your TV:

"One thing we were surprised at, and mentioned earlier, is that the ultra-fast panel response present in the IPS-Alpha panels wasn’t really shining through in terms of motion performance; with high speed action the WT50 did exhibit quite a bit of blur and it was only with IFC on its Mid setting that we were able to mostly rid ourselves on it."

Perhaps forcing it to higher frame rate is compensating this limitation.

With regards to 24fps vs higher frame rates, the logic is simple: if the film is shot at 24fps, it's best watched in 24fps. Higher frame rates will force the TV to guess the frames in between, and this artificial processing will produce artefacts. 

Peter Jackson has experimented with 48fps for The Hobbit, and not many people liked it. Check The Hobbit at 48fps out yourself & see what you think.

robjcooper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 29/09/2008 - 23:02
Posts: 517
RE: 24fps ....un-natural.

Thompsonuxb wrote:

O.k a few weeks have passed by and I have invested in a few 'new' movies - Star Trek into darkness being my xmas present.

This film has a very very good picture, seriously impressive (the opening scene justifys the cost of the disc although the DVD I suspect will be not too far off the bd, the 1st film was pretty impressive ) but again the 24fps is unnatural looking and inconsistant in terms of smoothness of motion. it works better at 60hz/60fps  (don't we see the real world at 60fps).

I really want to know if this 24fps thing is like the 'emperors new cloths'  - I have tinkered till I no longer feel to tinker and have the picture just so, its just this one issue & yes I have turned it off.

While they are a different medium I do know games look alot smoother at 50/60fps against 25/30fps ( and why 24fps anyway?)

anybody else see this? 

In a word...no.

Not quite sure how you could define a standard which was agreed upon in 1926 as the preferred frame rate for cinema as the 'Emperor's New Clothes' !? All features since then have been presented at this agreed worldwide standard of 24fps (and apart from some special effects or super smooth slow motion shots, they are also shot at that same frame rate). Blu ray features are also therefore presented in the same frame rate (however blu rays can also be made as 23.98p/25p/50i/29.97/59.94 to match the original frame rate of the material. For instance, most UK TV shows will be presented as either 25p or 50i. However, many american shows, although they are transmitted as 29.97/59.94, as they are often shot at 23.98p, they will therefore be presented on blu ray at 24p.

If somehow you are forcing your blu ray to play at 30 fps then you are putting yourself through a whole pile of hurt which viewers throughout the States have suffered when watching features on TV for years. Rather than a frame for frame representation of the film, what you are doing is attempting to make every four frames into 5 frames. To do this, you are experiencing what is known as 3:2 pulldown. To make those four frames into five, what happens is that the progressive image is first de-interlaced. Then certain of those fields are repeated in a predetermined order to give you five frames. So, what was four frames deinterlaced as AA,BB,CC,DD becomes AA,BB,BC,CD,DD. As you can see, only frames 1,2 and 5 are as they were originally and frames three and four have now become a mix of the fields from the frames either side. We never experience this on our broadcast television in the UK (although, the number of commercials which are now shown having been frame converted from 24 - 25 by the simple process of repeating one frame every 24 to make 25 frames per second has increased massively - it's a cheap file format conversion option done on an Avid). But, that 3:2 pulldown will be far jerkier than any slight motion jerkiness on a native 24 frame film - especially as a good DOP will know the sorts of speeds which do not work when you are doing pans or tilts and will avoid them if at all possible.

There is no way that a DVD of that film will look anywhere as near as good as the Blu ray. Firstly, it will be running at the wrong speed (all 'PAL' standard DVDs run at 25 fps so it will be running 5% faster). Also the resolution will be massively reduced. The DVD will have been made from a downconvert of either the 2K Film File or more likely a 1920x1080 HDCamSR master tape. Considering that the SD frame size is 720x576, you can see how much data has been 'removed' - adding it back using clever algorithms is never going to match the native frame size of the blu ray.

We don't see the world in any frame rate (unless you wander round blinking your eyes 24/25/30 times a second!) and there is no such frame rate as 60fps for TV or features, only in game software. However, even that can be a misnomer as it often simply refers to the refresh rate of the image and not the number of actual new frames being generated - it's an old trick used in hand drawn animation whereby rather than drawing 24 different frames per second (which would be horrendously expensive and time consuming) you use a technique called 2-up, meaning rather than 24 seperate frames a second you only draw 12 and then show each one twice. 

If you consider that the nearest rough example we have to footage running at 50 frames a second is studio shot material like Mrs Brown's Heap of Steaming Excrement or Eastenders as well as live sport, (all are shot at 50 interlaced fields a second - a single frame being made up of 2 consecutive different fields -  the football slo mos are shot at much higher frame rates but are still transmitted as 50i ), then I for one will happily put up with 24p or 25p - As BB says, there are a few more alternatives for you to see, like The Desperation of Smeg if you can find it being shown somewhere at 48fps, but the test footage we saw of the Hobbit a couple of years ago at work didn't impress me that much. 

Rob

 

 

 

Thompsonuxb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 2 hours ago
Joined: 19/02/2012 - 14:24
Posts: 1003
RE: 24fps ....un-natural.

BigBoss I'm unable to quote you...a spam filter keeps blocking me for some reason

Not being funny but that review was poor - it contradicts itself ref the performance of this tv and indicates their tests are rubbish compared to what they see in front of them. Not just saying so because I bought the TV (for alot less than the original asking price., mind you)  - Its a very good tv, did a 'personal review on this forum. Motion rapid or slow is one of the WT50's strong points along with black levels and colour.......

Anyhoo, only the BDP is set to 24fps - its not blurring or judder or artifacts its more of an inconsistant speed, its as if the picture speeds up then slows back down its hard to discribe, but I've seen this on other brands of tv's (I install virgin services & see alot of tv's) its ...inconsistant, even the kids notice it. I have no facility to vary the 'frame rate' 24fps is ether on or off.

saying that, I'm now wondering if its the BD player...... :O

Thompsonuxb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 2 hours ago
Joined: 19/02/2012 - 14:24
Posts: 1003
RE: 24fps ....un-natural.

Rob, I could sit and talk to you for hours.......

I will bow to your superior knowledge on this subject (mine is that of a user) -funnily enough I compared the look of Blueray to Emmerdale - but our brains deciefer what we see at a certain frequency hence the ability to induce an epileptic fit but I have no proof at this time and have no desire to find it.

but 24fps in 1926 is not what we see today, you only have to compare motion pictures from different eras to see how things have moved on with technology.....but I swear if we were in the same room....... Dance 4  ..... :cheers: .....:dance:

still don't think it looks right.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments