Frame rate clarification

[Nooblet]

Hello all,
I wanted to get some clarification. I have always thought and read that Planet Earth could very well be the best reference/demo material to really appreciate and test your visual hardware. Certainly in the brief moments that I have seen, it is visually stunning. I was however asked a question which I was not sure how to answer and was hoping someone could help me out. So, the debate was Casino Royale was brought up as the better visual material simply because my friend measured on his ps3 that the frame rate transfer (at least I think that is what that number was) was higher and faster than that of Planet Earth. Is this really the standard to judge by? I wasn't sure how to answer this as I am not sure what those numbers represent and what it means as far as picture quality or which movie is better as far as reference material etc. Thanks in advance!

[DavePS3]

It's my understanding that a higher frame rate or how many frames pass in a second, result in a smoother pan. For example, if you take normal film which films at 24 frames per second, when the camera pans from one side to another, or a car passes by the screen, you get a jitter in the movement. With videotape, the frame rate is about 30 frames per second so in something like a concert video or even a soap opera on TV, movement is much smoother.

When film is transferred to video, because the frames rates are different, that jitter is worse and called 'judder'. If you see a movie in the theater, you still see jitter in movement but not half as bad as when it's transferred to video which is called the 'pulldown' process.

In my view, there are several things that help resolution including of course, how video is filmed. Take the Pat Metheny Blu-Ray. It was only recorded in 1080i but it looks better than any movie upgraded or upconverted to 1080p because the original material was recorded at the same rate and resolution as what you're playing it back at.

There are filmmakers like Steven Soderburgh and Peter Jackson, who are using new cameras like RED.

Get this… this baby films at 12,065,000 pixels. Your best HD camcorder operates at 2,000,000. The acclaimed director, Steven Soderbergh has apparently agreed to shoot his next two flicks, ‘The Argentine’ and ‘The Guerrilla’ with these cameras at a full 4K rez, with REDCODE RAW recording to Compact Flash. Soderbergh says he expects these puppies to change everything.

These prototypes are two generations past the cameras Peter Jackson just used in New Zealand to film “Crossing The Line”. RED’s website has a slathering of pics showing the camera with a load of cool accessories and mounting choices. At a mere 9lbs., that should put RED way ahead of the overly cumbersome Panavision cameras in terms of not only rez, but ease of mounting. You can go 12 bit raw or 10 bit over-sampled or if you want, dial back said resolution to whatever the heck you want.

Anyway, frames per second is just part of the story. There are parts in Planet Earth that look incredible, others not so much but that's because there were more than one type of camera used and more than one crew using them.

[ra1024]

PE is definitely not reference material from what I've read and the few scenes I've watched. Crank and Open Season are probably 2 of the best. Following those I would recommend Casion Royale, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven and both Pirates Movies.

The PS3's bitrate meter gives you a rough gauge to compare by but is no means a universal analysis tool. You could have poor source material with little compression that would look bad but would have a high bit rate. Generally though, higher bit rates indicate less compression and a better representation of the original source. There are several steps in the chain starting with the source and ending with your equipment. Any weak links in the chain will affect the outcome and the encoding's bitrate is just one part of that.

[DaViD Boulet]

Planet Earth was filmed in 24p, the same frame-rate of normal film.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Nooblet

So, the debate was Casino Royale was brought up as the better visual material simply because my friend measured on his ps3 that the frame rate transfer (at least I think that is what that number was) was higher and faster than that of Planet Earth.

I think you mean the PS3 bit-rate meter, which measures the data rate (digital bits per second) of the video file, not the frame rate (photographed frames per second) (or fields per second on interlaced material).

As David said, the Warner Planet Earth disc released in Region A is presented at 24 frames per second, same as theatrical movies.

(Btw the original BBC broadcasts/PAL DVDs are presentted at 50i/25fps)


I'm away from my PS3 at the moment (*sniff) to be able to check actual disc bitrates but the general consensus around these parts has been the Warner PE might have looked even better if the video bit-rate had been higher.

[BStecke]

Planet Earth is pretty good, in some scenes, but some stuff is pretty grainy. It's an HD DVD port, so that automatically puts it at a disadvantage. The "Caves" episode, out of the six I've seen so far, was noticeable lower quality than the rest. It's still very good though, but I agree that Crank and the Pirates movies are definitely better, reference quality.