Thompsonuxb said:
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
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram